TJ, you are a nurse for a living.
I work in the design, development, analysis, testing and certification of helmets.
As I said earlier, you draw whatever conclusions you like from the tripe you read on no win no fee solicitors websites you pointed to a few weeks back. Whats great about this country is you have a choice.
[i]I work in the design, development, analysis, testing and certification of helmets.[/i]
Then you of all people should be able to point us in the direction of some sensible research regarding bicycle helmets and their efficacy?
...and should be able to explain how in the most optional test conditions in Australia, in Canada, when we had a helmet law introduced, why the statistics from those places, at those times, still don't reveal any serious impact from said laws?
Your 'scientific' credentials should allow you to adopt a sceptical approach; show me....
LHS - ther is no need to be offensive. Its not tripe on no win no fee solicitors websites. It good basic research from reputable journals. I gave you many references to them.
However as an industry flack of course you attack anyone who has the temerity to question your badly flawed ideas.
I am not stupid, I know how to read a piece of research. I know when a piece has major design flaws that make it completely untenable.
You have no answer to the criticisms I have made on the research that you quote as gospel which is clearly flawed so you rely on attacking me.
All you state is that any research you don't like is " discredited within the industry" What a suprise! Well your reliance on badly designed seriously flawed research discredits and devalues your opinion.
ever get that feeling of deja vu Tj and LHS!!??
Yep, been here before on several topics but heh lets all feel the lourve. We are all cyclists and good friends really.
For what it's worth I wouldn't ride a bike without a helmet, I've cracked a couple, can't say if my bonce has been saved as I've not had the same crash without, but I suspect they offered some protection.
ON the compulsary aspect of helmet wear, it'd be totally unenforceable the Government meddles enough with our lives as it is, freedom of choice, however stupid should be allowed.
Cougar - MemberTJ, just so I'm clear;
Is your stance "there is no evidence, therefore we don't know for sure whether helmets work," or is it "there is no evidence, therefore helmets don't work until we prove that they do"?
My stance is that the risks are low, helmets work well at protecting from minor injuries. With major injuries the evidence is much poorer and there is evidence that in some circumstances the helmet may cause and exacerbate injury.
When you study whole populations as helmet wearing rates increase head injury rates do not decrease.
Yes, deja vu all the time, i was trying hard not to get involved. 🙄
LHS - there is no need to be offensive
I haven't been offensive so please don't play that card.
I merely pointed out that some of the research you referred to are published by people who have an alternative motive - i.e. no win no fee solicitors using the "helmets wouldn't make a difference" card to win more damages for their client.
discredits and devalues your opinion
Who is being offensive??
LHS - MemberI merely pointed out that some of the research you referred to are published by people who have an alternative motive - i.e. no win no fee solicitors using the "helmets wouldn't make a difference" card to win more damages for their client.
this is simply wrong
At one point I gave you an opinion from a person involved in litigation. They are not a no fee no win solicitor. I did not claim this as research. Basic ad hominen argument.
I have given you a lot of references to real research that you just glibly dismiss.
How about answering crikeys point?
I don't think there is any need to see this by taking 'sides', TJ and LHS (and me)....
I presume we would all want the same thing; safer cycling?
I presume we only differ in our respective estimations of the efficiency of helmets?
ON the compulsary aspect of helmet wear, it'd be totally unenforceable the Government meddles enough with our lives as it is, freedom of choice, however stupid should be allowed.
Would you say the same about wearing a helmet on a motor cycle?
To not bore anyone any longer....
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-your-helmet-kids ]Helmets[/url]
Agree with you there LHS 🙂
When you study whole populations as helmet wearing rates increase head injury rates do not decrease.
Which study was this, sorry? Have you got a link?
LHS, one last question please?
The jelly baby counter; will there be a bluetooth version?
😀
Phew, another helmet thread out of the way....
"Would you say the same about wearing a helmet on a motor cycle?"
Motorcycles are a little different if they have a registration plate it's pretty difficult to get away with... but without a plate e.g. MX bikes you see plenty on the road with no helmet and no tax or insurance for that matter.
In terms of safety I think the biggest difference is speed. Not many cyclist will have an average speed of over 30 miles an hour..heads tend to get squashed at speeds like that.
a car came from behind turned left and took me out, i head butted the car but lived because i wore a helmet, only a dick would say it's ok not to wear one if your on the road or just going to the shops!, it only takes a second to get killed so wake up you fu***ng morons
sorry double post
Cougar- this one amongst others
Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health?
Robinson DL. . BMJ, 2006;332:722.
If you look around the http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html you will find others. Remember your pinch of salt.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html has a list of similar papers. With an athens password you can read the entire researh
This effect that there is no decrease in head injury rates when helmet use increase when entire populations are considered is repeated in many places.
I'm not bored but puzzled. TJ speaks with obvious conviction, yet he also believes in brake pad bedding in, for which what evidence I've seen is at best highly equivocal, and his ill informed comments about erosion in places he's never been lead me to question his judgement...
Helmet wearers - leave em to it until the NHS start charging for treatment to people who have head injuries that didn't wear a helmet 😉
Non-Helmet wearers - carry on I don't give a to$$ its your head 🙂
If you wear a helmet everywhere like me then you just don't care about potential legislation 🙂
foxyrider - what about those whose injuries are caused or exacerbated by helmets?
Eggbox - Member"Would you say the same about wearing a helmet on a motor cycle?"
In terms of safety I think the biggest difference is speed. Not many cyclist will have an average speed of over 30 miles an hour..heads tend to get squashed at speeds like that.
I meant in terms of safety rather than getting away with it 🙂
Is the speed argument really relevant considering that cyclists can be riding alongside drivers doing 70mph+ ?
I had a big crash coming down Ventoux two weeks ago. 30mph, wheels locked up, went off the road, landed on my head on some rocks.
Now, I don't think anyone is going to argue that going 30mph into a load of rocks head first is going to be fun. However, I suffered no head injury at all. My helmet has several cracks in it, on the top, and at the side.
However, I did manage to tear/pull my Trapezius muscle pretty badly in the crash.
Is this the injuries helmets can cause you are talking about TJ?
I think its safe to say that my helmet saved me from a fairly massive head injury. Now, if it did that at the price of a pulled muscle, I think that's fair.
Maybe helmets can cause injuries as well as prevent them, but I think in the majority of times the injury they prevent is worse then the injury they cause.
TJ, can I ask something?
Do you ever wonder why every discussion you get involved in turns into a vicious flame war where you accuse everyone of not responding to your arguments, being stupid and attacking you personally?
It's not like that on other threads.
Realman.
There are two main circumstances in which helmet can cause injury.
They increase rotational forces when you hit the ground at an angle. This alters the mechanism of brain injury and causes what is knows as a diffuse axon injury. This is absolutely proven to happen, the prevalence is debatable - one study showed 30% of serious head injuries were caused in this way. ( I would think that far too high tho)
The other is neck strain causing neck injuries from the leverage provide by the helmet
just because he's paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get him...
Sooo exactly how many helmet related injuries have there been. oh and how many head injuries have been reduced through wearing a helmet??
nockmeister - no one knows - its one of the flaws in the evidence. The whole issue of helmets causing injury is hotly debated. LHS and those in his camp deny its possible, some research suggests 30% of all serious head injuries to cyclists occur because of the helmets.
My guess would be small single figures %. the other issues is the nature of the injries tend to be different. Unhelemted injuries tend to be focal injuries - one bit of your brain smashed. riotational injuries are generalised thru the entire brain and are much more serous.
Elements of both happen in both types of injury.
Neurosurgeons who understand the mechanisms of brain injury are divided on this
its one are I want significant further research and improvements to the design of helmets
The other is neck strain causing neck injuries from the leverage provide by the helmet
Surely this only applies to full face helmets (eg: heavy helmets). I use an sworks 2d, which is like 250g? And with a full face you should wear a neck brace, right?
They increase rotational forces when you hit the ground at an angle. This alters the mechanism of brain injury and causes what is knows as a diffuse axon injury. This is absolutely proven to happen, the prevalence is debatable - one study showed 30% of serious head injuries were caused in this way.
There be a lot of big words in that there. I'm sure you're right though.
But its the real life thing I think you might be missing out. Unless your riding is all trail centre groomed, then you will get over hanging branches. When you're on someone's wheel, going +15mph on a bit of singletrack, you just can't react quick enough, and you do get a branch to the head occasionally. Helmets do help there I think.
Hate to start up another argument, but I see a similarity in the argument for and against tubeless for mtbing. It stops so many punctures, and has huge advantages, but it has the disadvantage of burping. However, you get punctures more often then you burp, so it works out to be the better solution.
And besides, you'd look pretty dumb with a helmet light duct taped to your head.
@ tj
but what injuries would the same people have if they were not wearing a helmet?
a car came from behind turned left and took me out, i head butted the car but lived because i wore a helmet, only a dick would say it's ok not to wear one if your on the road or just going to the shops!, it only takes a second to get killed so wake up you fu***ng morons
It [i]potentially[/i] only takes a second to get killed while doing all sorts of things but we don't think people are morons if they don't wear helmets while they're doing them.
I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth but I think it's the way that the risks of a serious injury while riding a bike don't always seem to be viewed as objectively as the risks involved in other activities that bothers people. I think most people would agree that if your head is heading for the tarmac a helmet is probably a good thing but there needs to be some sort of objective assessment of how likely those situations are to arise or we'd never leave the house without a suit of armour on.
The suggestion that cycling is inherently dangerous has two annoying aspects to it IMO: it's not necessarily borne out by evidence, and even if it were to suggest that it's up to the more vulnerable road users to buckle up or get what they deserve is to acknowledge that people in cars are kings of the road who don't have to bother to take care, and that isn't the way forward.
pastcaring - who knows? Its completely impossible to know. It would probably have been different with a different mechanism but its simply stupid to try to say "what if"
As I said above - typically unhelmeted head injuries are focal injuries - involving one part of the brain. typical helmeted head injuries are diffuse affecting the whole brain. Incidence is subject to much debate and causality is hard to show
Its ( to trivialise) sort of - would you rather have a punch or a chinese burn
Sure in this instance it's not the act of cycling that is dangerous its the motorised vehicles that are the dangerous bit 😯
This sounds like the argument for the existance of God - you can't prove it eitherway so therefore God is real 😉
TJ do you wear a helmet?
would you rather have a punch or a chinese bum
Jet Li or Michelle Yeoh ??
you can't prove it eitherway so therefore God is real
well, you may care to err on the side of caution, even if sceptical ...
Realman - sometimes.
I believe they are very good at protecting form minor injuries but that their protections for major injuries is limited.
So I wear one when the risks of crashing are high, I don't when the risks are low.
so I wear on at trail centres, I wear one when ring fast offroad, I wear one for night riding,. I don't wear one on road, ( but I would for an urban rush hour commute) I don't wear one when pootling around offroad.
to me its about evidence based practice and rational risk assessment. For some forms of riding the risks are so low I am prepared to accept them
This effect that there is no decrease in head injury rates when helmet use increase when entire populations are considered is repeated in many places.
Interesting reading. Seems very road-centric though (and, y'know, Australian). Are there any similar reports which deal with mountain biking though?
Where I'm going with this is, it's apples and oranges. According to those stats, random breath-testing for drivers had a significant impact on cycling injuries (which is unsurprising). For all the lunacy I've seen on the trails, I've yet to see an 18-wheeler coming the wrong way up Llandegla's red route.
Cougar - another flaw in the research. I have seen very little that relates to offroad biking.
My belief is that helmets are actually very effective for the minor injuries that are likely in MTBing - lacerations bumps and bruises
However risk compensation ( where you feel safer so take mnore risks) might be significant in MTBing
I believe they are very good at protecting form minor injuries but that their protections for major injuries is limited.So I wear one when the risks of crashing are high, I don't when the risks are low.
so you only wear one to protect against injuries they don't work for ?
Also I think I read that low speed crashes are more dangerous to the head as you're more likely to strike it directly rather than glancingly ?>
Seems fair enough, but I think sometimes the biggest crashes happen during road riding. Tarmac and cars are pretty unforgiving.
I've just divined TJ's new tactic - he ignores everything I say unless it can be distorted into undermining my case 🙂 Class!
I would rather effort was going into making road cycling more safer by building proper cycle ways, stiffer penalties for SMIDSY's, enforcing traffic rules for all (including RLJ and riding on cyclepaths).
My position, after face planting on the road outside my house and having my nose and front teeth saved by my helmet (which took the force of the impact), is that I always wear a helmet, but I believe compulsion to be pointless and counterproductive.
by building proper cycle ways, stiffer penalties for SMIDSY's, enforcing traffic rules for all (including RLJ and riding on cyclepaths).
what is actually needed is an attitude change in drivers where they stop thinking of cyclists as nuisance freeloaders, and until that happens, I'm not sure those things will make much difference. Also cyclepaths are not currently compulsory
Ok i Know. I would make it cyclepath use compulsory ahead of helmet use.*
* As long as all the existing cyclepath issues were cleared up
I totally agree with the following statement
Insurance should follow the continental ( think )lead of the highest powered vehicle involved in a colision always being at fault.
I think that would concentrate the mind beautifully
Drivers won't like it but it will force them to give more vunerable road users a wide birth.
simonfbarnes - Memberso you only wear one to protect against injuries they don't work for ?
No - I wear one to protect against the minor injuries that they work for when the Risk is high of having a minor injury
You are confusing incidence and severity - two different aspects of risk assessment.
simonfbarnes - MemberI've just divined TJ's new tactic - he ignores everything I say unless it can be distorted into undermining my case Class!
Nope - I ignore obvious trolls from you and where you have clearly missed a obvious point.
This debate has been done so often and so many folks minds are shut I have been trying to answer direct questions to me only and to answer new points.
Also I think I read that low speed crashes are more dangerous to the head as you're more likely to strike it directly rather than glancingly ?>
Nope - the higher the speed the more momentum and the higher risk,
The minor knocks you get to your helmet could be serious when not wearing a helmet and end up costing the NHS money or even support for you brain damage.
Same was said about seatbelts but people moaned like hell.
Thank you Volvo (I think) for designing it.
I don't even notice wearing a lightweight helmet, get plenty of vents for summer etc.
No biggie
No - I wear one to protect against the minor injuries that they work for when the Risk is high of having a minor injuryYou are confusing incidence and severity - two different aspects of risk assessment.
but by your account it would be better to accept the minor injury instead of risking helmet-inflicted doom ?
I ignore obvious trolls from you and where you have clearly missed a obvious point.
if you don't mind me saying so, dismissing other people's ideas as trolling is insulting and cheap 🙁 Also as I said earlier, many "obvious" things turn out to only have a spurious veneer of plausibility...
Nope - the higher the speed the more momentum and the higher risk
ah, I think I can spot an ad hominem argument when I see it! Momentum is by the by - and momentum can help you bounce harmlessly rather than smashing to an instant halt...
SFB.
but by your account it would be better to accept the minor injury instead of risking helmet-inflicted doom ?
Is not what I have written anywhere and is not my stance.
Risk of injury is directly related to the amount of energy involved which is a corollary of the speed.
I also have not been replying to you wnan its a point I have replied to a few posts ago.
Risk of injury is directly related to the amount of energy involved which is a corollary of the speed.
E = 0.5mv^2 to be exact, which is a square law not linear with velocity (like momentum) so have you changed your story ? Also if it's [b]energy [/b]then fatties are penalised...
E = 0.5mv^2 to be exact
Bit dumb trying to apply formulas to bike crashes. Falling off from a track stand hurts like hell cause you don't roll at all. You just slam into the ground. Come off at 40mph on a road bike and you slide along the ground, lose a ton of skin and lycra, but that's about it (usually).
You just slam into the ground
exactly what I was thinking, and I'm sure I read something about very low speed impacts being dangerous due to the high angle of incidence (ie straight down)...
[i]exactly what I was thinking, and I'm sure I read something about very low speed impacts being dangerous due to the high angle of incidence (ie straight down)...[/i]
Like when you were a baby?
- I wear one to protect against the minor injuries that they work for when the Risk is high of having a minor injury
ah, [b]now[/b] I understand - it's like your infallible weather sense - some of us can never tell when we're more likely to be injured, having experienced harmless high speed offs and low speed broken bones, and also being aware that one is more careful in obviously dangerous conditions and reckless in safe ones...
Like when you were a baby?
just as well really, if I were any cleverer I'd be insufferable 🙂
What about adding high-vis clothing to the list?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8692359.stm
[i]simonfbarnes - Member
Like when you were a baby?
just as well really, if I were any cleverer I'd be insufferable [/i]
Quality reply...sfb, I salute you..
NO SFB - once again you simply do not understand but chose to mock something youdon't understand
Cycling is very safe. Accident rates are low. Some forms of cycling have higher risk than others.
Level of risk is easily estimated. It remains a probability not an absolute but it is easy to do.
Going off jumps at high speed clearly is a more risky pursuit than wandering along an old railway line.
Risk assessment can be done in many ways but on cycle helmets folk seem incapable of any rational assessment of risk.
[img] 
[/img]
[b]what is actually needed is an attitude [/b]change in drivers where they stop thinking of cyclists as nuisance freeloaders, and until that happens, I'm not sure those things will make much difference. Also cyclepaths are not currently compulsory
And the insurance idea would do just that, adjust attitudes. At the moment, broad brush / sweeping generalisation, granted, the attitude is "i'm covered unless i rear end another vehicle"
If drivers were forced to assess situations, where as the lower powered vehicle or even pedestrian would be the victim in the eyes of the law, regardless of fault, i.e. - drunk jaywalking pedestrian on way home from pub walks in front of car, driver gets prosecuted...
Drivers would soon learn to be more observant, adjust speed, reduce risk of collision or face very serious consequences, such as incarceration, fines or increased insurance premiums.
Adapt or get off the road.
NO SFB - once again you simply do not understand but chose to mock something you don't understand
forgive me, but isn't it bootless to speculate about what I do or don't understand ? I'm not antagonistic to your suggestions, but I'd like to see the arguments tested, not just defended by bluster.
Cycling is very safe. Accident rates are low. Some forms of cycling have higher risk than others.
Level of risk is easily estimated. It remains a probability not an absolute but it is easy to do.
K...
Going off jumps at high speed clearly is a more risky pursuit than wandering along an old railway line.
but only a risk of minor, helmet-compatible injuries ?
Risk assessment can be done in many ways but on cycle helmets folk seem incapable of any rational assessment of risk.
I think I rate risk assessment similarly to weather forecasting and astrology - you cannot usefully estimate the unknowable and random except in the most vague of terms. Doing jumps is probably more risky than pootling around, but I'm not sure to what conclusions that knowledge can usefully lead, especially when the former is more fun (for those able)
And the insurance idea would do just that, adjust attitudes
I think you may be right. Put the assumption of fault with the driver unless proved absent beyond reasonable doubt - after all, driving is an oft abused privilege, not a necessity.
I will always wear a helmet, my kids and wife will always wear helmets and thats all that matters to me. So I don't really care what the law is.
At the end of the day a helmet is only there to make you look stupid.
Sometimes I'll wear one, sometimes I won't.
I quite like having freedom of choice.
I got through my childhood without ever wearing a helmet whilst on my bike.
The minor knocks you get to your helmet could be serious when not wearing a helmet and end up costing the NHS money or even support for you brain damage.
Enforcing helmet-wearing reduces the number of people riding bikes. This costs the NHS more long-term.
SFB - I really can't be bothered attempting to explain this when you have basic concepts confused and your mind is so closed.
I have explained the points many times - why do you want it repeated?
Risk assessment is a useful tool - as you equate weather forecasting to astrology it shows how little you understand probabilities. all riskl assessment gives you is a probability.
but only a risk of minor, helmet-compatible injuries ?
I don't know why you keep saying this - its not a part of my argument and its not something I have said.
I believe helmets offer good protection against minor injuries but little against major injuries.
When the risk of any injury is high I wear one, when its low I don't.
these are two separate issues not connected in any way.
I got through my childhood without ever wearing a helmet whilst on my bike.
You can't have done. Anyone riding a bike without a helmet dies an instant and horrific death!
I must be a zombie too then.
Does this make my wife a necrophiliac?
SFB said
just as well really, if I were any cleverer I'd be insufferable
Sorry to disagree with you Mr Barnes but your current IQ is more than sufficient 😉
It's like bloody groundhog day on here sometimes 🙄
OH FFS is there anyone who is unsure about their position on this issue?Should I wear my helmet what does STW think?
Hopefully ,soon, we can go back to just discussing lights and agree helmets rule because it is easier to helmet mount a light than bolt it to your skull.
Will it protect you if I bang your heads together 😉
SFB - I really can't be bothered attempting to explain this when you have basic concepts confused and your mind is so closed.
and you don't seem to be able to understand that I'm actually supporting you and I'm quite open to actual information as opposed to handwaving 🙂 My criticism is of the bits that don't seem to make sense.
Risk assessment is a useful tool - as you equate weather forecasting to astrology it shows how little you understand probabilities. all riskl assessment gives you is a probability.
useful for what, apart from filling in forms though ? I've been riding a bike for a long time and had many, many crashes and injuries, and the only conclusion I've reached is that I don't know when or how hard the next one will be. On the balance of probability, I'll wear a helmet and demand those I lead do the same (or at least, make an informed choice), but I don't support compulsion.
I believe helmets offer good protection against minor injuries but little against major injuries.
but you never know which is going to happen next, so on its own this info is useless.
Sorry to disagree with you Mr Barnes but your current IQ is more than sufficient
why thankyou, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day :o)
Junkyard - I have installed two m6 bolts in my skull for mounting lights on
- I have installed two m6 bolts in my skull for mounting lights on
he means his neck...
to TandemJeremy and sinmonfbarnes....
[b]GET A ROOM[/b]
actually I fancy Woody more - he says nice things and his name implies...
to TandemJeremy and sinmonfbarnes....GET A ROOM
Nooo, I'm going to have nightmares now... 😡
Where is the mind bleach, I have to purge that image from my mind.
Remember, pushing back is heemersex