[Closed] Wear a helmet FFS

Devs - I have been biking for 40 yrs and have never hit my head. If you hit your helmeted head and have no injury it is very likely that you would have had a very minor injury without it - that is the magnitude of the foirces involved.

Well done. You are obviously such a great biker that you'll never have a crash. Let me tell you about the forces involved. I weight 17st and hit the ground at 28.7mph. My helmet cracked in half as did my shoulder. Apart from passing out every time I tried to stand up my head escaped unscathed. My shades prevented the skin getting wripped off my face too. I'm glad I was wearing them and my helmet.
I hear and understand your theories and stats but they won't help you on the day when the head/hard object impact occurs. As I asked before, who has had a crash and regretted wearing a helmet? I'm not seeing any here.
Peace and love and all that stuff and I hope you never have to test your theories.

Devs - the answer to that is everyone who has had a serious spinal injury from mountainbiking.

Are you saying they are all down to the rotational forces caused by helmets???

Well, fudge the rotation this rotation that, risk this risk that...I for one am glad I wear a helmet, and believe it or not the one incident that sticks in my mind more than any other is nothing to do with a really heavy landing or being knocked out, it's the time I crashed on to a broken picnic bench and impaled my helmet on a sticky-outy nail, only an inch or so long but I am sure as hell glad my helmet took that impact and not my head.

anyway, even if you're not sold on the spine and brain injury aspects TJ there's a lot to be said for a helmet sliding down the tarmac and ending up with a few scuffs versus your head and a nice scalping...

I'll wear mine and be happy thank you very much

Why are there so many discussions about this? Wear one if you want, don't wear one if you don't want.

As someone said above, I feel wierd without one - and am generally glad to have it on when I crash. Fair play to those who don't like em, that's their choice.

Daz - that is why I don't ride bikes anymore 8)

I agree it is about risk assessment- I personally assess that it is extremely risky not to wear a helmet (well, barking actually)- just like it is very risky to go off road on your own. Therefore I wear a helmet and when I see someone else off road on their own especially at nght or without a helmet I think 'what a silly billy' (or words to that effect), acknowlege that they are far braver than me and just hope they get back in one piece. But if they wish to do that's fair enough, although I have a paramedic cousin who would argue and does, often, very strongly that it is very selfish to do so considering a bad potentally preventable accident can affect people other than yourself

TJ – I hear and understand what your say about the research, and would agree that more ‘real world’ research is called for looking at all forms of cycling and the issues related to crash protection.

However, two things spring to mind – I’ve had 3 crashes were I believe (given the evidence) my helmet saved me from a significant head injury if not a fatal injury – both were just riding along crashes – one involved the catastrophic failure of equipment (albeit at speed although this was not a contributory factor) – the other was low speed, on the tow path caught a tyre edge on a raised cobble & went out the side catching a small concrete block on its corner

Neither were predictable neither were particularly preventable – how would such event fit in with your notion of only wearing a helmet when you need it

Why are there so many discussions about this?

Well put aracer. I object to being called stupid and selfish for taking a rational approach that relies on evidence but does not agree with the majority view.

I also really object to the "helmet saved my life" rhetoric as this simply cannot be stated. The original post on this there are two interpretations (at least) firstly the helmet failed and failed to prevent injury or that the helmet worked and saved more serious injury. There is no way of knowing which is correct.

Breakneckspeed - if you had no injury with a helmet then you would have only had a minor injury without one. Very unlikely to have been catastrophic injury in those circumstances. Helmets do not change an incedent which would be a major injury without a helmet to zero injury with.

I wear a helmet to mainly protect my head from scrapes and bangs from dense singletrack (branches etc) and general knocks from messing around on the bike. The peak also helps protect my eyes along with glasses. In 20 years on riding I've crashed many times; I can't say whether the helmet stopped me from drinking through a tube right now. All I know is that the last big stack I had if there was no helmet I wouldn't be here. High speed, head first (top of the head) into a pointed rock. The helmet had a inch and a half hole in it just stopping short of my skull.

It is about risk assessment and if people don't want to wear them then fair enough. I've just got into the habit of always wearing one.

Plenty of guff on the internet, anti helmet wearing forums etc give negative feedback from wearing and obviously pro-forums give the opposite.

The danger is slightly increased with the speed and type of terrain on a bike. People don't walk down the streets with a helmet on - they can easily trip and smack either the back of their head or side of the head on the kerb/pavement and die.

You will always get people banging away on a different drum beat anyway.

I really cannot understand anyone of TJ's obvious wit and intellect arguing against wearing a helmet. If buts and maybes apart, dangerous sport = minimise the risks whenever you can. Personally I've properly bust 3 helmets now, and theres not once where I thought "I wish I hadn't been wearing that", I've also got past numerous other incidents unscathed where the lid has deflected or absorbed an impact without the impact doing me any harm.

The only exception being a night ride where a low hanging branch caught my head light, and being attached to the hat I was whipped off the bike backwards. Spose that'll have you arguing via the self same logic that you should night ride both helmet and lights free?

Can I be added to the list of people who won't ride with non helmet wearers please? Quite simply I do not want the responsiblity for them or for their stupidity.

G - I am not arguing against wearing helmets - people keep saying I am but I am not.

I am arguing for my right not to wear one when I don't want to as cycling as a whole is not a dangerous pursuit. I am also trying to show folk the flaws in modern cycle helmets hopefully to help build pressure for better designs.

Remember folks - cycling is a very safe pursuit [i]as a whole[/i] Some disciplines can be dangerous - wear as much armour as you think needed. When I am doing a 40 mile loop all traffic free all on easy flat trails ( diusused railways and canal towpaths) then the risk of any accident is very low, the risk of a serious head injury is infinitesimally low. I am prepared to accept that risk. Some of the riding I do you are more likely to drown in a bog than crack your bonce. Should I take a snorkel?

Bollacks. TJ.

I came off almost stopped and got clobbered on the head by the cassette.

Wear a helmet FFS. What have you got to loose ?..............

Your life or your ability to type shit on this forum.

Tandem Jeremy

No problem with discussing this issue with you. You've done well to keep the debate so rational even with so many points of view flying around

Finally it would be very interesting to get some real data on this but I really can't think how it would be done. I was wondering if the hospitals near trail centres record admissions from Mountsin Bikers. I know Milton Keynes general logs "Snow Dome" admissions. But even if you had the data people with out helmets would almost certainly be a non representive group

Ta ampthill

Issues with using hospital admission stats are many fold. Firstly you only see part of the story, secondly serious head injuries are categorised in many ways thus leading to difficulties with comparisons and also there is no way of knowing whether helmets reduced or exacerbated injuries.

I would like to see much more experimental work and much tougher testing standards that reflect real life as far as can be done.

Right – I’m pro choice – its up to the individual whether or not they were a helmet – I have no issue riding with people who choose not to – its there responsibility – I personally think that is fool hardy and irresponsible as the consequence will impact on other people but that my personal view.

I have not always worn a helmet – and did have a similar attitude to TJ but became increasingly nervous about the consequence of coming of on any type of surface – I don’t believe that my helmet gives me magical powers of protection and appreciate that it will only provide a level of protection in certain circumstances – much as the rest of my cycling kit does.

I fully understand TJs argument that the evidence base is deficient and I recognise that the competing force of safety, styling, pricing etc determine that the function of helmets

Finally TJ thanks for your reply – however, certainly in the first crash several injures were sustained, not least a compound fracture of my C3 vertebra (fortunately a stable fracture, and I would censed that this may have been a result of wearing a helmet) – but strongly believe that a side impact to the rear of the skull on to concrete would not cause significant, if not fatal indury

TJ how should a helmet be different then and how would you achieve this?

Al - from what I know and have read-

more extensive cover coming below the ears and onto the nape of the neck and possibly onto the cheekbones. Full face should have the chinbar in contact with the chin and should be made of polystyrene

Smooth outer shell without projections and with a low friction coating but no plastic shell.

Multiple sized shells - the better a shell fits the better it works. TRL state that the use of one size fits all shells with those adjustable bands is a contributory factor in poor performance due to the gap at the back of the head.

There is a chap out there looking at low friction coatings for helmets and snowboard helmets perform better in rotational testing than cycle ones - as do ice hockey helmets.

It is no coincidence that motorcycle helmet design has evolved to a smooth shell with a chinbar that sits next to the chin.

Testing standards should be tested with whole body dummys not just headforms, should involve rotational forces and should be generally more realistic

David Coulthard designed one attempt at redressing the faults
[img] [/img]

I have never read such a load of ridiculous rubbish from one man...TJ you really are a prize idiot. I am certainly pleased that I never have to ride with you, as I refuse to ride with anybody who does not wear a helmet. You may well call this bigoted of me, but having made full use of a helmet on three separate occasions I can certainly vouch for their effectiveness. Each time the helmet sustained considerable damage - flattening out and absorbing the impact. Head injuries are terrible things, as has been seen very recently in the news. We should certainly all assess risk, and analyse the potential for various injuries undertaking the sport that we all love. I would posit, as doctors said to me, that I am only able to carry on doing this sport because I was wearing a helmet.

Swiss tim - and you talk tripe as well 🙂

I have worked on head injury units and know a bit about them, Doctors may have said that to you but they have no way of knowing - read the BMJ debate on helmets for the range of medical opinion and the many consultant neurosurgeons who will state clearly in court that helmets are not proven to reduce injury and no one can ever say that in any one accident a helmet would have or would not have reduced injury

Everything I have posted is back by extensive reading and research. I lke evidence based practice not old wives tales

How, pray tell, is personal experience an..."old wives tale"?

Because it is anecdotal and therefore proves nothing. You simply do not know what could have happened without the helmet. Wheras everything I have posted is backed by real, peer reviewed replicable research

ohh crossing posts...fine, I will accept that my personal experience is for you anecdotal...and have no doubt that inspite of wanting to help improve helmet manufacturers research I have no desire to try and recreate each accident with and without a helmet...I wouldn't fancy my chances...

In fact...I tell you what, why don't you give us the benefit of some of your knowledge about head injuries then...Aside from the helmet debate, let's leave that alone for a second. What we could talk about is how you can hit your head, appear to be fine and then suffer a huge swelling within your skull which causes a pressure on your brain and then.....why don't you explain how that works so we can all understand it from your medical standpoint?

egg, drop it, smashed egg.
egg in polystyrene box, drop egg, egg still an egg.

brainiac science in action it may be but it tells me something about the the properties of polystyrene that might be useful in saving my noggin.

TJ, I admire your persistence in the face of overwhelming opinion, and it does you credit.

Unfortunately, the debate is similar to debates about religion, and is equally unwinnable.

They believe, and will not look at the evidence.

Swiss tim - you talking about coning? I have seen it - very nasty. Or a subdural heamatoma or a diffuse axon injury? How about focal injuries? Sub arachnoid heamatomas? What do you want to know?

Plop pants - that aspect I do not deny in anyway.

Ta crikey!

Thompson DC, Rivara, Thompson RS. 1996
Full paper available on-line mate 😀

Summary report of the Harborview Helmet Studies.
Study at 7 Seattle hospitals involving 3,390 cyclists who were injured or died 1992-4. Individuals with head or brain injuries compared to those involved in crashes but who did not suffere such injuries. 50.6% had worn helmets at time of crash. Concluded that helmets decrease risk of head injury by 69%, brain injury by 65% and severe brain injury by 74%. Helmets work equally well for all age groups, and in crashes with and without motor vehicles (which are most important risk factor for serious injury). Substantial protection provided against lacerations and fractures to upper and mid-face, but not to lower face. Hard shell helmets may offer greatest protection against severe brain injury

To be honest I dont think wearing a lid makes me super man but I think I am better off with one than with out, if you dont want to then dont will happily ride with you and go for a pint afterward (would think your daft though!!! 😈 !!!)

Wookster - that type of study is useful but always overstates the case as they don't see all cases ie those not wearing helmets that don't get a head injury. Neither do they generally differentiate between skills and type of activity. So its a pointer but a flawed one. Self selecting sample IIRC in the jargon which always accentuates positives

All of them please TJ, it would be good to become as educated as you in these matters.

Not sure which way crikey was aiming that actually

Mate agree to disagree but I hope neither of us ever need the use of our lid or skull when out for a ride!! Take care mate!! (still think your daft!) 😀 am off to bed have a 5am (lidded) ride to look forward too!

One question ( not a troll) though mate what lid do you wear when you do bet its not a face saver is it!?!

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury [/url]

Swisstim, read through that, then I'm sure either me or TJ could try to answer any other questions that you may have about head injuries.

I'm firmly with TJ; like him, I've worked with head injured patients in critical care, and I agree with his interpretation of the risks and of the limited value of helmets in the prevention of serious head injuries and deaths.

There is a large amount of evidence out there, and much of it is contradictory. I don't understand the apparently overwhelming desire to see everyone wearing a helmet all the time, and I think, for urban cycling, we are in danger of concentrating on the wrong approach to improve safety.

As above, i'm also sure that no one will change their view regarding helmets; it's an almost religious debate; you believe it or you don't, and too few people are prepared to enter the debate with an open mind.

Appreciate that crikey, been there before to read up a little on what happen to me.

Wookster - aimed at me?

I'd have a facesaver but they are only in kids sizes

I have a bell vented XC helmet for all day use - last used at Blairadam woods as I knew I would be wearing it most of the day.

For jumping and stuff a 661 pisspot lid - more protective but less comfy so can't be worn all day unless its cold. Tends to be worn at glentress - off for the climbs and on for the descents.

Last ride helmetless - 40 mile loop on disused railway lines and canal towpaths.

I do think that compulsion will come; the views on here suggest that the majority of those commenting would like it.

I also think that once we have compulsion, the number of serious head injuries and deaths will not go down, so we will have a restrictive law for little actual benefit.

So...selective helmet use then. Why use one when out jumping?

Crikey, funnily enough, whilst I am 'for' helmets in this debate, I am against being made to wear one by law...it isn't good idea when we are trying to increase the number of cyclists on our roads....and that is a fact. As apposed to being a controversal topic of debate among the medical proffession.

Arrghghhh - swisstim have you actually read my posts?

I wear a helmet when appropriate. I do a bit of ambient jeycore lite riding - helmets are not allowed in that niche of the sport
I do a bit of freefallriding ( bad jumping) - to look hardcore I wear a pisspot and for the bit inbetween a vented xc lid.

Its all about being rational and making rational risk assessments. low risk - no helmet, moderate risk either the vented xc lid or the pisspot(depending whether it would be reasonable to keep taking it off ie short or long climbs), high risk the pisspot.

TJ - I would never deny your right to ride w or w/o a helmet but when you dismiss evidence that other people provide as "anecdotal" or "overstating" yet hold yours up to be infallible it should come as no surprise that people find discussion with you frustrating.

I agree that there is evidence for helmets not being as good as they could be BUT I also realise that they DO prevent a lot of injuries, thats fact. To argue "but how do you know it prevented damage etc.." is rather futile as its just your opinion & by your definition - anecdotal.

Likewise to claim that a helmet failed (although possibly true) & ergo provided no benefit to the wearer is wrong. If SOME benefit was gained thats a positive. I think its good that someone does highlight the weaknesses in helmet design but your stance against helmet wearing is uh odd for someone with so much experience.

At the end of the day its your choice, others should respect that but you also shouldnt be surprised when your strong opinions on the fact rub folk up the wrong way. Especially when its a subject so emotive & one where common sense would seem to decree that helmet-wearing is the smart thing to do.

It is an emotive subject, and made all the more so when friends or ourselves are involved, but TJ has done his best to present the other side of the debate, and I admire his tenacity and refusal to descend to insult.

It's a worthy thing to examine, but we can't seem to do it without resorting to abuse and ultimatums.

I did, but as your answer just then, and indeed previous posts, seem to demonstrate that you are wearing one out of some desire to fit in with which ever niche you are riding with...I am confused. No helmet - jey core, pisspot - jumping but only to LOOK hardcore - not save your head, and the inbetween time you wear a vented xc lid - why? When you have done some complex risk analysis about the type of trail, and the probility of having an accident...explain...I'm just confused..seriously.

ultimatums?

Fair enough repack. The point about saying you simply do not know what would have happened if you hadn't had a helmet on is correct tho - you simply do not know for sure hence all the "helmet saved my life" stories annoy.

Common sense might decree that wearing a helmet is always the smart thing to do but the evidence does not actually support that without doubts. A couple of well proven things that go against "common sense"

Countries with high rates of helmet wear have high rates of head injuries. Across whole populations helmet compulsion reduces the health of the whole population by reducing the number of folk who cycle - so you save one cyclist head injury but get 3 more diabetics with heart attacks ( to oversimplify)

As someone stated above it sa bit of a faith based argument

Im with you on this Crikey its a shame this cant be discussed without it getting juvenile. Helmet design isnt perfect but its better then nothing IMO. I would love to know more about the standards involved in helmet design.

TJ - any idea where I can find out more on helmet design?

Swisstim - I was trying to lighten the argument with the niche thing. It was a joke at my expense.

Risk assessment there are many ways of doing this but there are two ways I do it.
Firstly look at level of risk and severity of risk. The level of risk rises with the difficulty of the terrain and the severity with speed.

So riding a canal towpath which is flat - speed is low, terrain is easy, so risk is low.

Riding a red route at a trail centre risk is higher as there is more to hit ( trees, rocks etc) and the terrain is more difficult and also the severity of injury is greater - higher speeds and pointy rocks to hit.

Or the other way to look at it is activity, location and person. Dicvide each into low, medium and high risk. Assess all three.

So the canal towpath - , location easy riding - low risk, activity (just riding along) low risk, person me (experienced rider) low risk so total risk low.

With this second approach the overall risk is the highest component - so a red grade at a trail centre being ridden by me would be location medium, activity high, person low thus overall risk high

Nice edit TJ,

You can't get away with the fact that you do wear a helmet sometimes...why do you wear one? Not just for fashion, but the fact that there is an element of risk in the activity that you are undertaking - you are chosing to protect your head....

We are in agreement about compulsion though...more cyclists on the street = safer streets for cyclists. Compulsory helmet wear reduces the number of people who want to cycle, increases the danger on our streets, and has a knock on health affect.

Repack - cyclehelmets.org has some info - pinch of salt required for the editorial content but the articles are good. otherwise get googling

Ultimatums.. I mean the kind of 'I'll never ride with anyone who doesn't wear a helmet' kind of thing.

Interesting thought for the day No.1; the Netherlands has one of the lowest helmet use rates, one of the lowest cycle death rates and one of the highest rates of cycle usage.

Interesing thought for the day No.2; the US has one of the highest helmet use rates, the highest cycling death rate and one of the lowest rates of cycle usage.

It's not black and white.

Edit; I agree about compulsion, it would be a shame.

TJ - cheers buddy, I will have a look at that.

I do think that compulsion will come; the views on here suggest that the majority of those commenting would like it.

Well said aracer! If only I could be so succinct

+1 Aracer, well said.

Still don't see the argument against helmets.

I can see an argument that there is no evidence of substance that supports the anecdotal facts that are at my disposal that wearing one is a good idea (because it has saved me from injury several times and never once caused me one), but surely that argument is that one that wins the day. If wearing a lid was a negative or bad thing, surely there would be empirical evidence to support that? Which if I understand TJ correctly there isn't. Besides it is self evident that people don't go rushing off to their local A & E to report the fact that they haven't hurt themselves now do they so there is hardly likely to be any evidence on that side of the argument is there?
Having said that I like TJ would not wish for compulsion, I'd much prefer people to choose to do the sensible thing, through the example set them. I fear however that by the same token that Jade Goody is newsworthy in any way other than as a statistic, common sense will continue to be an oxymoron

G - there is one argument against helmets across populations in that it gives the impression that cycling is dangerous so discourages people from cycling thus not taking the opportunity to improve the health of the population by cycling.

The other arguments tend to get muddled.
Helmets on the whole do reduce injuries to individuals but in some circumstances may make them worse.
Helmets wearing may increase accident rates thru risk compensation - common [i]IMO[/i] amongst mtbers.
Current helmet design has serious flaws from rotational impacts to poor retention systems and poor fit from single shell sizes.
I am not against helmets but against compulsion. I want to be able to ride without one when the risks are low.
I would also like to see better designed and tested helmets that offer as much protection as a helemts for other sports.

TJ - in regards to helmets 'failing'... do you think Giro will accept my split E2 back under warranty? I hit a tree headfirst going at a fair lick on a downhill section at CyB. The helmet cracked pretty much straight through down the middle (I was was fine though). Is it worth a punt?

I doubt it alb - altho it would be very interesting to see what they say. Is the shell compressed? Thats what dissipates the energy

Ah, I've got you now.

I believe thats the same argument as used by Edward Debono that making cars less safe means that people will drive more safely to compensate. I'm not sure thats true though.

I also disagree about the "makes cycling seem more dangerous" thing. I reckon people getting killed by pratish motorists does that perfectly well regardless of the helmets issue. I also think that the fact that so few people get killed riding MTB and the fact that it such a collosal growth area tends to take the argument in the other direction. i.e. People see it as being safe, (perhaps in part due to the part helemts play), and therefore aren't put off from doing it. Surely thats a more logical viewpoint?

Mmm...to conclude then. I hope dennis makes a speedy recovery, and gets back on two wheels soon.

I also disagree about the "makes cycling seem more dangerous" thing.

This is not directly related but might be considered interesting. I am currently living in Vietnam, the roads here are dominated by scooters and small motorbikes (below 125cc) and the city roads are slow, generally below 30-40km, lots of high way speed limits are 50-60km. In Dec 2007 a law was passed making helmets compulsory (a large fine if you did not), before this most people did not wear helmets except on journeys on high ways (law passed in 2005 for wearing helmets on inter city roads). Children under 16 still do not need to wear helmets, not entirely sure why, if you were cynical you might think it was because children would not have the money to pay the fine. The reason this law was brought in was due to a massive number of traffic/road head injures, thousands annually, and deaths, 10000-13000 annually. These numbers has been reduced significantly, despite most helmets being only slightly more substantial than construction hard hats, badly fitting and no standard level of manufacture etc. This suggest to me that anything is better than nothing!

Breakneckspeed - if you had no injury with a helmet then you would have only had a minor injury without one.

Yes so wear a helmet then? Prevent you from having a minor injury and pass the cost onto the society. Or am I being daft to think that?

I am arguing for my right not to wear one when I don't want to as cycling as a whole is not a dangerous pursuit.

So you campaign for the right not to wear a crash helmet on the motorcycle? After all it's no more dangerous for bike.

Chipping in here...... this argument that a split helmet has failed is simply flawed and wrong!
TJ - you KNOW that helmets work by dissipating the kinetic energy of a head flying towards tree/rock/duck, and transferring this energy into the helmet. Ergo, energy into the helmet ISN'T energy passing into the head. I agree that one way of a helmet 'working' is for the polystyrene to crush, as this takes a lot of energy.
However, helmets that crack have also dissipated A LOT of energy too! You try pulling apart a helmet with your bare hands - it basically can't be done! That means that when a helmet hits the dirt and cracks, it has taken an awful lot of energy to break the polystyrene bonds, and (to repeat myself) this is energy that hasn't passed into the brain/skull etc.

It all about transferring energy. I agree that not all the energy could ever be transferred, hence people (myself included, twice, both time helmets from different brands cracked), get concussed, but the shear fact that a helmet has deformed in some way means some energy, often a vital, lifesaving value, has been transferred into the polystyrene of the helmet.

Another point on [i]Countries with high rates of helmet wear have high rates of head injuries[/i] - do you not think the high rates of helmet wear relate to high numbers of cyclists, thus more cyclists is bound to mean more crashes? ( i do not know the answer to this).

I'm not sure where I stand on compulsory helmet wearing, and I'm sure there are some cyclists who have never worn helmets and never fallen off. However, like the few of my patients who smoke 30 a day and live to see 95 (!), it's not odds i'd mess about with, and myself and others I ride with all wear helmets.......

DrP

[i]Another point on Countries with high rates of helmet wear have high rates of head injuries - do you not think the high rates of helmet wear relate to high numbers of cyclists, thus more cyclists is bound to mean more crashes? ( i do not know the answer to this).[/i]

It appears to be the opposite. Countries* with the highest numbers of cyclists tend to have the lowest level of helmet wearing and the lowest level of deaths/injuries.

*I'm thinking of western counties. I've no idea how well this translates to India/China

I think most statistics are misleading as to be fairly useless. For example: lying in bed is the most dangerous activity as this is when most people die :lol:.

I rely on my experience; having has mild concussion from 2 head impacts due to cycling, I'm very glad to be wearing a lid. I accept that they are not perfect protection - nothing is.

I full respect the right of an indavidual to wear or not wear a helmet but as i regulary commute by bike as well as ride off road there is no way i could look my children or wife in the eyes and not wear my helmet. it may not stop that car from hitting me but it might help reduce the damage to my head and for that reason i will wear one.
The above about high levels of helmet wearing and high levels of accidents etc it strikes me that those with the low level of usage have the highest level of bikes and therefore the bikes get much better respect/treatment on the roads which will lower the level of risk anyway.

Dr P - the thing about a cracked or split helmet having failed comes from the literature about how helmets work. Actually it should read if the helmet has split before the foam has compressed it has failed. It takes a lot less energy to split a helmet than to crush the polystyrene.

Iam Munro is right - it tends to be the countries with the highest number of cyclists that have the lowest number of head injuries and the lowest number of helmet wearers. I put that in to show that a lot of the evidence is not common sense.

Here is a bunch of references and links to abstracts of research papers which are totally contradictory. enough from me. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html For example:

Reducing bicycle accidents: a re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use *

Rodgers. Journal of Product Liability 11 pp307-17, 1988

To examine claims that growth in the use of hard shell cycle helmets had been successful in reducing cycle-related injuries and death, Rodgers studied over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years. He concluded: [b]"There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use".[/b]

Cycle helmets: the case for and against

Hillman. Policy Studies Institute ISBN 0 85374 602 8, 1993
Contents and short summary available on-line

32-page analysis of pros and cons of cycle helmets with extensive references. [b]Wearing a helmet only marginally reduces the extent of head injury[/b] following collision with a motor vehicle, but can affect behaviour so that wearers cycle less cautiously. Mandatory helmets would reinforce public perceptions that cycling is dangerous and encourage the view that cyclists are responsible for their own injury. Life years gained through cycling outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. Encouraging helmets leads to fewer people cycling and a net health loss. [j511]

The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: a study of 1,710 casualties *

McDermott et al. Journal of Trauma Vol 11:6 pp834-45, 1993.

Study copying techniques of Thompson 1989 research but yielding less favourable results. [b]Own data suggests helmets give 25% reduction in risk of head injury for adults, but no reduction for serious injuries.[/b] Adjusting Thompson results to eliminate forehead lacerations, re-calculated benefit is 61% (instead of 85%). Also noted small sample size in Thompson data.

Etc etc

TJ – Looking at those reference it strikes me that its old fairly old stuff – certainly if I’m conducting a literature review or systematic review I only consider papers for the last 5 years – I’m sure that helmet technology has improved over the last ten years or so and much of that will have trickled down to the more ‘budget’ end of the market.
Also the use of anecdotal evidence is important and in research term the subjective view provides valuable data (this is not the time or place to get in debates about qualitative vs. quantitative research and the intellectual snobbery that surrounds that particular debate) - I think the themes arising from this thread point very strongly to where further research need to be focused, as do the attitudes and feelings of ‘sports’ cyclists who are using helmets in the ‘real world’

Fair point. I have to say I don't like anecdotal or qualitative research. Too true about the lack of research in some areas for sure. Personally I don't believe helmets have improved - if anything the reverse as now the EC testing standards are lower than the old BSI ones IIRC

my tuppence's worth............ (fek all since the recession, IGMC)

I'm in the "i wouldnt be here if it wasnt for my giros/bells" camp, I'll see if i can dig out th e-mail from madison which broadly said, "how the flippin hek did you manage that and walk away?"

TJ, as others pointed out, you seem to have researched the negatives of helmets in accidents quite thoroughly, but still chose to wear one on anything more seriosus than a towpath amble. Could it be that on ballance you are in favour of wearing a helmet for the majority of riding the members of this forum engage in?

FWIW I realised i wasnt wearing a hemet on my comute, probably because it wasnt in my routine to put one on, (no nice bike to prepare, no cycling clothes etc). Spent the day bricking myself about the ride home.

Risk compensation, I ride like and idiot possessed whith or without a helmet.

The mandatory wearing helmets put people off cycling is a dissproven argument Sweeden (IIRC, i cant remember the country, but sweeden rings a bell) has mandatory helmet laws, it experienced a level of cycling below that of pre compulsion, for 3 years, then a surge in popularity and rate of growth not seen pre their compulsory use.

Also the use of anecdotal evidence is important

The mandatory wearing of helmets is another example of counterintuative and contradictory evidence. Some studies show one result some another. neither proven or disproven.

As for researching the anti helmet side. - I am broadly in favour of using helmets for "real mountainbiking". I have presented the arguments that are not against helmets but show the limitations to counter the fallacies put about by others and to show that there are many aspects to the debate.

I’ve just done a quick search on Google Scholar (search string Cycle+helemet+safety) and I am struck by how little resent research has been done on the actual effectiveness of helmets in crashes – most research seems to have stopped in the early to mid nineties, more current stuff been systematic reviews of the older research and focused on usage pre & post legislation changes

Just a thought is there anywhere this thread (and the plethora of other on the subject) could be sent to try and get some good quality research done – it’s got to be good for somebody’s PhD at least

How about the mag doing some articles on the topic too

There is something that strikes me in most of the studies.
None actually takes into account the typical 'helmet save my life' case like plenty mention above.

I think t would be interested to have figures from bell/met/giro in how many crash replacement per year they cover, and how many off them end up in the hospital.

None actually takes into account the typical 'helmet save my life' case like plenty mention above.

If you are leading a group or running an event then I think it's fair to stipulate that a helmet is required. It's not just their risk, if someone gets injured then the whole group becomes at risk.

If the group leader needs to stay with the injured (due to being the first aider etc...) then (depending on the group) it may not be safe for the group to continue (think leading a group of kids, or even adults who don't know the area in bad conditions).

So I don't think it's so much ultimatums, but more it's personal choice if you wear a helmet, and also personal choice if you would ride with someone who doesn't. It can be pro choice in more than one way.

P.s. Get well soon!

How exactly do you propose any worthwhile results could be obtained from such anecdotal stories where there is no firm evidence of the veracity?

Well helmet manufacturers probably can relate the force of the impact to the state of the helmet.

Mark,

give Dennis my best, hows Adele, must be shaken up herself?

Catch up later

i wear a helmet.