SCOTLAND’S leading lobby group for cyclists is to cease advertising events that insist on the compulsory use of safety helmets because it fears the measure puts riders off the sport and exposes them to potential danger.Spokes, the Lothian-based pro-cycling charity, said it was taking the controversial step as it was uncertain whether the benefits of helmets outweighed the risks they posed in some types of crashes.
Tens of thousands of safety helmets are bought every year as part of what is now a multi-million-pound industry based on the alleged benefits of protecting riders from the impact of falls and collisions.
But Spokes claims drivers give helmeted cyclists less space as they overtake because they appear “safer” and that some cyclists take more risks when wearing a helmet. In some crashes, Spokes claims, helmets can make some head injuries worse.
from the number of times I've read helmet reviews that have said that without the helmet they would probably have died, I think I'll keep wearing mine
Slow Sunday morning for you druidh? Family all at church, and left you to your own devices?
uncertain whether the benefits of helmets outweighed the risks they posed in [b]some types of crashes[/b]
As do seatbelts in some types of crashes.
I've stopped wearing a helmet on milder (i.e. most of mine) off road rides, quite enjoying it.
Wouldn't do it on the road though.
Mainstream media? The hootsmon?
Once again a good summary of the debate and the evidence with links here
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688
from the number of times I've read helmet reviews that have said that without the helmet they would probably have died, I think I'll keep wearing mine
Your choice, but there's no actual evidence in what you've said.
I thought the article was fairly well balanced. Note that there are two other pieces in the same publication.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/should-safety-helmets-be-made-compulsory-no-1-2335355
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/should-safety-helmets-be-made-compulsory-yes-1-2335359
Funny - my thoughts are the opposite in that I'm less likely to have a slow speed incident on the road bike and if it's a high speed one (or involves a collision), the helmet would be of minimal benefit.vinnyeh - Member
I've stopped wearing a helmet on milder (i.e. most of mine) off road rides, quite enjoying it.Wouldn't do it on the road though.
Mind you, modern helmets are so light and well ventilated that I hardly see wearing one as any sort of a problem and I'm at an age where I'm unlikely to take more risks just because I'm wearing one 🙂
Bloke at work was asking my advice about getting a bike & then asked what helmet would be best as he thought it was law to wear one!
I´ve headbutted a tree superman style. My helmet cracked open.
Apart from a headache, I was fine.
I think I´ll "risk" continuing wearing one.
I always wear mine. My partner's sister has a friend working at a hospital in head injuries. He is very supportive of bike helmets!
Can hardly believe it when I see people riding without them. Especially on the road.
Shame the evidence does not support them being very effective against serious head injuries.
Helmets for car drivers would save many more injuries as would helmets for drinking.
Individual reactions are funny to this issue - including mine
On my road bike, I have never hit my head (fortunately) in any accident. And yet (after years of triathlon rules) I would never go on my road bike without one.
On my MTB, 9/10 crashes have involved head impact, broken helmets, cut face, headaches etc. Of those 8/10 made me very relieved to be wearing a helmet. And yet, I often ride XC rides without a helmet, but rarely more technical stuff. Not really logical that as there is always a hidden root even of simple rides!
Is there something in the geometry of a MTB or perhaps the angle of the surface that makes head impact more likely on a MTB or is my experience atypical? (I clip in on both types of bike BTW)
I am persuaded by a libertarian argument against helmet complusion but the idea that it discourages participation, while apparently backed up by evidence, always leaves me a little puzzled. Law of unintended consequences or oddities in human behaviour perhaps?
Good public policy should be evidence led
The way to reduce cyclist injuries is to control car drivers thru law enforcement, education and road engineering.
Surrey Hills is busy enough with mtbers, if making wearing helmets law would discourage a few then that would be a good thing for the rest of us.
I've put plenty of dents in my helmets over the years - don't really want dents in my head. But that's just me.
Just because you crashed with a helmet on and it broke, doesn't really show how much it did.
In this month's Spokes, their free "magazine", they talk about this a bit and also mention headbands for drivers, which, research suggests, reduces serious injuries.
Scroll down a bit here:
http://averagejoecyclist.com/?p=2259
bones heal, brain tends no to, think I'll look after it.
If you don't let Darwin take its course
I can appreciate the stance that Spokes are taking (refusing to advertise events that insist on helmet wearing) but many of these will have that condition imposed on them by insurance companies.
However, as an organisation that is supposed to be promoting cycling, I think they are taking the wrong approach.
Maybe it will encourage some thinking within the insurance industry (watches Jubilee-pig-fly-past)
PeaslakeDave - Member
from the number of times I've read helmet reviews that have said that without the helmet they would probably have died, I think I'll keep wearing mine
The number of time I've her people claim that wearing a sports band made them stronger faster, I think I'll keep on wearing one too.
But Spokes claims drivers give helmeted cyclists less space as they overtake because they appear “safer”
that's a problem with drivers, not helmets...
druidh +1.
Just because you crashed with a helmet on and it broke, doesn't really show how much it did.
It shows my head would have likely come into contact with the ground/tree/rock. I prefer my helmet to take the hit - no matter how inconsequential the hit.
But like I say - that's just me. People are free to do otherwise.
PeaslakeDave - Memberfrom the number of times I've read helmet reviews that have said that without the helmet they would probably have died, I think I'll keep wearing mine
I should write some sort of bot script for these threads...
When I had my big road crash, I was told multiple times by the assorted doctors and paramedics that saw me that my helmet had definately saved my life. Wasn't actually wearing one.
Still, I do almost always wear one now- it's a good place to put a light or camera, and you'd feel a right knob if you didn't wear one and you died. It's never saved my life and most likely never will but it's saved me from a few unpleasant bruises and knocks and that's enough.
(aside: accident studies show that you're massively more likely to suffer a serious knee injury than head injury... And knee pads are cheaper, comfier IME, and there's no controversy about their effectiveness let alone whether they create risk. But if you don't wear a helmet you're a nutter, and if you wear kneepads you're a poofter. Obviously serious head injuries are worse than serious knee injuries- but I'd rather not have either!)
weeps silently in a corner at this again
What about thatcher in a helmet opening a nuclear power station with the pope and talking about the laffer curve ?
the evidence is about the risk to the majority as helmet laws reduce participation*. the answer is to wear a helmet for when you crash and educate drivers. It is not an either or despite what will get said on this thread AGAIN and AGAIN
* to do a with and without helmet crash in the real world is not possible hence the lack of evidence- we lall know an rider not injured by wearing a helmet does not hen go to hospital to point out the helmet just saved them going to hospital
Many on here have had a crash bad enough to split helmets or concuss themselves - yes I would have lived but it would have been far worse. Pro choice but not pro debate on this again on here.
PS the distance one if it is that guy in bath is absolutely terrible - its subjective and pseudo science at best.
Northwind - Member
... Wasn't actually wearing one...But if you don't wear a helmet you're a nutter, and if you wear kneepads you're a poofter
😉 Interesting points even excusing the non_pc terminology 😉
I would be interested to learn more about knee injuries - type, causes etc - as I have never worn knee pads.
FWIW same with car crashed loads of injuries from people hitting their knees into the massive bunch of keys they own
Really?! This again?! If you want to wear one wear one (I do pretty much every time I get on a bike), if you don't then don't. This will rage on and on with the usual suspects arguing the toss that there's no proof either way...
TBH - I was more interested in what folk thought about what Spokes were doing than just rehearsing the same arguments.
Seeing as this happened yesterday I'll mention it:
On a group road ride I was at the back, all pretty spread out after a climb. Coming down the subsequent descent I saw one of the others in front lying in the road in a bad way, not really aware of his situation and looking pretty cut up. After a while he seemed more aware of what was going on and thought his collarbone was broken. His helmet was badly damaged on one side so guess he banged his head and from the way he was had a bit of concussion - so would he have been better off without a helmet? Anyway, went off in an ambulance and I hear he's getting on OK.
This is what we think caused him to come off:
http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/hazard/9038
Shame the council don't seem interested.
hard to do that Druidh - i suppose whether you think they are right depends on your views on helmets.
No idea does it reflect the views of their members?
I left CTC over their helmet view for example.
you'd feel a right knob if you didn't wear one and you died.
I wouldn't, but then I'm an aetheist.
It is however troubling to think that it could affect things like death in service benefits.
Fair enough, my apologies. And in that case am in agreement with you that it's a bit silly to not be promoting stuff because of an issue which for many organisers is probably more to do with their insurance needs than their actual preferences.
Indeed Druidh, that is the interesting and new debate. Are Spokes correct or not?
Understand argument but convoluted logic behind solution means a "no" from me.
The bike helmet manufactures should have some real world crash info from the crash damaged ones people exchange for new ones like what the wife did with her helmet.
Junkyard
* to do a with and without helmet crash in the real world is not possible hence the lack of evidence- we lall know an rider not injured by wearing a helmet does not hen go to hospital to point out the helmet just saved them going to hospital
the studies that show a protective effect from helmets are all case controlled studies of casualties in hospitals.
the problem is as you say its only a part of the data set
It only includes those who crash and have injuries ( head or otherwise) treatable in hospitals
It does not include ( as you say) helmeted riders who are uninjured
Similarly it does not include unhelemeted riders who are uninjured nor does it include those who do not crash at all.
Nor does it allow for the fact that wearing a helmet makes a head impact more likely - due to the increased size and weight of the head.
Nor does it allow for risk compensation
This will allway give rise to false positives and no one knows what including the rest of the data set would do
It also fails to allow for those whose helmets exacerbated injuries Some research estimates this as as high as 30% of all cycle head injuries are exacerbated by helmets.
When the whole population is looked at then as helmet wearing rates rise no significant fall in injuries is noted. This has been seen in multiple studies in multiple countries
The discrepancy between these two sets of results needs a valid explanation. However it is clear that any protective effect helmets may have is vastly overestimated by the case control studies or otherwise this protective effect would be seen in the whole population studies
Edit - part of the post lost
with regards to Druidh / Spokes point I think it is a bit daft 'cos it will not change policy. Is the compulsory helmets really insurance led tho?
I far prefer active safety measure - ways to reduce the number of accidents rather than passive safety
Your odds on having a head injury that would be mitigated by a helmet are millions to one if you are an experience adult cyclist.
What is really needed is better research, better designed helmets, more knowledge.
TJ spurting out his dribble again presenting the same points which have been conclusively refuted many times over.
Can't be arsed this time.
I think everyones opinions are fixed on this issue anyhow and nobody will change their stance so whats the point?
I used to play rugby, as back row forward, at a reasonable level and usually experienced 1 or 2 concussions per season. One year I wore a scrum cap (helmet) and received 6 or 7 - I forget exactly which, along with many other things about that season...
When considering why this was I came to the following conclusions:
1. I felt invulnerable when wearing the scrum cap which lead me to put my head in daft places or lead more with it.
2. Players who might think twice about kneeing or punching an uncovered head (mainly because heads are hard and hurt when you collide with them) see a nice padded scrum cap and give it a clout.
I stopped wearing a scum cap for the remainder of my playing career.
I can see that the same psychology applies to wearing a helmet on the road where you're effectively increasing your chances of having an accident (because drivers are less cautious) whilst decreasing the consequences of the accident (because a helmet provides head protection); the challenge is quantifying the risk (more likely to have an accident) vs the benefit (severity reduced).
Having said that I still wear a helmet on road from habit and off road because it makes me go faster - and I like going fast!
Hugor - they are not refuted. Point to me any refutation. No need to be offensive.
The point about the case control studies only using a part of the data set is true as is the fact that no / little protective effect is seen in whole population studies.
Edit - the fact that the after the fact case control studies use only a part of the data set is irrefutable.
Teh lack of protective effect in whole population studies is simply a part of the data to be consideed hence I put
The discrepancy between these two sets of results needs a valid explanation. However it is clear that any protective effect helmets may have is vastly overestimated by the case control studies or otherwise this protective effect would be seen in the whole population studies
It also fails to allow for those whose helmets exacerbated injuries [b]Some[/b] research estimates this as [b]as high as 30%[/b] of all cycle head injuries are exacerbated by helmets.
Should be pretty easy to get a feel for that vague statement. Given we have all binned it on our bikes we have a good sample size, so does anyone on here fall into the category that TJ describes above?
Anyone?
Though not 🙂
Pembo
How would you know if your head injury had been exacerbated?
Its the difference between a focal brain injury from a direct impact and diffuse axon injury from rotational impact.
Most concussions are the latter and helmets increase rotational forces. Most brain injuries are a mix of both types of injury tho - but focal injuries have better recovery rates.
Poc have developed helmets to reduce the rotational forces - explanation here.
http://www.pocsports.com/en/content/view/new-technologies#MIPS
I always wear a helmet but as far as I can tell (and it can be difficult) I've never really smashed my head into anything when I've binned it though I couldn't be 100% sure.
The only time I can think of where my helmet has definitely prevented me from getting a nasty knock on the head is on my local trail when I rode underneath a hanging tree branch....except it was too low and I smashed the top of my head into it.
The fact that I did the same thing precisely a week later, with exactly the same tree branch means I am probably too stupid NOT to wear a helmet I think.
Cool! So as a helmet wearer I take more risks - wearing mine all the time now; to show how gnarcore I am, might even get a full face.
hugor - MemberTJ spurting out his dribble again presenting the same points which have been conclusively refuted many times over.
I have never seen this conclusive refutation of which you speak. Go on...
PemboHow would you know if your head injury had been exacerbated?
Fortunately, whenever I have clattered my head it hasn't resulted in a head injury, probably because I was wearing a helmet - well you did ask.
It is, however, a bit disappointing that the Spokes article cites that well known 'neutral, unbiased' source of information, cycle-helmets.org as a reference.
Thing is though, Spokes aren't trying to make an anti-helmet case; they're making an anti-compulsion case, which is a very different kettle of fish. The former really requires proof that helmets aren't a good idea- the latter only requires a lack of proof that helmets are a good idea. And from my position on the fence that seems a reasonable position to take.
Still, it's a complicated place to put yourself. Would they, frinstance, refuse an advert from the downhill world cup? Or from a tweedlove kids event? It's not all road riding, easy xc, and adult decisions. Not all events have control over their rules, and some have different circumstances to others.
Holy crap.Not yet [i]another[/i] helmet debate started on STW. Jeez how tedious, there must be something else to discuss on a Sunday afternoon. I wear a helmet, I don't wear a helmet, a helmet could save you, a helmet won't save you... surely [i]we[/i] have all made our decision by now???
As NW puts it there's 2 issues here.
1. Do they actually protect against head injuries?
2. Would compulsion be advantageous to the community?
The answer to 1 is simply yes. The best available evidence in medical literature is a metanalyses which is level 1. These combine all the best available studies on a subject, collate the samples and perform statistical analysis to 95% confidence. This means that if the statistics are less than 95% certain the study is regarded as inconclusive. The best metanalysis on cycle helmet efficacy has been published in the Cochrane library which is widely regarded as the best available evidence and its difficult to argue with.
[url= http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/Safety_on_the_road/CD001855.pdf ]This[/url] found
Helmets provide a 63 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists.
This is real life data based on the collation of all case control studies. This is not any form of simulation. This is the best evidence that there is.
This over-rides any concerns about rotational forces, risk compensation etc because this data is drawn from real cyclists injury rates and their rate of helmet use.
Now for 2.
This is where there is scope for debate.
This is where people attempt to weigh up whether the survival advantage of wearing a helmet, is counterbalanced by the drop in cyclists numbers. The drop in cyclist numbers may cause more deaths related to sedentary lifestyle and its cardiovascular impacts.
Unfortunately most of this data is quite old and centres around an Australian paper by Robinson.
Australian authorites have refuted this paper no end and as most people know Australia has had compulsion in place for 20 years.
The legislation and evidence has been reviewed in Australia many times in that 20 years and yet it persists to this day.
It is very rare to see cyclists in Australia not wearing helmets and thats not because its law, but because its now part of cycling culture.
As you say people have their minds made up and you simply do not want to listen to the evidence - you have made that clear.
This is real life data based on the collation of all case control studies. This is not any form of simulation. This is the best evidence that there is.
Its a very flawed piece of biased work that is widely discredited
1) it still contains the self selecting sample / only a part of the data set as it only includes people who crash and sustain injury - hence false positives. this is a major flaw in studies of the type used
2) its only using a very limited range of studies and the people who did the cochrane study were the authors of most of the studies used.
3) it completely ignores some factors - risk compensation, helmets exacerbating injury amongst other factors
4) it assumes that those who have crashes are representative of the cycling population whereas other studies show that actually the two populations are very different in nature and also studies show that helmet and non helmet wearers are different populations
That cochrane study is actually completely discredited as a result of major flaws in it. It is certainly a long way from the proof you claim it to be and a long way from a decent bit of work
[url= http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1243.html ]critique of the cochrane review[/url]
This over-rides any concerns about rotational forces, risk compensation etc because this data is drawn from real cyclists injury rates and their rate of helmet use.
No it does not because these studies cannot tell you if these factors are significant or not as they specifically discount the existence of them before any analysis. the studies also only have a part of the population so we do not know if the helmet wearers have a higher rrate of crashing.
.
Unfortunately most of this data is quite old and centres around an Australian paper by Robinson.
again incorrect - there is data from a wide number of similar total population surveys that show the same - no / little protective effect.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689
I suggest you actuality look at the recent data and debates on this - but I bet yo will not. Please just open your mind and eyes.
BMA position / debate http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4690
Dont be silly now. You cannot discredit Cochrane. It represents the best available unbiased evidence on any medical subject.
People may have attempted to discredit it for their own reasons but if their account was reasonable there would be a revision and there hasn't.
The current [url= http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/transport/promotingsafecycling.jsp?page=3#.T8uWwhB5mSM ]BMA position[/url] is:
The BMA, as a part of its policy to improve safe cycling supports compulsory wearing of cycle helmets when cycling for children and adults. The Association wants to see an increase in voluntary use prior to the introduction of cycle helmet legislation and supports initiatives that so increase such use.
Stupid, stupid, Spokes. I always quite liked them though I'm not sure they ever really achieve very much.
I've always said if you don't believe a helmet can protect you in a crash, come round and we can do some simple experiments on the street with your head, a bike and some tarmac or a wall, with and without a helmet, and see which you prefer with hindsight.
I'm pretty sure the whole anti-helmet thing is led by the older stubborn touring type rider who didn't grow up with them and doesn't like being told what to do by younger people.
If the UK was like Copenhagen in terms of cycling safety Spokes might have a point, but the focus needs to be on making cycling safe in the UK by changing the attitudes of road users and the transport infrastructure, not trying to lull innocent cyclists into a false sense of security and into danger on the roads just to satisfy the misguided opinions of a few individuals who happen to be in a position of 'regard'.
Hugor = the cochrane reviwew is flawed and discredited. I gave you reasons why and a link to a decent piece of analysis. Of course you can discredit the cochrane review. Its almost meaningless it is so flawed
the BMA debate is far wider than that
You tell me this. if head injuries are reduced by such large amounts by helmets why can this not be seen in the head injury rates pre and post compulsion?
But of course you will not engage o this as it is so obvious the massive flaws in the evidence once you actually look at the data
Haven't read the above as no doubt full of arguments 🙂 but thought I'd share my experience.
Came off last January on the road whilst doing 20mph. Helmet was cracked in 2 places.
Had I not been wearing my helmet I'm 99% sure I wouldn't be typing this today (or if I was it wouldn't be comprehendible).
I've used about three helmets I think and very sure they have saved me a lot more damage, at the very least I would not have much scalp/hair left and have terrible cuts if I hadn't been wearing one.
Bigjim - no doubt good at preventing cuts and bruises. Its the preventive effect for major injury that is far more debatable
I'm not going to let this consume my whole evening again.
I come here to hear about people's amazing rides not argue with someone who misquotes the medical bodies and discredits the best available medical evidence.
Unfortunately I can't help but be drawn into this debate as my daily job involves putting people back together again and telling them their disabilities are permanent.
I feel some sense of obligation if someone comes on here telling people they are safer without a helmet to set the facts straight. What they do with those facts is their business.
Are you safer with a helmet? Yes
Is there a survival advantage to the broader community for compulsion? The evidence is inconclusive.
I'm outta here.
The Spokes take on this does seem pretty silly - as someone else noted there is a pretty good chance the events in question are only doing it for insurance reasons.
Spokes are like many bike related organisations - a mix of good stuff with stupid/reactionary stuff. I agree with their take on some stuff but there is a fair bit I don't - so other than buying the maps I haven't had anything to do with them. Plus their website is so bad I find it difficult to spend any time on it.
A real shame those websites don't even attempt to be objective. 60 seconds reading TJ's second links shows up holes and bias.
hugor - Member
Are you safer with a helmet? [u]In my opinion, albeit I am unable to establish this evidentially,[/u] Yes
FTFY
TJ. Do you [i]really[/i] think cyclehelmets is a neutral source of information?
Well hugor - you would have more respect from me if you actually listened to both what I say and what the evidence says. But no - you have a closed mind on this and you do not want to hear.
I do not misquote the medical bodies.
I do not say anyone is safer without a helmet.
What I do say is the the actual evidence is flawed and contradictory and there is no decent evidence of helmets reducing head injuries. All 100% true
If yo actually want to reduce morbidity then you would want evidence based practice.
Your support for helmet compulsion would result in increased morbidity - well founded fact as a dozen might be saved from dying from head injuries but a hundred would die from diseases of inactivity.
If you think that cochrane review is best evidence then you show how little you really know. I do note yo have not even attempted to answer the flaws I show in it.
[b]Go on - answer me this. if helmets reduce head injuries by 60+% why is this not see in the longitudinal studies pre and post compulsion?[/b]
I feel some sense of obligation if someone comes on here telling people they are safer without a helmet to set the facts straight.
~
so do I which is why I expose the myths and flaws in the evidence and say that there is no decent proof of helmets reducing head injuries - as that is true.
Saying helmets reduce in jury absense of good evidence that they do takes emphasis away from measures that would actually reduce injury
You should be arguing for more and better research and better standard of helmets as well as other measures that reduce deaths to cyclists such as enforcing traffic law
imnotverygood - MemberTJ. Do you really think cyclehelmets is a neutral source of information?
No - it clearly needs to be considered with a pinch of salt - however the other side of the debate is equally biased
I don't care what TJ says/links to. I have enough personal experience to know that not wearing a helmet would have left me in a bad way more than once. If you come off a bike and your helmet is trashed and your head is not why wouldn't you?
This really is a thread for the same old bores that really can't help themselves. I'll be donning my foil helmet and nothing new to see here glasses 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
Correct - I allowed myself to be sucked in didn't I
doh!
I dont ride on the road so i'm not likely to get taken out by other road users....my MTB riding is exclusively off road, judging by the number of scrapes, scratches and knocks my helmets (particularly the full face for DH) have taken i'm glad i wear one as i reckon my scalp would be a lumpy bumpy scarred mess by now and several rides would've been cut short due to cuts....helmets arent perfect though....my other half rides horses and their rules on hats are just changing too....fixed peak hats (traditional) are to be banned in competition, they found that face planting from a horse and landing on the peak caused the neck to hyper-extend....there will be constant evolution in cycling helmets, personally i think the safest looking style for general riding are the almost round ones that a lot of the dirt jump and enduro guys wear, no peaks and encompasses most of the skull....never been a fan of the roadie, mushroom on the head style....often feel 'whats the point' when i see that style.
To the original point.....
Refusing to promote an event if they insist on helmet wearing is poor judgement. Racing tends to be at higher speeds with more riders in close proximity to each other.
In DH etc there is enough hassle trying to get kids to do there f'in chin straps up. Certainly wouldn't want to have a pop at Val Di Sol or Fort William without one on.
I am happy as an individual that my brain is precious enough to give some extra protection to. I also wear knee/shin on the mtn bike and will wear more depending on the situation. As for more chance of knee injuries I think the recovery rate is better for those.
In Perth WA they are considering changing the compulsory rules so that on certain routes under a certain speed a helmet is not compulsory. Instant Confusion!!
As for cars taking more liberties with a rider wearing a lid, it sounds like steaming bull****. Most drivers claim to have not seen the bike at all, let alone what the rider was wearing.
As always there are a range of possible injuries that can be picked up on/off a bike. The only way to avoid them all is to stay at home. To take protection against one of the more serious is wise. I know it will not prevent all injuries hence I don't ride like I'm invincible.
Ah yes, the weekly debate about the half inch of polystyrene. Oh well, I don't have any work to do today anyway.
As for cars taking more liberties with a rider wearing a lid, it sounds like steaming bull****. Most drivers claim to have not seen the bike at all, let alone what the rider was wearing
The evidence that this is the case is far more compelling than the evidence that helmets will do you any good in a crash.
Anyway, just to balance the "if I hadn't been wearing a helmet I would have been dead" arguments that get trotted out every time. Do any of you really have a similar experience of crashing without a helmet to compare it to?
I remember a mate of mine jumped on my back when we were walking between pubs. I started running forwards but then lost my balance and fell forward. He went flying over the top of me and his head went straight into the edge of a kerb. The thud was sickening.
Apart from a mild concussion he was fine. Had he had a similar crash on a bike while wearing a helmet I'm sure he would now be as evangelical about helmets as many others on here.
It's half an inch of polystyrene. Stop putting so much faith in it and hopefully drivers will stop assuming it's some sort of magical amulet.
I don't have a problem with it. The Scotsman headline is slightly misleading - as it states Spokes withdrawing support from events where helmet wearing is encouraged. In fact spokes are withdrawing support from events where it is compulsory. It seems Spokes would have no objection to an organiser saying "We encourage you to wear an appropriate, properly fitted cycle helmet." I'd be surprised if insurers can't be convinced that 'complying with the highway code, including encouraging (but not mandating) helmets' is enough.druidh - Member
TBH - I was more interested in what folk thought about what Spokes were doing than just rehearsing the same arguments.
I'd certainly support the assertions that spokes made:
- some drivers do seem to give you a wider berth without a helmet.
- most people are unaware that helmets are designed for road-head interfaces at <12 mph not car-head interfaces at 30 mph.
- people are more sub-consciously inclined to take higher risks wearing a helmet
I'd also add that more than half the helmets I see aren't fitted properly - which means the rider has higher expectations of its effectiveness than the manufacturer.
In my experience Spokes are more interested in 'general' cycling than MTB and the arguments for/against helmets in a forest at 10 mph are quite different from on a road at 25; however as the thread a few weeks ago showed MTB fatalities are extremely rare despite the fact not everyone wears helmets, many who do are ill fitting and serious crashes on downhill are likely to be at speeds above the design speed of the helmet.
However, my son's cycling club insist on helmet usage during their training sessions. Correct fitting is checked every time, and the speeds they ride at and type of surfaces are probably pretty much what helmets are designed for. There are plenty of spills and I think if I was on the committee I would be insisting on helmets. They don't get funding from Spokes, but it would be a shame if other funders followed suit - when there is definitely an argument for helmets in some circumstances. Interestingly I arrived at his club the other night without a helmet (normally I do have one, but I had left it in the car which my wife was using at the time) - and a couple of the kids pointed out my error... ...it did make me wonder if we are brainwashing children into believing helmets make people safe.
Latest update. A slight increase from 307,000 in April:
[img] 
[/img]
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word
Where did Spokes say a helmet WON'T protect you in a crash?bigjim - Member
Stupid, stupid, Spokes. I always quite liked them though I'm not sure they ever really achieve very much.I've always said if you don't believe a helmet can protect you in a crash, come round and we can do some simple experiments on the street with your head, a bike and some tarmac or a wall, with and without a helmet, and see which you prefer with hindsight.
But you would be at least partly wrong. I wouldn't say I am anti-helmet (I wear one for 99% of my riding) but I would object to being made to wear one to ride the 400m to the local Tesco, and would be less likely to use my bike for that if it impacted my convenience. The inevitable consequence is to revert to the most convenient form of transport - the 1.5 tonne, steel box with in build oil burner. I grew up as one of the first people I knew to wear a helmet. I've bothered to understand where a helmet might help and might not and take educated risks.I'm pretty sure the whole anti-helmet thing is led by the older stubborn touring type rider who didn't grow up with them and doesn't like being told what to do by younger people.
well firstly bear in mind that Spokes has a Lothian remit not UK wide and circumstances may be different locally, e.g. they claim a 7 fold increase in cycle commuting within their patch since 1977; they also seem to take a pragmatic approach and try to change the things they can rather than simply get upset about why the UK is not the Netherlands or Denmark.If the UK was like Copenhagen in terms of cycling safety Spokes might have a point, but the focus needs to be on making cycling safe in the UK by changing the attitudes of road users and the transport infrastructure,
But that is precisely what Spokes are doing. They are highlighting that cyclists may be under a false sense of security (and/or non cyclists in a false sense of danger) possibly because of misguided information from those in a position of regard (e.g. the BMA, or helmet manufacturers).not trying to lull innocent cyclists into a false sense of security and into danger on the roads just to satisfy the misguided opinions of a few individuals who happen to be in a position of 'regard'.
What it seems to me, Spokes do not want to see, is helmet usage become compulsory as precisely the type of cycling they have spent the last 35 yrs promoting will be most affected, that is: "cycling, as part of a sustainable transport and access strategy". They are not telling anyone to stop wearing a helmet - simply suggesting that cycling without a helmet is not inherently unsafe, and that imagery of all cyclists wearing helmets discourages people who may not have been on a bike for 30 yrs from getting our their 1.5 ton steel boxes, or off their sofas and using bikes.
Well said Poly.
there is lots of evidence that helmet promotion even reduces participation. This is why the change in the BMA stance caused such outrage amongst many doctors as the various debates show. My GP does not wear a helmet cycling
There is good evidence to suggest that helmet compulsion in ther UK would cost a couple of hundred lives a year thru reduced cycling while only saving a handful thru reduced head injuries.
It does amuse me the way for the helmet evangelists pro helmet research is the gold standard and must be right whereas anything that is sceptical must be rubbish - wheras people who actually approach this with an open mind can see flaws and quality evidence on both sides. [b]This is why I say the research is often poor quality and contradictory as well as counter intuitive and one of the key things we should be agitating for is more an better research including better testing of helmets
[/b]
some interesting analysis here. Note the reductions in cycle usage after legislation
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster
Well, I've enjoyed reading this thread.
I always wear a helmet these days. Despite never owning one until my late 20s I'm now of the opinion that the day I don't put it on will be the day I clobber myself. I'm a little bit OCD like that.
Open-mindedness on the subject is a good thing though. And what Spokes have done is raised public awareness on a little known alternative take, allowing the general public to question what it is they put on their heads, and why.
Through that, we might get a more complete set of data on the subject, and in the meantime more people may become interested in cycling.
Yes, cycling can be dangerous, but as already pointed out, so are many other activities. Like living.
Have read a fair bit of the scientific evidence on the subject I prefer to ride with a helmet. I do however support the rights of others to enter the Darwin awards by not wearing a helmet so am not currently in favour of compulsion.
I also think Spokes stance on not advertising events which require helmets pretty stupid but sadly quite typical of the pro-cycling lobby.
steve - doesn't sound like you've read much of the evidence.
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/
Is it the lack of a helmet that makes cycling more dangerous or is the design of roads and attitude of the road users? If you get run over by a lorry a helmet isn't really going to make a bit of difference to the outcome. We should be looking at the cause of the problem rather than trying to mitigate it with a piece of polystyrene.
http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/734/cycling/cycling-rates-by-country/
steve - doesn't sound like you've read much of the evidence.
I did. I even read that pseudo-scientific nonsense that TJ continually posts about.