[url=
[/url]
What do you think?
did he really have that accident he describes? (serious question)
TJ TO THE FORUM PLEASE!
REPEAT: TJ TO THE FORUM PLEASE!
Yes he did
Yes, he definitely did. Major, major head impact. Not good in any way shape or form.
Having seen a rider in our group "rabid anti-lid" fracture his skull and almost cop it. He just accidentally unclipped.
did he really have that accident he describes? (serious question)
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7904182/James-Cracknell-fractures-skull-in-Arizona-truck-crash.html ]Yup.[/url]
We did this one already. IIRC, even TJ accepted that the type of injury sustained in this accident meant that a helmet was A VERY GOOD THING in this instance.
Is that Gordon Ramsey's son? 🙂
Watched his snow race docu on Discovery the other week, felt for the poor bloke 🙁
[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5619037564_f9459edcf5.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/bucklevision/5619037564/ ]tj-signal[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/bucklevision/ ]j.buckle[/url], on Flickr
"My short term memory was gone, I couldn't make decisions, I had no motiviation."
Blimey, he turned into ME!
Not quite druidh - but that is the sort of accident that may well be mitigated by a helmet - but its as ever is not clear cut. You simply do not know what the outcome would be otherwise - and it also clearly demonstrates the limitations of helmets - he still has a major head injury.
[i]it also clearly demonstrates the limitations of helmets - he still has a major head injury[/i]
Limitations? Without one he'd be dead! (doctors said that, not me)
it also clearly demonstrates the limitations
of helmets - he still has a major head injury.
Preferable to being dead, imho.
DezB - and no matter what anyone says you don't know that. Its a classic thing to say but completely unfounded.
What is certain is that as helmet wearing rates go up, head injury and death rates do not fall.
Some researchg shows in 30% of accidents helmets make head injury worse. ( but probably not in this case)
real good evidence for cycle helmets protecting from major injuries is simply not there. They simply are not designed to do so.
If you want to wear a lid wear one, if not don't.
There...done.
Preferable to being dead
You don't know that though do you? You're just making assumptions. Being dead may be great! The Islamists might be right for all we know. You might get 70-odd virgins to have a pop at etc etc
I'm just trying to get into the TJ mindset 😉
Some researchg shows in 30% of accidents helmets make head injury worse. ( but probably not in this case)
I'm not too sure what "researchg" is but would that not imply that therefore in 70% of accidents wearing a lid would lessen head injuries?
Some researchg shows in 30% of accidents helmets make head injury worse. ( but probably not in this case)
So in 70% of cases they made it better?
damit, beeten by a few seconds!
Not nessasarily - in some instances no difference, in some an improvement in outcomes. Never seen any numbers for that and I doubt the 30% figure.
However there is at least one neurosurgeon cyclist who will not wear a helmet as he believes the risks from wearing one are too high.
As a commuter/mtb rider that always wears a helmet…not only because it is the law here in Canberra, I am very happy to have been wearing one last week. Usual commute on a bike path (2m wide concrete) at the bottom of a hill going 45-50km/h I came off a couple of weeks ago - don't really know what happened but assume tyres skidded on damp/frosty/muddy/leafy section and I landed on my back and smacked my head into the ground. Helmet smashed and skin on the back of my head scraped off by inside of polystyrene of helmet. Dazed for a bit and had the day off work, but I would have had a fractured skull or worse had I not had a helmet on - of that I am sure. Happy to buy another one, very very happy.
Not nessasarily - in some instances no difference, in some an improvement in outcomes. Never seen any numbers for that and I doubt the 30% figure.However there is at least one neurosurgeon cyclist who will not wear a helmet as he believes the risks from wearing one are too high.
You expect us to believe that in over 40% of accidents a helmet makes no difference in the severity of a head injury?
However there is at least one neurosurgeon cyclist who will not wear a helmet as he believes the risks from wearing one are too high.
He's lying TJ. I spoke to him about it, and he said its because he can't stand having helmet hair in the pub afterwards, as he reckons its the only reason he can't get in with that bird behind the bar with the cracking norks.
Seriously. The whole risk thing is just a smoke-screen
You might get 70-odd virgins to have a pop at etc etc
Aye, but as Jo Caulfield put it, knowing my luck it wouldn't be 70 pliable nubile virgins, it'd be 70 maiden aunts on their zimmer frames.
I think Jeremy's laptop must flash red when someone posts a helmet topic.
No - did I say that? I did not. I said there are three types of outcome -
1) the helmet reduces injury
2) the helmet makes no difference to injury
3) the helmet makes injury worse
The first 2 I have never seen quantified, the third I have see a reputable bit of research give a 30% figure to that I personally believe is too high
the neurosurgeon argument is he would rather have a focal injury that a Diffuse one.
i smacked my head off low branches 3 times on wednesday. for that reason, i will continue to wear a helmet off road. and possibly look into ducking.
i have no illusions of it stopping my brain mushing under a truck though
The whole neurosurgeon thing is just about norks TJ. I can see his point though.
[i]I can see his point though[/i]
You shouldn't have been looking.
I appreciate as long as it is not a legal requirement to wear a helmet, each individual should be free to make their own decision on the issue.
However, I think that actively discouraging others from wearing a helmet is taking it too far.
Claiming that wearing a helmet makes the injury worse in 30% of accidents sounds like the kind of stuff a Flat Earth Believer/Creationist would come up with.
Touch paper lit. I'll retire to a safe distance.
No - did I say that? I did not. I said there are three types of outcome -
1) the helmet reduces injury
2) the helmet makes no difference to injury
3) the helmet makes injury worse
Yes you did. You said that in 30% of cases a lid makes things worse but the figure of 70% making things better isn't correct as in some crashes the lid makes no difference. Looking at the maths if your position of not wearing one is better than wearing one the then those crashes where the helmet makes no difference must be over 40% in order to make wearing one more of a hazard than not.
Last weekend I went to the park with the kids on their bikes, nothing spectacular about that but my son fell backwards from the top of the slide onto his head.
Fortunately he still had his helmet on which is now cracked in four places.
No injuries were sustained other than a sore neck.
Helmets work!
The first 2 I have never seen quantified, the third I have see a reputable bit of research give a 30% figure to that I personally believe is too high
OH Goodness me. where is the test data for the 90-odd percent of crashes that turn out to be 'minor' because the helmet simply works?
no one reports it, only the cases where 2 and 3 happen are reported of course. for example, i've had at least 5 crashes this year where i bumped my melon a bit and the helmet reduced the pain i would have inevitably suffered due to skull slowly scraping sharp rock.
those (and all me previous crashes) are not in anybody's test data.
do the mathhhhhh...........
Maybe it's all a conspiracy by the worlds helmet manufacturers. They have the worlds politicians and doctors in their pockets. Evil helmetmakers.
Matt - Who is actively discouraging people from wearing helmets?
The 30% figure came from a well written piece of experimental and analytical work.
All I want is for the debate to follow the research. Rather than berating anyone who questions the efficiency of cycle helmets you should be arguing for better helmets and better research
JonR - I did not say that - re read my post
your position of not wearing one is better than wearing one
I have never said that. I do not in any post on here.
My position is clear.
1) helmets are good at protecting form minor injury. this is not disputed
2) helmets efficiency at protecting from major injury is often overstated.
3) in some circumstances helmets can exacerbate injuries
4) cycling is a safe activity. In some instances the risks are so low that I am prepared to accept teh millions to one risk of having a head injury that would be mitigated by a helmet.
Time and time again it is shown that as helmet wearing rates rise head injury rates do not fall.
TandemJeremy - Memberyou should be arguing for better helmets and better research
agreed. i want better researd before people start scaremongering with figures like 30%quoted above.
I want all cyclists who've worn a helmet that's worked in a crash to be included in the data. its gonna be a long research period.
I wonder if the neurologist ever did get his hands on those norks?
I wonder if they were, ultimately a disappointment?
Imagine putting your life at risk and finding out there were padded bra's involved?
So many questions
Even though I've lost a tooth whilst wearing a full face helmet, apart from a lust for controversy or a streak of self loathing, I can't see any reason why anyone wouldn't wear a helmet.
[url= http://www.pinkbike.com/video/212936/ ]Use your melon[/url]
Time and time again it is shown that as helmet wearing rates rise head injury rates do not fall.
NO.
head injury rates IN CRASHES WHERE A HELMET WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE DUE TO THE IHERENT LIMITATIONS OF A BIT OF PLASTIC AND STYROFOAM ...............
[i]I want all cyclists who've worn a helmet that's worked in a crash to be included in the data[/i]
If you want the research to be scientific, would you not need to repeat the crash exactly without the helmet to confirm that it had worked?
Anyway, carry on.
DenDennis - Wrong
several different studies have show that as helmet wearing rates increase across whole populations the head injury rate does not fall.
Thats double the number of folk wearing helmets, no fall in head injuries once all other factors are eliminated.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689
this is an interesting analysis as well
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5339
Another worthwhile point is that many of the figures showing no difference or worse injury whilst wearing a helmet don't take into account fit and fastening of helmets... rather than any tangible research, but plucked from my sweaty crack, 48% of helmet wearers don't have a correctly fitting lid.
You might get 70-odd virgins to have a pop at etc etcAye, but as Jo Caulfield put it, knowing my luck it wouldn't be 70 pliable nubile virgins, it'd be 70 maiden aunts on their zimmer frames.
Or 70 TJ's talking non stop about bike helmets
You simply do not know what the outcome would be otherwise - and it also clearly demonstrates the limitations of helmets - he still has a major head injury.
That is not a great understanding you have there.
We do know how much of a force the helmet can/did dissipate and we do know it would have been worse without one.
As for it showing the limitations are you on crack? It saved his life HowTF is that a limitation ? You want him to be hit at 70 and just go oooh that smarts a bit and cycle on?
We all know the data re usage and participation and yadda yadda you will list but this would be about as clear cut a case for helmet usage protecting you as you will ever get in the real world.
EDIT:
fascinating but what this does not say is that wearing a helmet does not prevent injury if you crash. You also ignore the several ones that do show it as well - don't cherry pick the dataseveral different studies have show that as helmet wearing rates increase across whole populations the head injury rate does not fall.
PS Not arguing with you it is futile
Junkyard - sorry squire but you do not know
It saved his life
You do not know it would be worse without one. too many variables.
Of course it shows the limitations - he was left with a major head injury. helmets to not prevent injury - they mitigate some
seen the vid before.
I probably wear a lid for about 5% of the riding I do and watching that video hasn't changed that.
Claiming that wearing a helmet makes the injury worse in 30% of accidents sounds like the kind of stuff a Flat Earth Believer/Creationist would come up with.
Not really. I'd actually say that promoting helmet use with the abscence of any hard research (based on simple belief that they must make things better) is far more flat earth.
The 30% figure is the kind of stuff that research might come up with. Wikipedia gives -
It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse.[68] Helmets may increase the torsional forces by increasing the distance from the centre of the spine to the outside of the helmet, compared to the distance to the scalp without a helmet: "Bicycle helmet crash simulation experiments carried out as part of this project indicated very high rotational accelerations for a fall over the handlebars at 45 km/h. The rotational accelerations were found to be 30 percent higher than those found in similar tests using a full face polymer motorcycle helmet."[69] A 1991 study by Hodgson, in which bicycle helmets were tested for ease of skidding, found that adding facial protection to a standard bicycle helmet (in effect making the helmet full-face) brought the benefit of reduced twisting forces on the brain.
I always wear a helmet off-road, wear one on my commute, I was wearing one when I was hit behind by a bus and knocked unconscious. Did it help? Who knows for sure.
I rarely wear a helmet when riding my Brompton and not wearing cycle kit or helmet may be safer in town - http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
I struggle to believe that a helmet makes a large difference if you're hit from behind by a wing mirror at 60mph - it's so far outside the range of impacts they're designed to cope with.
Of course not using TJ standards but using this same standard I dont know the parachute saved the life of the person who jumped out of a plane - it just lessened the impact a bit
- bit like a parachute jump then - i have seen folk twist their ankles and break legs - I mean why do they bother with those parachutes?helmets to not prevent injury - they mitigate some
TandemJeremy - MemberDenDennis - Wrong
several different studies have show that as helmet wearing rates increase across whole populations the head injury rate does not fall.
Thats double the number of folk wearing helmets, no fall in head injuries once all other factors are eliminated
sorry TJ, i know you're a bright bloke and all that, but that logic does not follow, (unless all of the population has been surveyed for all crashes)
almost ALL of the failures are counted.
How would ALL (or any) instances of a helmet working go into such a survey? are there ctc people hiding out on the trails with clipboards?
You do not know it would be worse without one. too many variables.
Not many variables in getting a wing mirror to hit off the back of someone's head - that'd be an easy experiment to setup.
I probably wear a lid for about 5% of the riding I do and watching that video hasn't changed that.
that's cause 95% of you riding is going to/from school with a bunch of nippers...... and you want to look cool 😉
I struggle to believe that a helmet makes a large difference if you're hit from behind by a wing mirror at 60mph
no ones says it made a large difference, just enough to turn (almost certain [just to stop TJ being a nob again]) death into brain damage
DenDenis - follow the links.
What the studies look at is the whole population of cyclists. The number of miles cycled , the rate of helmet wearing and the number of head injuries.
As helmet wearing rates increased - in some cases more than doubled there was no reduction in head injuries per mile cycled.
Jeezuz - That Batman photo really works!
Question - why the bloody hell would you ride a bike fast and not wear a helmet?
[b]fascinating but what this does not say is that wearing a helmet does not prevent injury if you crash[/b]
again [as not all studies show the same thing]you are cherry picking your data - I will give you the benefit and assume you missed my edit.
perhaps those people wearing helmets were really rubbish cyclists and they caused crashes?
I assume even you are not going to claim helmets cause you to crash are you.
Dont forget those who wear a helmet and are uninjured forget to go to casuality to let them know so they can be in the studies you link to.
No comment on parachutes then?
To coin a phrase...
Helmet laws:...Let Those Who Ride Decide......
I have no idea if this is relevant to the topic as I cba to read more than the first few posts,but have always like this phrase.... 🙂
As helmet wearing rates increased - in some cases more than doubled there was no reduction in head injuries per mile cycled. ...
10 people cycling, 5 wearing helmets. 1 has crash where helmet does nothing.
OK.
10 people cycling, 10 wearing helmets. 1 has crash where helmet does nothing.
doubling the number of helmets has not helped that one person.
why would it? same per mile cycled all round.
[whisper it] what if 9 of those 10 had 'minor bumps' but didnt report them?
Cracknell would probably have been better off not doing a ridiculous unnecessary 'challenge' that involved lots of physical exercise and lots of [u]sleep deprivation[/u].
I'd suggest sacrificing a helmet and instead riding when you are actually aware of the truck roaring up behind you at 60mph on a lonely midnight road.
In all the fuss about whether his helmet saved his life, the fact that he wasn't riding sensibly seems to have been lost.
You simply do not know what the outcome would be otherwise
That really sounds like straw clutching. Bloke smacks his head on the pavement, and you say 'well.. it MIGHT've been better without a helmet....' Ok.. well make sure you factor in all those times where people are knocked off their bikes because their helmet caught on a branch that they'd otherwise have cleared..
And really - what are we suppsoed to do? Stop before an accident, assess the accident we're about to have and decide whether or not to remove our helmets?
What I am saying is that it's a bit of a non-argument. There might well be cases where it doesn't help, but unless you can show that OVERALL you are better off without (ie in the statistical majority of likely situations) then I'll keep mine on and so should the rest of us.
Den - read the links!
Its really very simple. Helmet evangelists claim that helmets prevent a large % of head injuries. if this was so when helmet wearing rates doubled then head injuries should reduce. In actual fact head injury rates per mile cycled remain the same even when helmet wearing is doubled. thus there is no protective effect.
Why is a different debate.
I do enjoy these debates and can see exactly where TJ is coming from. Maybe we should collective ask the Mythbusters to do some research? 🙂
Some anecdotal evidence here, not sure what it says really though. My mum fell of her road bike last year and knocked her self out. She was wearing a helmet. She had also stopped breathing. My Dad and I had to clear her airways which we partially blocked. Initially we could couldnt get her mouth open because her helmet strap had ridden up her chin slightly and was clamping her mouth shut. Had we not been there she may of died from not being able to clear her own airways through coughing etc as her mouth was strapped shut. If she hadnt of had the helmet she may of had a worse head injury but she would of been able to breath. Interesting, eh?
The argument is difficult because [i]until someone does a study where people undertaking different types of cycling are randomly allocated helmet or no-helmet whatever their own wishes/intentions are, we will not have cohorts of people with matched demographics and matched attitudes that we can compare.[/i] And we are not going to get those studies. The studies of individual helmet usage will be flawed in having choice and attitude as confounding variables. The studies of whole populations and effects of legislation lump too many different contexts together.
Until then some of the leaps that some people sometimes take - generalising death rates from data mainly about road cycling where death may often be by mechanisms (eg squished by a Lorry - or very high speed impact) that no cycle helmet will ever mitigate - to other contexts (MTBing) is illogical.
Equally illogical is the frequent quoting of a study which says cars go closer to people with helmets, when that study was basically the observations of behaviour towards one single cyclist, sometimes wearing a womans wig... sometimes not... sometimes wearing a helmet... sometimes not...
In skiing - my other sport - we have the same issues. But where we are is:
1) Fatal head injury is so rare, that it is unlikely that any study will ever have the statistical power to show a death rate difference in Helmet wearers.
2) But we do now know that significant head injury is reduced in helmet wearers, that there is no increase in neck injury, and no evidence of "adaptive behaviour" (eg taking more risks because of the lids).
I suspect that for much MTBing - with rocks and trees in proximity and relatively moderate speeds, a properly conducted randomised trial would show a significant reduction in head injury severity, as has now been shown in skiers and boarders.
For pootling along a canal path (low risk) or cycling on the road where lots of things you hit will squish you like a bug, there may indeed be no point.
It does remain a personal choice though. And my personal choice is not to ride in the woods with anyone with no lid.
For pootling along a canal path (low risk) or cycling on the road where lots of things you hit will squish you like a bug, there may indeed be no point.
Is the point!
I wear one sometimes and not other = depending what I am doing.
When I wear one I wear it fastened and fitted properly - unlike the vast majority of cyclists I see wearing helmets. even at Glentress I reckon its a minority who wear the helmets properly
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Helmet evangelists
Oh TJ FFS evangelists now are we Jesus wept stay at least rational and keep the hyperbole to your self would you - Is there any need for language like this ?
Your links - which you have giuven us twice THANKS
Wearing a cycle helmet [b]may[/b] increase your risk of a collision, because drivers leave less of a gap when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without, according to recent research.
In some research where no one was hit. It is conclusive of nothing and needs to be done in areas outside of Bath as well- unless of course you are suggesting we all move to Bath and cycle with a blonde wig to get a few more inches of clearance- I bet it is not matched for location or time of day,vehicle, driver age etc.
your other link had this gem
Using HEAT (Health Economic Assessment Tool) for cycling, as published by the WHO, and the Cycle Safety Study's estimate (which CTC disputes) of between 10 -16% of fatal injuries prevented by helmets,
So if it is good enough for WHO it is good enough for me.
I see you dont want to discuss parachutes with the same fervour, zeal , hyperbole or logic when they also dont prevent all injuries and some folk fall from planes and live.
Double post
TandemJeremy - MemberWhen I wear one I wear it fastened and fitted properly - unlike the vast majority of cyclists I see wearing helmets. even at Glentress I reckon its a minority who wear the helmets properly
If you mean that the straps look loose when they aren't riding their bike (which you mentioned in a previous helmet debate), that doesn't mean that the helmet doesn't fit properly.
My strap tends to become tight only when I assume a bike riding position - hunched forward, jaw loose to suck in all that O2, neck extended, etc. If it was tight when I was off the bike, I wouldn't be able to breathe properly when riding.
Of course if you are looking at riders' helmets when they are actually riding, then that's just a little weird! 🙂
Junkyard - Member
Wearing a cycle helmet may increase your risk of a collision, because drivers leave less of a gap when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without, according to recent research.In some research where no one was hit. It is conclusive of nothing and needs to be done in areas outside of Bath as well- unless of course you are suggesting we all move to Bath and cycle with a blonde wig to get a few more inches of clearance- I bet it is not matched for location or time of day,vehicle, driver age etc.
My favourite piece of poor research! 🙄
Strangely enough, when a man rides along wearing a blonde wig, people gave him more room. I could have told him that would happen for free.
Stoatsbrother - Member
For pootling along a canal path (low risk) or cycling on the road where lots of things you hit will squish you like a bug, there may indeed be no point
Friend of my other half fell off her bike while cycling through the village. There were no vehicles involved, I don't know the exact details of the fall, but she hit her head and was knocked out. She wasn't wearing a helmet & when she came round, found herself blind in one eye. This was several months ago, the doctors don't know exactly why she has lost sight in that eye, but it doesn't look like it's returning anytime soon.
Would a helmet have stopped her losing her sight? Who knows. I'd rather not take the chance.
A few months ago I had a stupid crash on the road & hit my head hard. I was OK (once I'd gathered my thoughts) & cycled home. My helmet had split up the middle of it and was wrecked.
It takes quite a lot of energy to split a helmet. I'm glad that energy went into my helmet & not into my skull.
Oh, and if i didn't wear a helmet where would my spokeshirts light go!?
I can't believe people still trot out that: "head injuries rates don't fall when helmet use goes up" statistic.
I've broken 3 lids. In each case, my head was fine. In each case I am certain I would have sustained a head injury without one.
The only guy I know who refuses to wear one smacked his head on the ground and was carted off in an ambulance last year.
I still think that helmet use should be voluntary but non wearers need to get real - it IS self evidently more dangerous not to wear one and furthermore, if you do crash, the people you are riding with are the ones that have to pick up the pieces!
idlejon - thats a helmet that is not fitted properly you are describing. I think from observation eh majority of folk have their helmets far too loose. My helmets strap is tight when stood up and does not get any tighter in a riding position.
Junkyard - parachutes are not a reasonable comparator. I am not referring to you as a helmet evangalist but the hysterical fringe of people who make these massive inflated claims and who want to penalise all people who do not wear them
I still think that helmet use should be voluntary but non wearers need to get real - it IS self evidently more dangerous not to wear one
Shame the actual evidence does not back that up.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
TandemJeremy - Member
idlejon - thats a helmet that is not fitted properly you are describing. I think from observation eh majority of folk have their helmets far too loose. My helmets strap is tight when stood up and does not get any tighter in a riding position.
Nope. My helmets fit when I'm riding because the position of my head is different when I'm riding. I'm surprised that yours doesn't get any tighter - do you cycle with your head in the same position as when you are sitting? Of course when I say looser/tighter, I'm not talking about huge loops hanging below chins...