[Closed] Helmet on road?

7 whole pages of people missing the point.

Go for a ride, with or without a helmet, you'll soon see what the real issue is and just to help you even more, it's not the polystyrene hats...

And are you more likely to crash if you've got a helmet on as you turn into a TDF sprinter?

And it's not just your own risk compensation you need to worry about.

Research suggests that drivers risk compensate too and will pass closer to cyclist wearing a helmet.

For maximum space don't wear a helmet, wear normal clothes, wobble about, and.. be a girl, ideally young and good-looking. 😀

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/24/cycle-helmets-defend-not-wear-crash ]Don't think this has been posted yet.[/url]

[quote=5thElefant ]TVRs?
Ah. Someone got there before me.

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

I think in any study where you remove PPE from people who routinely wear it you will see an increased risk and in those who chose not to you will see no change of risk. Was this really worth investigating?
It s like asking if having no brakes would affect your cycling.
Drawing silly conclusions I could say it shows the problem is than non helmet wearers are so daft they cannot assess risks but i already knew this as they chose to not wear a lid 😉

Surely we all agree it changes risk perception not least because some say they would not ride without a lid - I would certainly not ride everything I do without a lid [ nor with the wrong bike for that matter

Research suggests that drivers risk compensate too and will pass closer to cyclist wearing a helmet.

ransos - Member

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.

I don't need to take my time, I'm still waiting patiently for you to have the common courtesy of answering my question.

I clipped a curb the other day and ended up somersaulting 6 foot down a old drainage ditch. Thanks to my helmet my heads fine. Unfortunately I can't say the same for the rest of me. So wear a helmet because you just don't know when you're next going to fall down a hole 😳

Here's how the Risk Compensation bunfight plays out in the BMJ by the way (Mayer Hillman and John Adams vs the Cochrane review):

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full

It s like asking if having no brakes would affect your cycling.Drawing silly conclusions I could say it shows the problem is than non helmet wearers are so daft they cannot assess risks but i already knew this as they chose to not wear a lid Surely we all agree it changes risk perception not least because some say they would not ride without a lid - I would certainly not ride everything I do without a lid [ nor with the wrong bike for that matter

The last paper I stuck up there says

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

And its not really fair discussing this with someone who's returned from the dead is it? That must be one heck of a helmet.

If helmets are so great why have deaths of pro racers gone up sine they were made compulsory?

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/21/pro-cycling-and-helmets.html

Long term trends in the UK show pedestrian death rates tracking those of cyclists as helmet use increased despite no walking helmets in use. So no huge helmet effect.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html

[img] [/img]

Ah cochrane we reach the end game 😉

We accept the principal finding of their review—that protective helmets protect in the event of an accident—but not the policy conclusions that they derive from it. The issue that divides us is risk compensation—does the behaviour of cyclists change as a consequence of wearing a helmet in ways that offset the protective benefit of helmets in accidents?

IMHO it does change i guess it all hangs on whether it offsets it.
I also assume that if I rode everywhere without one eventually the compensation will be lost as I guess I will just get used to the risk though that would be equally difficult to test empirically.

Maybe its not such a "no brainer"

Long term trends in the UK show pedestrian death rates tracking those of cyclists as helmet use increased despite no walking helmets in use. So no huge helmet effect.

Not a fan of wearing a helmet on a commute, but I do wear one. It's dangerous out there!

[i] Is this why[/i] [b]a very small number of argumentative busy-body[/b][i] helmet wearers are wound up about non-helmet wearers...[/i]

FTFY

Haven't read all that, but to stick my wooden spoon in and stir a little:

* Most cyclists killed on the road are as a result of crushing injuries to the chest and pelvis.
* A friend-of-a-friend looked at coroners reports of dead cyclists and concluded their non-head injuries would have killed them all regardless of their head injuries. (The friend was a doctor, and used to be the British cycling doctor, was race doctor for the Milk Race, etc. His friend was also a doctor.)
* Helmet-wearers account for 2% of Dutch cyclists, but 10% of head injuries.
* In Australia, cyclist numbers fell when helmet laws were introduced but injuries didn't.

I fail to see how looking at a group who dont cycle or wear helmets tells us how effective helmets are in cyclists.

Helmet wearing has increased among cyclists but their death rate compared to pedestrians hasn't changed. Therefore the decrease in cyclist deaths over past decades is due to other road safety measures not helmets.

you have compared one group of people who are not on the road [pedestrians] with ones who are. They two groups do not do the same activity and alone some of the other group wear helmets. To draw inferences about road safety, cyclist or helmet use from this is not a wise choice.
I can see why you think they may be related but that does not prove it nor support your inference as they are unrelated activities.
Pedestrians deaths could have dropped because of better training of pedestrians, traffic calming, fewer young kids walking increased pedestrian areas etc
Cycling numbers may have dropped due to helmets alone.
Looking at the two numbers tells us that cycling numbers dropped and so did pedestrian ...the causes could be anything and unrelated [ mutually exclusive].

you have compared one group of people who are not on the road [pedestrians] with ones who are.

Not true. Pedestrians are on the road when they are killed. Both groups are killed almost entirely by motor vehicles so if helmets offered great protection then as helmet wearing increased cyclist fatality rates would decline compared to pedestrians. They haven't.

Both groups are killed almost entirely by motor vehicles

so if helmets offered great protection then as helmet wearing increased cyclist fatality rates would decline compared to pedestrians.

I get why you are doing this but it does not prove what you think it does. The reasons may be independent of each other and I have highlighted how I can alter one ped death rate] without the other being affected [cycling rate]. What a pedestrian experiences on the "road" - they are not really on the road now are they?] is not the same as what a cyclist experiences on the road- who really are on the road.
Imagine we had cycle lanes and we were excluded from cars for all journeys. if the pedestrian rate dropped you would be concluding that had no impact as well.

By the same token, there are those who advocate the wearing of cyclist defensive postures at all times. You say the helmet debate increases cyclist fatality rates, but surely the mutually exclusive numbers prove that the wearing of protective pedestrians is twice as likey to result in non-fatalaties as those who debate road safety measures.
IMHO it all hangs on whether the compensation rates are fully dropped by young kids over compensating.

We dont know if a helmet would have saved any pedestrian do we in the real world.

Yet every time a helmet gets broken in a cycling crash 'it saved my life'?

Other than that Junkyard, your rambles are an impenetrable mangling of the English language, maybe time for a lie down?

Wow! My first ever STW helmet thread and what a beauty! Lol
I love some of the ridiculous arguments being spouted out by both sides- much better than anything on TV 🙂

Each and every time we embark on a hazardous occupation, we expose ourselves to risk. It is personal choice in many cases how we mitigate this. I also motorcycle and I also horse-ride and I also use a chainsaw and I also occasionally go climbing.

In each and every case, do I think a helmet is going to save my life? No.
So why do I bother wearing them then?
Well, on a m/c it's law of course although when riding a Harley in Arizona on my honeymoon, I did enjoy their no helmet law for a 20mile stint. Yes I didn't die but by Christ was it scary! Watching the Tarmac whiz past and imaging a blow-out or a deer rushing out made me incredibly nervous.
Chain sawing and climbing are all about falling objects rather than protecting against falls. Many a time when coppicing, some unseen dead branch has come crashing down and whacked my lid.
And cycling, well, I cannot predict how and where and why I'm going to fall off. Maybe never, maybe in the next breath so when or if I do, I want to ensure that the part of my body that most defines me, the bit with all the crucial information I've spent 30years saving up, is as protected as reasonably possible.
Also, wearing a helmet provides me personally with no downsides. It doesn't slow me down, it barely heats me up, I dont care how I look so I'd feel pretty silly in A+e whilst my helmet sits in the shed at home.

As for other PPE, I nearly always wear gloves as we're genetically programmed to put our hands down first. I do not always wear them every time however which tells me I must value my brain over my palms 😉

I don't wear high viz because I prefer to assume that no one has seen me.

I don't wear pads or body armour because I'd find them hot and restrictive and again, if the worst happens, I trust my skins ability to regrow.

As for the comparison to walking- how utterly ridiculous. Firstly, pedestrians have their very own bit of road just for them along with special machines to stop traffic when they wish to cross over one.
I also can't remember the last time I walked 20 miles at 18mph average.

Comparisons with driving are also ridiculous! As long as you're complying with seat belt laws, its designed to protect you. Airbags, crumple zones, head rests and side impact bars try their best to keep your head away from anything solid.

I think it's great we have the choice to decide for ourselves and yes a helmet is not going to save your brain from every conceivable danger but really the contents of our skulls are pretty important.

Would you send a fragile package through the post without bubble wrap?

What a pedestrian experiences on the "road" - they are not really on the road now are they?] is not the same as what a cyclist experiences on the road- who really are on the road.

We'll have to just disagree on that one. I see your point but I think the fact that cyclist and ped injury and fatality rates track each other both in the UK and other countries over decades suggests the important factors in safety for both groups is measures like policing, reduced drink driving, speed cameras, road engineering, safer vehicles etc (as in better safety scores for hitting peds/cyclists).

Also, wearing a helmet provides me personally with no downsides. It doesn't slow me down, it barely heats me up, I dont care how I look so I'd feel pretty silly in A+e whilst my helmet sits in the shed at home.

No downsides to helmet wearing? I take it you wear one while walking or jogging then to reduce risk as far as possible. If not why not?

In 2011 in the UK there were 107 cyclist fatalities and 453 pedestrian fatals. How many would have been saved by walking helmets?

No downsides to helmet wearing? I take it you wear one while walking or jogging then to reduce risk as far as possible. If not why not?

So what's the downside?

As for the whole wearing one while jogging/walking. Come on its pointless everyone who is spewing shite like that. The arguement goes both ways, i'm sure the non-helmet wearers don't disable airbags etc

We'll have to just disagree on that one

fro sure some road safety features benefit both groups [ as you mentioned] but I dont think peds deaths comparisons prove anything re helmet use in cyclists.

How many would have been saved by walking helmets?

No downsides to helmet wearing? I take it you wear one while walking or jogging then to reduce risk as far as possible. If not why not?

In 2011 in the UK there were 107 cyclist fatalities and 453 pedestrian fatals. How many would have been saved by walking helmets?

I don't ever jog 😉

When walking, my head is under full control of my skeleton whereas when cycling, it is perched up in the air on top of a machine that is incapable of standing up by itself.
I never said I seek to eliminate all risk, just mitigate the ones most likely to result in serious injury to the precious data contained with in my skull!

Walking helmet ?

Shit you can actually get one, were we bad parents for not putting them on our kids ?

[img] [/img]

So what's the downside?

As for the whole wearing one while jogging/walking. Come on its pointless everyone who is spewing shite like that.

Not pointless at all. Cyclist and pedestrian risks are in the same ballpark. Depends on the measure - per km, per hour etc. By distance cycling is safer, per hour cycling is around twice as risky. So anyone who thinks road cycling is so dangerous that it needs a helmet should also wear one while walking as the risks are similar. Especially if they asset there is no downside to helmet wearing.

For some stats comparing risk levels for different groups ...

Especially if they asset there is no downside to helmet wearing.

So what IS the downside to me wearing a helmet?

And unless I missed it the deaths in the report are the result of accidents involving cars. Not pedestrians tripping over and dying compared with cyclists crashing on their own.

I'm against a compulsary ban, and don't really care what others do. I'll always wear one, my kids will always wear one and I'll always recommend one to others to cover my own back (what they do with my advice is up to them but I'd be gutted if I said don't bother and they needed it). What I fail to see is the downsides to wearing one and how I would be better off not wearing one.

When walking, my head is under full control of my skeleton whereas when cycling, it is perched up in the air on top of a machine that is incapable of standing up by itself.

Luckily my bike isn't riding itself though. At a population level the risks are similar. So the question is valid - if one activity justifies a helmet why not the other?

Sometimes I just feel like I'm wasting my time.
Oh, hang on..

What I fail to see is the downsides to wearing one and how I would be better off not wearing one.

Downsides? Cost, another piece of gear to find before a ride and look after at stops. Sweaty head. Gets in the way of my choice of headgear in wet or cold weather. Risk compensation increasing accident risk.

All fairly minor but then so are the benefits. As I have never hit my head in a bike accident in 40 years of cycling that would have been 40 years of the downsides and no upside.

What I fail to see is the downsides to wearing one

Did you skip all the bits about risk compensation?

Or just choose to ignore them as most of the "it's commonsense" crew seem to do?

Risk compensation?

You're saying I'll go slower and mince more if I don't wear one? Presumanbly to get to the same level of risk as before, right?

If that's true, then wearing a helmet would allow me to go faster, have more fun and worry less. So yes, definitely no downsides.

As I have never hit my head in a bike accident in 40 years of cycling that would have been 40 years of the downsides and no upside.

OMG. That's shocking logic. Look, if you don't want to wear one, just say 'I don't fancy wearing one'. Don't try and come up with any more justification than that, if that's your logic.

sadly the main reason I wear a helmet on the road (but not always) is that should I fall foul of an "rta or incident" then some weasel lawyer will be less able to pin responsibility for any injuries on me 🙁

You're saying I'll go slower and mince more if I don't wear one? Presumanbly to get to the same level of risk as before, right?

Yes molgrips, you've really followed that well, do carry on... 🙄

So yes, definitely no downsides.

Its a valid point made re this

if that's your logic

except that the crash may be more sever because of your new found confidence which is termed risk compensation

That would be risk over-compensation. Quite different.

If that's true, then wearing a helmet would allow me to go faster, have more fun and worry less.

Well at least that's a realistic reason to wear one. "Being safer" isn't.

risk over-compensation. Quite different

You providing the pin for this dance

irc - Member
As I have never hit my head in a bike accident in 40 years of cycling that would have been 40 years of the downsides and no upside.

I went 45+ years till a car hit me, also one freak accident a few years ago when a cyclist holding a gate open on a gated road let go of it at 15 mph going straight over a gate and landing on my head taught me its not always in your control.

Mind if I hadnt of been wearing a helmet I'd have saved the cost of replacing it.

Again with 8 pages of missing the point...

Your hat is not the issue, but it seems to be the case that 'cyclists' are rather more keen to look down on other 'cyclists' and to denigrate their fashion choices than to appreciate the real cause of death and serious injury on the roads.

Molgrips, in a rare moment of clarity, touched upon the reason many wear helmets; it's part of the uniform.

Baggies, Camelbak, helmet...
Marks you out as one of the gang, means you are not a noob, implies you are serious, suggests you are in.

It's a shame that those who argue so vociferously for helmet use don't take time to acquaint themselves with the information regarding their effectiveness.

There is no unequivocal evidence that helmets work in the way that those who support their use suggest. I wear one mainly to stop the idiots suggesting that I'm somehow deficient when I don't wear one, and to stop the stupids from looking down at me.

I've been riding and racing for 25 years, I've done more miles on a bike than I've done in a car, I know what the problem is, and I know it's not a hat.

The risk compensation argument isn't really valid with helmets because my speed on the road is dictated by my fitness- not my attire 😉
Let's not ignore that all cycling isn't equal either. In the same way that a formula one racing driver wears a different array of protective gear to Mrs Jones popping to the post office in her Micra (both could be termed 'driving'), I'd suggest its prudent to tailor your levels of PPE according to the intentions of your ride.
So for a balls out KOM chasing, 20-40mph TT on your favourite training route, you might be more inclined to wear a helmet and gloves than when meandering down a tow path with your wife.
That is not risk compensation- merely common sense.

I'd also suggest that more PPE would be acceptable in road biking if it weren't so detrimental to core temp and aerodynamics. Look at some of the road rash on the tour- protection is shunned in favour of speed.

Comparing cycling to walking is a lazy abuse of the stats. Other than being a mode of transport that occasionally kills people, they are fundamentally completely different! Otherwise, why cycle at all? There, all those reasons for cycling you're now imagining are also reasons why for one, helmet wearing is prudent and why for the other, it isn't 🙂

So yes, ride defensively, yes maintain good all round obs, yes assume everyone hasn't seen you, yes pick your routes to minimise exposure to heavy traffic, yes use a Z movement at junctions to increase your visible profile to the driver about to pull out in front of you, yes cover your brakes, yes look to go but expect to stop, yes give yourself room on the inside to avoid swerving round drains, yes allow your experience to give you a '6th sense', yes practice emergency stops so when needed you can avoid danger at a moments notice.
But why risk losing all that knowledge on the one day it goes wrong- if only for protection against your own bike landing on your head.

The risk compensation argument isn't really valid with helmets because my speed on the road is dictated by my fitness

Speed is not the only risk. What about where you cycle? And how you approach hazards?

And of course [url= http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html ]the risk compensation of drivers who drive closer to people wearing helmets[/url].

you might be more inclined to wear a helmet and gloves than when meandering down a tow path with your wife.

Yep, but some seem to regard not wearing a helmet at ALL times as foolhardy and are vocal about saying so - witness the post further back about getting comments for "stupidly" riding bare-headed up a hill at jogging pace.

That is not risk compensation- merely common sense.

No, that is exactly risk compensation. You are taking additional risks that you would be more reluctant to take without the nice safe feeling of a helmet.

Nobody is reading this thread.