Glad you are ok Kit, nearly forgot to say.
I believe the Australian, NZ, Canadian and other Governments came to the completely opposite decision to TJ & his doctor.
For those old enough to recall, we had this same debate 20 years ago. Smoking? It's not been proved that it's at all harmful.
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/why-cycle-helmets-save-lives
YOu could go like this for the next 20 years.
What I do know is that the top of my head would be a quite different, scarred, battered place than it is now, safely tucked away under my lid as it is.
The Australian, NZ and Canadian governments have subsequently seen head injuries reduce by less than the real( about 30% ) decrease in cycling.
Its a well remarked upon phenomenon, and consistant across all countries that introduce compulsion.
Whereas, those that have very low rates of helmet wearing are the safest.
Weird, eh?
Just incase west kipper is not clear #enough - in NZ after helmet compulsion the rate of head injury per mile cycled increased
Kit - sorry - a bit late to this thread - can't have been fun and glad you lived to tell the tale. 🙂
I have had an accident whilst riding my bike with no helmet.
I lost consciousness for over an hour after hitting side of my head off of kerb.
I also crashed whilst wearing helmet and put rather large dent in said helmet and broke two ribs as well.
I know what I will be wearing next time I ride a bike and I really dont care about statistics etc. tbh.
Just incase west kipper is not clear #enough - in NZ after helmet compulsion the rate of head injury per mile cycled increased
Another pathetic line. Things reduce or increase for reasons
For instance, DH and/or freeride really wasn't heard of 15 years ago ( especilly not to nowadays standard). When a sport potentially this dangerous becomes the norm for alot of bikers then of course accidents will increase compared to trails you used to ride (old skool days). During my early racing days, training and fun rides contained danger far less than what is available today.
The sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys
Raddogair. 'go and read the EVIDENCE the NZ stuff is about road cycling. Of course there must be a reason but no one is sure what it is.
Anecdotes prove nothing as you simply do not know what would have happened without the person wearing the helmet. They might have been injured. They might not have hit their head at all it might have made no difference.
If you want to critique this stuff thats perfectly reasonable and there is plenty to critique - however you need to read it first
Blimey is this still going?
I don't dispute the obvious, if overstated benefits of wearing a lid. I too have had a helmet save me from a skull fracture, I always wear mine and insist the kids do.
..but I'm very much against compulsion and all those who have called TJ (or anyone else) a knob for not wearing one is.. a knob. If they passed a Law making wearing one compulsory I too would ride around with mine dangling from my bars.
My nasty bang on the head was caused in similar circumstanes by someone pulling out on me in a car. They could see me, they just weren't looking.
If the BMA is serious about preventing cyclists head injuries it should be trying to reduce the number of collisions - most obviously by calling for improved driver training, testing and licensing, stiffer penalaties etc.
Make helmets compulsory and all you do is re-inforce the myth that cyclists are a danger to themselves, drive cyclists off the road and remove all the health benefits of cycling.. which the BMA are too well aware of.
Oh and get well soon kit 🙂
Thanks for all the positive comments guys.
Now, can we put this one to bed?! Night night zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Currently my favourite quote on any STW thread is from DANO:
[i]"Lots of motorcyclists suffer from broken necks"[/i]
PMSL!!!!
Can't be bothered reading all that, but I see lots of people mentioning racing, DHing, MTBing, skateparks, etc. I'd wear a helmet for those.
I don't wear a helmet for my commute, which is a sedate affair on quiet roads riding a big heavy stable bike in normal clothes.
As a sensible person above said, the risk in any activity is on a spectrum, from lying flat on the floor of a padded room to taking a dive off a tower block onto concrete.
I wouldn't wear a helmet when walking to work, so why would I when cycling relatively slowly on a very similar route?
I'm a bit late to all this but is the argument about a) is it a sensible idea to wear a helmet most of the time? or b) should wearing a helmet be made compulsory?
Personally I'd go for a) yes and b) no.
I don't wear a helmet for my commute, which is a sedate affair on quiet roads riding a big heavy stable bike in normal clothes.
Remember though miketually that this thread is all about Kit being knocked off his bike on his commute whilst on the road. Just because its a quiet well known piece of road for you, it doesn't mean the same about the drivers who potentially could knock you off
The sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys
This is just wrong. Sorry.
Remember though miketually that this thread is all about Kit being knocked off his bike on his commute whilst on the road. Just because its a quiet well known piece of road for you, it doesn't mean the same about the drivers who potentially could knock you off
It started off as that, then became "OMG you'll die if you so much as swing a leg over a bike without wearing a helmet!!!".
[i]As an aside, all the races and events that I know of, be it a Merida, Sleepless, Mayhem, etc etc all insist that you wear a helmet. [/i]
I suspect that's as much to do with the litigious times we live in as anything else.
The paramedics love all this safety kit as it just makes their job easier...scooping you off the floor!!
And a darn site less messy!!
Like motorcyclists - I advocate full leathers for all cyclists.... there couldn't be a better body bag than that!
I always wear a helmet when Mountain Biking but never do when on a local loop of tow paths & Canal paths!
Never really thought about it, but reading this is making me think again!
Quite embarrsed to admit how stupid I have been, no longer!
Is this STILL going?!
Can guarantee TJ turning up on every one of these threads... You can prove pretty much anything with statistics and to show the point there's endless info here (from America) on injuries and helmet stats:
Particular reference to the following:
Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders.
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
Ninety-five percent of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren't wearing helmets
Helmets may reduce the risk of death:-
almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
Everyone has some sort of anecdote about how their helmet may have saved them, about how it may have made it more serious (TJ's favourite rotational injury), you can selectively choose research from anywhere you like to show what you want.
Proof of that can be found in this very funny clip:
Good to hear you're OK Kit, get back on the bike soon.
200!
sorry...
Of course the OP would never have had the accident if he hadn't been wearing a helmet. The time to put it on and the extra wind resistance meant that instead of passing safely in front of the car before it pulled out the OP was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How many of you helmet gauleiters wears a hi-viz every time you get on a bike on the road. Far more likely to save your skull.
No need to link Godwin's law, I'm aware of it.
This thread keeps going because the helmet evangelists keep going on about their 'beliefs' and us Dawkins types keep pointing to the (lack of)evidence.
Not Hi Viz, but festooned with lights front & rear for when I'm on the public highway.
Jacket, and shoes have reflective strips in-built.
I rode for 22 minutes this afternoon from Watford to Harrow and it still scares me how drivers simply don't seem to notice bikes. I was not a happy biker at all, but I would not be happy to have ridden my road route without a helmet - that'd just be plain dim - there's way too much street furniture / clutter to hit, let alone the cars trying to turn out or across my path.
Anyhow, back 20 years, and the argument was similar: the smokers all told us "it's not been proved that smoking's bad for you" We had no sympathy then and we have no sympathy now.
@kipper.nope you just made it bigger.
No dimmer than leaving the hi-viz off in daylight where your reflective strip and lights don't make a jot of difference. Your clothing was black I bet, possibly grey looking at this year's Assos collection.
To me helmets are like car insurance, you dont know when you might need it, but you'll be glad you had it.
Im an oldish git,I choose to wear a helmet, some peeps dont, their choice....
Kramer - MemberThe sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys
This is just wrong. Sorry.
If you read this thread you'll find that it is indeed right. Good to hear your sorry though!! 😉
non-helmet wearers clearly have very thick skulls anyhow, so no need to worry. not to mention the earth is flat, so there is nothing for them to hit that thick skull on 🙂
No dimmer than leaving the hi-viz off in daylight where your reflective strip and lights don't make a jot of difference. Your clothing was black I bet, possibly grey looking at this year's Assos collection.
Thats like saying people cant drive black cars because there less colour visible than bright yellow!!
I dont mind making the thread bigger, as long as people put forward their beliefs, I'll feel the need to counter them( and without insults).
Never the less, its true that the safest countries to cycle in are the ones that have the lowest rates of helmet use, and ones with high or compulsory use have relatively higher rates of head injury and death.
Thats why organisations like the CTC are totally against compulsion.
Car colour has a significant impact on accident rate. I haven't used the word "can't" and won't. I won't insist on anyone wearing a helmet or a hi-viz. Just pointing out the inconsistency in the behaviour of the helmet dictators. Our club's helmet dictator never wears a hi-viz and regularly jumps red lights. Typical of the "I'm wearing a helmet so I'm alright attitude". A false sense of security is the main thing a helmet provides, in terms of real protection a typical XC helmet isn't great. Wear a ful face if you wan't to protect your head properly.
As I've pointed out in a previous thread- many mountainbikers are riding way beyond the performance envelope of the best full-face motorcycle helmets, yet they are wearing flimsy pieces of plastic that shares no features of the former other than the same six letters.
If your serious about head protection while riding like this, and you're not wearing a motorcycle quality lid then, in my view, you're being way more irresponsible than me.
this thread has made my night. i thought i'd be bored stiff having a night in while the missus goes out.
i've decided to never wear a helmet cycling, a seatbelt driving, steel toecapped boots at work, oven gloves when cooking, a safety net while on a trapeze.
no false sense of security now.
may god preserve our freedom to choose, amen
We should preserve this thread and any time this debate rears its ugly head just refer back to it.
Crazy legs - indeed you do prover the point of proving anything with stats. for example the 14 times more likely to get a head injury is referring to children in the USA and the website it comes from does not quote any sources for its research. Assertion without reference is not evidecne.
Other stats from that site are easy to discredit.
the main flaw is that it uses after the fact surveys of people attending A&E this will always creat false positves as it cannot consider all cases. It does not consider those who don't wear helmets and don't crash, it does not consider those who wear helmets and get worse head injuries as a result - a rare but possible combination. it does not consider that those who wear helmets have higher rates of crashing etc etc. Very very flawed research.
Self selecting sample always create bias.
TandemJeremy - not sure if you are serious or just trying to wind people up for a change.
Would TandemJeremy like to scientifically test his head for impacts and compare the damage with someone who is wearing a helmet having the same impact. Start with small impacts and build it up....... I think not.
Point proven. Helmets CAN save lives.
end of.
...but it is a free country AND YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU LIKE
Convince me, then.
Tell me why, when compulsion was introduced in Australia* and NZ, injury and death rates relative to cyclists WENT UP?
* In Oz this was also against a backdrop of the introduction of other road traffic laws that should have seen a FURTHER hypothetical reduction in casualties
As I've said, I'm willing to be persuaded...
west kipper so you'd like to take TandemJeremys scientific test for him??
(granted that people wearing helmets may take more risks and skew the statistics)
Lesanita.
I am perfectly serious.
Read the evidence and have a think about it.
the real scientific evidence points to helmets being good at protecting you from minor impacts - bumps and bruises, cuts and scrapes. The evidence for them protecting aganst major impacts is far less convincing although some mitigation of impacts would seem probable. Tehre is also evidence that in some cases they make injury worse.
The testing and design of cycle helmets is seruiously flawed
Accross whole poulations the evidence is even poorer - as west kipper points out when helmet use rises so does head injury rates. many explanations have been put forwward for this but none are totally convincing.
The final point is that cycling is safe - a serious head injury every 3000 years of cycling accors the whole population of cyclists.
So wear a helmet if you want - but don't be fooled abnout how efffectivce tehy are
TJ, couple of questions:
1. Do you believe in the current compulsory motorcycle helmet law?
2. Would you wear a motorcycle helmet given the choice?
Just curious.
Rusty - I wear a high spec fullface crash helmet when on a motorcycle along with head to tow body armour
I am ambivalent about compulsory motorcycle helmets. Its a non isssue to me
Its a far more claer cut situation with motorcycle helmets being far more protective than cycle helmets and the risk of he3ad injury on a motorcycle being far higher.
I just get fed up with the continual evalgelic attitude of people to cycle helmets ewhen the evidence for tehm is so poor. Before cycle helmets there was no epidemic of head injuries amongst cyclist and there really is no good evidence for helmets reducing mortality and morbidity
I do wear one on occasion - for Trail centres and other riding wear the odds of crashing are high. I enjoy wandering around the countryside on easy trafic free trails wear teh odds of crashing and sustaining a head injury that would be prevented by a helmet are so low as to be insignificant. In those circumstances I am prepared to accept those odds. it really is millions to one
Lesanita,I'm guessing you're not a scientist, and thats not a scientific test, and for the impacts that would cause serious injury or worse, the difference between the polystyrene clad head and the bare one would be so minimal as to not mention.
If they made any difference in such circumstances their own manufacturers would make bolder claims for such.
The risk compensation arguement is not limited to cyclists being a bit more daft, the more worrying suggestion is that motorists take more risks with cyclists lives as they (subconciously) percieve them as being better protected. If thats true, then not wearing a helmet may PREVENT the accident happening in the first place.
Something to think about...
TJ - you are always quoting this argument...
"If the impact would have been enough to kill without one then even with one you would have had a serious injury. That's the nature of the beast"...
...which is just fundamentally flawed and simply wrong!
I seem to recall you have some involvement in the medical industry, but certainly you are lacking in gross knowledge on brain injuries, their mechanisms, and the potentially serious outcomes of even simple head injuries.
Take for example a [url= http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-677773288 ]subdural haematoma[/url], this can occur following simple head injuries that can be sustained following a fall from standing height. The sufferer doesn't 'instantly die', but can die minutes later from the pressure effect, or be left with irreversible injury. A helmet will dissipate this energy into a 'safe amount'.
See [url= http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=1275461634&linkID=7577&cook=yes ]here[/url] for further details on the secondary consequences from head injury.
Of course, if a truck were to hit you head on no manner of body armour would offer an ounce of hope, but it really is boring, repetitive, and [b]quite simply wrong[/b] for you to forever chunter on with your ideas that all head injuries fall into one of two classes:
1 - dead without a helmet or crippled with.
2 - fine without a helmet, fine with.
This isn't a jab at you personally, just an incorrect idea you seem to have picked up somewhere.....
DrP
Dr P - and I have never said that. One of the really galling things about this debate is people continually telling me I have said things that I have not - I fully accept another category - no injury with helmet,( minor )injury without helmet. There is also another category - focal brain injury without helmet, diffuse axonal injury with helmet due to the increase in rotational forces. This is real although of low probability
""If the impact would have been enough to kill without one then even with one you would have had a serious injury. That's the nature of the beast"..." Is true as a general rule. Go and read the evidence on how helmets work. For sure you can get a subdural on a fall from your own height - but this is very rare.
Cycle helmets simply cannot absorb enough energy make significant difference to major trauma as a whole for sure you can have a very unlucky fall and have major trauma from a low impact and in that case a helmet might well substantially mitigate the trauma - but how frequent is that?
You however seem to think that helmets offer more protection than they do - like many others seem to.
It is not me that has failed to grasp the debate - you have failed to listen to what I am saying and instead make up your own version of what I am saying and also have failed to follow the evidence.
I do understand how brain trauma works - I have worked in head injuries ITU and in head injuries rehabilitation.
If you want to argue with me do so - however do me the courteousy of actually reading what I say and of following the evidence.
