nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Felloffmebike

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I'm interested in a lot of recent comments about wearing or not wearing a helmet. It never occurred to me not to wear one but recently I'm picking up a lot of people who seem to have a different view. Why is that? Does wearing a helmet not make it safer if you fall, even a little bit? And those who advocate not wearing one, is it a safety thing or a style thing or a macho man thing or what? Or is there some evidence that a helmet doesnt actually give you any protection or even that wearing one could be dangerous in itself.

I'm not looking to start an argument, just interested in the different views.

Mod note

Title changed - this can hopefully be considered the definitive helmet thread that can be pointed to whenever anyone wants to start another discussion on the subject - I'll put a link from the FAQs to it also

Find more posts tagged with

cycling

safety

myths

helmet

helmets

henry marsh

Quick Links

Comments

CramCycle

Same here, I have had a few helmets over the years, specifically because CI insist on them for insurance. For my first few years doing Audaxes I would hang my helmet over the bars for most of the spin as I got too warm. I used to joke with the older members if any of us crashed to remember to put the helmet on the fallen rider or claim it popped off. Cheapest I ever had was a Planet X one that was superlight, not overly large but wasn't the most comfy, the lining was thin and slightly abrasive but it looked smart and I didn't overheat, think it was 20sterling +shipping. My current one is a KASK Protone. My club got a good price on them from a local bike shop. I tried it on and the padding was comfy, the strap is almost unnoticeable (I'll never use one without a comfy strap again) and while warmer than the Planet X one I can tolerate it on a warm day. Any other ones I would cook with, even on a cold day, mainly cause I run warm anyway but until the Planet X and KASK ones, it felt more dangerous to wear one as I couldn't concentrate with the heat generated.

Macy0161

My current helmet is a Carnac/ Planet X "SL". Most comfortable helmet I've had, coming from both KASK and Giro. Never really got on with the Giro (having wanted one since watching Lemond!), and it was the least disappointing aspect of my crash the other year that it had to be binned.

I've also a Carnac Aero helmet - again the fit is fine. Not mad about how it looks, but I think that's all the "evade" style helmets. I keep it as my winter helmet, as I imagine it would be Cram's nightmare head melting helmet!

[Deleted User]

I see Kask have updated the Mojito. Looks very nice but a boring selection of colours vs the X and Protone.

MojoMaker

I have a couple of Carnac Notus Evo helmets - the Specialised Evade clone, at a fraction of the price. Have an Evade as well and honestly, there's nothing in it - fit, finish, colours, lining, vents - all the same. Clever system of roof vents means direct sunlight is kept off one's head - important consideration if you're away somewhere with high UV indices (from bitter experience).

If anything I find the strap a bit fiddly on the Evade and wear it only for racing - even then it doesn't give me anything the Notus Evo can't.

Prefer the sleeker cut of the Evade-style lids versus the bubble-head offerings from Giro or the retina-burning designs from POC.

Also a fan of the regular Notus, it has a nice balanced shape in all shell sizes, subtle colours that match almost all kit combinations, and comfy cushioned strap that you don't notice on a long hot ride.

Seth Brundle

interesting perspective by Surrey polis

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/1298949750910259200

tomasrojo

Interesting report on helmet-wearing across a fair range of European cities, and the provision of dedicated infrastructure.
https://cyclingindustry.news/london-has-highest-helmet-use-in-europe-netherlands-almost-zero/
My perception isn't based on much, but the wearing rates quoted are lower than I'd have expected for everywhere except the Netherlands (maybe London; their media gives the impression of near-universal wearing, but that might be somewhat editorially influenced).

EDIT: Here's the gist.

Seth Brundle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Interesting report on helmet-wearing across a fair range of European cities, and the provision of dedicated infrastructure.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/trump-s-effort-overturn-election-results-may-be-inept-it-n1248096

My perception isn't based on much, but the wearing rates quoted are lower than I'd have expected for everywhere except the Netherlands.

That link is about Trump

tomasrojo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That link is about Trump

Thanks, fixed it now.

rubadub

This was affirmed by our most recent e-scooter crash tests in which a dummy rode an e-scooter, once with and once without a helmet,” says Peter Rücker, Head of DEKRA Accident Research. At the DEKRA Crash Test Center in Neumünster, the e-scooter was made to crash into a curb at different angles at a speed of 20 km/h. The readings from the dummy when its head hit the ground revealed that, without a helmet, head injuries ranging from serious to fatal could be expected. With the helmet, the measured stress value (HIC36) was 97 percent lower, which means that the risk of a serious head injury was much less.

I was surprised enough to see what looked like the mother of a couple of 10-13 year olds steadying their ramp a few weeks ago near my house. Flying up and onto a green area, but sure they had their helmets so its all grand...

I hear, what I consider to be usually bogus, claims of people saying that the wearing of helmets makes absolutely ZERO difference to how they cycle, (I strangely do not hear it as much as with all the other forms of PPE, some cylists seem very proud to claim it).

If it's true that the risk of head injury is 97% lower, in a bicyle-helmet-less world (pretty much the 80s) the likelihood of that mother even thinking of allowing her kids to engage in cycling up ramps would probably mean it would be safer for the kids if helmets did not exist, more risk of injury from her slapping the heads off them for even suggesting she come out and hold their ramp.

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

I was surprised enough to see what looked like the mother of a couple of 10-13 year olds steadying their ramp a few weeks ago near my house. Flying up and onto a green area, but sure they had their helmets so its all grand...

I hear, what I consider to be usually bogus, claims of people saying that the wearing of helmets makes absolutely ZERO difference to how they cycle, (I strangely do not hear it as much as with all the other forms of PPE, some cylists seem very proud to claim it).

If it's true that the risk of head injury is 97% lower, in a bicyle-helmet-less world (pretty much the 80s) the likelihood of that mother even thinking of allowing her kids to engage in cycling up ramps would probably mean it would be safer for the kids if helmets did not exist, more risk of injury from her slapping the heads off them for even suggesting she come out and hold their ramp.

I suspect you might be right about how parents perceive risk, alright.

As for the research findings they mention. I think there were some similar lab-based studies done for cycling, with fairly similar results. As far as I remember, the risk of serious head injury is mostly, though not entirely, due to being struck by a motorised vehicle, or from travelling at high speed. The chances of you being seriously injured in a simple fall while travelling at 20km/h, while not zero, isn't especially high, whether you wear protective head gear or not. Once you go beyond that sort of speed, the modest protective effect is exceeded anyway.

I can't remember a source right now for the breakdown of causes of serious injury to cyclists not taking part in competitive sport at the time of the fall or collision, but, for example, of the eight people who died on bikes on the road in Ireland in 2019, only one didn't involve a collision with a motorised vehicle.

tomasrojo

Interesting article about lax enforcement of Seattle/King County's helmet law, unless you're homeless:
https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helmet-citations-go-homeless-people

Interesting too, because a study done in Seattle was the source of the "helmets prevent 80%/95%/whatever of head injuries" claim that you used to hear all the time, and one of the authors of that is quoted in the piece:

Even Dr. Fred Rivara, UW Medicine's chief of general pediatrics, who has become an outspoken advocate of wearing helmets, questions the law’s efficacy. “I still firmly believe in the importance of helmets,” he said. “Whether having a law enforced now would help to boost that, I don’t know. It’s an open question.”

Seth Brundle

Cycling the single biggest activity for referrals to brain unit

Cycling was most common single activity leading to referral to the national neurological centre in Beaumont Hospital, and for transfer to its specialist care unit.

The most commonly referred activity was cycling, with 86 incidents, followed by Gaelic football with 30, horse-riding with 23 and rugby with 13. Other referrals arose from soccer, hurling, golf and mixed martial arts.

Of 26 patients with cycling-related head injuries who were transferred to the unit, only two were recorded as wearing a helmet at the time of injury. Eighteen did not have helmets and no information about helmet status was available for the other six cases.

The two patients with helmets suffered minor injuries while two-thirds (67 per cent) of those not wearing a helmet suffered intercranial haemorrhage, with five requiring surgical intervention.

The four patients who died were all cyclists, two of whom were involved in collisions with cars.

...

“Despite cycling being considered the healthiest and most environmentally sustainable means of transport in urban areas as well as having significant health benefits, a cyclist is one of the most vulnerable road users in Ireland, ” the study states.

Dublin’s cycling infrastructure is inferior to many other European cities, “leading to an increased risk of injury” and there is no law compelling the wearing of bike helmets, it adds.

“Strong evidence exists illustrating the protective nature of helmets on brain injuries internationally and within an Irish cohort. Our study demonstrated that 69 per cent of cyclists transferred to our service were not wearing a helmet, and all four mortalities were associated with cycling.”

“Making helmet use mandatory may be associated with high-risk behaviour as well as reducing the overall number of cyclists, thereby increasing the risk to the remaining cyclists.

“The current debate regarding helmet legislation should not be used in isolation but in conjunction with a concerted effort to significantly improved the cycling infrastructure.”

CramCycle

Pretty much everyone of those without a helmet, was almost certainly not in a sports environment as it is a requirement of CI, ICVA etc. to have a helmet for insurance cover.

It also misses a far more interesting statistic, he only recounts the two deaths in the TBI clinic, but how many of the deaths of cyclists in those 2 years were wearing helmets and never made it to him. I don't have the figure but every one I know about had a helmet on.

Much like the guy on the PF thread, he actually didn't hit his head off the ground, stopped it with a cm or two to spare. If he had a helmet, he almost certainly would have made contact and possibly ended up worse. On the same note, he might have cycled faster with a helmet and never met the van or the van driver might have acted differently to a cyclist wearing a helmet. It's quite the rabbit hole to go down.

I would have been far more interested in taking those without helmets and seeing that if all things were equal, could you imply on a case by case basis whether a helmet would have improved the outcomes, all else being equal. Although that would have taken a lot of work.

rubadub

Over a 30-month period, 463 traumatic brain injuries were referred to the centre, of which 35 per cent related to sports and exercise activities.

What activities were the other 65%? would helmets have helped?

And what about all the other sports, no mention of % of helmets.

Gaelic football, horse-riding, rugby, soccer, hurling, golf and mixed martial arts.

CRASH HELMETS NEED TO BE WORN BY GOLFERS, SAYS HEALTH & SAFETY EXPERT

Helmets in soccer could reduce concussion risk by up to 70%, per Virginia Tech analysis

cletus

rubadub wrote: »

What activities were the other 65%? would helmets have helped?

And what about all the other sports, no mention of % of helmets.

CRASH HELMETS NEED TO BE WORN BY GOLFERS, SAYS HEALTH & SAFETY EXPERT

Helmets in soccer could reduce concussion risk by up to 70%, per Virginia Tech analysis

There's all sorts of conflation going on. We're comparing sports people in sports where they are likely to take concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head on a regular basis during the activity, to anyone on a bike for any activity. Unless you are taking regular blows to the head while on your bike, the comparisons above are a false equivalency

tomasrojo

It's a misleading headline. It's "sport activities", so excludes motor vehicles mostly, but includes utility cyclists. Far more, in raw numbers, motor vehicle users/occupants referred. Cyclist head injuries predominantly mild too.

Will find a few tweets I've seen.

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/MikeBanim/status/1346390889770459136
https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1346434738765127681
https://twitter.com/Tomfmcr/status/1346436737917202432

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1346387056226918403

What percentage of the population frequently ride a horse?

conkennedy

"The four patients who died were all cyclists, two of whom were involved in collisions with cars."

So they died from head injuries ... and not from crush injuries to the torso?.. you know, where a helmet is completely useless.

Plus, manufacturers like Giro are on record for saying that cycle helmets ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE HEAD IN A COLLISION WITH A CAR....

tomasrojo

Walking excluded too.

https://irishcycle.com/2021/01/05/are-bicycle-helmets-just-click-bate-for-media-outlets/

Macy0161

conkennedy wrote: »

Plus, manufacturers like Giro are on record for saying that cycle helmets ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE HEAD IN A COLLISION WITH A CAR....

Yes, cycling helmets are designed for single impact, not multi impact. When a person driving a car hits a cyclist, generally first impact is with the vehicle, with at least one secondary with the ground. Once on the bonnet/ windscreen, then to the road.

BoardsMember

CramCycle wrote: »

Pretty much everyone of those without a helmet, was almost certainly not in a sports environment as it is a requirement of CI, ICVA etc. to have a helmet for insurance cover.

It also misses a far more interesting statistic, he only recounts the two deaths in the TBI clinic, but how many of the deaths of cyclists in those 2 years were wearing helmets and never made it to him. I don't have the figure but every one I know about had a helmet on.

Much like the guy on the PF thread, he actually didn't hit his head off the ground, stopped it with a cm or two to spare. If he had a helmet, he almost certainly would have made contact and possibly ended up worse. On the same note, he might have cycled faster with a helmet and never met the van or the van driver might have acted differently to a cyclist wearing a helmet. It's quite the rabbit hole to go down.

I would have been far more interested in taking those without helmets and seeing that if all things were equal, could you imply on a case by case basis whether a helmet would have improved the outcomes, all else being equal. Although that would have taken a lot of work.

This is one of the funniest things I have read in some time! I find the some of the stuff on hear quite amusing, like why don't drivers wear helmets and put in roll cages, but this one takes the biscuit.

magicbastarder

what that is referring to is an impact where a bare head almost strikes the ground, but not quite. a helmet would mean in such a situation, a strike *would* occur.

or in other terms, if you were to say that in a given year, say 10,000 impacts with heads would occur, everyone wearing helmets would mean that there would be more strikes. and more 'oh you're lucky you were wearing a helmet so' responses, i guess.

magicbastarder

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yes, cycling helmets are designed for single impact, not multi impact. When a person driving a car hits a cyclist, generally first impact is with the vehicle, with at least one secondary with the ground. Once on the bonnet/ windscreen, then to the road.

i have a MIPS helmet. i'm not sure how it makes a difference in a multiple impact, but it does seem to have an inner shell which can take some of the rotational 'jerk' out of an impact i think.

CramCycle

Pretty much, not advocating for or against helmets. Truth is the simple act of wearing one changes so many things that you can only compare the two unless on a population level. This, lucky I had a helmet or I would be dead angle.doesnt hold up as so many things change with and without one.

In the above scenario it may or may not have made a difference but since there is so much to consider, and that he didn't suffer any head injury, you'd have to wonder why anyone would bring it up at all.

BoardsMember

magicbastarder wrote: »

what that is referring to is an impact where a bare head almost strikes the ground, but not quite. a helmet would mean in such a situation, a strike *would* occur.

or in other terms, if you were to say that in a given year, say 10,000 impacts with heads would occur, everyone wearing helmets would mean that there would be more strikes. and more 'oh you're lucky you were wearing a helmet so' responses, i guess.

Thanks, yes, I understood the scenario, I just don't buy it at all. Trying to make out that wearing a helmet is potentially more dangerous than wearing one is familiar fare here. I was just observing that I thought this was particularly ludicrous, amongst some pretty stiff competition.

rubadub

BoardsMember wrote: »

I thought this was particularly ludicrous, amongst some pretty stiff competition.

Its been brought up loads of times before in this thread. If I wore a helmet 24/7 I reckon I would crack several a year. Its blatantly obvious that you increase your chances of hitting your head if it is bigger, just like if driving around in a car with massive bumpers.

What is ludicrous is this notion & denial that there is a single "con" against wearing them. There are pros & cons with most PPE, do you find those funny too? Like the potential negatives of seatbelts or airbags?

Here's one that you might find amusing, most machinists using lathes do not wear gloves, many in my workplace thought they were all mad not to but they feel safer without them, even though they end up with lots of cuts on their hands.

tomasrojo

BoardsMember wrote: »

Thanks, yes, I understood the scenario, I just don't buy it at all. Trying to make out that wearing a helmet is potentially more dangerous than wearing one is familiar fare here. I was just observing that I thought this was particularly ludicrous, amongst some pretty stiff competition.

TraumaDoc had the example of a kid who suffered a dislocation of neck vertebrae when he fell over backwards doing a wheelie, with the helmet, which stuck out quite a bit, acting as a lever.

On the balance of evidence, apart from playground strangulations, I don't think they substantially raise your chances of serious injury, but the net benefits also seem to be too modest to capture at the population level.

cletus

Most people who work around rotational machinery will not wear gloves, as the glove can be caught and pulled into the machine, potentially causing much greater injury to the person. Everything from lathes, to angle grinders to pillar drills.

Loose clothing and things like the pull ties on a hoodie are also no-nos

cletus

BoardsMember wrote: »

Thanks, yes, I understood the scenario, I just don't buy it at all. Trying to make out that wearing a helmet is potentially more dangerous than wearing one is familiar fare here. I was just observing that I thought this was particularly ludicrous, amongst some pretty stiff competition.

Out of curiosity, could you list out what you see as the defined benefits of wearing a cycling helmet?

I don't really have skin in this game, I wear a helmet myself, but am quite happy for other cyclists not to.