Cookea - when the evidence base for it is so poor? There really is no significant evidence head injuries would be reduced significantly and serious concerns that some more serious head injuries would be increased?
there is also the basic fact that it would put people of riding thus reduce the health of the population as a whole
Coffeeking - there is lots of other research on this and the effects have been seen in other sports where helmets have been adopted.
There really needs to be better research done - even another TRL report found this effect was there but questioned how much relevance it had.
One interesting thing is the adoption of a test for rotation for motorcycle crash helmets and the alterations to the design of them since.
limited internal padding.
internal padding does nothing to reduce impacts - infact it can make it worse. You need to unerstand how a helmet works
If there is lots of research, why is none presented here (or in any of the review papers) as worthy and conclusive? Yes rotation is considered in motorbike helmet design, and hence stiffer shells were included to allow the helmet to slip more on impact, but we are talking significantly different situations, the mass and speed of a motorbike is generally higher than that of a general bike user (it seems that most on here struggle to even reach an average of 15mph on road). Cross comparison from one sport to another does not make for good science IMO. Yes more research needs to be done specifically, but I do not believe it makes sense to actively work against helmets until it is proven to be a problem rather than a question. Having crashed multiple times with a helmet I can conclude that every time my head hasn't rotated as the helmet hasn't grabbed the floor - it's grazed along the floor and shaved the surface off. This in itself (while not scientific) questions the validity of the tests performed in 1987 that show helmet-floor grabbing (primarily because of the different helmet construction etc I'd say).
re the internal padding comment, the point was that it was seen that one possible "good" thing about bike helmet design is that its relatively low internal padding helps to decouple the helmet from the head during rotational impact. I know how the helmet works thanks.
For example the only studies that show large benefits fro helmet wearing are after the fact statistical studies on A&E admissions. These are a self selecting sample - no one who hits their head without a helmet and has no injury is included, no weighting for experience can be done as they do not know what the comparison between the relative experience of the A&E attendees and non attendees are and so on.
Yup I have argue you with that a lot 😉 There is actually no study of the effectiveness of helmet to reduce injuries. Do get one would mean that everyone that crash, write off an helmet and walk away, will have to send the helmet to TJ so he can do the stats 😉
That or on a more serious way I think the number of helmet sales should be taken into account.
Cross comparison from one sport to another does not make for good science IMO.
That's is true. It's one of the major weakness of TJ's reasoning. you can't compare cycling with other sports. You have to bear in mind that a helmet has to be comfortable to be worn too (hence why most XC rider don't wear DH helmet).
Unlike TJ I think there is a lot of effort put into increasing helmet efficiency. If you look to "new" helmet and early 90's helmet you'll see they are fairly different.
Simple solution:-
The Law makers trying to pass this act have to get on a bike wearing a helmet.
They are then all mown down by a 40ton truck, if they survive, then they can pass their law. Something tells me they would not be willing volunteers for that experiment (may be popular with the masses though).
8)
Theoretically I can ride my motorbike at 70mph whilst wearing just flip flops, swimming trunks and an approved helmet. Thus proving that the law is an ass. Helmets if & when you want to, compulsion definitely not.
'just back (again)from approx 50ish helmetless miles round some of central Scotlands most dangerous roads and...I'm still ..alive!
Unlike the usual arguments, this law means compulsion for uder 18s doing ANYTHING on a bike, not just scary bodacious-to-the-max MTBing but riding to the shops, sitting on the bike in the street etc.
A lot of you think us 'non' types are playing some kind of libetarianist intellectual game with our attitude, but trust me I'm not.
This kind of law represents yet another attempt to move the goalposts with regard to road safety, away from those who should have a duty of care -motor vehicle drivers, and onto the back of the cyclist, but politicians wont rock the boat when it comes to such things.
Ever notice its always regions with the most bad driving, aggresively car-centric infrasructure that push for compulsory helmet wearing?
Far easier to enact a useless token law like this, than ask the voters to slow down and look where they're going...
Indeed - the best way to improve cycle safety and reduce risks is
1) adopt the continental laws on cycle priority
2) engineer roads for cyclist safety not car convenience.
These two measures will do far more than helmets would - and that is backed by a lot of research.
Don't forget - the maximum speed limit on Jersey is 40MPH, Likelihood of a helmet being important in a crash is higher...
Don't forget - the test speed for helmets is 12MPH, Likelihood of a helmet being important in a crash involving a car is minimal...
It’s not the impact with the car that kills you it’s often the secondary impact, when that primary contact sends you rag-dolling into a tree/wall/lamp post or any other piece of street furniture.
The rotational injury point seems to get spouted every time, and to be quite frank from what I can gather (I’m sure you’ll all correct me) it seems to be a pedants point; concerned with the specific geometry of an imaginary crash, where a rider travelling to the (smooth but hard asphalt) ground on a certain trajectory with their head/shoulders at a certain angle, and a helmet shaped and covered such that it provides increased leverage about the cyclists neck and greater coefficient of friction with the ground, transmitting more force into this arrangement of bodies than a bare scalp would, thus spannering the individual in question, when was this study conducted out of interest, and what specific test pieces and were looked at in testing to prove the theory?
I don’t know about you, but I ride in a world littered with hard, blunt, immovable objects all waiting to cause Blunt force trauma to the cranium of an un-helmeted cyclist bounced off the bonnet of a Range rover…
Would that life were so simple that we could all have text book RTAs…
I don’t wear a helmet because I know it will save my life, I wear one because it might save my life, I feel the balance of odds are more in favour of it having some positive effect, studies conducted 20 years ago in a foreign country without our road layouts or street furniture are almost valueless as the incidents they describe aren’t the one’s I’m most likely to get involved in here and now are they…
Perhaps we should make the roads safer and get rid of the angry and carless drivers first? You know, since a helmet will make naff all difference if you're hit by a car anyway...
Good luck with your campaign to rid Britain of the motor car, I will happily sign your petition, but I doubt you’ll change much…
No-one is suggesting ridding the roads of cars, cookeaa, just that forcing people to wear a polystyrene hat is not a substitute for the responsibility of motorists to be lessened, which is what these laws result in.
If you're are serious about compulsion you should be campaigning for the adoption of lightweight, fiberglass, motorcross style helmets, incuding for car occupants.
After all, if it saves just one life its worth it , right?
cookea - the rotational injury thing - some studies have shown up to 50% of death causing brain injuries in cycle crashes are attributable to rotational forces. Sample sizes are low tho as there are so few of these.
Its not a mythological thing - its real although more research is needed into it.
Rotational forces happen with oblique impacts which is common.
The reason I keep banging on about this is that its clear the tendency of cycle helmets to make rotational impacts worse is dangerous and limits the usefulness of the helmets significantly. Better design of cycle helmets could make them much safer without any other penalty
I never said it was a substitute for others good practise, but legislation that forces people to take some sort of consideration for their own safety is hardly nanny state stuff really, how many people don’t use their seat belt these days based on the logic that “other people shouldn’t be crashing into me”?
Obviously drivers should be more considerate, but the fact is they’re not, and while I agree with your sentiment, I wouldn’t fancy proving the point with my own skull, feel free to head butt a speeding car if you feel the ends justify the means…
In my own job I’m required to go to various work sites from time to time where protective equipment is required, due to the nature of the environment and the increased possibility of some sort of accident, I don’t opt out of wearing a hard hat or toe caps because “other people shouldn’t drop things on me” the fact of the matter is regardless of peoples intention or behaviour accidents can and do happen.
Enforcing measures to reduce risk is pretty standard in most spheres of life, IME being in an environment where PPE is required actually makes the wearers more mindful of potential risks and action/measures to avoid them, being compelled to wear a helmet sends a message;
You are not in a safe environment, you are not engaged in a safe activity… pretty much sums up cycling on UK roads…
I suspect most falls from bikes don't involve other road users anyway
You are not in a safe environment, you are not engaged in a safe activity… pretty much sums up cycling on UK roads…
This is the misunderstanding - actually cycling is a very safe activity - with serious accidents very rare indeed in terms of journeys made or miles cycled.
Wearing helmets reinforces the myth that it is a dangerous pastime / activity
You do realise cookeaa, that your construction hat is more protective than your precious cycle helmet?.
and please, stop trying to find some equivalence between seatbelts and cyclehats- there is none.
Cycling on even Britains roads is not, believe it or not, statistically dangerous, why send out the message that it is with a substandard ineffectual piece of crap perched on your head?
one death per 4 million hours cycled.
West Kipper - I have to disagree with you about the construction helmets tho - not much use in cycle situations. Different styles of helmets for different protection - construction helmets are to protect against walking into things and things falling on your head.
..and all those people who give up cycling due to the inconvenience will go on to live a less healthy lifestyle that puts a burden on the taxpayer way in excess of those who suffered 'savable' head injuries.
one death per 4 million hours cycled.
That's an odd way of presenting the data - most forms of transport would use deaths per miles for stats
TJ, I cant see much difference between a brick dropped from a height, to the oft claimed cyclists injury of a head hitting a kerb.
A lot of the argument about the added safety of wearing a helmet seems to miss the point. Yes a helmet wont necessarily save you if hit by a car, as a head injury may not be the most serious injury inflicted.
One of my wifes running friends was hit by a dump truck turning into a building site. She suffered a crushed pelvis, two broken legs, almost had her right arm amputated. However none of these were life threatening - they could have been, but weren't.
If she had not been wearing a helmet she would have died, her head was almost pulled under the rear wheels of the truck. The paramedic who saw to her at the scene and doctor who operated on her both said, considering the damage to her helmet she would have died if her head had been subjected to the forces the helmet took. Oh and she is almost back to full health, still cycling, stil running and definitely wearing a helmet.
Of course there will be many cases where wearing a helmet wont be a factor in reducing an injury or helping evade death, however their effect on helping reduce head injury and death through head impact can not be ignored, no matter how one choses to interpret the statistics.
Edward, you, and the paramedic are actually claiming that an inch and a half of polystyrene, counteracted the forces of being run over by a dump truck?
WOW!, helmets have improved then!
(or it could have been sheer luck that she survived)
are actually claiming that an inch and a half of polystyrene, counteracted the forces of being run over by a dump truck?
who knows? - possibly it could, maybe the helmet just stopped the injury going over the threshold between life & death
Why not stand there in a bike helmet & start whacking yourself over the head with a rounders bat.
Try to to record at what point & force you either can't take it any more or are too injured to carry on
now, - when you've recovered - try the same experiment without the hat & see what the difference is
I suspect there'll be a point at which the helmet will allow to to carry on whereas without it you'd be seeing stars
Uplink, the same experiment could be conducted with a knitted acrylic beanie, and the results nearer to the so-called cycle helmet end of the scale than the cyclehelmet to a proper fibreglass helmet.
BTW,what if she had been dragged further under the wheels by the straps though, would you all then be so fixed in your views?
I'm trying to point out that the helmet could have saved her as stated
Maybe he impact was too severe to be survivable without the lid & just survivable with
if you can't see the possibility of that, there's no point carry on the discussion
As I said earlier in the thread I couldn't care less whether they make it a legal requirement or not as I'll still do what I want
If I didn't wear a helmet I would be very ill as mine split when I hit my head on a wall after a van driver opened a door on me. +1 for compulsory helmets here
Uplink, NON HELMET COMPULSION ('put that in caps for y'all) does not mean that YOU will be 'forced to not wear a helmet'
I'm therefore happy with the present situation and happy you're doing what you want.
However, there's alot of you who clearly would tell ME what's safest for MY health and well being despite a lack of evidence, and despite less experience in many cases.
There's not much point putting any store in protecting your thinking and reasoning matter, if you dont think and reason with it, after all.
I'm gonna leave you to this kipper - you seem to be getting yourself all worked up there
I'd hate to see you explode or anything 🙂
Explode? You trying to tell me that I'm an anti-helmet jihadist suicide-bomber, like? 😉
(you might not be wrong)
Death to the unbelievers!
I think in this case its the 'believers' and the blind faithful that are the issue
A pedestrian in town was hit by a truck and dragged under it and died. If she'd been wearing a helmet, maybe she'd still be alive? Compulsory helmets for all pedestrians, I say!
so - west Kipper - shall we organise a "wind in your hair" ride? Or wind across your balding skull if thats the case? Helmet wearers will be allowed to join but will have to run a gauntlet of tutting.
I have the perfect route without rocks / steep descents / or anything you can jump off - but more scenery and history than you can shake a stick at.
Ha Ha!, good plan, though I'm happy to leave the rocks'n steepness in.
BTW, as I alluded, I never cycle without my woolie beanie, after a high speed road crash where it certainly saved my life! 😉
Obviously my Jersey/children comment was too subtle...
I always wear a helmet mtb-ing, especially having previously broken them, but never when on-road on my hybrid. My children wear them mtb-ing, often full-facers, but its their choice on-road and when out with their friends - and they've also broken helmets/faces/bones in the past too. Also I've been known to wear a full-face, in the Alps, on uplifts etc.
Its about choice and risk assessment.
Compulsary helmets on bikes are no different to compulsary dog insurance - it will only affect the law-abiding.
I always wear gloves and sunglasses - even in the dark. They saved my life!
Must admit the Aussie issue has always confused me - did lots of cyclists just give up their hobby/mode of transport because the mean ole government told them to wear helmets? I can imagine someone flaunting the law if they didn't like it but not waking up one day and deciding to sell on the bike because they just can't face the 'shame' of a helmet, I wonder if there isn't more to the Australian issue than helmets.
Well compulsion means more helmet sold, so better margin for LBS and cheaper helmet for regular cyclist too.
Plus lets face it:
*/CFH mode on/*
I will mean chavs on the pavement will be fine for riding a bike then they won't ride bike anymore hence less bike theft
*/CFH mode off/*
Like I said before where's the actual science? and what exactly does "Up to 50%" mean? anything from Zero to a 1 in 2 chance that my helmet might kill me? in what particular circumstance? and based on what? some forms filled in in an A&E dept by concussed people with sore necks? or Doctors who never saw the accident scene? what precisely is the [u]Evidence[/u] and how was it gathered?
Stats mean just about sweet FA, malleable data that can be presented to prove just about anything...
I want to see the test report with photo's of dummies heads twisted the wrong way and a caved in Giro/MET/Bell strapped on and a proper scientific methodology and analysis, statistics are just a round up of similar anecdotes, presented so as to "prove" the arguments of whoever writes the report, in this case apparently some conspiracy theorist who believes bicycle helmets are a cunning plot to kill as many as half of those that manage to fall off a bike...
Don't get me wrong I believe in rotational injury, but I also believe in Impact trauma and abrasion, twisting your neck isn't the only injury you can receive when cycling...
Post a link to a factual scientific study or test please, and I might be swayed...
Rotational injury is not just about your neck - the bigger aspect is diffuse axon injury or subdural haematoma instead of focal brain injury.
Focal brain injury ****s up a bit of your brain totally - so you might forget how to add up or how to express emotions. Diffuse axon injury stirs the whole brain - its a much worse injury
Ignore the analysis - or at least accept its bias. The references to the original research are there. Like all stuff on this look for the bias and discount it and go to the sources - the references are there
This evidence led the authors to conclude that injuries from this type of impact are more likely to be due to rotations than linear impacts. In other words, for an impact speed of 19 miles/hr, Report PPR213 shows that helmet wearers may have a significant risk (35-50%) of serious head injuries due to rotational acceleration.
The whole page is worth reading so long as you have your pinch of salt
Summery at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html
original refs
[1] Corner JP, Whitney CW, O'Rourke N, Morgan De. Motorcycle and bicycle protective helmets: requirements resulting from a post crash study and experimental research. Federal Office of Road Safety, Report CR55.
[2] Janssen EG, Wismans JSHM. Experimental and mathematical simulation of pedestrian-vehicle and cyclist-vehicle accidents. Proceedings of the 10th International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles; 1985; Oxford.
[3] Gennarelli T, al. e. Diffuse axonal injury and traumatic coma in the primate. Annals of Neurology 1982;12:564-574.
[4] National Health and Medical Research Council. Football injuries of the head and neck: Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 84, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, 1994.
[5] Bloomfield A. Cycling: your health, the public’s health and the planet’s health. Making Cycling Viable New Zealand Cycling Symposium; 2000; Palmerston North 14-15 July 2000.
[6] Maimaris C, Summers CL, Browning C, Palmer CR. Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers. BMJ 1994;308:1537-40.
[7] Kraus JF, Fife D, Conroy C. Incidence, severity, and outcomes of brain injuries involving bicycles. Am J Public Health 1987;77(1):76-8.
[8] Click the inspiration tab at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s2006698.htm .
[9] see: Phillips Helmets.
Anyway back to the original subject
FWIW I lived in Jersey for 6 years during the 1990's and the place may have changed a bit since then,but, their police have sweet FA to do so this is probably going to be enforced. Theres no real off road riding there anyway so unless your worried about some idiot running you down on the road (40 mph limit on the "open" road there anyway 🙄 )
Mind you due to total lack of real world experience native Jersey drivers are quite possibly (definitely IMO) the worst drivers in the world anyway so this law could save lives!
"This evidence led the authors to conclude that injuries from this type of impact are more likely to be due to rotations than linear impacts. In other words, for an impact speed of 19 miles/hr, Report PPR213 shows that helmet wearers may have a significant risk (35-50%) of serious head injuries due to rotational acceleration."
Though in the link they also say
"Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head."
Quite an unusual thing that report, it actually seems to be interested in laying out both sides of the case and admitting the weakness of the research. Interesting reading.