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

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

If all of the people who fell down stairs had being wearing helmets the death toll may well have been reduced.

Bungalows, Joe. It's the only answer.

seamus

wildefalcon wrote: »

That's interesting about the real world experience. Can you post links?

Pretty fair discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia

The key point is that mandatory helmet laws have been demonstrated to reduce cycling numbers. And cycling numbers have been demonstrated to be directly correlated to cyclist safety - more cyclists, more safety. The percentage of helmets in use appears to have no correlation to the overall safety of cyclists on the road - more cyclists wearing helmets appears to have no effect on the injury or fatality rates.

So mandatory helmet use proportionally makes cycling more dangerous overall.

Choosing to wear a helmet individually makes no difference to the overall figure, but if the individual feels safer, then fire away.

http://bicyclesafe.com/images/helmetchart.gif

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

Bungalows, Joe. It's the only answer.

And that soft bouncy stuff they put in playgrounds should be a mandatory floor surface in all homes.

Swanner wrote: »

Fact is, a car is a big metal box offering a significant amount of protection to the occupants with extra features such as safety belts and air bags.

Fact is, in places where they gather the relevant accident data (e.g., Germany, Canada), something like 50% of hospital head trauma admissions are motorists or their poor passengers, whilst cyclists and pedestrians account for only about 1% each. If you want to change public health outcomes significantly, then compulsory motoring helmets would seem the biggest win.
With numbers / journey kms factored in, helmets offer about the same protection for all three groups, so I would feel a bit hypocritical wearing a helmet on a bike but not in a car.

chakattack

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Wikipedia article on bicycle helmets summarises this argument well, or at least it did the last time I looked. Essentially, preliminary small-scale case-control studies suggested helmets were very effective, but real-world increases in helmet-wearing haven't delivered anything like this effect -- sometimes the head-injury rate has gone up with increases in wearing.

The idea mentioned above that motorists are less careful around helmeted cyclists is based largely on Ian Walker's research. It's small-scale, but it isn't nonsense. His study design was good, he took plenty of measurements and what he found was statisticlly significant. It just needs to be repeated in more locations by a wider variety of people.

Doing my best not to be lured into this! Free choice for all but keep the facts factual.

Just a comment on Ian Walkers work. I think the methodology was very poor actually.

One town only
Summer time only
Never on country roads
Riding a sit up and beg bike and civilian clothing (no application to roadies on the open road)
His findings haven't been tested for repeatability by anyone else or anywhere else

Taking boards as a sample of the greater cycling population I've noticed a lot "thank god I had a helmet on" style comments in crash reports recently.

Collective anecdotal evidence is as "real world" proof as you can get.

seamus

It's also worth noting that the Phillips report on traumatic brain injury - an Irish report from doctors who deal in head injuries - saw no difference in the severity of head injuries between helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists admitted to hospital.

http://www.nai.ie/go/resources/guidance_policy_standards/guidance_poicy_standards_ireland/phllips-report-on-traumatic-brain-injury

There's a big caveat on that report of course in that it only deals with actual admissions to hospital and helmet wearing rates in Ireland are quite low, so this can't be taken as absolute proof. So in theory it could be said that people wearing helmets who don't suffer any injuries don't go to hospital. But in that case we should see lots of unhelmeted cyclists with minor to serious injuries, and relatively very few helmeted cyclists with minor to serious injuries. But we don't. The figures play out as if nobody was wearing a helmet at all (or indeed as if everyone was wearing a helmet).

Lumen

chakattack wrote: »

Taking boards as a sample of the greater cycling population I've noticed a lot "thank god I had a helmet on" style comments in crash reports recently.

Collective anecdotal evidence is as "real world" proof as you can get.

"thank god I had a helmet on" is not anecdotal evidence.

"I saw two people crash and the one with the helmet on had fewer injuries" is anecdotal evidence.

chakattack

Lumen wrote: »

"thank god I had a helmet on" is not anecdotal evidence.

"I saw two people crash and the one with the helmet on had fewer injuries" is anecdotal evidence.

I'm paraphrasing people who all crashed, hit their head and reckoned that the helmet helped in some way to minimise the potential injury..even if that's reducing a bit of road rash.

Stop being so pedantic!

happytramp

Discostuy wrote: »

It's ugly, ruins the slick/cool factor and realistically isn't going to be much use if it gets run over by a bus.

At least you're being honest. It seems a lot of people who advocate the not wearing of helmets aren't willing to admit that it's largely a vanity thing. They'll find a myriad of reasons and statistics to back up the fact that ultimately they think they look silly in them.

When I see a roadie out for a spin without a helmet I think they look silly because they're not wearing a helmet.

chakattack

happytramp wrote: »

At least you're being honest. It seems a lot of people who advocate the not wearing of helmets aren't willing to admit that it's largely a vanity thing. They'll find a myriad of reasons and statistics to back up the fact that ultimately they think they look silly in them.

When I see a roadie out for a spin without a helmet I think they look silly because they're not wearing a helmet.

I have to admit there is an oldschool cool factor when you see someone that bit older on a well used classic high end bike comfortably flying with just a headband or beanie. You know they've a lifetime of miles in the legs and the handling skills to match.

** This doesn't apply if you're wearing an oversized high viz builders jacket when it's not even raining :cool:

droidus

happytramp wrote: »

At least you're being honest. It seems a lot of people who advocate the not wearing of helmets aren't willing to admit that it's largely a vanity thing. They'll find a myriad of reasons and statistics to back up the fact that ultimately they think they look silly in them.

When I see a roadie out for a spin without a helmet I think they look silly because they're not wearing a helmet.

I dont think helmets are particularly silly. I have a huge square head and if I wear anything on it when cycling I sweat so much I cant see, though I suggest that if you were asked to wear a house helmet (worn to prevent head injury though domestic accidents), your 'vanity' might kick in.

stiofan85

Had a bad crash a few weeks ago. First one in years thankfully. Went head-first into the back of a car after someone stepped in front of the car and she had to jam on the brakes. I went over the handlebars and head-first into the rear bumper.

Helmet had a dent in it and served it's purpose wonderfully - that dent would've been in my skull otherwise. Didn't save my neck or my back, which are both still sore 3 weeks later. Had scratches on my face, a burst lip and a swollen bump on my forehead, but the helmet definitely limited the damage so I could walk away. Without the helmet, I'm fairly certain I'd have been knocked unconscious and who knows what damage could've been done.

I've never been more convinced of the value of them.

Funny thing is I didn't start wearing one until about 6 months ago. I'll never sit on a bike without one ever again.

petethedrummer

A conersation I had with a friend:
Friend: I cycled home from work today without a helmet.
Me: Oh?
Friend: I dunno how you do it, I felt very vulnerable.
Me: That's a good thing.
Friend (Puzzled look): Uh?
Me: You probably took fewer risks.
Friend: Oh, oh right.

My girlfriend is always ribbing me for driving too slow and braking on amber lights, yet thinks I'm a maniac for cycling without a helmet.:rolleyes:

dearg lady

When I first started cycling as an adult I wore one even though it was uncomfortable and I didn't really like the look of it. But when I researched the usefulness of helmets I decided it simply wasn't worth it.
One of the things that amuses me is seeing people with helmets on, but pushed too far back on their head, or loosely clasped. If you're going to wear one, at least put it on properly!

Raam

I got knocked over whilst out cycling once. I wasn't wearing a helmet. Flew through the air, landed on my head. Knocked out. Massive cut to the head, left side of head swelled out hugely. I'm still here. All those saying that your helmet saved your life... you haven't a clue if it did or didn't.

dearg lady

Raam wrote: »

All those saying that your helmet saved your life... you haven't a clue if it did or didn't.

This is exactly it, unless they can recreate the exact same conditions and exact same accident with and without a helmet, how can anyone be sure

Lumen

I blame the Sumerians.

Source

Icyseanfitz

Meh, spend a bit of money on one and they become pretty light and comfortable, ive had enough spills on my mtb where they most certainly have saved my ass from serious head injuries that I just wear one whenever I get on a bike

The Bishop Basher

rp wrote: »

Fact is, in places where they gather the relevant accident data (e.g., Germany, Canada), something like 50% of hospital head trauma admissions are motorists or their poor passengers, whilst cyclists and pedestrians account for only about 1% each. If you want to change public health outcomes significantly, then compulsory motoring helmets would seem the biggest win.
With numbers / journey kms factored in, helmets offer about the same protection for all three groups, so I would feel a bit hypocritical wearing a helmet on a bike but not in a car.

But that's not really fact is it ? You've given approximate figures from un named data sources. Statistics are unreliable at best but this doesn't backup your case at all. I've had a look and can see data to back up both arguments however for me, the data falls in favour of wearing a helmet, as does common sense.

tomasrojo

chakattack wrote: »

Just a comment on Ian Walkers work. I think the methodology was very poor actually.

One town only
Summer time only
Never on country roads
Riding a sit up and beg bike and civilian clothing (no application to roadies on the open road)
His findings haven't been tested for repeatability by anyone else or anywhere else

Taking boards as a sample of the greater cycling population I've noticed a lot "thank god I had a helmet on" style comments in crash reports recently.

Collective anecdotal evidence is as "real world" proof as you can get.

It's more limited than even that. The finding is really: motorists drive more closely on average to Dr. Ian Walker if he wears a helmet cycling around Bath. However, the difference in the average passing distance is clear and statistically significant too.

As I said, it needs to be repeated with a wider variety of cyclists and locations, but allowing for its budget limitations, it's a good study. There are also plenty of other quantitative studies that show evidence of risk compensation in other activities, so I don't think in general risk compensaton can be dismissed, which people have a tendency to do.

A big collection of anecdotes is not compelling real-world evidence, as I'm sure you actually know. There's a reason such collections are favoured by homeopaths.

monkeybutter

seamus wrote: »

It's also worth noting that the Phillips report on traumatic brain injury - an Irish report from doctors who deal in head injuries - saw no difference in the severity of head injuries between helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists admitted to hospital.

http://www.nai.ie/go/resources/guidance_policy_standards/guidance_poicy_standards_ireland/phllips-report-on-traumatic-brain-injury

There's a big caveat on that report of course in that it only deals with actual admissions to hospital and helmet wearing rates in Ireland are quite low, so this can't be taken as absolute proof. So in theory it could be said that people wearing helmets who don't suffer any injuries don't go to hospital. But in that case we should see lots of unhelmeted cyclists with minor to serious injuries, and relatively very few helmeted cyclists with minor to serious injuries. But we don't. The figures play out as if nobody was wearing a helmet at all (or indeed as if everyone was wearing a helmet).

From Table 6.14, where it deals with the stats on helmet wearing amongst those people referred, where it notes that 3% were wearing helmets, 22% weren't and 75% is a don't know, so we have to ignore these.

The only thing it would indicate is that only 2 people wearing helmets were referred and 15 people who weren't wearing one were admitted with a possible traumatic brain injury.

That's not a good stat for the non helmet wearer.

seamus

monkeybutter wrote: »

The only thing it would indicate is that only 2 people wearing helmets were referred and 15 people who weren't wearing one were admitted with a possible traumatic brain injury.

That's not a good stat for the non helmet wearer.

It's not really a statistic at all because we don't know how that compares to the overall helmet-wearing rates.

Of those admitted who we knew their status, 11% of them were wearing a helmet. So if 10% of all cyclists wear helmets usually, then this indicates that helmets do nothing. On the other hand, if 50% of cyclists wear helmets, then we may have something.

But as I mention in my previous post, the figures are so small that it's impossible to draw any real conclusions.

I think what stood out most for me was that report on brain injuries compiled by doctor's group of brain injury specialists did not recommend or otherwise comment on the use of helmets as a precautionary measure.

Swanner wrote: »

But that's not really fact is it ? You've given approximate figures from un named data sources.

Ottawa Trauma Registry Bulletin:
Major Head and Spinal Cord Injury Hospitaization in Ontario, 2001-2002
picture.php?albumid=2304&pictureid=14734

picture.php?albumid=2304&pictureid=14734

chakattack

Lies, damn lies, statistics and infinitesimally diluted solutions

SMACL is on the money...way too many variables to make any reasonable conclusion using the available stats.

Lots of tales of with people smashed helmets though. Where did the kinetic energy go? :pac:

A very simple test...go hit your head off a wall with and without a helmet and report back about the sociological ramifications of it all

aFlabbyPanda

Raam wrote: »

All those saying that your helmet saved your life... you haven't a clue if it did or didn't.

true but with a helmet its safe to say your injury might not have been as bad.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's more limited than even that. The finding is really: motorists drive more closely on average to Dr. Ian Walker if he wears a helmet cycling around Bath. However, the difference in the average passing distance is clear and statistically significant too.

Actually, it's more limited still. Replace 'drive' with 'drove' as I'm assuming the experiment is over, and given a limited sample size and varying conditions, insufficient to predict the behaviour of Bath motorists wrt Dr Walker going forward into the future.

I don't think in general risk compensaton can be dismissed, which people have a tendency to do.

True, but similarly you'd significantly limit the weight you attach to it in the absence of more exhaustive study.

A big collection of anecdotes is not compelling real-world evidence

No, but it is an indicator of where further more rigorous investigation may be required. The evidence I've seen from both sides of the argument seems loaded with confirmation bias of various types. Many people seem to have made their mind up one way or another and seem to simply be hunting down any evidence that supports their POV, while dismissing that which runs contrary to it. Personally, I don't find the anecdotal accounts any less compelling than much of this rhetoric. YMMV.

tomasrojo

BrianjG wrote: »

true but with a helmet its safe to say your injury might not have been as bad.

It's not even as clear as that. There are a few studies that showed that helmets exacerbate rotational injuries in lab tests. The standard consumer tests don't even bother to measure rotational effects, even though they cause most of the very serious brain trauma.

They seem to exacerbate neck injuries too, and turn an unquantified number of near misses into hits by increasing the effective diameter of the head.

It's possible that at the end the day helmets come out of the reckoning as net plus, but they seem to have a minimal effect on injury at the population level, positive or negative.

shaka

Has a helmet saved my life? Probably not but its definitely prevented injury while in ballyhouras - cam off badly in ballyhouras last September and side of helmet took the impact.

Two guys in club have had serious falls in last 18 months, both ended up in hospital with one in intensive care for considerable time .
Definite that if he hadn't been wearing helmet he wouldn't be with us, the feeling on the road that January when we thought we had lost a buddy was horrible. paramedics that day were brill as was as passing doctor, got blanket from stud farm to keep him warm while waiting for ambulance. Helmet took impact and dissipated a lot of the force,team present on day all agreed with helmet he would have been gone there and then.

I understand some people hate them but they do a job and have improved in appearance no end. We have policy no helmet no club cycle . It's gas kids in club love there helmets and there is an element of ' mine is better than yours '

tomasrojo

Fair enough chakattack, but all kow-budget studies take place over a defined period and then report. Walker's work can't be faulted merely for not continuing till the present day. Certainly, there might be a seasonal effect, but I'm not sure what that might be.

shaka

Oh no not another lance like thread, my email will be full