[Closed] Helmet on road?

I highsided on a roundabout after some spirited cornering (translation - showing off). Not very fast but from quite a height. Big bang, saw double and groggy for 15s. Giro wrecked.

Would definately have been out cold without lid.

how far would you have to walk before it would be a "no brainer" to wear a helmet?

I guess the risk of falling would need to be higher and the damage risk from that fall much higher tbh

On the bike i will be going much faster and have a larger force impact if I fall. I assume if i was to start falling every day I would get a head injury from cycling faster than from walking as cycling is more dangerous [ as it is faster] than walking

Would it surprise you to know that many climbers (and not just the elite) solo routes on a routine basis?

I've read of a couple of famous elite climbers who died soloing ridiculously simple routes.

Anyway. When I fall off off-road I tend to to make a managed landing, so I tend not to hit my head. If I get taken out by a car there's likely to be far less control, so the chance of my flailing head hitting something hard seem fairly significant.

Anyway, if you always wear one it ceases to become an issue. I wear trousers, I wear shorts, I wear a top, I wear gloves, a camelbak, shoes and a helmet. It's just what I do. Can't remember the last time I thought 'I wish I didn't have my helmet on'.

Would it surprise you to know that many climbers (and not just the elite) solo routes on a routine basis?

On your broader point i guess if i always rode within my limits then i would be less likely to wear one
I have ridden locally without one as mate forgot his and would not ride without it so the others there took turns in lending him theirs for descents - I got San Marino /Belmont as was deffo slower than normal but was still some way from mincing

It is just something i do like wearing a seat belt it may make little difference. some or none but it is generally prudent to wear one and is not really that much hassle or annoying.

Will it save my life, Unlikely but it has already reduced the severity of my injuries

Not a climber but lived with them in Wales so some knowledge

This thread has a TJ shaped hole 🙁 ...

Needless to say, it's personal choice, and yes helmets are of diminishing benefits above about ~12Mph, So thinking that it will save you from a car doing upwards of 40Mph is probably a bit wishful, it may mitigate, it may have no benefit, it could actually lead to worse injuries (depending on which studies you choose to believe / discount) it's an open ended debate and of course all depends on what sort of life threatening accidents you are planning on having...

of course it doesn't have to be a high speed incident that kills your noggin to bits. You are probably more likely to have some sort of accident on the road at lower speeds when approaching / leaving junctions or roundabouts as these tend to be the places where traffic comes together and road furniture and signage creates exciting new opportunities to distract drivers and injure cyclists.

The other point is what are you going to bash your head on in the woods Vs out on the "open" road? are lampposts, kerbs and corner railings somehow more forgiving than trees and rocks?

There is of course the [I]"popular perception"[/I] aspect to consider:
Should your head get mashed in by a car in an RTA, and you chose not to wear a helmet, various groups, journalists, police, insurers, judges even, now seem prone to equating helmetlessness with an increased weighting of proportionate blame on the cyclist.

If we follow this popular mob logic, lacking a helmet is apparently indicative of a cyclists lack of personal safety awareness or generally unsafe behavior (regardless of the detail of their actions), and means that half pissed tweenager in his Mums Saxo is by default 30% less to blame for you becoming a quadraplegic somehow.

As has already been said it's personal choice, but it's worth thinking beyond the simple considerations like ventilation before you make the choice.

I speak as someone who survived a moderately serious off without a helmet in an urban environment, a foot this way or that as I went OTB and a very bad concussion / memory loss would have been caved in skull style, brain death. Having had my karmic get out of jail free card already, I now err on the side of caution and wear a helmet whenever I ride a bike of any sort in any environment...

But if you went for a ride with me, and didn't wear a helmet I'd not pass any sort of comment, it's individual choice and not really any of my business...

the damage risk from that fall much higher..
.. larger force impact if I fall..
cycling is more dangerous [ as it is faster] than walking

Okay Junkyard, so following that logic why [i]don't[/i] you wear a helmet in the car?

The speed is magnitudes faster than walking or cycling, the impacts are far greater still, and many times more car occupants die from head injuries than cyclists.

I've read of a couple of famous elite climbers who died soloing ridiculously simple routes.

Yes, sadly it happens. Whilst you can compensate for risk, you can't eliminate it. Climbers understand this, which is why you don't see climbers criticising other climbers for soloing or climbing dangerous routes, in the same way you see cyclists slagging other cyclists for not wearing helmets.

ransos - Member

Helmets are designed to offer limited protection in low speed accidents

I'll pick on you as you keep repeating the same line which is completely false.

Helmets are designed to protect your head at the likely speed your bonce will hit the floor if you take a tumble.
It doesn't matter if you are doing 4mph or 40mph, your head will fall from the same height and hit the floor at the same vertical speed, which helmets are designed to protect against.
Trotting out the same old BS that helmets are only designed to help in 10/12mph accidents and that if you ride faster than that they are totally ineffectual is either proof that the anti-helmet lot (who love to mention this) are deliberately lying or proof that they haven't really thought it through.
I hope it is the latter.

To clarify my position, I rarely wear a helmet and am against compulsory helmet use, but would rather people were able to make an informed choice without all this BS.

why don't you wear a helmet in the car?

Because i pay road tax obviously

And so begins stage two 😉

For the same reasons I always give though it is not an argument without merits

As its deja vu all over again I bow out

my logic for wearing one is....

if i hit my head forcefully with a hammer without a helmet, i would get a lump come up on my head, lose a few thousand cells and probably get a cut... and would have a headache...

if i did the same with a helmet on, i'm sure non of the above would happen, maybe a headache at a push.

GrahamS - Member

Okay Junkyard, so following that logic why don't you wear a helmet in the car?

Modern car headrests and airbags are not designed to be used with a helmet. 😀

As its deja vu all over again I bow out

Fair enough - it's an important point though.

As usual there are plenty of patronising people on this thread slagging off the non-helmet wearers saying it is a "no brainer", "lunacy" or "darwinism" not to wear a helmet on a road bike.

But those same people don't wear a neck brace on a bike, or a helmet in a car.

And they'd think anyone who did was a bit odd, despite the fact that these measures could save their life.

Good to have a free choice eh? 😀

Trotting out the same old BS that helmets are only designed to help in 10/12mph accidents and that if you ride faster than that they are totally ineffectual is either proof that the anti-helmet lot (who love to mention this) are deliberately lying or proof that they haven't really thought it through.
I hope it is the latter.

You appear to be having some trouble with basic comprehension, so let me set you straight. Helmets are designed to be effective up to around 12mph. They are progressively less effective in impacts rising above this speed, so in the 40mph example you quote, the notion that they're going to save your life is pretty laughable. It's polystyrene, not an anti-gravity forcefield.

my logic for wearing one is....

if i hit my head forcefully with a hammer without a helmet...

But have you taken into account the fact that wearing a helmet makes that hammer collision more likely?

Modern car headrests and airbags are not designed to be used with a helmet.

They seem to manage okay in car rallies. Perhaps remove the headrest altogether and use a proper helmet and neck brace?

But have you taken into account the fact that wearing a helmet makes that hammer collision more likely?

I'm the one with the hammer,..I'm not all that keen on hitting my head with a hammer, helmet or no helmet, so the collision is never going to happen. 😉

ransos - Member

You appear to be having some trouble with basic comprehension, so let me set you straight. Helmets are designed to be effective up to around 12mph. They are progressively less effective in impacts rising above this speed, so in the 40mph example you quote, the notion that they're going to save your life is pretty laughable. It's polystyrene, not an anti-gravity forcefield.

I thought I made it simple enough... 🙄

Let me try again.

You fall off your bike at 40mph.
Do you:

a) hit your head on an immovable object instantaneously decelerating it to 0mph?

or

b) some other scenario?

I'll give you a clue; it's unlikely to be "a".

Take your time.

I'll give you a clue; it's unlikely to be "a".

Depends on the crash surely? I take your point about horizontal and vertical vectors, but a typical road crash such as driving into the side of a van that pulled out on you from a side road could well result in "a"

GrahamS - Member

They seem to manage okay in car rallies. Perhaps remove the headrest altogether and use a proper helmet and neck brace?

Quick poll: who here uses a rally car for day to day driving?

Sorry Graham, I don't see many hands. 😳

Of course, cars could be made much safer in the event of a crash, but the vast majority of customers don't want this.

I knew someone who soloed with a helmet ...never saw the point of that

Probably to mitigate the risk of rockfall. A stone hitting you on the head without a helmet would probably cause you to fall off. A stone hitting you on the head with a helmet would probably cause nothing more than a brown-trouser moment. Just another factor in the risk-compensation calculation.

GrahamS - Member

Depends on the crash surely? I take your point about horizontal and vertical vectors, but a typical road crash such as driving into the side of a van that pulled out on you from a side road could well result in "a"

In a typical road crash the vehicle would be a car, which would probably not result in "a".

I'm not saying "a" doesn't happen, just that it is unlikely.
Like serious accidents.

Quick poll: who here uses a rally car for day to day driving?

Or a rally suit in a reasonably priced car?

[img] [/img]

Of course, cars could be made much safer in the event of a crash, but the vast majority of customers don't want this.

Yup. And everyone accepts that. So why can't people accept that some cyclists just don't want to wear a helmet?

Really?

I enjoy the debate. It is always worth having.
But condescending insults do get in the way. They hugely oversimplify what is actually a pretty complex issue.

http://road.cc/content/news/85306-top-scientists-cycle-helmets-debate-will-go-and-and

In a typical road crash the vehicle would be a car, which would probably not result in "a".

Aren't 50% of fatalities in London caused by incidents with HGVs?

GrahamS - Member

Or a rally suit in an reasonably priced car?

That car won't be that reasonably priced once you've fitted the roll cage, racing seats and harnesses. 😉

So why can't people accept that some cyclists just don't want to wear a helmet?

I'm happy for anyone to cycle without a helmet, I just get a little tired of people using BS to justify their position.

GrahamS - Member

Aren't 50% of fatalities in London caused by incidents with HGVs?

You've moved the goalposts now, naughty!
What % of accidents are fatal?

Yes, and since I saw

very yes.

I wear one but I'm very dubious as to how much protection it really gives. All the "my helmet was in pieces" stories do forget a bit that helmets DO break into pieces very easily. I've done it with a light impact that I'm sure wouldn't have done much damage to my unhelmeted head.

ANYWAY, what I don't agree with is the "it's stupid not to wear one" line. In the Netherlands and Denmark, injury rates are a fraction of UK injury rates, yet helmet use is near enough zero.

Basic health and safety theory - the top of the triangle is the most effective measure:

[img] [/img]

Focusing on helmets gives the motor vehicle lobby a big straw man. It results in articles about cyclists hit by cars that focus on the fact that "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet" even if they died of chest injuries. It misses the point hugely and therefore it's dumb.

been whacked loads of times by branches

Likewise. Unfortunately the bloody big holes designed to allow air to flow effortlessly over my sweaty bonce were also large enough to allow a branch to thwack me on the forehead. On numerous occasions.

I'm starting to think a pisspot is the way forward...

All the "my helmet was in pieces" stories do forget a bit that helmets DO break into pieces very easily

And absorb energy in the process. You might as well say 'airbags are rubbish, look at them all hanging out of the dash like johnnies, how can they give you any protection?'

hanging out of the dash like johnnies

🙂

A very juvenille turn of phrase but funny nonetheless.

I thoroughly recommend this brilliant talk.

"Copenhagen's bicycle ambassador talks about how important the bicycle is for liveable cities and how bicycle helmets are threatening bicycle culture."

It's no worse than those who use an anecdote of "a helmet saved my life one time" as a reason for wearing one

And for cool videos, how about this one?

Look at all these people who WILL SURELY DIE

[img] [/img]

Oh, hang on, they're riding in the safest place for cyclists on Earth.

Like I say, I wear one, but the way many people harp on about them being completely essential and it being stupid not to wear one... it boils my piss a bit because it's just playing into the hands of people with vested interests against cycling.

ormondroyd: You get it.

[img] [/img]

Ive never landed on my head whilst riding an mtb so perhaps no need to wear one according to the OP?

I always wear a lid for off road.

I always wear a lid for road rides, unless I'm just popping to the shop which is along a quiet road, through an alley.

I wear a lid off road in case I make a mistake and fall off. I wear a lid on road rides in case some external force makes a mistake be it a car, a dog, a lorry, a pedestrian etc. eg things I can't predict.

It's about risk and hazard, there are too many muppets about that I have no control over, one of them is me.

A cat (ironically) dived into my front wheel in a side road a few years ago. I was doing about 25mph. I landed on my shoulder then head, the helmet hitting the road. It was a big crash and the helmet did its job. Had I not been wearing it, well, look at the damage.

Catlike Whisper remains:
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

So who here thinks people are stupid if they don't wear a helmet when they walk to the shops?

Don't give the slightest toss what anyone else does, but always wear mine on the commute. Saved me bonce a couple of times too.
Your 'ead, your choice.

Look at all these people who WILL SURELY DIE

I've no axe to grind, do what you want, but where I ride is more like:

[img] [/img]

I wear one all the time - being hit by a car and ending up with a huge crack in the helmet a mile from home means I do it even for short trips. I guess for me it was already ingrained before the accident from cycling proficiency in the 80s and then reinforced by the accident.

This weekend I rode with a different (faster) group at club and was interested to see that the (mature) group leader didn't wear one, just a cap. I'd kind of assumed that club rides would be like sportives with a no helmet no ride policy but it seems not (I'm still new to the club so learning all the rules).

And for cool videos, how about this one?

Cat-boarding made this thread worthwhile.

The difference in the Netherlands isn't (just) down to infrastructure. Look at how the press, public and courts react to a car/cyclist accident. Note: not one mention of helmets.

Let me try again.

You fall off your bike at 40mph.
Do you:

a) hit your head on an immovable object instantaneously decelerating it to 0mph?

or

b) some other scenario?

I'll give you a clue; it's unlikely to be "a".

Take your time.

Do you think that in a 40mph crash, your head will do a nice neat 12mph vertical drop to the floor like they do in the laboratory, or is it just possible that other forces might just be involved? F=0.5M*V^2

Take your time.

Yes, it's the law here. Don't have a problem with it.
A friend who works in Road Safety here was visiting Denmark where his counterparts wished they could bring in mandatory helmets for bike riders but the public opinion would stop them.

The difference in the Netherlands isn't (just) down to infrastructure. Look at how the press, public and courts react to a car/cyclist accident. Note: not one mention of helmets.

We know that countries very safe for cycling (Denmark & Netherlands) have low levels of helmet wearing, and that where helmets were made compulsory (Australia and Canada?), safety didn't improve. Clearly then, other factors are much more important.

As I've said before, I wear a helmet, but that's because it might reduce the severity of a low speed bump, rather than save my life.

A friend who works in Road Safety here was visiting Denmark where his counterparts wished they could bring in mandatory helmets for bike riders but the public opinion would stop them.

The public in Denmark are probably aware that cycling there is very safe. I was there earlier this year, and rather enjoyed cycling without a helmet.

If you look at Danish cyclists, bikes are generally utilitarian and they rarely wear any cycle specific clothing - it's just part of normal life for them.

If you look at [s]Danish[/s][b]Australian[/b] cyclists [b]in cities[/b], bikes are generally utilitarian and they rarely wear any cycle specific clothing [b]except a helmet[/b]- it's just part of normal life for them.

Edit as the roads of the UK and the rest of the world are very unfriendly towards cyclists it may be worth adopting a different attitude.

I don't wear one on the road because I've never come close to having a crash other than once when I was playing around on the ice, down to my own stupidity 😆 I often feel I probably should wear one as I've had a few close shaves with cars on roundabouts, but I mostly ride on country roads and hardly ever see any cars. Always feel I should be wearing one when I'm on a 40+ mph descent though!

I wear one 'cos all the pros do and they're bestest at everything innit

The difference in the Netherlands isn't (just) down to infrastructure. Look at how the press, public and courts react to a car/cyclist accident. Note: not one mention of helmets.

That's one of the most depressing cycling related videos I've ever seen.

Edit as the roads of the UK and the rest of the world are very unfriendly towards cyclists it may be worth adopting a different attitude.

Such as a friendlier attitude? I Kinda take your point, but there's no strong evidence that helmet-wearing improves our safety, so just maybe what we should all be asking for are measures that actually work.

That's one of the most depressing cycling related videos I've ever seen.

How so DezB?

I think it illustrates just how different our culture is to the Netherlands. The same incident here would probably result in long articles about dangerous cyclists and the driver being awarded compensation for the trauma.

do all the helmet advocates wear one when walking and inside a motor vehicle, because by their logic they should .

Always a strange argument

99.9% say I always wear one off road

3-5% argue for not wearing on road.

Me well I have never damaged a helmet off road, hurt arms, legs stomach. I ride off road with the ever present likely hood of falling off.

On road I have grazed my elbow once but when hit by a car [she didnt see me on the roundabout] I suffered bad enough head injury but thankfully the helmet did its job., interestingley as I was going out with my bike I last minute decided to take my helmet, I didnt normally ride on road with one.

So conclusion if I hadnt have stopped to get my helmet I would have been across the roundabout before she arrived, Helmets are dangerous.

I'm going to stick to riding without, my gut feeling is that riding road bikes is pretty safe (despite the dickhead in a merc who thought that me riding in the primary position was in some way illegal and needed punishing)

Anyway I've not seen anything that merits wearing one.

How so DezB?

I think it illustrates just how different our culture is to the Netherlands

Exactly! I don't live in the Netherlands!

nice logic, Dales R!

but more seriously, we should think about this when we look at all the 'stats' >>

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias ]survivorship bias[/url]

I'd rather have my crash helmet in pieces than my head in pieces. I've been run over before whilst doing about 20mph and only wearing a beany hat. You'll gravitate towards the road very quickly at that speed and with a force that your arms will not be able to absorb.

What people seem to omit from their analysis on how safe something is is the objective and subjective dangers.

People arguing for places where it is safe to ride on the road with out a helmet are falling in to the trap of comparing places with different Objective Dangers.
The same applies to arguing that subjective dangers can negate the need to wear a helmet at all.

Reality is it just takes one objective danger to kill you, wearing a helmet may or may not save you but subjectively it gives you a chance.

do all the helmet advocates wear one when walking and inside a motor vehicle, because by their logic they should .

etc

Now I could do this but it is a poor argument

Arguing for PPE in one scenarios does not mean we have to wear it all scenarios or we would wear one to get out of bed as someone has died banging their head doing this.
In essence folk assess risks differently.
Many of us would not do what Danny Mac does on a bike yet that appears safe

Regarding survivorship bias?

I think the real bias is that those who would have been injured without a helmet but are protected [ perhaps at low speeds] dont feature in the research. Sure some folk will claim it saved their life [ and it is not like we will replicate so it true to say we cannot be sure] but we dont have stats for injuries and stats for not injured due to wearing a helmet for example as they surveys measure injuries not the situations where it did offer full protection.

The test for proving a helmet offers some protection is very easy to do so it has to be accepted that they do offer protection

We could debate whether it is enough but not whether it offers protection

junky, i was being slightly flippant, but since there are a lot of head injuries in vehicle incidents, it follows that wearing some protection will minimise this somewhat..... cycle helmets will provide some low impact protection granted, but to say they are essential and only fools ignore/decline their use is wrong on many levels.....

aye some people on both sides overstate the case 😉

I agree the car argument is not without merit but my only point is everyone is a hypocrit at some point in the world of PPE

but to say they are essential and only fools ignore/decline their use is wrong on many levels.....

I DO think it's foolish to not wear some simple protection. Every little helps. In a car you already have some protection, so having nothing on a bike seems foolish to me.

I think there's a lot of wilful or accidental confusion of two different arguments here, and on a broad scale, that confusion is dangerous to cyclists.

I choose to wear one on the road bike, usually. I'm happy on occasions not to. Frankly, the main reason I wear one is to stop some motorist's defence lawyer from reducing their liability after they've pranged me off, and to keep observers/loved-ones happy.

Absolutely it offers a marginal degree of protection that might apply in some circumstances. I might be grateful for that, but I think the chances of such a circumstance occurring are pretty low. I don't, for instance, choose to wear it in the shower (a common injury location, where ironically a slip is much more likely to replicate the actual tested circumstances applied to the lid). Likewise, I'm not going to buy my child a safety helmet for toddling around (they exist!).

Those of us using the Netherlands example DON'T miss the point in the way that's been implied. ABSOLUTELY general riding conditions are better there. However, the way we're conditioned in the UK to advocate helmets as a necessary sticking plaster probably does an awful lot more harm than good, because our version of safety for cyclists is handing out high-viz and helmets, rather than dealing with [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3823515.ece ]the real dangers to cyclists[/url] the way Holland has so successfully done.

a common injury location, where ironically a slip is much more likely to replicate the actual tested circumstances applied to the lid).

our version of safety for cyclists is handing out high-viz and helmets, rather than dealing with the real dangers to cyclists

However, the way we're conditioned in the UK to advocate helmets as a necessary sticking plaster probably does an awful lot more harm than good, because our version of safety for cyclists is handing out high-viz and helmets, rather than dealing with the real dangers to cyclists

Indeed other things would offer us protection as well but it is not an either or

No, it's not, but as the TED talk I linked to argues, the general PPE culture around cycling actually harms cycling.

Remember, folks, it's also important to dismount at roundabouts.

[img] [/img]

I DO think it's foolish to not wear some simple protection.

Such as arm and knee protectors? Hi viz jacket?

There are weakness in both approaches doing the same hyperbole attacks on each other is futile

So you are a hypocrite for wearing a helmet if you dont wear PPE is like me arguing helmet less riders should be naked as clothes offer some protection to the limbs or they are also hypocrites

Its a crap argument hat works either way

Its a crap argument hat works either way

yogic bowel movement ?

As above - my elbows aren't as valuable as my brain.

And I do choose high visibility clothing yes.

PS I think people claiming that helmet wearing is a red herring becuase it diverts attention from safety is itself a red herring. Yes, we need proper driver and cyclist education, and provision for cyclists, but why not wear a lid at the same time? It's going to help reduce brain mangling, and that's a good thing.

[i]PS I think people claiming that helmet wearing is a red herring becuase it diverts attention from safety is itself a red herring. [/i]

That's not really what's being claimed. In my case I'm saying we need to be very careful of disproportionately entrenching the PPE culture, because it harms the fundamentally safe activity of cycling, and diverts attention to the wrong place. Less simple than you make it.

In short, I wear one, but we need to stop harping on about the bloody things and hold the right people to account for the right things.

By the way, there was a recent high-profile campaign in the Netherlands to give out helmets to kids and encourage them to wear them. The sponsor? A certain very large Dutch oil company.

(I recently rode up Ventoux and bought one of the photos of me from one of the roadside guys. My lid was strapped to the bars for the ascent. The first three people I showed it to said stuff like "tut tut, no helmet". Well no, I was riding at less than 7mph up a steep mountain, for about 14 miles in 30-degree heat and bright sunshine. Heatstroke was a far bigger risk than head injury. But it's all about the sodding helmets. We're bonkers)

ormondroyd, I know what you are saying, but on the other hand you run the risk of overcomplicating it too.

It's common sense, isn't it? Same as putting on shoes when you walk outside in case you step on a sharp stone. That doesn't mean it's ok for people to throw broken glass everywhere, of course. I don't think anyone thinks it is.

Same as putting on shoes when you walk outside in case you step on a sharp stone.

I think that's false equivalence. Shoes are utiltarian, not [i](edit)specifically[/i] PPE. A fairer analogy: Do you wear steel toe capped safety shoes every time you go to Tescos in case something runs over or falls on your foot? It could happen, and you'd definitely be safer with the toe caps.

(and pertinently: If it became expected that you'd need safety equipment at Tescos - after all, cans can fall off shelves any time - what would that do to people's attitude towards the activity of going to Tescos? That's kind of where cycling is now - the PPE culture adds to the sense of danger for what is basically a safe activity)

I recently rode up Ventoux and bought one of the photos of me from one of the roadside guys. My lid was strapped to the bars for the ascent. The first three people I showed it to said stuff like "tut tut, no helmet

I've never heard anyone comment about a lack of helmet (except here).

I don't actually know many people who wear helmets routinely.

i have had some comments about non helmet wearing , from other cyclists, i politely explain that i am not racing,and that i have managed to cope for the last thirty odd years without one... have come off a couple of times, but that was my fault...wet road going too fast, round a gravel strewn bend at speed--i knew both times i was risking it, so its about risk compensation for me....