Quite agree Hora, I'm not fan of bubble wrap approach and think taking (calculated) risks in life is part of what life is all about. But I'm also fascinated as to why someone decides not to protect themselves when thye can.. The argument seems to be from the above that hemlets can in some cases increase the chance of neck injury. Very interesting and I'd like to know more, but for the majority of riding I do I can't see that outweighing the protection they provide in other ways.

I once saw a guy fall off his bike and hit his head on a small stone on the floor, knocked out / convulsions / day of riding over off to A&E in an ambulance. It was unlucky but you can't tell me a decent helment would not have prevented that. I don't think a helmet makes you invincible. But at the very least it can prevent annoying low level stuff that can spoil your day.

P.S. could you not also say that as cycle hement wearing increases the risk of spinal injury increases due to the style of riding undertaken? Any evidence that its the helmet itself that contributes to the injury rather than the activity?

DD – yes there is evidence that helmet wearing causes neck injury. 2 mechanisms – one is the extra weight and the other is the increased rotational force generated from an oblique impact – the larger size of the helmeted head increase the leverage and the non slip outer increases the friction.

It is far from proven and quantified tho – Lots more research needed

But at the very least it can prevent annoying low level stuff that can spoil your day.

Which is why I wear one when its a high risk

Why I don't – they are uncomfortable and sweaty in summer – and cold in winter. They get in the way all the time

Spinal injury is a feature of many sports. In my experience in cycling it is generally as a result of the infamous faceplant. The over the bars face on the deck while body keeps going is not disimilar to the scrum collapse problem in Rugby, i.e. face into ground while your body tries to overtake your head.

Unless I miss my guess by much that won't have anything to do with wearing a helmet, and if anything is more an argument for not using SPD's than anything.

Bermbandit – I would guess you are right about the type of accident – but a helmet will increase the forces on the neck in that sort of accident simply because it increases the diameter of your head. Have a look at the links I provided for some discussion on this

I would suggest its a good reason to do martial arts – learning to breakfall will reduce your risk

I personally am very concerned about the rotational impact thing especially since seeing the number of spinal injuries from MTBing There is clear evidence that helmet wearing might increase your chances of a spinal injury.

So why wear one ever if you're convinced you're better off without one?

I would suggest its a good reason to do martial arts – learning to breakfall will reduce your risk

Fair comment, I used to play a lot of Rugby when I was a kid, which also teaches you to learn how to fall without hurting yourself… As does snowboarding (again something I used to do a lot of). I would say I'm pretty accustomed to managing to make the best of a bad situation when it comes to bailing off a bike as I pretty much always come off unscathed.

But there are times when everything is happening at enough speed you haven't got the time to do anything about it. This has happened to me before, where certainly I had no time to tuck myself into a ball, or get my head out of the way of the brunt of an accident. Learning good technique is all well and good, but it's not going to make any difference in the more extreme of situations!

Yeah learning how to bail is all part of mountainbiking, but its when you are taken by surprise that there is most risk of injury.

TJ: While I disagree, I respect and defend your different opinion and your right to express it, but I fear you are defending the indefensible. A weakness of your argument is that you justify it by quoting a lot of data but without the actual references to support it. Moreover, you might put doubts in the minds of newbies who, in my opinion, should try helmets before choosing the circumstances to not wear one.

IMO the data are unclear. I have only anecdotal/experience to go by, and that tells me that head impacts are common. Despite my head being naturally armoured, it is so valuable to me that I prefer to wear a helmet to further protect it. I have broken two helmets in three years and have every reason to believe they saved me from a more severe injury.

BTW. My Giro Hex fits extremely well, is not sweaty, clingy, heavy or loose. It goes un-noticed until it is needed to save my scalp/skull from damage. I simply cannot agree with the assertion that decent XC helmets, circa £40-100, are uncomfortable or restrictive in any way.

Buzz – I have several times posted a link to a site that has collated lots of evidence – here it is again. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ Real good peer reviewed stuff. I am not basing my position on anecedote but on a good reading of the evidence. Do please take a pinch of salt when reading that sitte – but it does a good job of showing how poor th4e evidence is.

I simply have to disagree with you – I find any helmet uncomfortable restrictive and sweaty – but I am used to riding without one so notice this.

Mboy – because after looking at the evidence on balance I think they are protective for the sorts of impacts I am likely to get at a trail centre.

I note no one yet has answered me asking for real good peer reviewed evidence helmets work

I note no one yet has answered me asking for real good peer reviewed evidence helmets work

I'm sucker enough to ask, although with the caveat that I realise that there is unlikley to be any, due to the simple expedient that there is obviously no reporting of non events. (i.e. I've just fallen off my bike and cracked my helmet, I must immediately phone a statisitician who is doing research on the subject to advise him that nothing has happened to me).

A weakness of your argument is that you justify it by quoting a lot of data but without the actual references to support it.

Sorry, but I can't let that pass.

Everytime one of these threads crops up the pattern is exactly the same; those who advocate helmet use turn up the same old anecdote, the same old 'common sense', the same old 'well you'll die a horrible death and don't say we didn't warn you, and by the way you are a stupid monkey for even thinking of getting on a bike without a helmet' rubbish.

As I've hinted at above, IF helmets work as some of you seem to believe, then this SHOULD be represented in the data available, and particularly so because there are people who would love to have this kind of data.

The one thing that NEVER happens in these kind of threads is a sensible, reasoned argument from those who are pro-helmet, backed up with any kind of data.

Why?

It's either because those pro-helmet types don't like to be logical and rational as opposed to emotional and irrational, or it's because the data to support said argument DOESN'T EXIST.

Why?

We've had perfect test conditions; we've had societies where helmet use has been made a legal requirement, we've had a societal change in helmet use; when I started biking no one wore a helmet, now everyone does.

So where is the data?

Both TJ and myself approach this from a sensible, rational point of view; helmets simply aren't the life-saver that they are made out to be, and cycling in general and mountain biking in particular are NOT DANGEROUS activities.

So, put up or shut up; show me the data, prove to me that helmets work, not by anecdote, not by 'my mate said', not by ' a man in the pub told me', but by sensible evidence.

Please.

As for the impressionable newbie argument; I'd rather new people understood that their helmet is useless in all but minor low speed crashes than they ride about thinking I've got my helmet on so I'll be protected…

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html

Effect of legislation on the use of bicycle helmets
LeBlanc, Beattie, Culligan. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 5th March 2002.

Also: Hats off (or not?) to helmet legislation
Chipman. In same issue of Journal.

Main article on-line
Supplementary article.

In 1997 legislation made the use of helmets mandatory for cyclists in Nova Scotia. In 3 years the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets rose from 36% to 86% and the proportion of head injuries to cyclists halved. However, there was also a drop of 40% to 60% in the number of people who cycle, with the greatest decrease amongst adolescents. In the context of reduced cycle use, those who continue to cycle but now wear helmets are no less likely to suffer a head injury than before. The number of head injuries has fallen only in line with cycle use.

However, the number of non-head injuries to cyclists over the 3 years increased by 6% in absolute terms. Relative to cycle use, those who continue to cycle are now 87% more likely to suffer injury than prior to helmet legislation.

Cyclist fatalities in Canada 1975 to 1997
Burdett, 1999
Available on line

Fatality trends have been similar for cyclists and pedestrians over 22 years of study; both have fallen. Although helmet use grew from virtually zero in 1988 to over 30% in 1995 and up to 50% in 1997, there is no detectable change in the fatality trends attributable to this. Programs aimed at motorists have been effective at reducing fatalities to all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Measures are needed to improve cyclists' skills and to increase use of lights by cyclists at night. [j994]

Estudio sobre accidentes de ciclistas en carretera
Ministerio del Interior, Spain, March 1999
PDF file

Spanish Government investigation of non-fatal cycle accidents on road, which concludes that no advantages of helmet wearing have been found in the data set.

Trends in cyclist casualties in Britain with increasing cycle helmet use
Franklin, 2000
Available on line

Examines cyclist casualties in Britain as a whole, Greater London and Cambridge, over the period when helmet use has risen from virtually zero to over 40 per cent of cyclists in some parts of the country. There is no detectable change in trends for fatalities, serious injuries or severity ratio in any of these data sets to match the increase in use of cycle helmets. Indeed, in some cases the average seriousness of cyclist casualties increased duirng the period of greatest helmet take-up.

The paper also looks at findings from research in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that have also failed to find real-world evidence of any significant reduction in cyclist head injuries in large population samples. [j]

..and so on………..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/990853.stm

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/21/1361

The trouble is that like most things in life the answer is not black and white. I don't claim that helmets are life saving invicibilty cloaks, and I don't think anyone does, so why is your assertion that helmets are all but useless any more valid? Why can't people accept that there are a range of outcomes in a range of conditions in the real world, along with a big lump of luck thrown in?

TandemJeremy

but a helmet will increase the forces on the neck in that sort of accident simply because it increases the diameter of your head.

I'm not disagreeing with this statement but please explain how the helmet can increase the force through increased diameter?

Harking back to my engineering days

Force = Mass * Acceleration

Ok, so potentially the mass of an unhelmeted head will be lower than that of a helmeted one.

But based on your other point above, a helmet increases friction, therefore it would reduce the rate of acceleration, potentially cancelling out the increased weight.

So how will wearing a helmet increase the force experienced during an impact?

Pressure = Force/ Area

So assuming the increased weight of the helmet is offset by the decrease in acceleration due to the increased friction of the helmet, you've stated that the wearing of a helmet increase the diameter of the head, which would therefore increase the area. Assuming no extra force is exerted upon impact by wearing a helmet, as the area has increased this surely means the pressure exerted would decrease as that impact is absorbed across a bigger area than an unhelmeted head???

…and I wear a helmet most of the time.

Because it will protect me?

No, I wear one because I can't stand having the same old tedious argument with people who've been cycling for a couple of years and who think they know everything.

Exactly! It's NOT a black and white argument, hence my frustration at those who suggest that not wearing a helmet is foolish or selfish.

It's a complex issue, and that in itself is a problem; because your average mountain biker can't be arsed to look at the evidence and so makes the easy assumption that 'my helmet will save me', when it's demonstrably NOT the case.

It's a polystyrene hat, not a life saving magic airbag for your head.

it's because the data to support said argument DOESN'T EXIST

You really are plumbing new depths of histrionic rubbishness now. For example, Thompson, Thompson and Rivara:

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001855/frame.html

And yes I know cyclehelmets.org raises doubts about the methodology used, but unless you take the view that these completely render the study worthless, and ignore all the anecdotal evidence that people out there (including me) can supply, it's still indicative that helmets are effective at reducing injury. The Cochrane review, which is an impartial organisation with no agenda, agrees, or they wouldn't have published it.

Just out of interest, what is TJ et al's solution, assuming that cycle helmets are as rubbish as you're making out? Do we stop wearing them and go back to carrying our bikes down mountains? 🙂

Crikey – the information you post seems to disprove your argument?

"In 3 years the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets rose from 36% to 86% and the proportion of head injuries to cyclists halved"

Other stuff about making helmets mandatory and the numbers of people cycling is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that helmets should be made mandatory, or trying to predict teh effect that would have.

As I posted earlier on this thread – any studies into the benefits or otherwise of helmets have to be considered on the basis of statistical evidence…

… and that really is the problem here. Stats for cycling related injuries, and more particulalry, cycle usage rates to average against, have to be at best – guesswork!!!!

If the evidence was available, and allowed a robust case to be developed, then the marketeers would be all over it. Converserly, the sceptical are equally hampered in presenting a detractors case.

FFS – as said several times – I wear one when the risk of crashing is high because I believe it will protect me from mnor injuries that are likley.

When the risk are low such as riding on tracks like the picture I posted above I am prepared to accept the miniscule risks involved.

and yes – your anecdotes are worthless as evidence and so is that cochrane review because of the flawed methodology. It does not take into account risk compensation – infact IIRC one of the studies used expressily rules it out as a possible cause. it take no account for the chances of helmets increasing injury, and worst of all it uses self selecting samples – there are no consideration of rates of helmet wearing v rates of crashing, there are 4 possible classes of people involved – helmet wearers who crash and who dont and non helmet wearers who crash and who don't. Without knowing about the people who don't crash you can get no conclusions about those who do. it is equally valid to say that helmets cause yu to crash from that fata.

if you designed a study to give a false positive you could hardly design it better.

Edit:

ddmonkey – thats a collection of all the data – has evidence both ways. Some of which is more reliable than others. After the fact statistical surveys with self selecting samples give high false positives.

My final point is that the thread was about the value of wearing helmets while riding off road. Much of the research quoted here is I would guess looking at cycling as a whole, or just road cycling in the wider population. I should think that my puny helmet will do little to protect my head when a lorry rolls over it. Off-road is another matter, and I would guess that in the majority of lower level incidents that occur off road the helmet will be of more value.

Ho hum, I still think people should do what they want, and I still see no good reason not to wear a helmet.

BoardinBob – Member

I'm not disagreeing with this statement but please explain how the helmet can increase the force through increased diameter?

Its about the torque – ( Newton metres) put a fixed force at a tangent at 20 cm from the centre of the head and the same force at 25 cm from the head – the total force is the same but the torque is greater in the second one effectively the helmet acts as a lever to multiply the force. by 25 % in that case

Ahem: Although I've been lucky enough in the past NOT to have made head contact with anything hard when falling off the bike, I have often caught tree branches at speed when not ducking low enough.

This resulted in a scratched helmet, rather than a bloody scalp that might also have resulted on getting knocked off the bike helmetless with the ensuing head/hard object interface possibility.

Wearing a helmet, therefore, seems good to me…

TJ, I'm no statistician, but clearly neither are you. For example:

It does not take into account risk compensation

Quote from the Cochrane review:

Some bicycling advocates have argued that helmeted cyclists may change their riding behavior influenced by a greater feeling of security and, thus take more risks and be more likely to crash (Hillman 1993). The converse argument has also been made that helmeted cyclists may ride more carefully and that these behaviors account for the reduction in head injury, not helmet use (Spaite 1991). We believe these arguments to be specious. The fundamental issue is whether or not when bicycle riders crash and hit their heads they are benefited by wearing a helmet. Cyclists would have to increase their risk taking four-fold to overcome the protective effect of helmets. This seems unlikely. here are no objective data to support this risk homeostasis theory

And

worst of all it uses self selecting samples

Self selecting? Did all these people deliberately try to dash their brains out? 🙄

PLEASE CAN WE JUST LET THIS THREAD DIE NOW!

I started it, surely that gives me the right to close it?

My original question has been pretty much answered, whether or not I agree with the reasons, I am happy that what I asked has been covered… So can we stop the arguing please (or at least take it elsewhere!)

THANK YOU! 😀

TJ – in what way do you find a helmet restrictive?

ps quick aside TJ arent your views on the whys & why nots of helmet wearing self-selective as well? You give your reasons for not wearing in the same way others give theirs for..Not a dig but you cant accuse the other side of something your guilty of.

BTW its entirely upto you what you do & dont do but sometimes you dont make a lot of sense & are not always (IMO) totally honest..

Mr agree able – yes they totally discounted the well documented effects of risk compensation

A self selecting sample is one that is not random – by using hosptial admissions in the way that they have done they have only got a part of the data set they need. they have only used the data from cyclists who required hospital admission. I have done honours degree courses in iterpretation of research and understand to some extent the methodology

With only a part of the data set then conclusions are not valid. all the people they measured might be inexperienced. Those that don't wear helmets might have much lower rates of crashing.

it really is very flawed – read the feedback pages for more critique of it.

OK mboy – I have tried to walk away from this – I promise I will now

edit – repack – I simply find them unpleasant to wear. I have attempted to be open and honest about this. I find them uncomfortable and unpleasant so only wear one when risks are high.

I do not want to wear an uncomfortable sweaty helmet for a one in billions chance.

enough!

they totally discounted the well documented effects of risk compensation

If you're asserting that the effects of risk compensation will outweigh the benefits of wearing a lid, that is just complete conjecture. There's no science behind it, just a half-baked theory you've cobbled together. No offence, like. 🙂

Mr agreeable – nope – I am saying that it is a factor that they have not taken into account. when there are a series of factors that are not accounted for then it casts real doubt on the validity.

strooth is this still going?

data:

I do not want to wear an uncomfortable sweaty helmet for a one in billions chance.

analysis: TJ still has hair

strooth is this still going?

I thought that too – and L-O-N-G, closely reasoned posts at that!

But risk compensation isn't necessarily a result of wearing a helmet. And even if you assert that it is, you've got no evidence to back this up. Take your pseudo-scientific stream of consciouness elsewhere please.

You never know what'll happen. A tiny mistake could render you brain damaged, even if you weren't expecting it or were "just out for a pootle".

It's not worth the risk.

(2 Giro E2s in 3 years here)

SSopponents – better wear yours every time you get out of bed if you're that worried 😕

I bet you don't wear one because you are THE riding god, right?

WOW!! I love these posts! I always wear a lid even if out of the garage around the block to check the gears! Its like puttinfg on a pair of gloves when I ride. My choice my head! if you dont want to then your choice your head (i'll think your a bit daft though!! :wink:). But I'll take my chances with my lid thank you!!

Hold on… risk compensation means you take more risks because you feel better protected…

Well, surely mountain biking is a perfect example of this. I know I have been out riding my bike sans helmet and come across something I won't ride without a helmet… and since gone back and ridden it with helmet on.

And I know I ride a damn sight faster and more techy stuff when lidded up. I actually reckon I am probably far more likely to do myself a nasty when I'm riding with a helmet on than when I am not.

Is that not risk compensation in action?

😀

Mr agree able – the point is that it may have an effect on this – thus should not be discounted. There is evidence about risk compensation but nothing solid. to discount risk compensation as they have done is poor science – exactly as apportioning all their results to risk compensation would be, it is a variable that has the potential to distort their results but they discounted without any evidence to allow them to do so thus reducing the validity of their results.

No need to be offensive BTW – Its not a pseudo-scientific stream of consciouness from me – its a reasoned position from my reading of the evidence. All backed by logical and evidence.

Seriously if you are relying on something as flawed as that cochrane review then your case is week – I have seen poorer research but not often

OK OK – I know I said I will shut up – I will now

Edit – funky nick – that is exactly risk compensation in action

Recently I have hit my head on the following things:-

loft ladder
bed frame
car boot
cooker extractor hood

Amazingly I also managed to ride my bike several times and not hit my head on anything.

Actually, maybe I should just wear a helmet all the time instead!