[Closed] Lots of useful helmet-related info, and studies.

"While many studies have shown that bicycle helmets do little to prevent major head injuries beyond minor skull fractures and lacerations"........

That's ok then, as long as I'll only get 'minor' skull fractures if I don't wear my helmet.

The links probably direct you to some useful information, but unfortunately the article is written from a very anti-helmet viewpoint and has as much confused logic as any pro-helmet argument.

Having concussed myself and smashed many helmets over the years, I'll still carry on wearing my helmets. It's debatable whether they actually saved my life, but I know I would have had more injuries by not wearing them, even if only 'lacerations' to the head.

i had a skull fracture a few years ago. i was unconscious for 2 weeks and nearly died. hence i now always wear a helmet on the bike as it's something i'm keen to avoid repeating.

Having concussed myself and smashed many helmets over the years

i had a skull fracture a few years ago. i was unconscious for 2 weeks and nearly died.

While riding on the roads, or while MTBing?

riding my bike in a hippity hoppity fashion involving steps, drops and general foolishness on uni campus. so on the bike but not trails per se.

tj must be at work, this has been up at least 20 minutes!

I knocked myself out from about 15mph and was amnesiac/well wierd all day after. And my helmet broke. I hate to think what i would have been like without one.

it would be nice to hear from some people who have injured their noggins without helmets on and whether they do or would do now.

riding my bike in a hippity hoppity fashion involving steps, drops and general foolishness on uni campus

Clearly, while doing that wearing a helmet makes a lot of sense. But for riding to the shops to buy a paper?

miketually - Member

riding my bike in a hippity hoppity fashion involving steps, drops and general foolishness on uni campus

Clearly, while doing that wearing a helmet makes a lot of sense. But for riding to the shops to buy a paper?

i'm not trying to say anyone should or shouldn't wear a helmet, more addressing the description of a skull fracture as minor. but yes, i generally wear one whenever i get on a bike these days just in case.

That article borders on Godwin's Law doesn't it? Pick a discredited and disreputable practice, and draw a feeble comparison. You are wrong, therefore you are Hitler. You advocate cycle helmets, therefore you are a witch doctor.

While I agree with some of what she's saying, it's a bit histrionic, not to mention dishonest. Calling a skull fracture "painful" is like calling paralysis "inconvenient".

I have just pop some pear crumble out of the fridge...
Anyone want some?
And I made some japanese sencha to brew too I don't mind sharing a cup.
Wait for you know who to come on here...

it would be nice to hear from some people who have injured their noggins without helmets on and whether they do or would do now.

I do know one bloke who has a dent in his forehead and no sense of smell as a result of a youthful OTB incident. He still hates wearing one and insists that if he'd had one on at the time he would have broken his neck. So it hacks me off when the "helmets are dangerous" merchants trot out the same old flakey arguments for not wearing them. At the last trail day I did on my local loop (Ashton Court in Bristol) there seemed to be more people than ever going bare-headed, or relying on a wooly hat to hold in their brains.

Stating the obvious: I think the blog is form the point of view of sedately riding along a segregated path. I'm sure even Copenhagenize man would wear a helmet for MTB or trials.

Helmet off road definitely but none on road for me.

I'm of the make your own mind up viewpoint.
I got broadsided by a Land Rover 10 days ago which then drove over my bike, I wasn't wearing a helmet, but I didn't hit my head either.

Having concussed myself and smashed many helmets over the years

i had a skull fracture a few years ago. i was unconscious for 2 weeks and nearly died.

While riding on the roads, or while MTBing?

Both. Last time on the road, smacked my head into ground, resulting in concussion and whiplash. If the helmet only saved me from having stitches in my scalp, then not such a bad thing.

I was asleep. Missed anything new?

TandemJeremy - Member

I was asleep. Missed anything new?

that's how i felt!

I bought mine in Lidl last weekend for £8, I like it so much I wear it in the office... Does this help anyone decide wether to use one or not?

The linked quiz is good. [url= http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm ]Have a go - very interesting[/url]

Average number of miles cycled per death in Britain? 15 million

Having read that article nowt new. Decent analysis dressed up in pejorative language, usual hysteria from the pro helmet folk. A couple of blatant mistakes in the article as well

Its all about [i]informed[/i] choice and realistic risk assessment. I have two different styles of helmet and a variety of hats which I wear on a basis of which is most appropriate.

What really gets to me is why folk are not campaigning for better helmets? Serious proven flaws in cycle helmets which could be addressed by using different testing methods and design.

This gives an insight into the tests to pass EN1078... thats the one my Lidl £8 helmet passed and the same one every helmet on sale in the UK passes..

[url] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf [/url]

I find that it's all about my wife's informed choice and realistic risk assessment TJ. ("You aren't going anywhere without that helmet")

The quiz is rather confused and leading as well. Still, it's nice to see that I'm an above average cyclist -

"Moritz's survey in 1994[ii] showed that falls or crashes that actually damage something (more than $50 worth of property damage, or that need medical treatment) average only about once every 11 years, or about once every 32,000 miles"

the whole 'freedom of choice' argument always comes up on skateboard sites whenever the wearing of helmets is debated. the nay-sayers always spout that they are free to chose and thats the most important thing. personally i think that is boll"cks, after all if someone smacks their head open in front of me i'm the one who will have to deal with the consequences - not only administering first aid and getting help, but also if things turn out really bad police interviews, inquests and personal trauma. all of which i, or anyone else involved for that matter, would'nt have a choice in.

gav have a very valid point...

An individual as an member of a society as duties toward this society.
A mate of mine spend 3 week over Xmas when he fall of his bike going from his to the LBS (that less than a mile pointing down) because someone step in front of him. So the simple question is how much money would the society have saved if his was wearing a helmet.

Serious proven flaws in cycle helmets which could be addressed by using different testing methods and design.

As I said each time to you, why don't you propose one then? If it's SO obvious that people who's job is to design helmet can't even do it.

There is a serious point in all this familiar fog - cycling is made out to be far more dangerous than it actually is. You are twice as likely to sustain head injuries as a pedestrian than a cyclist (per time spent), yet from the popular view you'd expect cycling to be vastly more hazardous.

A mate of mine spend 3 week over Xmas when he fall of his bike going from his to the LBS (that less than a mile pointing down) because someone step in front of him. So the simple question is how much money would the society have saved if his was wearing a helmet.

Well - that's selecting an experience to fit a (not very good) argument. I know people that have been run over when crossing the road - they may have been helped by wearing a helmet.

So the simple question is how much money would the society have saved if his was wearing a helmet.

The research shows that the state loses money when helmets are made compulsory or even just promoted heavily.

I know people that have been run over when crossing the road - they may have been helped by wearing a helmet.

Lots of people slip and bang their head in the shower too...

You are twice as likely to sustain head injuries as a pedestrian than a cyclist (per time spent), yet from the popular view you'd expect cycling to be vastly more hazardous.

Silly, isn't it?

If I walk to work, it takes me twice as long as riding there. Nobody mentions me not wearing a helmet to get to work.

Juan - I have and I can.

Helmets needs to be tested for rotational impacts in the standard testing. When this is done by independent testers cycle helmets come off worse than any other style of helmet. There is good evidence that in oblique impacts helmets can make injuries worse. ( diffuse axon injury instead of a laceration and a focal injury)

There are people out there attempting to address this - two main thrusts - one is a low friction coating the other is a smoother shell.

The other aspect is coverage of the vulnerable parts of the head. Occiput and temple area

Then there is the fact that our current standards tend to mean a helmet that is too hard - not good enough at absorbing impact.

However there is no profit in producing safer helmets so the major manufacturers are not looking to do- indeed there is a definite deterrent in producing safer helmets as they would then be sued on the basis of not producing the safest helmet.

David coulthard has had a go at producing a safer helmet. It is light with a smother shell than normal and a poly chinbar that sits close to the face. Only available in child sizes tho.

However there is no point in discussing this with you Juan as you have a totally closed mind to the amount of real, peer reviewed evidence out there about this.

For the record once more - when riding at a trail centre when the risk of crashing is high and the consequences are also high I wear a pisspot style helmet as IMO from the evidence I have they are safer ( smooth shell and greater coverage) they are too hot to wear all day tho.

If I want to wear one all day - as I did recently when riding in the snow and ice ( speeds low so rotational impact risk less but risk all day not just on descents) I wear and XC style vented helmet.

When I am wandering around they hills or byways were risk is infinitesimal I don't wear a helmet. Rational risk assessment.

4. On average, how often do enthusiastic cyclists (that is, bike club members) crash badly enough to damage equipment or require medical treatment?

Roughly every: d) 30000 miles

ah ha ha ha ha ha ahaha hahhahahahahhhhaaaaa.
your not riding fast enough. fact.

This just isn't an issue amongst any of my mates. You leave the house to go biking - put on trousers, shirt, shoes and a helmet. I'd no more go without my helmet than my glasses.

It might help in a crash, so why worry about it? Just do it. Stop fannying about.

However there is no profit in producing safer helmets so the major manufacturers are not looking to do

I think they are actually - there seems to be a fair bit of R&D spent on this. Surely someone selling safety equipment would be better off selling something that is demonstrably safer? I mean, it's not like safety is a side-effect of a helmet, is it?

[i]It might help in a crash, so why worry about it? Just do it. Stop fannying about.[/i]

I never ride without my lucky heather and rabbit foot for the same reason 🙂

Molgrips - the issues

In some (perhaps rare) circumstances helmets can make injuries worse and they protect less than many folk think. At least one neurosurgeon will not wear one ever as he would rather have a focal brain injury and a laceration than a diffuse axon injury)

Folk wearing helmets take more risks and crash harder thus injuring themselves more.

Across populations wearing helmets increase illhealth by the deterrant effect of wearing a helmet to people riding bikes.

All proven and backed by science.

Soobalias - you hit on another issue there - no one has done any decent research that I can see into MTBers and helmets.

I wear a pisspot style helmet as IMO from the evidence I have they are safer

The retention system on the pisspot helmets I've seen and used is non-existent. If you undo the strap they basically rely on gravity to keep from falling off your head. They also have a much thicker and harder outer shell than your average XC lid.

Surely someone selling safety equipment would be better off selling something that is demonstrably safer?

Well, I've read magazine reviews that mentioned what standards a helmet met, and there are a couple of manufacturers that tested their helmets to the higher SNELL standard, and mentioned this. There's also been a big trend towards helmets that cover more of your head, like the Giro Xen. I remember thinking how odd these looked when they came out and now they're pretty much the most popular lid going. So the manufacturers can't be accused of completely ignoring safety.

Mr Agreeable - which is why I use the strap properly. Like a motorcycle helmet. Relying on the headband on an XC helmet is a waste of time. If you do this and have the chinstrap lose you might as well not wear one. You need a properly done up chinstrap on any helmet. As for the hard shell - it still has the poly liner which is more extensive than most XC style helmets.. Its the smooth outer shell I am looking for not the hard shell

Even snell testing does not cover rotational impacts

I'm not suggesting that you "rely" on the headband on a XC helmet, but the better fitting it is, the less likely that it's going to be pushed out of the way in an awkward crash. A motorcycle helmet is a bad comparison as they enclose a lot more of your head and move very little even with the strap undone.

If you read that article about helmet testing linked to above, it suggests that the outer shell of the helmet needs to deform in order to absorb the impact effectively. I can see this happening much more readily with the flimsy outer layer of an XC lid than with the tough thick shell of a pisspot.

Ultimately you're arguing against yourself here. A harder outer shell and lower profile means that the helmet is less effective at absorbing impacts. A softer outer and more poly means that the helmet is more vulnerable to penetration by sharp objects and more likely to cause rotational injury. Of course they're a compromise but in the majority of accidents they work. There are hundreds of people on this forum alone who can testify to that.

Even snell testing does not cover rotational impacts

I would be genuinely interested to see a comparison of the force required to cause brain injury by an impact to an unprotected head, versus the force required to cause a spinal injury by rotation of a helmeted head. I would be even more interested if the study was carried out on you. 😉

One unsupported anecdote does not make for any useful sort of evidence. But here's mine anyway ...

I met a guy and his wife at a party last month. The chap was in a wheelchair. He had some use of his arms but certainly not full use. He had plastic "splints" strapped to his arms to give him more support. He had no use of his legs.

His wife told me he had been a roadie. He fell on a corner (nobody else involved). He was wearing a helmet. His head hit the ground and twisted and he broke his neck. His wife thought that if he hadn't been wearing a helmet he wouldn't have broken his neck.

It was quiet drive home.

Mr agreeable. As regards the type of helmet - in wearing the pisspot I am accepting a tradeoff of decreased risk of rotational injury for a possible small decrease in shock absorbtion.

My choice based n the knowledge I have. Others may conclude differently

Rotational injury forces and stuff:
TRL research " 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. However, in both [b]low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.[/b]

The true response of the bare human head to oblique, glancing blows is not known and these observations could not be concluded with certainty, but may be indicative of possible trends. [b]A greater understanding is therefore needed [/b]to allow an accurate assessment of injury tolerance in oblique impacts. Linear impact performance, head inertia and helmet fit were identified as important contributory factors to the level of induced rotational motion and injury potential. [b]The design of helmets to include a broad range of sizes was also concluded to be detrimental to helmet safety,[/b] in terms of both reduced linear and rotational impact performance. The introduction into EN1078 of an oblique impact test could ensure that helmets do not provide an excessive risk of rotational head injury. "

From [url] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html [/url] There is a lot more discussion on that page and references - makes for interesting reading.

At least one neurosurgeon will not wear one ever as he would rather have a focal brain injury and a laceration than a diffuse axon injury)

Folk wearing helmets take more risks and crash harder thus injuring themselves more.

I'd love to see the research on this. This is exactly the same poor argument put forward when mandatory seatbelt use in cars was introduced. I seem to remember buying my first helmet as a result of my first mtb crash. I don't remember being any more able to get air, or ride any faster as a result. However, getting my first decent suspension or brakes did enable me to take more risks. Would this be tied in with the occasion of riders wearing their helmets? How do you prove that riders wearing helmets take more risks?

Across populations wearing helmets increase illhealth by the deterrant effect of wearing a helmet to people riding bikes.

Which populations have mandatory helmet use and associated ill-health?

Which populations have mandatory helmet use and associated ill-health?

Shall I continue?

Risk compensation - a well known psychological phenomena. Try the reverse - go down your favourite trail without a helmet - you will go slower. Google risk compensation for evidence.

Australia - when helmet compulsion was introduced the amount of people riding decreased but the rate of head injuries did not. The extrapolation is that the lack of exercise will give more heart disease and strokes across the population - again much evidence on this. The BMA was until recently against helmet compulsion for this very reason and the policy was only changed in a very undemocratic way by the chair railroading it thru.

Hove a look on that cyclehelmets org site for studies. The site appears to be broadly anti helmet but it does discuss evidence and shortcomings on both sides of the argument with reasonable clarity.

A little test for you and your helmet. Do it up as you would normally. Can you get more than two fingers between your chinstrap and your chin? Bend your neck forward and try to pull it off forward - does it reach your nose? do the same backwards - does it hit the nape of your neck? If any can be done your helmet does not fit properly and will be a danger or will come off in many types of accidents. The vast majority of folk I see wearing helmets do not have the straps adjusted properly thus reducing the effectiveness and increasing the risk of wearing one.

Right - enough - we have covered this ground several times over. Its always a good debate but its a bit like religion. You believe or you are agnostic or you are atheist! Me I'm agnostic.

The research on rotational injuries you're citing only concludes that more research is needed.

The research into risk compensation wasn't carried out on cyclists - in fact there are disciplines of cycling which are a clear exceptions to this rule. You don't see any BMXers wearing helmets except when it's mandatory for competitions or races. In any case risk assessment is down to the individual, not what they're wearing. If you rode the same trail without a helmet every day, pretty soon you'd be riding it as fast as if you were wearing one.

The cyclehelmets.org site was set up in direct response to Eric Martlew's private members bill to have helmets made compulsory. So it's clearly anti-helmet.

Donald, that's a horrible story but it sounds like he would have come out of it badly whatever he was or wasn't wearing.