[Closed] Helmet on road?

Our British culture, and most others (with a few exceptions) has firmly internalised the notion that cycling is a relatively hazardous activity, and should be treated as such.

And yet the cultures that have *not* done that are the ones where cycling is safest, AND where it is treated best by policy makers.

There's a bit of chicken and egg in that, of course, but that doesn't invalidate the point.

As a result, we've gone beyond any real sensible consideration of risk, to a point where "no helmets are bad mmkay", cyclists are [i]expected[/i] to wear high viz (yet black coloured cars are fine), and it's exclusively the job of the cyclist to make cycling safer. When stuff happens, it's treated in a non-ideal way because "cycling is dangerous" and "he should have been wearing a lid/vest".

Sensible consideration of whether to wear a helmet might go along the lines of "well, if I'm going to be doing 25mph on a club run, where I might touch wheels and go down fast, then a helmet might be an idea... whereas when I potter to the shop at 15mph I think I'm fine not to bother". Instead it's quite normal to people to look at a picture of an experienced cyclist climbing a big ****off mountain at 6.5mph and tut because his lid is on the bars.

Seatbelts are often used as a parallel example but they're really not. The survival improvements from seatbelt use are orders of magnitude higher than those from cycle helmets. It's made a HUGE difference.

The fact is, cycling is NOWHERE NEAR as dangerous in itself as it's made out to be, but there are plenty of vested interests in making it seem so (hence oil companies - who will of course be DIRECTLY and strongly impacted by an uptake in cycling - sponsoring helmet schemes and doing what they can to reinforce that perception).

I don't think anyone's saying it's a BAD idea to wear a helmet and in many circumstances it's a very sensible one. But a bit of proportion and focus-shifting would really really, REALLY be good for cycling.

The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws

Author(s) de Jong P.

Citation: Risk Analysis, May 2012, vol./is. 32/5(782-790), 0272-4332;1539-6924 (May 2012)

Publication Date: May 2012

Abstract: This article seeks to answer the question whether mandatory bicycle helmet laws deliver a net societal health benefit. The question is addressed using a simple model. The model recognizes a single health benefit-reduced head injuries-and a single health cost-increased morbidity due to foregone exercise from reduced cycling. Using estimates suggested in the literature on the effectiveness of helmets, the health benefits of cycling, head injury rates, and reductions in cycling leads to the following conclusions. [b]In jurisdictions where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended negative health impact. In jurisdictions where cycling is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to make it safer and a helmet law, under relatively extreme assumptions, may make a small positive contribution to net societal health.[/b] The model serves to focus the mandatory bicycle helmet law debate on overall health

What's Britain then? Safe for cycling? If not, is helemt wearing really helping make you safe?

I often have arguments with friends who ride motorcycles in hot weather wearing shorts and t-shirts (and ironically full race gloves...)

I wear a helmet road or off road. Do I think it will do me much good? Well actually no I dont.

Offroad I have never yet to land on my head in any crash. There are very few falls that if you learn to crash properly that you should end up throwing your head at the nearest available rock. On road I think there is more chance of hitting your head, as you are less in control of the crash etc.

As to the "well I had a crash, and look at my helmet its in pieces, I would have died if I hadnt been wearing it"

Are you sure? Heads are quite tough things. Simplistically put,ram a helmet in to a brick wall and it will fall apart quicker and be more damaged than ramming a head in to a brick wall.

I still would love to see stats on serious injury from cycling. I bet head injuries is pretty far down the list.

What's Britain then? Safe for cycling?

Yes. It could and should be much better, but cycling's pretty safe.

I'm not saying they don't protect I'm simply saying protect me from what exactly

SMIDSY

Heads are quite tough things

Not really.

Your skull is tough-ish, but that's not the problem. It's your brain banging about inside it and getting hurt that causes the problem and spoon-feeding/bum-wiping scenario.

I bet head injuries is pretty far down the list.

If you consider injuries with serious life-changing implications, I bet they're not.

My father inlaw fell off his bike and hit his head. He wasn't wearing a helmet. He died.

As for the head being soft and whatever. Think of it like this - your skull is hard, anything that is injured likes to swell up or bleed. If your brain swells up or bleeds that swelling or blood has nowhere to go. This leads to a build up of pressure in your brain which kills damages your brain even further and often leads to death.

'm noticing a steady increase in the price of these things a reasonable helmet now costing more than a proper full face motorbike lid. It smells of marketing to me.

Yep - do we think that a top-end helmet REALLY costs that much more to produce?

[img] ?w=350&h=350&a=7[/img]
Met Buddy - £16

[img] ?w=350&h=350&a=7[/img]
Lazer Helium - £162

Pretty much the same basic materials, similar manufacturing requirements and process, similar safety tests and standards to pass.

And the Lazer doesn't even have the little net to stop bees getting in your hair!

Onehundredandsixtytwoquid!

Okay, the vested interests are clearly not just with the motoring lobby.

SMIDSY? It's your job to see them not the other way round, that's my point if you ride defensively there's hardly any risk..

Well there's two issues there.

1) In a laboratory test, I'm sure that a helmet would reduce the forces. I don't know if anyone's published that though

2) Real world stats are not the same thing, because many other factors are at play, some possibly unknown and un-noticed.

Indeed, but as far as I'm concerned, what happens is what matters.

My father inlaw fell off his bike and hit his head. He wasn't wearing a helmet. He died.

My sympathies, but it's irrelevant to the debate. People who don't wear helmets are not ignorant of this, in fact I'd say they're even more aware of the potential consequences. I know I am.

Our British culture, and most others (with a few exceptions) has firmly internalised the notion that cycling is a relatively hazardous activity, and should be treated as such.

Yes, I think that's the biggest argument against helmets actually. Cycling really should be seen as a normal, cheap, relatively safe way of getting from A to B. Because it is.

There's this sign on my commute. Wonder how many of those signs they need in Holland...
(not getting drawn into helmet debate, as there is no debate!)

[URL= http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Junk/caution_zps2d344ada.jp g" target="_blank">http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Junk/caution_zps2d344ada.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Just relate a tale.........
Its from climbing, several years ago well in fact over 30 years ago 8 of us went up to Dow crag to climb a few routes. The 4 teams climbing different routes to a similar belay on a ledge just short of the top. One lad a certain Bob Stamper always wore a helmet, everyone bar BVob were ensconced on the ledge when he arrived. As it was a hot day, well at least hot for the Lakes, Bob was rather sweaty off came the helmet at which point a largish rock knocked off by someone above hit him on the head.

Moral of the story,,,,,,,,,,,,

Dont climb at Dow with someone above you 🙂

Always. Far too many idiots behind the wheel of a 50 MPH Killing machine these days...

And the Lazer doesn't even have the little net to stop bees getting in your hair!

under relatively extreme assumptions, may make a small positive contribution to net societal health. The model serves to focus the mandatory bicycle helmet law debate on overall health

What's Britain then? Safe for cycling? If not, is helemt wearing really helping make you safe?

Furthermore as no one is arguing for compulsion your point is entirely redundant

FWIW I dont doubt mass particiaption and more cyclists make me safer however there is no causal link between this and the protective power of the helmet

would the nets not need to be considerably further back to stop them reaching your hair

I should probably stress that any discussion of "hair" from me is purely theoretical. 😀

however there is no causal link between this and the protective power of the helmet

But there [i]is[/i] a causal link between wearing a helmet and how fast you cycle, where you are prepared to cycle, how you approach hazards, and how you will be treated by other road users.

Again it is a balance its a reasonable point that without a helmet plenty of downhills would not be ridden by me so I do accept it changes my behaviour

I prefer to spin it as enabling though 😉

A seat belt enables me to get in a car

Gloves and eye protectors to use an angle grinder etc

They do alter behaviour but it is complex. Feeling safer makes you do something risky...its quite a beautiful paradox hence we can debate for ever

I think most of us agree that things need to be done to improve roads, we largely choose to wear helmets, we are not pro compulsion and we think it will reduce injury rather than save a life

I just find all the shouts of "darwinism, lunacy, foolish, use commonsense" etc to be a bit patronising and hugely over-simplified.

It's become no more than a trend. One that requires no thought, just verbal abuse directed towards anyone daring not to wear a helmet.

I have read many accounts of incidents on these (and other) forums where crashes have resulted in spinal injuries and sometimes life changing consequences. The facts and figures I don't have at hand, but these accounts far outweigh those I've read about serious head injuries. Yet how many people go out riding without spine protection? Do they get scoffed at and called an idiot? No.

What is the difference and where does it end?

The thing is, if I drove to work in a helmet, I'd also be called an idiot. So surely it's got nothing to do with my safety?

It's nothing more than an accepted social norm to berate bare-headed cyclists, even when the benefits of helmets are still largely unproven.

They do alter behaviour but it is complex.

Yep and that complexity is all I am really arguing for: it isn't the obvious/common-sense/darwinism that many seem to believe. Life is rarely that simple.

I prefer to spin it as enabling though

Yep - one of the reasons I like to wear a helmet is it means I feel brave enough to go faster 😀
(I do the same thing snowboarding - tear through the trees in a helmet when I wouldn't consider it without one).

I think most of us agree that things need to be done to improve roads, we largely choose to wear helmets, we are not pro compulsion and we think it will reduce injury rather than save a life

And yep to all of that.

What is the difference and where does it end?

I still think brain injury is worse than spine injury, and probably more likely in a car crash. That's the difference.

My father inlaw fell off his bike and hit his head. He wasn't wearing a helmet. He died.
My sympathies, but it's irrelevant to the debate.

It's highly relevant. If he'd still be alive if he was wearing one, it doesn't get more relevant than that.

SMIDSY? It's your job to see them not the other way round

No, it's their job, and yours to see them. But it's a stupid argument, as if everyone did their job properly there'd be no accidents at all. You might as well say no need to wear a hard hat on a building site as it's the builders' job not to drop stuff.

The facts and figures I don't have at hand, but these accounts far outweigh those I've read about serious head injuries.

There are dozens and dozens of stories from riders on here, on these threads, about people hitting their heads, smashing helmets, and being fine. Are you saying that these people would all still be fine if they had not been wearing a helmet?

There are dozens and dozens of stories from riders on here, on these threads, about people hitting their heads, smashing helmets, and being fine. Are you saying that these people would all still be fine if they had not been wearing a helmet?

I'd be interested to hear more about that crash.

due to the injuries he cannot remember anything about it 😉

Hopefully, soon there will be video evidence of my nut being saved by my Xen (off road, so not relevant to this lovely thread). Would be interesting to see if anyone would rather have had the crash sans helmart.

Each to their own and all that. Not sure if this has been posted but I bet the lad on the bike was glad he wore his! Makes you think.

It's highly relevant. If he'd still be alive if he was wearing one, it doesn't get more relevant than that.

But you don't have any evidence that a helmet would have saved him.

As you pointed out earlier [i]"It's your brain banging about inside it and getting hurt that causes the problem"[/i]. [url= http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b95std ]SNELL tests[/url] allow up to 300Gs of head deceleration - that's still quite a bang.

And in the "sh_t happens" camp: I vividly remember watching an old woman die after she fell while walking in the street - but that isn't a good argument for pedestrian helmets.

[i]But you don't have any evidence that a helmet would have saved him.[/i]

Are you trying to turn into TJ?

Would be interesting to see if anyone would rather have had the crash sans helmart.

c.f. the hammer or tarmac arguments above. [b][u]No one[/u][/b] is saying they would rather hit the tarmac/hammer/tree with their bare head. That is a straw man.

Some, including me, are pointing out that the act of wearing a helmet actually makes that crash more likely.

I'd be interested to hear more about that crash.

No high side, no low side, just an instant slap onto my side pivoting around my head/face. Knocked out for a few seconds according to my bro. More incoherent than usual for 30 seconds.

I can only assume that a helmet would have been smashed. Just like everyone with a smashed helmet assumed they'd have been dead.

I can only assume that a helmet would have been smashed

Yes, but smashed helmets have been doing their job.

You may not have been knocked out if you had been wearing a helmet.

[i]actually makes that crash more likely.[/i]

Definitely! If I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I wouldn't have been allowed to race. No race. No crash.

My lordy. What a stoooooooopid argument.

So are we all in agreement now?

That it's a stupid argument?

I agreed that 40 years ago on the first helmet debate thread.

Definitely! If I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I wouldn't have been allowed to race. No race. No crash.

My lordy. What a stoooooooopid argument.

So demonstrably correct - yet stoooopid?

Interesting.

Let's say they had allowed you to race without a helmet. Would you?

And if you were [i]forced[/i] to go helmetless then would you have gone as fast?

I tell you one thing for 100% certain - there's a hell of a lot of morons on Mulholland Hwy!!

Yes, but smashed helmets have been doing their job.

You may not have been knocked out if you had been wearing a helmet.

You have no idea what the result would have been with or without a helmet so using stories as some kind of evidence isn't useful.

What my bro said having seen the crash is... "good job you weren't wearing a helmet, if your head dug in you'd have broken your neck".

You just don't know...

stories of smashed helmets or miraculous escapes are all meaningless.

They may be of questionable weight, but I doubt they are all meaningless, personally.

You have no idea what the result would have been with or without a helmet

I find it hard to imagine that in the simple case of someone bashing their head into the floor, a helmet would not lessen the damage to your brain. That's why I would like to see laboratoy tests to measure deceleration. I reckon someone could set somethign up easily enough. It would also be interesting to simulate cycling accidents with some crash test dummies.

I would like to see laboratoy tests to measure deceleration.

I'll have a look for some more in a minute (not cycling so not 100% relevant, M/cycle helmets are a bit different innit)

Head injury mechanisms in helmet-protected motorcyclists: Prospective multicenter study
Citation:Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 2001, vol./is. 51/5(949-958), 1079-6061 (2001)
Author(s):Richter M.,Otte D.,Lehmann U.,Chinn B.,Schuller E.,Doyle D.,Sturrock K.,Krettek C.
Abstract:Background: In a prospective study, three research groups at Hannover (H) and Munich (M) in Germany and Glasgow (G) in the United Kingdom collected data from motorcycle crashes between July 1996 and July 1998 to investigate head injury mechanisms in helmet-protected motorcyclists. Methods: The head lesions of motorcyclists with Abbreviated Injury Score-Head (AISHead) 2+ injuries and/or helmet impact were classified into direct force effect (DFE) and indirect force effect (IFE) lesions. The effecting forces and the force consequences were analyzed in detail. Results: Two-hundred twenty-six motorcyclists (H, n = 115; M, n = 56; and G, n = 55) were included. Collision opponents were cars (57.8%), trucks (8.0%), pedestrians (2.3%), bicycles (1.4%), two-wheel motor vehicles (0.8%), and others (4.2%). In 25.4% no other moving object was involved. The mean impact speed was 55 km/h (range, 0-120 km/h) and correlated with AISHead. Seventy-six (33%) motorcyclists had no head injury, 21% (n = 48) AISHead 1, and 46% (n = 103) AISHead 2+. Four hundred nine head lesions were further classified: 36.9% DFE and 63.1% IFE. Lesions included 20.5% bone, 51.3% brain, and 28.1% skin. The most frequent brain lesions were subdural hematomas (22.4%, n = 47) and subarachnoid hematomas (25.2%, n = 53). Lesions of skin or bone were mainly DFE lesions, whereas brain lesions were mostly IFE lesions. Conclusion: A modification of the design of the helmet shell may have a preventative effect on DFE lesions, which are caused by a high amount of direct force transfer. Acceleration or deceleration forces induce IFE lesions, particularly rotation, which is an important and underestimated factor. The reduction of the effecting forces and the kinetic consequences should be a goal for future motorcycle helmet generations.

Emotional reactions to cycle helmet use.

Author(s) Fyhri A, Phillips RO

Citation: Accident Analysis & Prevention, January 2013, vol./is. 50/(59-63), 0001-4575;1879-2057 (2013 Jan) Publication Date: January 2013

Abstract: It has been suggested that the safety benefits of bicycle helmets are limited by risk compensation. The current article tests if previous helmet use influences the response to helmets as a safety intervention. This was investigated in a field experiment where pace and psychophysiological load were measured. We found that after having removed their helmets, routine helmet users cycled more slowly and demonstrated increased psychophysiological load. However, for non-users there was no significant change in either cycling behaviour or psychophysiological load.

Interesting. Is this why helmet wearers are wound up about non-helmet wearers. Increased psychophysiological load and so perceive greater risk?

If helmets were that good, wouldn't cars be made of polystyrene covered with a thin plastic shell?

TVRs?

One more:

Risk compensation and bicycle helmets.Author(s) Phillips RO, Fyhri A, Sagberg F

Citation: Risk Analysis, August 2011, vol./is. 31/8(1187-95), 0272-4332;1539-6924 (2011 Aug)

Publication Date: August 2011

Abstract: This study investigated risk compensation by cyclists in response to bicycle helmet wearing by observing changes in cycling behavior, reported experience of risk, and a possible objective measure of experienced risk. The suitability of heart rate variability (HRV) as an objective measure of experienced risk was assessed beforehand by recording HRV measures in nine participants watching a thriller film. We observed a significant decrease in HRV in line with expected increases in psychological challenge presented by the film. HRV was then used along with cycling pace and self-reported risk in a field experiment in which 35 cyclist volunteers cycled 0.4 km downhill, once with and once without a helmet. Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in HRV. For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet. The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. They thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws. 2011 Society for Risk Analysis

So is the risk of getting your head caved in real or perceived? And are you more likely to crash if you've got a helmet on as you turn into a TDF sprinter?

I'm sure this thread isn't any different from any other helmet thread, but it's still depressing nonetheless. What's depressing about it isn't the fact that people disagree on whether they're effective or whether it's a good idea to wear one or not, but the fact that there are a lot of people who seem to think it's ok to openly criticise or abuse those who choose not to wear them. Is this sort of thing unique to cycling or mountain biking? Or just unique to this forum? Like I said up the thread, in other 'dangerous' outdoor pursuits like climbing you don't get this level vitriol dished out to fellow climbers/mountaineers.