Forum menu
Any statistics on the efficacy of e-bike helmets? I'm willing to assert that there must have been an increase in people falling off while cycling quickly uphill.
They portray bicycle helmets as offering far more protection than they do. Bicycle helmets are only designed to withstand minor knocks and bumps, not being hit by motor vehicles; see more here
Will have a look at the publications they are quoting, but this is already a stupid statement on the part of the ECF. Helmets protect against pretty major blows to the head, but of course they don't protect your skull being crushed under an articulated lorry or a penetration injury by a sharp object. Motorbike helmets are a bit better in that regard.
Anyway that's what happens when non-scientists interpret journal entries.
so if you get ****ted by a car at speed and bounce off the road its value is probably limited to making it easier for the emergency services to scoop up your brain.
Again, if you watch videos of pedestrians or cyclist getting hit by cars - they more often than not hit the windscreen then get thrown down the road. Those are all events that even a basic EPS helmet is fairly good at keeping your skull intact. It's when you go underneath a car that you are ****ed.
Rayban - I suggest you do read up on the various papers on this
A cycle helmet cannot dissipate/ absorb the amount of energy involved hitting a car at 30 MPH. Only a few % of it., Its not what they are designed for at all and will make little difference. they are designed for a fall at zero mph to the ground from riding position and thats also what they are tested for
Cyclehelmets.org needs a large pinch of salt but has a lot of good links. also check out the BMJ reviews and the cochrane review - but that needs to be read alongside the critiques of it.
A cycle helmet cannot dissipate/ absorb the amount of energy involved hitting a car at 30 MPH. Only a few % of it., Its not what they are designed for at all and will make little difference. they are designed for a fall at zero mph to the ground from riding position and thats also what they are tested for
You are right.
They test them at 15 mph direct on into a solid block of metal or a pointed bit of immovable kerb. Where many of the helmets around now are reducing imparted G forces by 100g more than the test requirements.
So that is in no way, going to help if you bang your head at an oblique angle into thin crushable metal or a windscreen travelling at 30mph - or bounce it off the road after decelerating in the air.
Because all car crashes are completely equivalent to a flying anvil launched at 30mph hitting you in the head.
Last time I checked, one Cochrane review supported the use of a helmet when getting hit by a car.
and the other was on the fence about compulsory use but still supported the use of them
All in jest TJ - but I'm not convinced yet by your side.
I don't have a "side" apart from looking for the truth. too many myths out there. too much rubbish in the research
Y9u need to read the critiques of those involved in that cochrane review. Some very poor "science" that does not come anywhere meeting standards yo and I would like to see.
What are the 3 things Valid, robust, reliable - something like that. Those conclusions are none of the above.
Science is always improving and as you know full well TJ it's often wrong! Opinion and truth is made to be challenged hey?
This planet would be a lot better if more people were that inquisitive.
Its just a shame that politicians etc base their positions on such poor research.
the second one you quote is so obviously wrong. I know of two large studies that showed helmet compulsion reduced the amount cycled a lot - and no alteration in serious injuries per mile cycled ( compared to pedestrians - other changes in motoring law in aus had major road safety impact at the time)
Thompson and Riviera made their names in cycle helmet "research" that is very badly flawed and have spent 20 years desperately trying to show it was valid despite the flaws. They are at that old trick of adjusting the data to fit the hypothesis. No one else has every been able to show reductions in head injuries anywhere near what they claimed
did yo read the bad science link? Its good.
Ben Goldacre?
TJ I'll have a read of the papers in more depth, but you are doing yourself a disservice by criticising them on the basis that someone else got different results.
Give me something more substantial to have a think about, methodological or statistical problems in the papers etc.
Yes - Goldacre
the point was that they got a result so out of line with every other study that is makes it questionable
Methodological flaws in their original research its riddled with them. also in their statistical analysis an academic statistician said they used the wrong methods that caused a huge bump in positive results - I don't know enough stats to have a view myself - but I'd rather trust a well respected statistician than medical researchers on stats methods There are good critiques available. IIRC referenced on the BMJ site.
as I said - interested in discussing this further lets do it by PM
they haven't seperated out falls from getting hit by a car.
if you're hit by a car, you are ****ed either way, this is skewing the data
Interesting debate, and LOLs at those who have an opinion based on an anecdote or just nonsense, but by God they are right!...and aren't interested is listening to any other view/fact/evidence.
This is a decent summary of the evidence and research. Remember effects with individuals and across populations are different. Read in conjunction with the Bad science link I linked to erlier gives a decent background to understand the issues.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets
I wonder how many people that smashed their helmet but had no injuries reported this? Precisely none I imagine, myself included. I can't help but think that if my helmet is smashed and broken, I would have been in a bit of a state if the impact would have been directly on my unprotected head.
There is no way statistical evidence from A&E is ever going to tell us enough. Combine that evidence with some more detailed information about accident modes, some dummy testing and computer modelling and I think there is scope for actually learning something. But all that would be expensive.
Greyspoke - there is actually quite a lot of data collected like you mention,. Its pretty poor quality stuff in the main but some shows up interesting results. Like the dutch study ( IIRC) that instead of dropping headforms in helmets from a low height ( as in helmet testing) tried to replicate serious accidents in real life situations using a complete body dummy. This is the one that showed in 30% of accidents helmets made things worse from a serious injury point of view ( no one disputes helmets work for minor injuries)
A cycle helmet cannot dissipate/ absorb the amount of energy involved hitting a car at 30 MPH. Only a few % of it.
Came back to have a nose and just seen this.
I got hit by a car years ago, 40mph limit road, side on hit, car didn't have a chance to brake. I flew up in the air. Who knows what speed my head came down and connected with the front pillar, then back of the head onto the tarmac. My Giro Supermoto helmet was split down the middle. Whatever % of energy that dissipated, I'm ****ing thankful for. If anyone thinks you'd better off not wearing a helmet in that scenario, well, they've clearly already had the brain injuries. It's not even a point I'm prepared to discuss.
Missing the point Dez
Dear Mods
Can we please have a "Helmetgate" sticky next to the sticky "E-bikes OMG!" thread?
cynic-al
Missing the point Dez
Yeah, I think it was more like curved metal.
Compulsory helmets are a terrible idea. But I suspect helmets help in many bike crashes, even when hit by a car. I don’t hold much hope for collisions with trucks and buses - the near vertical fronts make for far more serious impacts with humans. Modern cars are designed to send humans up and over.
As I think I have pointed out on here before, helmets and other hard armour do not work primarily by dissipating energy themselves. They work by helping the body dissipate the energy better, ie without causing local catastrophic damage. To put it another way, in his collision with the car, Dez's bonce and neck dissipated most of the energy whereas without a helmet more of that energy would have been dissipated within a smaller area of his skull, with the possibility of greater local head damage. So when pushed to the limit, in the ideal scenario, a helmet gives you a really sore neck but an intact skull and no brain damage whereas without one you might have had both the latter. Problem is, outside that scenario, you might be trading a more serious and unrecoverable neck injury for a less serious and recoverable head injury, or a brain injury caused by rotation of the skull that would not have happened without a helmet. So for big impacts there is an element of hobson's choice about it.
From the paper cited "Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face
or neck? With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes"
Anecdote is not evidence, but in my case hitting the road at >30mph (avoiding a careless right turning car) resulted in a loss of part of one ear (degloved) and concussion. Without a helmet I would have lost a significant part of my scalp and probably broken my skull. The helmet didn't protect my ear.
Actually they will do as they look at hospital admissions for casualties – but MTBing is a very small part of cycling europe wide.
My big smash (concussion, broken back) is categorised as 'pedal cycle accident'. Only if they read the notes they might see mountain bike mentioned. A lesser one I had says "fell off mountain bike in Wales" (BPW stack, broke fingers 😁).
None of my crashes had cracked the helmet, although the big one there were enough marks on it that I decided to bin it. Visible damage doesn't mean it's not damaged inside the poly.
Seen a few where helmet is smashed but they walked away with no head damage.
Same old though. Helmets do/don't save lives, can't tell unless you repeat the exact same accident with same conditions, same bike & person and even down to what the person was thinking and how they react at the time, with and without a helmet.
Do they reduce the severity of damage? Most likely. Surface damage noticeably reduced or none where it's obvious without a helmet there'd be some or worse. Though in my concussion case there's a question whether helmet reduced or or made that worse (pre-MIPS, but that would have made no difference as not a rotational injury, and I argue that many MTB accidents are not that kind anyway).
With my fingers, the helmet didn't prevent that. Numpty was the cause 😁 (can argue helmet makes you over confident). Though at the time I was feeling relieved I'd worn the full face as it took a bash on the chin and I got no face damage.
As I think I have pointed out on here before, helmets and other hard armour do not work primarily by dissipating energy themselves. They work by helping the body dissipate the energy better, ie without causing local catastrophic damage
Radiologist said something like this to me. The helmet effectively sent the compression wave down the spine instead of into the head. Result was broken back due to the helmet. That's just a theory of a radiologist though.
Better off without the helmet then? Could have been the compression was localised in the neck and end up paralysed, instead of lesser compression fractures lower down.
No cycle helemt will turn a life threatening injury into no injury – they are simply incapable of this. the forces involved are too big.
A friend popped a front tyre on a descent and speared off into a tree at probably 20 mph. He cracked his helmet, but walked away with a sore neck and shoulder. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have fractured his skull if he wasn't wearing a helmet. Not saying helmets should be compulsory, but just that claims that they are completely ineffective seem pretty hard to take seriously.
It probably(?) applies more to a MTB point of view than road, but I fail to see how any kind of stats can include accidents which didn't end up reported/hospitalised.
If you fall off on a trail and can walk/stagger/ride away, no-one else will ever know.
What proportion of those unreported, hit on the head but walked away, falls involved wearing a helmet?
dead Kenny - could also have been a focal brain injury or worse a diffuse brain injury without the hat. You might just have smeared your scalp over rocks but not had any serious brain or spinal injury, just a scalping. You just don't really know.
Which possibility do you choose? We don't know the odds even to orders of magnitude
Hols - thats not what I said - not that they are ineffective but that the limits of their effectiveness are much lower than many think. 20 mph is a lot less energy than 30+ anyway If he would have had life-threatening injuries without the hat its highly unlikely he walks away with none with it.
@tjagain - I'd prefer to be able to answer the hospital porters when they ask "were you wearing a helmet?" on the way to the CT scan, and anyway resting on the helmet made it much more comfortable when I was lying face down in the road waiting for the ambulance.
having smashed my head into tarmac both with and without a helmet on, and still living with the after effects of the later 20yrs on, I know which I'd choose...
The OOH Major Trauma team at the hospital where I work have a collection of spectacularly exploded bicycle helmets in their office, both road and MTB. If anyone comments on them, they are quick to point out that the people whose heads they cut them from are still alive and mobile. The helmets generally look like they’ve been hit hard with hammers or in one case that was totally split, an axe. The ‘road’ ones look like they’ve been offered to a grinding wheel and held there.
As lots of people above, it’s not something that should be mandatory any more than hi vis should, but there are very good cases to choose to wear a helmet. They aren’t magical forcefields and especially if badly fitted can cause injuries themselves but I’d always choose to wear one I trusted.
One side of the "augment" that isn't really often discussed are the reasons to NOT wear a helmet.
From a purely MTB perspective can't particularly see any valid reason not to wear a helmet most of the time. In the grand scheme of things, a helmet is not that expensive (esp. compared to the £5k gnarpoon you're riding... ), is no longer seen as any kind of "social slur" (when was the last time you heard anyone see someone in a bike helmet and say "ooh, look at that muppet in that helmet"??), and these days doesn't particularly come with any significant downsides (they are no longer heavy, too hot, or uncomfortable)
Outside of MTBing, where we deliberately take on rough terrain and the incumbent risks that come hand in hand with that activity, well, that's a whole different game. Social cycling, ie riding to work or to the shops to get a sandwich, well, perhaps yes, a helmet does bring some minor inconveniences, and that's perhaps why some studies have shown that being required to wear one reduces participation in that sort of activity?
Just make your own mind up using common sense.
Where does this common sense come from, if not from these studies?
If I were to go from my own experience, then I have never personally known anyone suffer a head injury from riding a bike.
People always say “why don’t we wear a helmet to walk” when these threads come up, but you only have to watch bike “crash” videos...
You're posting videos that mostly contain a form of cycling at a fairly extreme end of the spectrum, where people are pushing the limits of their ability for thrills. Not all cycling poses this level of risk. Much the same as we wear helmets when motor racing, but not on the drive to work. Same activity. Different level of risk.
Mountain Biking excepted and maybe fast roadieing cycling isnt dangerous. Dutch cyclists rarely use helmets and rarely get injured. Helmets are a red herring for most cyclists...not me though I need one!
I was posting people going OTB on MTBs because it's easy to find those videos!
But the point i was making was that hitting your head falling off a bike is significantly more likely than hitting your head falling over running or walking because when people fall off bikes they fail to let go of the handlebars, and hence are less likely to break their fall with their hands and arms. Those videos clearly show that effect, where people go OTB, and despite clearly being well past the point of no return, they death grip the bars until it's too late to get their hands out. If you looked at videos of people falling down when say running, i'm going to suggest that many more of them will show that person managing to at least start to break their fall with their hands before their head and body hit the ground.
The ultimate point was to suggest that you can't compare "falling over" with "falling off" as they are very different events, despite being outwardly similar.
Where does this common sense come from, if not from these studies?
How can you so completely misunderstand what common sense is?!
So many to chose from, but here's one:
I find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t have fractured his skull if he wasn’t wearing a helmet.
What education/science/evidence are you basing your anecdote on?
Not saying helmets should be compulsory, but just that claims that they are completely ineffective seem pretty hard to take seriously
Well done for arguing against a point that no one has made, many explicitly so.