Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

RayCun

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

When you get to 60Km/hr it's seven times the energy - this is the average speed observed of cars in our 50Km zones - bike helmets just aren't designed to take vehicular impacts

If you hit a car at 60km/h, it doesn't matter what you are wearing on your head. Your helmet could be unbreakable but your neck will snap, along with the rest of you.

droidus

Another helmet article! Must be something in the air. This one is a bit better than the last one, loads of data, and apart from the Walker study it mostly looks good:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets

"Let's stop thinking of helmets as a critical protection against the risky activity of biking. Let's start thinking of biking as a normal, safe activity, like walking — and helmets as an optional accessory for people who are really into it."

tomasrojo

Seems quite a fair article, though I'd take issue with this bit:

And, it's true that, as study after study has shown, you're better off with a helmet if you're in an accident.

... which links to the Cochrane Collaboration review, which, as mentioned up-thread, is a rather cherry-picked document.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html

It's rather easier to claim that study after study shows something when you filter out all the studies that don't show it.

Amazingfun

A leading neurosurgeon has controversially claimed that cyclists who wear helmets are wasting their time.
Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said that many of his patients who have been involved in bike accidents have been wearing helmets that were ‘too flimsy’ to be beneficial.
He made the comments while speaking at the Hay Festival during a discussion with Ian McEwan, whose latest novel Saturday centre's around a neurosurgeon.
He cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk. The research showed that drivers get around 3 inches closer to cyclists who wear helmets because they perceive them as safer.
He said: “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet. In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.

Nor do I


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html

eeeee

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nor do I


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html

Hmmm., having come off the bike with and without a helmet I will be sticking with mine. I got hit my a car helmetless, lost my memory for 2 weeks. I have have had a fair few smacks off the ground with a helmet and the worst thing that happened to my head was a headache and scratches.
Helmets won't protect you against crush injuries, like say riding hats do, but they do dissipate shock and there is a big difference in bouncing your head off the ground with and without one.

Further on in the article this guy claims to cycle in a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. How a cowboy hat is more convenient than a helmet I don't know. He is also a RLJer. I distrust his cycling advice as an RLJer. Seriously?!
Maybe as a neurosurgeon he sees only the worst cases, crush injuries and accidents beyond the protection of polystyrene. But what he doesn't see are the concussions and headaches saved by wearing a helmet. This is borne out in my experience.
Have you ever come off your bike and smacked your head off the ground op? I guarentee you'll wish you were wearing a helmet!

Oryx

^good point. This guy never sees the guys where the helmet does its job because they don't have brain injury!

rollingscone

More importantly anecdotal evidence from an expert is still just anecdotal.

And neither his 'experience'or the University of Bath study seem to have enjoyed extensive peer review.

WillyFXP

Actively condoning not wearing a helmet whilst being a neurosurgeon is blatantly disregarding the hippocratic oath, guys a tool.

greasepalm

my cousin was knocked off bike and died and it was noted if he wore a helmet he may have survived.

zbluebirdz

I love the bit where the neurosurgeon says he regularly jumps the red-lights ... which nullifies his thoughts on wearing helmets.

Marsh, who retires in March, also admitted jumping red lights to get ahead of the traffic.


“It’s my life at risk,” he said, ‘So I regularly cross over red lights.”

Quoted from the same article in the post #905

theKillerBite

Cycling has died a death in Australia since they introduced the helmet laws. That is good enough reason for me to keep it a personal decision. Imagine how much a dud the DublinBikes would be if it required helmets!!

Doc07

Neurosurgeons deal with the most severe head injuries. He's correct that some injuries and deaths won't be prevented by a helmet but I don't agree with his general dismissal of them. I only work in ' common or garden' general surgery but I recommend you wear a helmet.

asteroids over berlin

i hate helmets! they do help though but should never be made compulsory. You choice!

K.Flyer

As a motorcyclist I do look at some of the helmets worn by cyclists and think to myself "... why bother".
Apart from the ones that are fitted / worn so badly, they appear to me not to offer any substantial protection due to their design, mainly in the temple lobe area.
Certainly some protection is better than nothing, but I think the skate boarders helmets offer better protection as a lot of the designs cover the head better.

Iwannahurl

gadetra wrote: »

Hmmm., having come off the bike with and without a helmet I will be sticking with mine. I got hit my a car helmetless, lost my memory for 2 weeks.

I have have had a fair few smacks off the ground with a helmet and the worst thing that happened to my head was a headache and scratches.

How many years have you been cycling?

.ak

There's a great article online about the benefits of wearing helmets or not wearing them. It's important to remember that helmets DO offer you some protection, and to say they don't is just misleading. It could be the difference between a nasty gash or fracture or nothing at all. But they won't stop concussion (which is where your brain is sloshing about and banging off the inside of your skull!).

The gist of the idea is what you're comfortable with. There are also studies that suggests drivers act more carelessly around cyclists with helmets on, i.e; won't give them as much space as someone who isn't wearing a helmet and may look more vulnerable.

There's pro's and con's to both. I wear a helmet, but to be honest, I actually feel safer the times when I do not wear a helmet. It's a comfort thing, I feel lighter and more aware of my surroundings. However, I wear a helmet most of the time as I'm still getting to grips with cycling every day through traffic and I'm bound to come off my bike sooner or later (actually I already did!) and bounce my head off something. I think wearing a helmet will prevent a nasty cut or fracture.

EDIT: Still trying to find that link, but another interesting point the article made is the vast majority of head injuries to road users occur to people in cars. I'm talking like over 60%. That's an amazing stat. Why don't we wear helmets in cars? You are far more likely to suffer a serious head injury in your life in a car, either as a driver or passenger, then you ever will be on a bike. But we don't wear helmets in cars, because it isn't socially accepted. Yet in certain places it is frowned upon if cyclists do not wear helmets. Just something to think about...

Amirani

WillyFXP wrote: »

Actively condoning not wearing a helmet whilst being a neurosurgeon is blatantly disregarding the hippocratic oath, guys a tool.

This really isn't true.

The way I see it, and I have studied the literature on this, helmets provide a limited benefit in certain scenarios. The frequency and likelihood of these scenarios are such that in probabilistic terms, wearing a helmet really makes very little difference. Should pedestrians or drivers wear helmets? Again it would help, but the chance of them making any significant difference is extremely small, and not wearing them is a reasonable calculated risk to take. Doctors aren't violating the hippocratic oath by imparting some basic knowledge of probability in decision making.

riffmongous

Diego Simeone wrote: »

This really isn't true.

The way I see it, and I have studied the literature on this, helmets provide a limited benefit in certain scenarios. The frequency and likelihood of these scenarios are such that in probabilistic terms, wearing a helmet really makes very little difference. Should pedestrians or drivers wear helmets? Again it would help, but the chance of them making any significant difference is extremely small, and not wearing them is a reasonable calculated risk to take. Doctors aren't violating the hippocratic oath by imparting some basic knowledge of probability in decision making.

Can you post up some links and figures? It would be interesting to see.

punisher5112

The point the so called expert is saying that improper fitting helmets are of no use.

These sort of articles are a load of rubbish as said above they don't offer same protection as motorcyclye helmets but there is nothing to stop cyclists wearing these or bmx full face helmets with better protection.

If people are of the opion it's just not cool to wear a helmet I am of the opion you look like a fool without one as it just also looks strange without one.

If you have a good standard helmet nothing cheap and have it fitted correctly it will do what it is intended for but also as said before it won't stop crushing as they are only light and to help protect from falls.

These comments always remind me of the argument of wearing seatbelts as some will say they are no use well I can for one say I needed them on a few occasions in a few big crashes where without I would not be here today.

Usually the only ones to survive without a seatbelt are criminals on the run who are ejected out of the vehicle and still manage to run off.

Amirani

riffmongous wrote: »

Can you post up some links and figures? It would be interesting to see.

I'm walking around London (helmet-less) at the moment so I can't post a whole of of figures right now, but these papers are worth looking for:

Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001

Dennis J, et al "Helmet legislation and admissions to hospital for cycling related head injuries in Canadian provinces and territories: interrupted time series analysis" BMJ 2013.

Reducing bicycle accidents: a re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product Liability 11 pp307-17, 1988

Cycle helmets - when is legislation justified? Unwin. Journal of Medical Ethics Vol22 pp41-5, 1996

Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws. Robinson DL. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol 28 No 4 pp463-75, 1996

Is there any reliable evidence that Australian helmet legislation works? Bruce Robinson, Bicycle Federation of Australia. Velo Australis conference, 1996.

Helmet laws and health. Robinson. Injury Prevention, pp 170-172, September 1998

Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of interior padding options. McLean et al, Federal Office of Road Safety Australia, Report CR160, 1998

There's much more, and others worth looking at. These are just some that I used extensively in a paper on the topic previously.

Amirani

.ak wrote: »

EDIT: Still trying to find that link, but another interesting point the article made is the vast majority of head injuries to road users occur to people in cars. I'm talking like over 60%. That's an amazing stat. Why don't we wear helmets in cars? You are far more likely to suffer a serious head injury in your life in a car, either as a driver or passenger, then you ever will be on a bike. But we don't wear helmets in cars, because it isn't socially accepted. Yet in certain places it is frowned upon if cyclists do not wear helmets. Just something to think about...

The McLean paper I referenced above from the Federal Office of Road Safety Australia, looks at this, it's completely true.

CatFromHue

All right lets get this sorted once and for all.

The test is that you put on your helmet and head butt a wall, wait a month, and then repeat without the helmet.

Who's gonna volunteer :P

eeeee

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How many years have you been cycling?

I have been commuting around Dublin for 12 years now, before than I learned to ride a bike at about 3 or 4. Got a helmet 12 yard ago when I moved to Dublin. I forgot it that day I got hit by the car. Never again. I don't see the relevance of that to my argument though?

I agree that as far as helmets go, bicycle helmets are absolutely pants. I grew up around horses, and hats were designed to protect not just against hitting the ground but crushing and being kicked by half a ton of horse. They are quite sweaty though in comparison, but in fairness the new style of riding hat have vents in them.

I have extensive (well a good bit!) head smacking experience between horses and a bit on the bike since I was a child and in 100% of cases having a hat on protected me from a more severe injury than I got without. It also hurts waaaaay less and I got myself together way faster. Your head is not an area you want to mess with, I have had many concussions over my life and each and every one of them was a cnut.

There are videos online of the tests riding hats go through to be certified and there is no way a cycling helmet would make it through the impact test never mind anything else.

So the surgeon is right in that cycling helmets offer little protection in the case of serious crushing etc. But you are certainly better off with something between your skull and a car/tarmac to take at least some of the shock. I can anecdotally confirm this.

That said people should be free to make their own choices, and live with the consequences.

punisher5112

CatFromHue wrote: »

All right lets get this sorted once and for all.

The test is that you put on your helmet and head butt a wall, wait a month, and then repeat without the helmet.

Who's gonna volunteer :P

Tried this didn't go too well

diomed

I went over the handlebars and landed on my head. The helmet cracked, but I was ok.

CatFromHue

punisher5112 wrote: »

Tried this didn't go too well

I hope you didn't break the wall, otherwise you'll have to start over with a new wall :pac:

.ak

.ak wrote: »

EDIT: Still trying to find that link, but another interesting point the article made is the vast majority of head injuries to road users occur to people in cars. I'm talking like over 60%. That's an amazing stat. Why don't we wear helmets in cars? You are far more likely to suffer a serious head injury in your life in a car, either as a driver or passenger, then you ever will be on a bike. But we don't wear helmets in cars, because it isn't socially accepted. Yet in certain places it is frowned upon if cyclists do not wear helmets. Just something to think about...

Total miles traveled wouldn't be a contributing factor in that?

Quigs Snr

I like all the talk of science and papers. I am a man of science myself, so I propose an experiment. This neurosurgeon can come around to my house... I will put a helmet on him and plank him over the head with a breeze block to simulate the load of cracking the top of your head off a curbstone. Then we can try it again without the helmet. If he's right, a couple of aspirin will sort him out in both cases. My theory is that the helmet will make a difference and my projections suggest (based on some research I just made up) that the no helmet scenario will result in Mr Henry Marsh spending quite some time taking his meals through a straw and colouring in colouring books.

sconhome

Quigs Snr wrote: »

I like all the talk of science and papers. I am a man of science myself, so I propose an experiment. This neurosurgeon can come around to my house... I will put a helmet on him and plank him over the head with a breeze block to simulate the load of cracking the top of your head off a curbstone. Then we can try it again without the helmet. If he's right, a couple of aspirin will sort him out in both cases. My theory is that the helmet will make a difference and my projections suggest (based on some research I just made up) that the no helmet scenario will result in Mr Henry Marsh spending quite some time taking his meals through a straw and colouring in colouring books.

The counter argument is; what is the probability of Mr Marsh calling to your house to partake in said experiment?

With that probability being very low then his argument will remain that there is no difference in the risk between wearing or not wearing a helmet.

Personally I prefer to take my chances wearing a helmet in all situations where a bike is involved.

Quigs Snr

AKW wrote: »

The counter argument is; what is the probability of Mr Marsh calling to your house to partake in said experiment?

With that probability being very low then his argument will remain that there is no difference in the risk between wearing or not wearing a helmet.

Personally I prefer to take my chances wearing a helmet in all situations where a bike is involved.

Nail on the head. His comments are based on statistics. It's all correlation with very little causation considered by the looks of it. Those stats will be scant consolation to the parent of a kid who fell off their bike in the driveway without a helmet on and got seriously injured instead of mildly dazed.