Forum menu
Not really sargey, I understand your point of view. I don't think you can call those arguing against helmets 'flat-earthers' though, they are making their case well.
Its yo that have the faith that helmets are a lifesavers and refuse to accept that the data says different
Didn't you just say the data is inconclusive? I personally think that helmets are life savers in SOME circumstances and probably save a lot of pain and potential disfigurement in many others. You seem to only be talking about death or serious injury, but there's an element of protection against significantly painful but non life-threatening injury as well.
I mean, people wear knee pads don't they? (I don't as it happens).
unable to look at evidence
Hmm, I am looking at evidence though. The physics of impact and deceleration, and there are a few studies like this one: https://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(16)30366-X/abstract
Oh and some more: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/
Try actually reading what I said MOlgrips
Across populations helmet compulsion and helmet promotion do more harm that good
for individuals they protect well against minor injuries
for more major injuries there is good data that in some circumstances they can make injuries worse, in some circumstances they may mitagate major injuries
this is an area where more research is needed and robust research at that
One study ( experimental with full body dummies replicating OTB crashes ) showed in 30 % of cases the helmet made it worse. TRL study looking at the same effect but only using headforms showed the same effect but they discounted it
When you look at deaths over time there is no correlation between an increase in helmet wearing and a reduction in deaths. Why? Again only theories not proof.
risk compensation may play a part - both on behalf of the rider and car drivers - one low quality observational study showed that car drivers give less room to cyclists in helmets
Helmet use and helmet laws are a red herring. Nobody seems to want to comment on the minutiae of the relative risks I take on most other aspects of my life. The debate is weaponised by people with vested interests to the detriment of people who happen to ride bikes to get around.
As we already know. There are so many better ways to make cycling in the UK safer. And when those things are done the helmet issue will cease to be.
the effects are hard data. the reasons are suppostion
Actually DezB I find that exactly happens – have you ever tried riding without a helmet? You get a better response from other road users
Its bollocks. As Tim said - You can't measure it. Of course I've ridden without a helmet ffs! I've seen other riders with/without helmets. It's just something people like you use as an argument to "prove" your side of things and is an prime example of why I don't debate helmet use.
Across populations helmet compulsion and helmet promotion do more harm that good
Possibly, I'm not in favour of helmet compulsion.
for more major injuries there is good data that in some circumstances they can make injuries worse, in some circumstances they may mitagate major injuries
So which is which? See my first study link. How prevalent are the 'some circumstances' ?
One study ( experimental with full body dummies replicating OTB crashes ) showed in 30 % of cases the helmet made it worse.
The fact you're only quoting these, and not the other studies that say helmets DO help; and not even highlighting that in the study you do quote the helmet helped in the MAJORITY of cases; makes you look very biased and one-eyed which is why you get such push-back.
One study ( experimental with full body dummies replicating OTB crashes )
For starters, how does a dummy replicate what happens in a real crash with an active moving human being?
Not as bad as some of the hyperbole…
True dat. Soz.
For any one person in a scenario going for a bike ride, putting on a helmet for that journey is safer for them
That would seem the “common sense” assumption, but actually even that may not actually be true due to risk compensation, the “Peltzman Effect” (named after the guy who researched why seatbelt laws didn’t have the desired outcomes: people felt safer and thus adapted their behaviour such that they re-adopted their previous level of perceived risk).
That’s kind of key to this: everyone has a level of risk which they feel comfortable with. Some higher, some lower (some people are happy to ride on 70mph dual carriageways; some won’t ride a bicycle on the road at all) but for each individual it’s kind of stable. If you adjust one of their personal parameters, they’ll compensate with others. Obviously it’s not a mathematical formula, but across a population it’s a real and measurable thing, and a variety of studies in a number of fields show it.
What you can probably say is that once a collision starts to unfold and it involves hitting your head, a helmet is unlikely to make things worse and may well make things less bad. But even aside from the arguments that remain over that point (my personal opinion is that it’s largely a lottery, reinforced by things such as having seen court evidence for two extremely similar 40-50mph collisions which were fatal for the helmet wearer and not for the non-wearers) there’s a lot of stuff that happens in order to reach that point. And that stuff is the less visible, less emotive stuff that’s incredibly complex to analyse and which people generally prefer not to think about at all—yet it’s crucially important.
Personally I’d prefer to minimise my chances of an incident and accept that if it’s a big one then I’ve basically got a ticket for that lottery. But that’s my personal approach to this risk, it’s not right or wrong, and nor is anyone else’s personal approach. The only problem is when people start forcing their own personal approach onto others—especially if they (as those same people often do) see the issue as binary when it couldn’t be less so.
As we already know. There are so many better ways to make cycling in the UK safer.
As Tim said – You can’t measure it.
one researcher did and found a strong significant effect.
The fact you’re only quoting these, and not the other studies that say helmets DO help
Which is why I stated the 30% figure. I also noted the TRL report that said this effect is irrelvant.
For starters, how does a dummy replicate what happens in a real crash with an active moving human being?
It doesn't but its better than using headforms only surely
and not even highlighting that in the study you do quote the helmet helped in the MAJORITY of cases;
the study did not find that - it found rotational effects strong enough to cause injury in 30% of all cases. they were only looking for this effect. the other 70% of case it found no rotational effects. all they were measuring was rotational effects with different trajectories and speeds. Good science - look at one variable at once and keep all other variables constant
the study you linked I can only see the abstract but its clearly got major flaws - starting with assumptions and not controlling variables properly. total junk science. Edit =- that may be unfair as all I can see is the abstract
the study you quoted on a quick glance i found two major flaws.
How prevalent are the ‘some circumstances’ ?
Varies according to the study design. its an area that needs significant further research.
Anyone else ever destroyed a cycle helmet in a crash, and in the subsequent assessment just been plain thankful for the fact you were wearing one?
Always makes me wonder if it'd make any difference to upgrade the helmet standards, which are tbf pathetic. EN1078 is 45 years old now... (the 2012 rev didn't have any significant increase in protection). Materials science improvements should make higher protection within the same packaging constraints reasonable, and testing/medical science improvements should allow for more useful/meaningful tests even if not necessarily more challenging...
or at the very least some tiering.
locomotive
Full Member
Anyone else ever destroyed a cycle helmet in a crash, and in the subsequent assessment just been plain thankful for the fact you were wearing one?
Yes. A Mountain Dew edition Specialized Mountain Man at that...gutted
Also broke both collar bones and was knocked out - was out of it for about a week. The helmet disintegrated and dissipated the impact as designed to do.
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?
Yes I did write it. Was badly phrased but the point I am making is that as helmets are not compulsory nobody is being put off cycling because they have to wear a helmet, i.e. if loads of people don't want to wear a helmet why don't I see them where I ride?
Because it has become normalised and the vast majority of people think they should wear one.
Anyway, enough of this - I have got loads of replies to do on the flatearther.com forum.
as helmets are not compulsory nobody is being put off cycling because they have to wear a helmet
Which is a fair point but again it’s nowhere near that black and white: we have schools (and no doubt a small number of employers too) that take it upon themselves to ban kids from cycling without helmets; we have news reports that focus on people not wearing helmets; TV rarely if ever allows presenters etc to cycle without them; and so on.
None of which (other than the first) denies anyone free choice, but it does all help to convey an image of cycling as something dangerous that requires protective gear—along with either Lycra or myriad fluorescent accoutrements, or both—which people find offputting.
Just to link to this again ( especially for Molgrips)
Nothing I have said is not included in this briefing and its all backed by hard data
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets
this is about as good a summary of the actual evidence as I have seen and discussed the population effects well. there are links to the research.
Here is a link to discussion on the research that shows that Helmeted cyclists get given less room. The author accepts its highly flawed ( there is a link to the research) but contrary to what DezB said this effect can be measured
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)
I'd agree with this too, it seems that without a helmet you're just viewed as someone getting about on a bike rather than a 'cyclist' getting in their way.
Both me and my OH will pop to the shop on the bikes (jeans and trainers and no helmet) and we both think that this sort of everyday bike use should be normalised, ie people should see that it's perfectly ok to use a bike to get about on and that you don't need special equipment to do it.
So we agree then - helmets can help reduce injury.
I’d agree with this too, it seems that without a helmet you’re just viewed as someone getting about on a bike rather than a ‘cyclist’ getting in their way.
Doesn't work for me as although I don't wear a helmet I do wear cycling kit so would still be seen as one of those proper cyclist that drivers seem to hate.
Yes molgrips - I have never said different. "can" is the critical point
TJ, as a hypothetical. If the science did a 180...and said (words to the effect) "Oops my bad, helmets are really beneficial after all, here's all the data it's totally worth wearing one, even for teeny journeys..." and let's for the sake of argument pretend that new data is totally watertight...Would that change your behavior at all?
For balance, I pretty always wear a helmet, and mostly I think just out of habit, my commute is 95% away from cars, and totally safe, I could not wear one and I'm sure (convinced even) it wouldn't make any difference. (apart from my head getting cold perhaps) I completely understand the arguments for NOT wearing a helmet (and even used the stats and data in arguments with friends about this), and yet...I'm not sure any makes any difference to anyone's position.
but it does all help to convey an image of cycling as something dangerous that requires protective gear
I totally understand the point, I will say that a bit of me (as a helmet wearer) is resentful of the fact that this argument does suggest that helmet wearing cyclists are somehow perpetuating a myth, and letting the 'brotherhood' down somehow...It's an emotional response I know, but it makes me feel bad.
If you want maximum room tow a kiddy trailer.
I reckon the kiddy trailer would prevent more injury than a helmet.
How ever I still wear a helmet as it causes absolutely no hassle or impact on my use of the bike - and yes I have hair.
I don't have an air bag in my car how ever . Does that make me a monster ?
the point is that as helmets are not compulsory nobody is being put off cycling because they have to wear a helmet,
I don't think that's the full picture. People aren't just put off when it's compulsory, they're put off by the feelings behind it. Ie, loads of people are wearing helmets, it must be dangerous, I'm not going to cycle. Or they're put off by attitudes like this:
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.
They feel that the general viewpoint is that people who cycle without helmets are bad. They don't want to be bad, so they don't cycle without a helmet ( and indeed not at all)
i.e. if loads of people don’t want to wear a helmet why don’t I see them where I ride?
Hang on, how do you know you don't see them? That bloke running along the pavement may be someone who used to cycle but now doesn't because of the helmet issue. The woman in the car next to you may be another person who would rather have cycled but doesn't now because of the helmet debate. You're assuming that the helmet worriers have all converted into helmet wearing cyclists, whereas the truth is that many of them have converted into pedestrians/ drivers...
Because it has become normalised and the vast majority of people think they should wear one.
nickc - a very unlikely hypothetical and also incidence needs to be taken into account but yes I guess so. It would perhaps change the point at which I wear a helmet.
Incidence is the critical point for me. Ie some cycling is such low risk that i am prepared to take that risk. I have changed the threshold at which I wear a helmet over the years.
– and yes I have hair.
Do you have good hair tho?
*runs fingers thru luxuriant locks*
🙂
but yes I guess so.
heh, cool, thanks. Gonna try not wearing one on the commute home...If I die, i'm coming to haunt you... 🙂
*scrubs finger tips through buzz cut*
I think the interesting thing about these "debates" is that they are almost always dragged into points scoring arguments about plastic hat efficacy, when really the discussion should be about the relative merits of compulsion Vs the current rules...
While I tend to wear a lid, I'm still not in favour of their legal compulsion for the reasons already stated by others. Lid compulsion has been demonstrated elsewhere (Aus) to drive people away from bicycle use.
Along with the existing public narrative pitched towards cycling is a dangerous niche, sporting activity rather than an efficient, cheap transport option, the "helmet debate" simply serves to undermine discussions about cycling for transport...
Helmets are more like an article of faith for some, and that's fine. But like most faiths, you shouldn't really be forcing your beliefs on others...
Well put @cookeaa I’m against compulsion but absolutely pro choice to wear/not wear. I’m a not wearer by choice and I’m quite happy that way thank you. I wear one when racing, they don’t stop concussions, I get grumpy with people who lecture me about not wearing one when the one they’re wearing doesn’t fit properly and the chin strap is hanging somewhere round their collar. Finally I get grumpy as having ridden motorcycles for the last 25 years and worn helmets that really will give you decent protection, I find it amazing that cyclists will pay what manufacturers charge for thin layers of polystyrene derivative covered in a plastic skin.
Along with the existing public narrative pitched towards cycling is a dangerous niche, sporting activity rather than an efficient, cheap transport option, the “helmet debate” simply serves to undermine discussions about cycling for transport…
Indeed.
The best thing for my safety when I ride to work would be if half the single-occupant cars were replaced with people cycling instead. Safety in numbers. Anything that discourages cycling is making me less safe.
I'm still going to wear my helmet, though.
Do you have good hair tho?
*runs fingers thru luxuriant locks*
Enough of it that I am nearly always found wearing a hat or a buff to keep it out my face
To be clear I'm pro choice on the matter. It shouldn't be compulsory I just don't see why you wouldn't. Accidents are called accidents because they are accidental. When I start reaching occasional speeds of 30mph+ on my daily walks I'll consider one for that also.
It shouldn’t be compulsory I just don’t see why you wouldn’t. Accidents are called accidents because they are accidental. When I start reaching occasional speeds of 30mph+ on my daily walks I’ll consider one for that also.
But then there are a handful of cases where people walking have been hit by reckless people on bicycles, either on the pavement or while crossing the road, and have sustained fatal head injuries.
But you can presumably see why people wouldn’t wear helmets for walking. It’s because they (you) don’t believe there’s enough risk to warrant wearing an awkward hat. (And/or that the hat won’t make a substantive difference.) Same for cycling.
But then there are a handful of cases where people walking have been hit by reckless people on bicycles, either on the pavement or while crossing the road, and have sustained fatal head injuries.
Indeed it's happened to me far less times if almost say divide a number by 0 and you get close to the number of times your random arguement has happened to almost anyone on here. Yet there isn't a ride goes past where I don't exceed 30mph (the magic number where death by head injury substantially increases) at least once if not more.
Statistics say I'm more likely to crash at >30mph than I am to have an idiot mow.me.down on a bike as I walk down the pavement
I have infact hit the road a few times. For various reasons. I'd much rather hit it with a helmet that doesn't do "much" as you put it than not......having ended up undergoing a full suite of epilepsy tests and nearly losing my car license from thinking it was cool not to wear a helmet when I was 17. A snapped chain while pulling away from a junction had me hit the road quite quickly.
a helmet that doesn’t do “much” as you put it
I don’t recall putting it that way at all. I don’t believe I’ve expressed any opinion at all on how effective a helmet is once an impact is happening.
My point was that when you say you “just don’t see why you wouldn’t”, I think you can actually see precisely why people wouldn’t, because you choose not to wear a helmet in situations where people can and do suffer head injuries. It’s just a matter of which arbitrary and perceived likelihood, severity and nature of risk you draw the line at.
For you (and most people) walking and driving will be below that line. And for you, cycling is above that line. Which is fine, of course. But other people may perceive it differently. This is, as I’ve said, one of the issues of the enthusiast’s perspective: it’s skewed towards a certain angle on risk and normality that doesn’t relate terribly well to a wider population.
Added to which, of course, there is no universal concept of “cycling”. For you it clearly involves going significantly over 30mph much of the time; for many people it does not. I doubt I ever go above half that speed when cycling to the shops or the station—in fact I don’t hit it that often even on a road ride. Used to go way over that when I wore helmets but not now, and rightly or wrongly I’d perceive my current approach to be lower-risk.
Statistics say I’m more likely to crash at >30mph than I am to have an idiot mow.me.down on a bike as I walk down the pavement
A quick google is bringing up nothing for me, have you links to the 30mph stats?
Another heretic here. No helmet and no head injuries in 50 odd years of cycling.
Studies seem to show minimal protection.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref
Statistics say I’m more likely to crash at >30mph than I am to have an idiot mow.me.down on a bike as I walk down the pavement
You'll need to analyse data for this one. But look at the aspects of numbers of pedestrians injured by cyclists INA. Year -the numbers there
Then look at the same data for number of pedestrians who did suffered a fatal injury falling over
Then look at the number of pedestrians killed by an impact at 30mph.
Then look at the number killed by an impact at 20.
Hard object is hard object be it a car or the ground.
Next walk out side and headbutt a wall without your helmet hard as you can . Think of the last bit there as hard science.
Probability may be low but severity is high.
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.
Have you considered learning how to ride a bike?
Of course I would go for a walk or a car ride with someone without a helmet, car travel is relatively safe.
Its actually more dangerous per hour of activity. More KSIs
cycling is actually very safe. Or at least if you are competent on a bike
did you realise that a couple of hundred pedestrians on pavements are killed or seriously injured every year by car drivers? More than cylists are killed in any RTCs
Its actually more dangerous per hour of activity. More KSIs
No . Fatalitys between pedestrians and cyclists are very similar Ksis for pedestrians are half that of cyclists.
No data for how many pedestrians were on the pavement at the time of this injury as oppose to crossing roads or other wise.
Then normalised to per billion miles and the cyclists deatha and Ksis become second only to motorcyclists who per billion miles traveled appear to be the most vulnerable group
That's published data from the ONS
Nd there is the danger of stats. Can usually find data to back up any view point.
But I one fact that won't change is that my head's less hard than concrete.
I think you missed the nuance of TJ's post-TR.
TJ was saying per hour, not per mile.
Per mile pedestrian and cyclist KSI's are ~10% of each other.
But if the Pedestrian is doing 3mph and the bike ~12mph, then the cyclist is 4x safer per hour.
Same with motorbikes. We're about 1/4 the chance of a KSI per mile, but also doing about 1/4 the speed. So for commuting (fixed distance) motorbikes look bad. For fun (fixed time on the bike) they're about the same (assuming you average ~50mph on the motorbike). Walking looks really unsafe as a leisure activity though (because you do so few miles).
He's wrong on the car point though, 1.8 KSI per billion mile Vs ~30 for pedestrians and cyclists. Assuming 50mph that's 36 KSI per million hours in a car, or 2475 KSI per million hours on a bike.