Forum menu
Fair enough Bez 🙂
I should feel safe enough to ride without a helmet on the road. I don't, so I wear one, and I'm so used to it I don't see why anyone else wouldn't - I just don't see a downside...but yes that is a personal opinion.
Off road I will naturally always wear one.
I also don't believe helmets should be mandatory as less barriers to cycling is a greater benefit
I think my main concern is that it's hard to separate the debate about helmet use Vs cycling uptake and general population health / environmental benefit from the impact on an individual's risk.
Yes they can make their own decision, but we as humans follow trends (armour and neck braces in DH and helmets in BMX are a good example of this).. if cycling is not seen as an activity were wearing a helmet is required, when do you wear one?
This is where my Dave Mirra comment came from. Absolutely CTE has nothing to do with a commuter, but potentially normalising not wearing a helmet in a world where the impacts of even mild brain trauma are now being fully understood doesn't seem right... the two are intrinsically linked.
I want my son to feel comfortable wearing a helmet. Not feel pressured to not wear one as it's not the done thing.
Currently in MTB helmets are ubiquitous amongst influential riders, but that isn't the same across all sports and for mainly reasons of fashion (which I find moronic - Andy Anderson gets less work because he skates with a helmet, despite being one of the best skaters around).
How do you know you’re not going to fall in the same way when you’re not on a bike? (I’ve fallen down a flight of stairs before and hit my head on concrete.)
Do you regularly walk at 10-15mph? I see this brought up a lot and it's utter shite, it's only comparable if you are cycling at the same speed with a similar fall profile, how often have you ever fallen off your bike flat on your face?
Do you not hold the handrail on stairs? Maybe you should, you tend not to fall down them as often. (I don't, guilty, but know full well why you should. It's simply ego that stops me from doing so, I can at least admit it).
I’ve had those conversations with the kids and they get it, and they will voluntarily wear a helmet when they’re doing the riskier stuff (ok, only one of them does) and—at least as importantly—they’ll stick to riding calmly and carefully when they’re bare-headed.
I suppose you think the football ban on young kids doing headers after extensive research is just bollocks as well?
Squirrel king - the rates of head injuries per mile are similar for walking and cycling.
Has anyone answered yet why they think a helmet is essential for every cycle journey but not a full body armour and a neck brace?
Tim - you need to read up on the data on serious head injuries. Its far from conclusive that helmets stop serious brain injuries and there is good evidence that they can turn focal brain injury into diffuse axon injury which is far worse. this is what MIPS is intended to reduce
TJ. Because the risk of me crashing on the road in a way that could result in overextension of my neck seems very low
The risk of falling in a way where I could hit my head (e.g. a low side) seems foreseeable.
Do you regularly walk at 10-15mph? I see this brought up a lot and it’s utter shite, it’s only comparable if you are cycling at the same speed with a similar fall profile, how often have you ever fallen off your bike flat on your face?
my previous job, I could run to work in the same time I cycled.
I rode a beat up carrera single speed, slowly, as there was no shower.
The run, I tried once in an evening out of curiousity, obviously I was a sweaty mess. Chance of being hit by a car, or tripping over on any number of kerbs, fairly similar I'd guess.
It was flat (so no downhills) mainly parks, cycle paths, with a few 20mph roads.
I wouldn't even consider wearing a helmet for such a trip.
TJ. Because the risk of me crashing on the road in a way that could result in overextension of my neck seems very low
The risk of falling in a way where I could hit my head (e.g. a low side) seems foreseeable.
right - so you are making a risk assessment not blindly using all possible protective kit A rsik assessment based on what?
so its just your opinion on what is needed not an absolute
thats what i am trying to get to. given for an experienced rider on traffic free flat pootle paths the risk of any crash leading to injury is low then all I am doing by not wearing a helmet is the same
I suppose you think the football ban on young kids doing headers after extensive research is just bollocks as well?
I doubt it (wasn’t aware of it). Seems reasonable that deliberately sticking a small head, on a weak neck, in the path of a fast-moving, large object is something that carries elevated risk. So it’s pretty much exactly in line with the point I was making: if the kids are up the jump spot (elevated risk) they have a helmet; if we’re cycling slowly along the cycle path (not significantly riskier than walking) they don’t. No-one’s banned kids from being accidentally hit in the head by footballs—that risk still remains; it’s just a ban on putting themselves in a position of elevated risk.
You seem to be equating the argument that “most of the time risk is low and doesn’t warrant protection” with the view that “anything that smells like health and safety is a load of nanny state ****ybollocks”, rather than understanding that—as your own analogy demonstrates—it’s not the mere fact that you’ve decided to use either a bicycle or a football, but the manner in which you use them, that is the much larger factor in elevating the risk.
TJ – I’m sorry, but that argument against wearing a helmet messing up your hair is laughably weak. My commute is min. 3 days a week and a 12 mile round trip. It’s just not a problem. Get to work, get changed, nip in the loo to make myself presentable. It takes 30 seconds to sort any helmet hair I have.
Tim, it doesn't matter if you think TJ is laughable, its a legitimate sort of concern I've heard plenty of people grumble about along with:
- my head gets sweaty
- the helmet gets sweaty and so a bit rank
- I've nowhere good to store it at the other end
- they aren't very comfortable
- cars pass me closer with one on
It doesn't matter whether these are all nonsense or not. If they are genuine perceptions then people will use other means of transport. For TJ that's walking. For me it would be the car - which not only is worse for me, but its worse for all the helmet wearing cyclists I pass too.
I think the core part of this that annoys me that we are seeing the damage that head injuries can cause, even when wearing a helmet (Dave Mirra being the example).
Is that an argument for wearing a helmet? Seems like an argument that they don't achieve the stated aim.
Wearing a helmet might not improve your safety on a bike in itself but reducing your exposure to head trauma itself can only be a good thing.
emmm... read that again, it sounds like an argument for wearing helmets everywhere except the bike.
Now my personal track record suggest that falling off on the road is a very low frequency event, but falling off when on the MTB is more frequent. So I wear a helmet on the MTB. Falling off at higher speed on the road bike is also likely to be messier so I wear one on the road bike. But on my "commuter" bike (I don't actually commute on it - but it is my about town bike) I often don't bother. I have peddles that are clipless on one side and flat on the other - there's a pretty good flat peddle = no helmet, clipped in = helmet correlation, because if I don't have the time to change shoes or inconvenience of clip clipping round tesco I don't want a helmet either.
It shouldn’t be helmets or other cycling safety measures. It should be cycling safety measures and looking at why people would rather not ride than wear a helmet, and look to remove those barriers.
or we could accept that nothing in life is risk free, and that for some types of cycling the benefits of a helmet may be marginal and people should be free to make their own mind up; but that mostly the "should wear a helmet" preaching comes from car drivers who want to feel less guilty about the risk they present to us!
TJ
And that's fine. An individual is free to make that decision.
As I said above, my main concern is that this shouldn't be helmets Vs other cycling safety measures - they are a safety measure in themselves and I think that gets lost in the debate.
the point is that helmets do not improve the health of the population - they make it worse. Thus even promoting helmets causes more ill health and earlier deaths
their ability to protect from major harm is far from proven
Poly - I don't think I have debated very well 🙂
I'm really not trying to argue this as I agree that helmets shouldn't be mandatory.
But by making the statement that they aren't necessary, I worry we throw the baby out with the bathwater and reduce the likelihood of them being used when they are definitely beneficial
I wear one, and I’m so used to it I don’t see why anyone else wouldn’t – I just don’t see a downside
One downside with some evidence and personal anecdote is that a percentage of car drivers will 'close pass' the helmet wearing cyclist but not the one bare-headed one. (Small study by a Bristol academic, anecdotes by me)
Do you regularly walk at 10-15mph?
No, but the fit human can run at 20mph. Guess what, the skull evolved to mitigate the risk of falling at this speed!
Finally Giro of all people have gone on record that their helmets are not as effective as their proponents expect them to be. The testing is carried out with forces that simulate a speed of 12mph.
Helmets give a false sense of security to road users, off-road they have their place in preventing scalp injury from striking overhead obstructions.
Tim - the point of that picture is not to ignore the tiny contribution helmets may make but to point out that all those other things are far more important and dealing with them will save far more KSIs than helmets ever could - and if you want to look at population health helmets are a negative influence.
TJ's idea of incontrovertible fact is not the same as everyone else's. If I were in charge I'd make helmet wearing compulsory, but only for TJ.
head injuries are a significant factor in vehicle collisions/accidents accidents but I’m not seeing people wearing helmets in cars
My car has protection against hitting my head on the A-pillar. Problem is, it's only on the inside. When I'm riding my bike, then, I need my own protection. Hitting my head on parts of a car is probably one of the biggest risks. It's much more of a risk for me than walking, I think, because I'm cycling on the road with cars, whereas I'm usually walking on the pavement.
I have done a risk assessment based on my own personal criteria and the risk vs the cost.
Helmets give a false sense of security to road users, off-road they have their place in preventing scalp injury from striking overhead obstructions.
and sliding along getting gravel rash
One good reason to wear a helmet and a hi-vis is to be able to show a court - should you be injured by a motorist - that you're a good safe cyclist.
TJ’s idea of incontrovertible fact is not the same as everyone else’s.
Which particular thing do you refer to? Everything I have said is backed up by good data
One downside with some evidence and personal anecdote...
A study that was nonsensed shortly after. And if you've done any riding on the road at all you'll know it's utter crap.
My car has protection against hitting my head on the A-pillar. Problem is, it’s only on the inside.
Yeah, but when you roll your car in a high-speed accident the shell of the car gets deformed and crushed inwards.
Actually DezB I find that exactly happens - have you ever tried riding without a helmet? You get a better response from other road users.
Are there any stats about road Vs off road? Road is on average faster with harder surfaces, cars and street furniture. Off road the ground is mostly softer I'd think.
Hitting my head on parts of a car is probably one of the biggest risks
"probably" at best...no stats...?
One good reason to wear a helmet and a hi-vis is to be able to show a court – should you be injured by a motorist – that you’re a good safe cyclist.
It's a factor in contributory negligence?
It’s a factor in contributory negligence?
defense lawyers have tried to argue this - completely unsuccessfully so far as far as I am aware
Are there any stats about road Vs off road?
NOpe - only anecdote although the spinal surgeon that covered some DH areas on the west coast wanted FF helmets banned unless a brace is used cos he believed they contributed to spinal injury
Its one of the things to consider in this - the actual data is poor, the design of most studies are are utter rubbish and conclusions are often contrary and contradictory
tjagain
Full Member
Actually DezB I find that exactly happens – have you ever tried riding without a helmet? You get a better response from other road users.
I struggle to believe you could measure this - there are too many variables, too small a sample set and you have massive confirmation bias
The study alluded to measured distance when being passed by cars and found a strong correlation that was statistically significant but as he pointed out himself that it is a limited study not anything definitive because of the lack of repeatability and lack of control stating it was a discussion point and something that merited further study. Mine of course is purely anecdote
Yeah, but when you roll your car in a high-speed accident the shell of the car gets deformed and crushed inwards.
Yes, that's why there are airbags on the A-pillar. When you get hit by a car and your head gets flung onto the pillar you've got nothing except what you're wearing on your head. Then when your stunned body bounces onto the tarmac, again nothing.
Wearing a helmet is no more of an issue for me than wearing trousers, or shoes, so the cost to me is trivial for what I think is likely to be a benefit.
Which particular thing do you refer to? Everything I have said is backed up by good data
This sentence will do.
I'm not going to bother arguing with you again because it is the very definition of futility but last time you clearly went out looking for studies that backed up your pre-existing belief, and you overlooked any sort of potential criticism of the studies.
So actually you have nothing to refute anything i say molgrips. Everything I have said is backed by good data.
you clearly went out looking for studies that backed up your pre-existing belief, and you overlooked any sort of potential criticism of the studies.
nope - I am quite happy to call out limitations of studies indeed I have on this very thread several times. Its yo that have the faith that helmets are a lifesavers and refuse to accept that the data says different
One example - look at all the flak I gort for talking about rotational injuries - and now that accepted mainstream. Why did I know this before it wa acdepted mainstream? because i went digging into the data looking for reasons why the benefits of helmets are not seen in longitudinal studies.
Its one of the things to consider in this – the actual data is poor, the design of most studies are are utter rubbish and conclusions are often contrary and contradictory
Indeed, however what is uncontrovertible is that a head hitting solid tarmac will experience more G-force in deceleration than one hitting a layer of polystyrene. Because of this, I am highly sceptical of any study that says helmets don't help and I would pull them apart to try and find out why they go against what appears to be obvious physics.
So actually you have nothing to refute anything i say molgrips.
I might, but I refer you to the original statement about futility.
Indeed, however what is uncontrovertible is that a head hitting solid tarmac will experience more G-force in deceleration than one hitting a layer of polystyrene. Because of this, I am highly sceptical of any study that says helmets don’t help and I would pull them apart to try and find out why they go against what appears to be obvious physics.
NO one is claiming this at all! No one is stating helmets cannot or do not help in some cirsumstances
Several factor make it plausible that under some circumstances helmets can exacerbate injury. the increased size of the helmeted head, the increased weight, risk compensation, the actual mechanics of diffuse axon injury and so so on all well documented.
On site tomorrow
Safety helmet
Safety glasses
Gloves
Full orange hi viz clothing
Steel toe cap boots
Cycling tomorrow night
Helmet
Gloves
Glasses
Reflective clothing.
Would not feel safe without either set of protective clothing. I would not cycle with anyone who does not wear a helmet.
Several factor make it plausible that under some circumstances helmets can exacerbate injury. the increased size of the helmeted head, the increased weight, risk compensation, the actual mechanics of diffuse axon injury and so so on all well documented.
Is that with MIPS (or similar) or without?
MIps diminishes the rotational forces that can cause diffuse axon injury.
I would not cycle with anyone who does not wear a helmet.
Would you go for a walk with them near a busy road? Would you sit in a car with them?
tjagain
Full Member
MIps diminishes the rotational forces that can cause diffuse axon injury.
I know - is the study with modern helmets with MIPS (or similar)?
I probably didn’t want to go for a ride with you anyway 😉
Of course I would go for a walk or a car ride with someone without a helmet, car travel is relatively safe.
The chances of me falling off my bicycle far outway the chance of a car mounting the the pavement and wiping me out.
I class non helmet wearers in the same league as flat earthers.
I withdraw my “probably” 😉
I class non helmet wearers in the same league as flat earthers
God, with that thought process it’s no wonder you have to spend most of your time ensconced in ppe.
The chances of me falling off my bicycle far outway the chance of a car mounting the the pavement and wiping me out.
actually the stats show the opposite. over 100 pedestrians killed every year on pavements by car drivers. falling off your bike and dying - a very few. Most cyclist deaths are from being hit by cars
What a scary thread. Some of the crap people are spouting is just scary. Kudos to TJ and Bez for trying to bring some reason to bear but I think you're fighting a losing battle.
This for example...
It is already normalised. As I mentioned earlier, seeing a person cycling without a helmet is a very rare event where I live and ride. And as a helmet is not compulsory why do I not see more people riding without helmets if the helmet puts them off cycling?
Really, REALLY.
did you actually write that, or was it a typo....
Why do I not see the people who have been put off cycling cycling?
Erm, because they've been put off cycling. Ie they're not cycling. So you don't see them cycling...
Oh never mind.
One good reason to wear a helmet and a hi-vis is to be able to show a court – should you be injured by a motorist – that you’re a good safe cyclist.
Great. And by extension you're encouraging a mindset where anybody who isn't wearing the clobber is NOT a good safe cyclist.
Basically it's the Tragedy of The Commons.
For any one person in a scenario going for a bike ride, putting on a helmet for that journey is safer for them ( close pass issue excepted, as I don't know if that was a solid study).
BUT for the safety of others, and the population as a whole, it isn't.
Some of the crap people are spouting is just scary.
Not as bad as some of the hyperbole...
Several factor make it plausible that under some circumstances helmets can exacerbate injury
Ok but this a pretty long way from hard data isn't it?
No one is stating helmets cannot or do not help in some cirsumstances
You appear to be saying they do more harm than good. Or are you talking about helmet compulsion?
I class non helmet wearers in the same league as flat earthers
That's ok, I'll class you like an anti-vaxxer - unable to look at evidence so just going on what you 'feel' is right.
falling off your bike and dying – a very few. Most cyclist deaths are from being hit by cars
How is that not splitting hairs?