Forum menu
The statistic we really need for helmet use in general is the probability of injury without vs the probability with, both rotational and other. If the one is more than the other then we could assert a benefit. But that's rather hard get real data on do without getting twins to have identical serious bike accidents.
The other issue is the need to look at accident rates between those who wear helmets and those who do not.
We need to know 4 groups. those who don't wear helmets and are uninjured, those who do and are uninjured. those who don't and are uninjured and those who don't and are injured.
Also the public health benefit needs to be considered. CTC did some looking into that and given the best data they could find came to the conclusion that helmet compulsion might save half a dozen deaths from head injuries per year but would cost 60 deaths per year from diseases of in activity from putting people off cycling. the reason for this is that the risks of head injury from cycling are very low and the public health benefits so strong from cycling. Unhelmeted cyclists live longer than non cyclists
Realistically safety sells.
If we have a standard like you do for motorcycle helmets then you can be assured of a mark of quality, i think thats the best we can hope for atm.
Still i know people who are currently scrapping their high end helmet to buy one with mips.
Realistically safety sells.
Unless you're buying something where it's not maybe that important, say a new 737.
The other issue is the need to look at accident rates between those who wear helmets and those who do not.
I don't think the two groups are comparable in all respects other than helmet wearing. Most fast roadies wear them, most slow shoppers do not. It seems plausible that fast roadies could be more at risk of significant injury due to higher speeds, but they may (or may not) have better roadcraft. To many variables.
The forum has convinced me that compulsion is a bad idea, but not helmet wearing in general.
Indeed molgrips. One of the possible explanation for the non effect of helmet compulsion in Aus on death rates is that what happened was all the experienced / skilled riders who didn't wear helmets stopped riding(as much?) and thus the population of cyclists as a whole became less skilled on average.
Its so complex and multifactorial and so many people shout from entrenched positions fitting the data to their position that it is very hard to make a lot of sense out of it>
For me I would like to see a much more realistic testing of helmets ( whole body dummies in a variety of speeds and angles rather than headform only at a single low speed perpendicular to the ground) Some decent quality research into accident rates using large sample sizes and with a much tighter categorization of types of injury. and also longitudinal studies ie following groups of people over time
On the fast roadies ( from memory) in the Netherlands about the only folk you see in helmets are that type - and IIRC their rates of head injury are higher than the average.
Underwhelmed it looks kind of similar to the Smith helmet honeycomb stuff
Roadies are probably at lower risk, but due to the more time/miles they do more actual incidents of injury
On the fast roadies ( from memory) in the Netherlands about the only folk you see in helmets are that type – and IIRC their rates of head injury are higher than the average.
Indeed, but they are the only people I saw cycling on roads, cos you can't be fast roadie on the cyclepaths.
Its so complex and multifactorial and so many people shout from entrenched positions fitting the data to their position that it is very hard to make a lot of sense out of it
I don't think it's that complicated. I firmly believe that having something between your skin and the road or a car's A pillar is better than not. We don't have the same arguments about knee pads do we? Cos everyone can see that having some protection for your knees is going to save some skin.
Helmet wearers mostly don't think they are going to be magically invulnerable in any crash. It's just a bit of protection.
I wear a helmet. I believe it offers protection. I don't wear knee pads but can see that they offer protection.
The difference is no one suggests knee pads should be a legal requirement to cycle on the road.
I don't think there can be a debate about legalisation until we know if helmets offer protection
It is more complicated than that molgrips. firstly there is the data that in some cases ( how many is uproven) helmets make outcomes worse. The best research on this I have seen showed that in 30 % of cases helmets made outcomes worse. Then there is the public health argument that shows even promoting wearing helmets reduces pubic health by reducing cycling. Then there is the victim blaming and also the thought that car drivers react differently to helmet wearers and those who don't.
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than molgrips says, personally.
I’ve had 2 very similar accidents, when I’ve ended with solid contact with my head on a metal fence, neither were going that fast, both metal fences had no give in them. Wearing a helmet, I was straight back on the bike (aside from the embarrassment at the bis driver who saw it) unharmed, continued on to work. Without helmet, huge bump on the sdie of my head, unable to continue, had to be checked in A&E.... but mostly, bloody worried that I’d done more damage than I knew about. It hurt.
That’s how simple it is to me.
Oh bum, this has become another HELMET DEBATE thread! Sorry, can’t be arse to delete now 😂