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

The Bishop Basher

rp wrote: »

Ottawa Trauma Registry Bulletin:
Major Head and Spinal Cord Injury Hospitaization in Ontario, 2001-2002

All this tells me is that there are a lot more motorists then there are cyclists so statistically, they account for a lot more head injuries. Maybe i'm misreading the stats and you can explain how they show a cyclists would be safer without a helmet

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are a few studies that showed that helmets exacerbate rotational injuries in lab tests.... 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.

A fair point that should be thoroughly investigated. Seat belts also cause a significant number of serious injuries and some fatalities even when used correctly however it has been proven beyond doubt that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Swanner wrote: »

All this tells me is that there are a lot more motorists then there are cyclists so statistically, they account for a lot more head injuries. Maybe i'm misreading the stats and you can explain how they show a cyclists would be safer without a helmet

My point was not that a cyclist would be safer without a helmet, but that a motorist would be with one. And that overall public health outcomes would be improved significantly more by mandating motorist helmets. As I claimed earlier, factored for the numbers, the protection from helmets for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians is pretty much the same.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

T'was meself rather than chakattack. Not faulting Dr Walker's work, merely pointing out that given its limited scope, I wouldn't go extrapolating too much from it. (Extrapolation also being much loved by homeopaths and the pseudo-science brigade)

death1234567

Raam wrote: »

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

True but those of us saying a helmet could have saved your life and that wearing a helmet certainly won't do you any harm have a clue.

My views:
1. Wearing a helmet is a no brainer and I wouldn't get on my bike without mine.
2. People who like not wearing a helmet will come with all sorts of different reasons why its okay not to wear one, like its personal choice etc.
3. Its nonsense to claim that helmets are anything other than beneificial for your safety on a bike. Studies like Walker's are complete BS and the method he uses isn't scientific in any way, shape or form.

seamus

death1234567 wrote: »

True but those of us saying a helmet could have saved your life and that wearing a helmet certainly won't do you any harm have a clue.

My views:
1. Wearing a helmet is a no brainer and I wouldn't get on my bike without mine.
2. People who like not wearing a helmet will come with all sorts of different reasons why its okay not to wear one, like its personal choice etc.
3. Its nonsense to claim that helmets are anything other than beneificial for your safety on a bike. Studies like Walker's are complete BS and the method he uses isn't scientific in any way, shape or form.

You seem fairly sure.

Care to show us the scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of helmets outside of the standard "drop a weight on them" tests?

galwaycyclist

Swanner wrote: »

A fair point that should be thoroughly investigated. Seat belts also cause a significant number of serious injuries and some fatalities even when used correctly however it has been proven beyond doubt that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Uh no this hasnt been proven beyond doubt and is a matter of dispute - albeit little reported in the mainstream media.

The protective effect of seatbelts of the correct size when worn in collisions within certain energy limits is not generally disputed.

However the claim that forcing vehicle occupants to wear seatbelts has a net benefit is a matter of serious dispute. It does not follow that because seatbelts have a protective effect in collisions that it is a good thing to make everyone wear them.

The key issue is does wearing a seatbelt have any effect on your likelihood to be in a crash or the severity of such crashes? If the answer is yes then it is possible that the beneficial effect of seatbelt wearing could be matched or even overtaken by the disbeneficial effect on driver behaviour. This idea that users of safety equipment change their behavior to consume the benefit usualy goes by the term of "risk compensation".

When Ireland brought in compulsory seatbelt wearing in 1979 the wearing rate by front seat passengers doubled but the number of car occupants being killed went up by 4%.

There is compelling evidence from other countries that seatbelt wearing laws result in increases in death and injury among those outside cars - ie cyclists and pedestrians.

[Deleted User]

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.

Do you actually believe that? Some anecdotes from an internet forum are "as close to real world proof as you can get"?

The helmet debate is daft. Of course some people want to feel safer and wear a helmet. Good for them. But you'd have to ask yourself why we never hear the same clamour about motorists wearing helmets (would have a far more significant benefit in terms of public health, and would be easier because they can be stored in the car).

Anything can be dangerous, the question is: is it SO dangerous that we want to introduce an element of compulsion in terms of the safety equipment used. For competitive mountain biking and road cycling the answer is probably 'yes'. For commuting around town, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.

The obsession with helmet use promotes cycling as a dangerous, eccentric pursuit rather than simply a smart way to get about. It conflates the sport of cycling with the means of transport that is just riding a bike. Because it does that, it doesn't help the cause of cycling as an alternative to cars, public transport etc.

It also creates a misleading idea that being safe on a bicycle means having the right equipement, rather than exercising care and paying attention to what is going on around you. I cannot help but laugh when I see some of my fellow cyclists with their helmet on and a pair of earphones snugly beneath it. Take out the headphones and take off the helmet and you'd be a hell of a lot safer.

Rant over!

galwaycyclist

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.

I don't think taking boards as a sample of the greater cycling population is supportable.

However the number of "helmet saved my life" anecdotes on a sports cycling bulletin board may indeed be proof that helmet wearing has some demonstrable effect.

However, the effect being demonstrated may be that people who wear helmets are much much more likely to fall off their bikes and hit their heads than the wider population of cyclists.

Wether we are looking at cause or effect is the interesting question.

tomasrojo

Ah! Sorry, smacl, was on a phone with a tiny screen, so it was hard to see who was saying what!

maloner

BrianjG wrote: »

I find the argument against compulsory helmets very strange, why isn't there the same objection to seat belts? I would have no issue with it being mandatory. When I started I bought a cheap 20€ helmet and hated it (but still wore it) but recently invested in a decent Giro helmet and I almost forget I'm wearing it. I can't see myself on the bike so I don't give a toss what I look like.

Wearing a seatbelt in a car, specifically the rear seats, has an imact on those in the front seat. If you dont wear a seatbelt in the back seat, you put not only your life at risk, but the life of those in the front seat at risk too.

Wearing or not wearing a helmet on a bike doesn't have any major impact on other road users.

Rob A. Bank

The International Cycling Union (UCI) announced that as and from 5 May 2003 it was mandatory to wear a helmet while competing in the professional races it sanctions. This was done following the unfortunate death of Andrei Kivilev during the Paris-Nice that year.

That is almost exactly a decade ago. So we now have the experience of 10 years of helmet wearing professional races.

The list of professional cyclists who died during a race have been summarized on Wikipedia (by decade) and it does not suggest that pro cycling has become any safer since the introduction of helmets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_cyclists_who_died_during_a_race

In fact the opposite… you have to go back to the 1930s to find a decade with the same number of deaths and 100 years to find a decade with figures that are worse.

Whatever the reason for this increase in pro cyclist mortality, it does not support the notion that bicycle helmet wearing improves safety.

droidus

Surely pro-riders are the group who would benefit least from helmets seeing as they typically travel at speeds which would result in crashes that would generate forces far beyond the level where helmets might offer any protection?

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is compelling evidence from other countries that seatbelt wearing laws result in increases in death and injury among those outside cars - ie cyclists and pedestrians.

Maybe slightly off-topic, but John Adams was writing about this very recently, as it's the thirtieth anniversary of the UK's seatbelt law.

Richard Allsop, Oliver Carsten, Andrew Evans, and Robert Gifford – published an article in Significance, a journal of the Royal Statistical Society, in which they advanced a much more modest claim for the number of lives saved by the seat belt law: not 2400 per year but 164.

Also intriguingly, for the first time of which I am aware, serious, statistically-qualified, advocates of seat-belt legislation acknowledged a risk transfer effect:

“The clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists”.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/08/1061/

I've never quite known what to make of Adams, but I've never seen anyone explain where the 2400 a year claim in the UK comes from.

smacl

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Whatever the reason for this increase in pro cyclist mortality, it does not support the notion that bicycle helmet wearing improves safety.

How many pro cyclists were there in the sport for each year in your linked article? The mortality rate relates to the percentage dead, not the number dead. Says nothing about the efficacy of helmets one way or another.

dave_o_brien

death1234567 wrote: »

True but those of us saying a helmet could have saved your life and that wearing a helmet certainly won't do you any harm have a clue.

My views:
1. Wearing a helmet is a no brainer and I wouldn't get on my bike without mine.
2. People who like not wearing a helmet will come with all sorts of different reasons why its okay not to wear one, like its personal choice etc.
3. Its nonsense to claim that helmets are anything other than beneificial for your safety on a bike. Studies like Walker's are complete BS and the method he uses isn't scientific in any way, shape or form.

Fair enough, but look at it in a broader manner:

After learning how to cycle, the frequency of people falling off their bikes is extremely low.

When one does fall off a bike, their wrists, arms, torso, hips and/or shoulders tend to take most of the farce caused by the fall.

In collisions, cyclists tend to find that the most frequently injured areas are as a result of the collision impact (so legs, arms and torso), or upon falling to the ground (so arms, wrists and shoulders).

In rate at which a cyclists head collides with the ground during a crash is very infrequent. In such an event, a helmet may provide some benefit.

The problem arises for most people when you only apply this logic to cycling.

People infrequently (but occasionally) hit their head on something when they consume alcohol. When they do hit their head, a helmet may provide a benefit in reducing injury. So, helmets should be compulsory in pubs.

The benefit from wearing helmets while cycling is obvious. The problem is that the scenario in which they are obviously beneficial is extremely infrequent. So forcing their use becomes contentious.

I mostly wear one. My logic is that I may crash 1/50,000km. I may injure my head in 1/5000 crashes. If those vanishingly unlikely circumstances befall me, a helmet may be of use. Bones heal, but brain matter is a bit fussier. But to insist on their use is just plain silly.

Rob A. Bank

smacl wrote: »

How many pro cyclists were there in the sport for each year in your linked article? The mortality rate relates to the percentage dead, not the number dead. Says nothing about the efficacy of helmets one way or another.

Helmets are introduced to make pro cycling safer... the opposite happens.

That has to be explained by those who support helmet wearing.

BTW… This is not the first time that so called ‘safety equipment’ exacerbated the problem it was trying to solve. When seat belts were introduced in cars they were a simple single lap strap, which had the effect of slicing through abdominal organs or holding your hips while your head hit the steering wheel or dashboard during a crash. The death rate actually went up following the introduction of lap straps. It was not until the introduction of the shoulder strap that car safety belts were proven to improve safety.

chakattack

Orinoco

I'm not arguing for compulsory helmets in any way and I don't think that is the point of this thread. I'm arguing about their usefulness

I believe that if you crash in such away that your head hits the ground then a helmet is beneficial in reducing or eliminating injury. I have personal experience of this as do many others here. I also recognise that there is a point at which you crash so hard that the helmet offers little protection or you can have a freak accident caused by helmet width or whatever…these stories are a little scarcer however for obvious reasons.

Of course I put some weight in the direct experience of my fellow Irish cyclists. Maybe you think they're made-up stories as part of a pro-helmet propaganda machine?

seamus

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Helmets are introduced to make pro cycling safer... the opposite happens.

That has to be explained by those who support helmet wearing.

His point though is that an increase in death figures alone doesn't really tell us much.

You need more information per year/decade - how many pro riders are there, how many professional KM do they do, the average speed, etc etc.

That is, if in 1930 there were 50 pro riders doing on average 5,000 racing kilometres @ 30km/h, and in 2010 there are 500 pro riders doing 10,000 racing km @ 35km/h, then you'd expect there to be roughly 22 times more deaths.

That's before you even try to take into account things like the volume of downhill km., the improvements in bicycle technology, etc.

Simple figures alone aren't really much use without a reasonable comparison.

tomasrojo

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Helmets are introduced to make pro cycling safer... the opposite happens.

That has to be explained by those who support helmet wearing.

BTW… This is not the first time that so called ‘safety equipment’ exacerbated the problem it was trying to solve. When seat belts were introduced in cars they were a simple single lap strap, which had the effect of slicing through abdominal organs or holding your hips while your head hit the steering wheel or dashboard during a crash. The death rate actually went up following the introduction of lap straps. It was not until the introduction of the shoulder strap that car safety belts were proven to improve safety.

It's not something I'd thought about before, but I was intrigued by a comment on John Adams' blog:

Early seat belts were difficult to adjust, got trapped in the door, dragged on the road and the car floor, got filthy. Fat people and people wearing smart clothes wouldn’t wear them. Seat belt use increased gradually way before the law was brought in. It was the inertia reel belt which made the big difference. They became comfortable and easy to put on and didn’t get dirty.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/12/repeal-the-seat-belt-law/

As I mentioned on a different thread, there is an EU-funded group investigating bicycle helmets (Ian Walker involved again). It seems to include a reconsideration of the design as part of its brief, and describes the current design as "sub-optimal". It is a far from perfect design, and hasn't moved on much in twenty years. For a start, as mentioned up-thread, is it really a great design when so few people who aren't cycling enthusiasts wear them correctly?

smacl

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I mostly wear one. My logic is that I may crash 1/50,000km. I may injure my head in 1/5000 crashes. If those vanishingly unlikely circumstances befall me, a helmet may be of use. Bones heal, but brain matter is a bit fussier. But to insist on their use is just plain silly.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well, although I've no idea how the numbers stack up. I'm guessing I'd crash at least twice that often, maybe once every couple of years, but that could be down to middle aged bloke taking up cycling late in life syndrome. Of those crashes, I'd say the chances of a knock to the head are much greater than 1/5000, but no idea how much. Realistically, I'd guess the helmet could be of some real benefit maybe once or even twice over the coming decades that I intend to continue cycling. Probably less important than keeping fresh batteries in my lights and regularly checking the condition of my brakes, but marginally worthwhile given the negligible reasons for not wearing one.

Rob A. Bank

seamus wrote: »

His point though is that an increase in death figures alone doesn't really tell us much.

You need more information per year/decade - how many pro riders are there, how many professional KM do they do, the average speed, etc etc.

I agree... but the death figures are solid data and difficult to argue against.

The Tour de France was 5,745 km in 1926 whereas modern tours are around 3,500 km. The average speed of the peleton has dropped since EPO was detectable in drug tests. I have not ridden a 1930s bike but I imagine a modern bike is a lot safer.

Something has happened to make the figures worse, 9 deaths in the decade since 2003 and the introduction of compulsory helmets. It is up to the helmet promoters to prove that we are not dealing with cause and effect here.

The increase is horrific considering that in the decade that was the 1960s 4 pro cyclists lost their lives; another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s.

dave_o_brien

smacl wrote: »

That pretty much sums it up for me as well, although I've no idea how the numbers stack up. I'm guessing I'd crash at least twice that often, maybe once every couple of years, but that could be down to middle aged bloke taking up cycling late in life syndrome. Of those crashes, I'd say the chances of a knock to the head are much greater than 1/5000, but no idea how much. Realistically, I'd guess the helmet could be of some real benefit maybe once or even twice over the coming decades that I intend to continue cycling. Probably less important than keeping fresh batteries in my lights and regularly checking the condition of my brakes, but marginally worthwhile given the negligible reasons for not wearing one.

I made up the figures, to be honest.

While I totally agree about lights and brakes, my thinking is that wearing a helmet probably isn't worth it, or at least not any more worth it than wearing a helmet while doing a plethora of other things. I still will, but in the knowledge that it's not a decision based entirely on a rational thought process. Saying that "LOGICALLY" you should wear one holds no water with me, given the tiny risk presented by cycling compared to a host of other activities. That kind of logic leads one to living a life filled with unnecessary fear.

Lumen

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Something has happened to make the figures worse, 9 deaths in the decade since 2003 and the introduction of compulsory helmets. It is up to the helmet promoters to prove that we are not dealing with cause and effect here.

Better testing for amphetamines?

Most racing crashes are caused by inattention. What the ProTour needs is more speedballs.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

Maybe slightly off-topic, but John Adams was writing about this very recently, as it's the thirtieth anniversary of the UK's seatbelt law.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/08/1061/

I liked this quote from the same blog

The myth of the efficacy of seat belts and seat belt laws is now so deeply entrenched that it appears to be immune to evidence. It is routinely advanced in support of other safety regulation, such as compulsory cycle helmets, as an example of the efficacy of measures that compel people to be safer than they voluntarily choose to be

galwaycyclist

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Helmets are introduced to make pro cycling safer... the opposite happens.

That has to be explained by those who support helmet wearing.

BTW… This is not the first time that so called ‘safety equipment’ exacerbated the problem it was trying to solve. When seat belts were introduced in cars they were a simple single lap strap, which had the effect of slicing through abdominal organs or holding your hips while your head hit the steering wheel or dashboard during a crash. The death rate actually went up following the introduction of lap straps. It was not until the introduction of the shoulder strap that car safety belts were proven to improve safety.

Ah yes but the shoulder strap model was based on a hypothetical 75kg 175cm tall male user. What happens when much smaller people use the same device? What happens if its a small adult or a child with the diagonal belt nearly going accross their neck and with the "waist" component crossing the upper thighs?

From memory, when the UK brought in compulsory seatbelts for children there was a 10% increase in fatalities and a 12% increase in injuries among the target users.

Witness our recent regulations compelling booster seats etc. I would not be at all surprised if some future statistician does a meta-analysis and decides that child seatbelts initially caused more damage than they prevented after being imposed.

The relevance for cycle helmets is that for something like 96% of children who wear cycle helmets, they don't fit them properly - the size is wrong - the straps incorrectly adjusted - they have them on back to front etc etc

death1234567

dave_o_brien wrote: »

The problem is that the scenario in which they are obviously beneficial is extremely infrequent.

That argument could be put forward for alot of things. Its a simple cost/benefit in my book, what's the cost of wearing a helmet, about €20, some people find it more comfortable not to wear one. What's the benefit, If I crash my head has some protection and I could avoid serious brain injury. Benefits hugely outweigh the costs as far as I'm concerned.

dave_o_brien

death1234567 wrote: »

That argument could be put forward for alot of things. Its a simple cost/benefit in my book, what's the cost of wearing a helmet, about €20, some people find it more comfortable not to wear one. What's the benefit, If I crash my head has some protection and I could avoid serious brain injury. Benefits hugely outweigh the costs as far as I'm concerned.

That's fair enough, but what I am saying is that that same logic applies to wearing a helmet while flying, or while driving, or getting vaccinated for hepatitis before using straws in Eddie Rockets, or generally wrapping yourself up in cotton wool. Does it make you safer? Yes. Is it a sensible cost? Not by most practicable standards. By most practicable standards, it is paranoid.

[Deleted User]

chakattack wrote: »

Orinoco

I'm not arguing for compulsory helmets in any way and I don't think that is the point of this thread. I'm arguing about their usefulness

I believe that if you crash in such away that your head hits the ground then a helmet is beneficial in reducing or eliminating injury. I have personal experience of this as do many others here. I also recognise that there is a point at which you crash so hard that the helmet offers little protection or you can have a freak accident caused by helmet width or whatever…these stories are a little scarcer however for obvious reasons.

Of course I put some weight in the direct experience of my fellow Irish cyclists. Maybe you think they're made-up stories as part of a pro-helmet propaganda machine?

You aren't arguing for making them legally compulsory, you are right I was getting carried away - apologies.

However, there is form of social coercion going on here. I've lost count of the number of people who feel it is appropriate to tell me I should be wearing a helmet, when frankly it is none of their business. And they'd never dream of telling me to drive more slowly or not cross the road on a red man.

The result of that is a city full of cyclists wearing helmets and in their vis-vests, which in turn creates that perception of cycling as dangerous. Compare Dublin with Amsterdam or Copenhagen (proper cycling friendly cities) where people of all ages just cycle around in whatever gear they happen to be wearing that day. Hardly a helmet to be seen.

The safety gear becomes a sort of identifier and makes people think of cycling as an activity for cranks. I just don't think those attitudes are helpful in terms of promoting an urban environment that is actually safe for cycling.

monkeybutter

seamus wrote: »

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.

Is anyone going to argue that helmet use is less than 50%? Of the percentage of miles cycled I'd even go so far to as to say it's much higher. it's certainly nowhere near 10%

galwaycyclist

Deleted User wrote: »

The result of that is a city full of cyclists wearing helmets and in their vis-vests, which in turn creates that perception of cycling as dangerous. Compare Dublin with Amsterdam or Copenhagen (proper cycling friendly cities) where people of all ages just cycle around in whatever gear they happen to be wearing that day. Hardly a helmet to be seen.

Here is an interesting statistic from the Netherlands

Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted.

However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?

The answer appears to be that helmets are worn by sports cyclists and sports cyclists fall off more often.

More here:
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?
http://cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

It reinforces the view that we should treat helmet anecdotes from sports cyclists on internet bulletin boards as something that very clearly should not apply to the rest of the cycling population.