[Closed] Wear your helmet kids!

Real peer reviewed studies

TJ, you do realise that he's one of the people actually DOING the research, not just googling it at home, don't you?

You are in danger of making an even bigger fool of yourself here.

From the link you posted:

cycle helmets give only very limited head protection

Is that not better than no protection at all?

In any case, the quote on that page is from a doctor, not an engineer. He many not even seen a cycle helmet, much less be familiar with the physics involved. Plus it's a court case involving litigation, prosecution and defence and lots of money.

I totally fail to see why you think this is sound science.

+1 Molgrips (other page)

To my mind he's absolutely correct in saying that the first 2 comments are wrong and the third is correct. Personally, I find the first two statements from TJ quite bizarre TBH.

I'm not sure why we're even debating this; but 'round we go again, only to surface in another 6 weeks time or so!

ti29er - unfortunately the evidence does not agree with you.

A helmet that has split has failed and has not made significant difference to the severity of any injury.

Helmets provide little protection against major injuries even when they have worked properly

I'm sorry but simple common sense and a life well lived tells me that these two statements simply aren't accurate.
You must start to read between the lines when reading statitical papers and reports as many are loaded as they're commissioned by non-partisan bodies.

This discussion has now run its course for me.

so all the research and evidence and opinion that says those two things are correct are meaningless because you say they are? Without a shred of anything to back them up?

One of the key things you find if you read the research - what little there is published - is that the real evidence is counterintuative and contradictory.

Don't they only protect up to, like 5mph any thing more and they not strong enough,motorbike lids are stronger, wear it don't wear it , I don't give a shit if yo fall off and injure you selfs

[url= http://www.audreymarlene-lifecoach.com/the-need-to-be-right.html ]The need to be right[/url]. I get holding an opposing view, it's good, it makes for lively balanced debates, sometimes though paints you kinda of a penis.

Just to muddy the water......

In my infrequent posts on here,I have sometimes mentioned that I run the scouts in my village. 5 of them have just spent three days doing a sponsered bike ride (110 miles, Berwick to Tynedale, through the Cheviots as you ask).

During one of the practice sessions before I unleashed out alone I was speaking to one of their parents who is a neuro-surgeon and a very keen cyclist.

I asked him to speak to the kids about the importance of helmets. He said that "there was no good evidence one way or another on helmets".

Two of his colleagues are also keen cyclists, one reads the evidence to support helmets, one reads the evidence the other way.

So if top neuro-surgeons spend their lunch hours bickering on the subject, and can't agree, I suspect this place has no chance.

As it happens the parent always wears one, based on experiance, rather than "good evidence".

So if top neuro-surgeons spend their lunch hours bickering on the subject, and can't agree, I suspect this place has no chance.

Probably true, but I bet 99% of people here do wear a helmet.

Peer-reviewed science is great, but I get the feeling certain types of people would insist on seeing some before they started breathing.

On canal / bridalway type rides i never wear a lid...
Does that make me a bad man?

I'm able to post this today because I wore a helmet when cycling along the Union Canal one month ago. Over handlebars at speed directly onto the top right of my head, didn't even have time to let go of the handlebars. Four stitches above my right eye and lots of bruising but my skull would have been fractured without the helmet.

Just thinking about how hard my helmet encased head hit the ground sends shivers down my spine.

I sometimes took my helmet off when on that canal but for some reason that day I didn't.

TJ, From your link..

Most experienced trauma surgeons believe that cycle helmets give only very limited head protection

Based on what? No link to any research whatsoever. Are these surgeons also expert helmet designers and do research in there spare time?

The three cases he includes, none of them are wearing helmets. How the heck do you reach a conclusion like that? Sounds like this solicitor is fishing for evidence as to why his customers should receive a substantial payout.

When i was a kid, before all this helmet shizzae came to the fore, i endo'd my bike down a park slide built on a 4 meter high steep cone of concrete with steps sort of cast in it.
done it hundreds of times before, until one day i caught one of the steps an OTB'd right on to my bonce. Reet down the concrete hill...

Not a ****in scratch! I'm bullet proof i tells thee!

These days i'll lid up on blue red and blacks mind.....

1. Cycle helmets should not be made compulsory. It would be arbitrary to impose legislation on cyclists, who do not face clearly higher risks than pedestrians or drivers. Enforced helmet laws drive cycle use down, thereby increasing the risk per cyclist and harming public health. Enforced helmet laws have not effected material prevention of serious head injury at the population level.

😯

LHS - as I said anecdote not evidence. I have come across that view from neurosurgeons many times but it remains anecdotal. Worth giving some thought to but not proof by a long stretch.

Edit - found some good stuff on athens - however as usual all contradictory and flawed research. I think this debate has really reached the end.

an interesting take on it - and many studies have found no link across populations between helmet usage and head injury reductions - indeed sometimes the opposite is true
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688

CTC thinks that it should be up to you to decide whether you want to wear a helmet or not

They're perfectly right, i think its usually referred to as Darwinism.

if only there was some decent evidence that helmets reduce injuries eh? 😕 😉

Have a browse around the links on the CTC site - makes for interesting reading.

CTC thinks that it should be up to you to decide whether you want to wear a helmet or not

They're perfectly right, i think its usually referred to as Darwinism.

I'm still alive, have bred successfully and i'm reasonably erudite...

We have plenty of evidence, but like most subjects you're mind is already made up to the contrary. Keep believing the tripe that a no win no fee solicitor spouts - makes interesting reading alright! 😯

I assume you are familiar with the British Medical Journal?

[url= http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/308/6922/173 ]http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/308/6922/173[/url]

LHS - not at all - I like evidence based practice. Have you followed the llinks on the ctc site?

Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.

Its not rubbish that a no win no fee solicitor sppouts - its good stuff - have a look at eh links on the CTC site

Still - attacking the person to avoid listening to them is a good tactic is it not..

Is your mind open to the evidence?

As you can see, this helmet has given considerable protection:

[IMG] [/IMG]

I would have been killed had someone hit me directly in the top of the skull with this pick

[url= http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm ]http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm[/url]

Bicycle Deaths by Helmet Use
1994-2008

Year No Helmet Helmet Total
Num
1994 776 (97%) 19 (2%) 796
1995 783 (95%) 34 (4%) 828
1996 731 (96%) 27 (4%) 761
1997 785 (97%) 23 (3%) 811
1998 741 (98%) 16 (2%) 757
1999 698 (93%) 42 (6%) 750
2000 622 (90%) 50 (7%) 689
2001 616 (84%) 60 (8%) 729
2002 589 (89%) 54 (8%) 663
2003 535 (85%) 58 (9%) 626
2004 602 (83%) 87 (12%) 722
2005 676 (86%) 77 (10%) 784
2006 730 (95%) 37 (5%) 669
2007 646 (92%) 50 (7%) 699
2008 653 (91%) 58 (8%) 714

LHS - there are many studies of that type that show the same result - unfortunately they all have the same faults - self selecting samples. You only have a part of the data set there ( no one who has not worn a helmet and has not had an accident, no one who has been in an accident and not sustained and injury etc) and there is no consideration given to whether the ones with helmets are more likely to have accidents, there is no consideration to the now known and understood mechanism for helmets to have the potential to exacerbate injuries.

Out of date and badly flawed design. As self selecting sample needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Populations studies across the whole population not just a part of it show no benefits - a part of the contradiction

I give up. Take your chance. 😯

Edit - No I don't. Now i dont suspect that you are that ignorant that you think that taking self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor outweights peer reviewed journals on the BMJ website do you?

Seriously? You can admit you are wrong occasionally if you like?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a

The evidence seems clear and consistent across all mandatory jurisdictions - helmet laws increase the accident/injury risk per cyclist. In the face of such evidence, it seems incumbent upon the British Medical Association to reverse its call for mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in the United Kingdom.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a#130761

Ok - enough - we can bat this about all night! I ask LHS that you have a look at teh BMJ stuff I link to there, it might just open your eyes a bit

Edit -

No I don't. Now i dont suspect that you are that ignorant that you think that taking self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor outweights peer reviewed journals on the BMJ website do you?

I am not taking "self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor"

I am looking at a broad range of peer reviewed evidence. That pievce you link to is flawed - as is much of the research on both sides

As I repeatedly say - much of it is flawed, much is contradictory and counterintuative.

Looked at it, read it, and much much more. Its all part of my job. You can believe what you like, that's your choice. You obviously know a lot more about helmet design and the protection it offers so I will leave you to your research. I just hope for your sake when you do have an accident you are wearing a helmet. Genuinely.

I am not taking "self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor"

The link you posted was to an injury specialist lawyer who quoted 3 injuries of people who weren't wearing a helmet and a surgeon who said it wouldn't have made any difference. Conclusive obviously!! 😯

LHS - thats just a link to a piece of discussion as I repeatedly said. Anecdotal.

I have also linked to a lot of peer reviewed stuff and to the BMA discussion on this.

I gave up on reading the thread...

But I recently had a Spesh crash replacement. I rang them up and they didn't need the receipt, just a cheque for £20 (mine was an Instinct) and the helmet back.

Back by return post, in a couple of days.

Lost my best friend at school to a direct impact on the top of his skull on a garage door at about 10 mph with no helmet on. That was about 20 years ago just as helmets started to come out properly. Never ride without since cracked 2 myself and glad I had them on, strikes me you see more people riding with more armour than less now, saw a group the other day with full body armour on top, lycra below and shin guards for good measure.

TandemJeremy - Member

"As self selecting sample needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt."

Which basically invalidates every statistical analysis of helmet use vs injury unfortunately. There'll never be a reliable reportage of "Would have suffered an injury but didn't because I wore a helmet" or for that matter "Wouldn't have suffered an injury but is convinced they would have if they hadn't been wearing a helmet". It is IMO an insurmountable problem for most attempts to analyse this.

A lot of people choose to interpret "No good data" as "No correlation" though which is obviously wrongheaded. (TJ as far as I've seen doesn't do this btw) But, what I do object to a little is where people shoot down all the studies then say "There's no proof". Proof of prevention is one of the hardest things to demonstrate, so basing an argument on the absence of proof is a bit of a dodge IMO.

LHS - why do these studies not show any reduction in injury across poulations

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a paper by Dorothy Robinson (a statistician at the University of New England, New South Wales in Australia) reviewing the effects of helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Robinson shows that, despite significant increases in helmet-wearing, there was no greater improvement in cycle safety than for pedestrian safety over the same period. On the other hand, there were substantial reductions in cycle use, amounting to a significant loss of the health and other benefits of cycling.

An article in Injury Prevention magazine by Paul Hewson finds no detectable relationship between helmet-rates and on-road cycle safety in Great Britain. A second article, also by Hewson (this one published in Accident Analysis and Prevention journal), reaches the same conclusion for child cyclists. Hewson emphasises that this doesn’t necessarily mean that helmets are ineffective; an alternative explanation is that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling, and he points out that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that road safety professionals have no grounds for being involved in helmet promotion, given the lack of detectable benefits for on-road cyclists.

Finally, a report on children’s cycling from the National Children’s Bureau includes a very useful appendix surveying the literature on helmets. It states, “Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.” Coming from a children’s charity, this is an important finding.

TJ what do you do for a living?

I am a nurse. Trained in understanding and interpreting research and evidence based practice. 😉

I just wish the people who are so evangelical about using helmets would accept that the evidence base is poor and contradictory

I do wear a helmet - two differnt ones selected on teh basis of the evidence in the belief they will be useful against minor injuries - where the evidence is good.

I am a nurse

Ok, good to know.

Think we should just leave it there, before people are bored to death.

LHS - can you answer why the various whole population studies as above show no reduction in head injury from increased rates of helmet usage? Seriously - I'd be interested to know if there is a flaw I have not seen.

From teh sutdy you linked to there hould have been a significant reduction

edit

LHS - Member
Think we should just leave it there, before people are bored to death.

I would have thought there is no one left reading this now anyway but OK

Open minded scepticism is my basic stance to any research.

Hi, i am new to this forum, and after reading this post last night i felt compelled to register to give my 2pence.......

Personally, i had a good friend when i was younger that died from a bike accident as a direct result of head injuries!!! he was not wearing a helmet, and whilst i have no evidence to prove the fact i am sure that had he of been wearing a helmet his chances of survival would have been greatly improved!
To the best of my knowledge that was the only accident i remember of the times when my friends and i used to ride around with no helmets (15 years ago) since then i have worn one as have my friends. i have never personally known anyone to die as a direct result of head injuries after a crash when a helmet was worn, although i am sure you will give some examples!!!!

The fact of the matter is, this is life, not everything is perfect. I wear a helmet because i belive it gives me ADEQUATE protection, i dont think it is going to guarentee me life or pain free accidents if the worst happened, but it will help! If you dont think the designs are as good as other sports helmets then wear one of them (motorbike helmet for example) it may not offer the same heat dissapation/cooling, but if you are so concerned about the aspects of helmet design that are not covered then that is a price you have to pay!!!!

also, TJ i read in this post somewhere you had written that helmets provide a little protection for low speed, low impact impacts, and they provide no protection for high speed/high impact collisions.
I also read words to the effect of "i wear a helmet for anything gnarly, but not when just pootling around" (it was something like that but not word for word i admit) well, if they provide protection for low impact only then surely you should be wearing it when pootling around and take it off for the gnarly stuff????

A helmet that has split has failed and has not made significant difference to the severity of any injury.

WRONG - as in the OP, if he had hit a sharp rock with his head there would almost certainly of been blood if nothing else. therefore the helmet made a significant differance to injury.

Helmets provide little protection against major injuries even when they have worked properly

There are drawbacks to helmet design and they
could be improved

"no sh!t sherlock!!!" as with any design of any product, there are always going to be people who dont like the design, there are also always going to be elements of design that can be improved, but these products are for mass market and must meet certain saftly standards, whilst still appealing to people.

personally i see a helmet as risk reduction, not a guarentee. if i hit my head whilst wearing one i belive i am SAFER (not immune) from inury.
whilst i also realise that as with any product, in some very very rare circumstances the lid could cause injury, the risk imo is minimal and the pros far outweigh the cons.

if you really belive they only provide low impact protection, why do you wear one "on gnarly bits" and why dont you wear one "when pootling around"

jon

Jon - because when riding trail centre the risk of crashing is higher - and the protection the helmet offers against minor injuries is worth having. They will protect against lacerations and bumps and bruises.

So when I have a high chance of crashing I wear one for the protection from minor injuries they provide.

and whilst i have no evidence to prove the fact i am sure that had he of been wearing a helmet his chances of survival would have been greatly improved!

This is the attitude I argue against - you simply don't know that and the evidence that they offer significant protection from life threatening injuries is unclear at best - absent IMO from much reading of much research

no i dont KNOW that, but had my friend of known what was going to happen i am sure he would have worn one and although it may not be proved i can wholehartedly GUARENTEE one thing. he wouldnt be any worse off than he is now!!

its common sense, the majority of what you have said appears insane, especially when you admit you wear a lid!!!

if you have something on your head (even though it might not be the best design) it is likely to offer some amount of protection. if i was to hit you over the head with a bit of 2x4 (wich i suspect you need) then i am sure that it would be less painfull and therefore less injury if you wear a helmet whilst i do it!!!!

likewise, i think it was you who earlier said that a cracked helmet "provides NO PROTECTION ATALL" whilst i agree that a broke helmet needs replacing, it will still offer some protection not only superficial wounds but some impact resistance aswell. To prove this point, if you have a broken helmet, take a peice of it, and put it on your hand, with the other hand take a hammer and hit your hand (not stupidly hard just gently)next remove the piece of helmet and repeat, wich one hurts more????????????? please answer this as it is not a retorical question!

Ugh, don't know why I am re-entering this discussion...

This is the attitude I argue against - you simply don't know that and the evidence that they offer significant protection from life threatening injuries is unclear at best

Completely and utterly wrong.

Head injuries occur due to rapid decelleration / acceleration (depending on how you like to look at it) of the brain and surrounding tissue. Helmets attenuate the acceleration of an impact down to a lower level to help reduce the possibility of head trauma. There is plenty of evidence around to support this. We design helmets which protect pilots ejecting at 600knts from an aircraft. If the helmets weren't there they would die. No question.

LHS - yes a helmet can be designed to cope with major accelerations - but cycle helmets are not the same as the ones you describe.

Do you have specific expertise in cycle helmets?

AS I repeatedly show the evidence that cycle helmets protect against major injuries is poor at best. There is a lot of good quality research that shows this.

If cycle helmets are so good they why does this happen

Robinson shows that, despite significant increases in helmet-wearing, there was no greater improvement in cycle safety than for pedestrian safety over the same period.

Paul Hewson finds no detectable relationship between helmet-rates and on-road cycle safety in Great Britain.

If cycle helmet provided significant protection against major injury then you would expect to see this reflected in the accident stats. However clearly there is no reduction in serious injuries after an increase in helmet usage. Have you an alternative explanation?

Can you answer this LHS?

a report on children’s cycling from the National Children’s Bureau includes a very useful appendix surveying the literature on helmets. It states, “Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.” Coming from a children’s charity, this is an important finding.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689 <

TJ, a couple of questions.

1) Do you understand that LHS works in the design of helmets that are similar to bike helmets, and has therefore done a lot more research than you?

2) Why do you think that a neurosurgeon would understand the physics and engineering of helmet design?

Molgrips - I understand LHS has expertise in helmet design - but its unclear how much in cycle helmets.

I would be very interested in his response to the quotes above. Or your response indeed. Why does the head injury rate not drop when helmet usage rises?

Why do you guys just dismiss anything that does not fit your "commonsense view"

A neurosurgeon will see head injuries and will have some idea about the mechanics of head injuries.

The only type of research that shows benefit is after the fact surveys of people in hospital with head injuries - these have a major flaw in thay do not have the whole data set so are not reliable.

I do not say the evidence is that helmets offer no protection. I say the evidence is poor and contradictory.

There is one significant thing. You keep saying that helmets don't reduce the chance of significant injury. Well considering most injuries are not head wounds then I guess you are right. Reduce your statement to helmets reduce the chance of head injuries then as ever you are talking out of your arse again. Anything that prevents a direct impact to your head will reduce injuries. Ever been hit by a low branch at speed? Makes your head rattle with a helmet on. Now imagine the feeling without a helmet? Think you would crash as a result? I do. Hence helmet = reduction of injury

Graham - please don't misquote

I keep saying that there is no good quality evidence of helmets reducing major head injury. indeed there is evidence both ways much of it badly flawed They clearly do reduce minor head injuries.

Would you get your young children to wear a helmet? I'm sure empirical evidence suggests LHS is correct and TJ is a gibbon.

Bontybuns - then lets see your evidence - I have provided many links to evidence that backs my case. have a read of it

TJ, you type some nonsense.

waderider - what and where? everything I have posted is backed by expert opinion and real research.

If cycle helmet provided significant protection against major injury then you would expect to see this reflected in the accident stats. However clearly there is no reduction in serious injuries after an increase in helmet usage. Have you an alternative explanation?

Yes......Show us a report that states/shows there is no reduction in serious HEAD injuries!

An article in Injury Prevention magazine by Paul Hewson finds no detectable relationship between helmet-rates and on-road cycle safety in Great Britain. A second article, also by Hewson (this one published in Accident Analysis and Prevention journal), reaches the same conclusion for child cyclists. Hewson emphasises that this doesn’t necessarily mean that helmets are ineffective; an alternative explanation is that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling, and he points out that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that road safety professionals have no grounds for being involved in helmet promotion, given the lack of detectable benefits for on-road cyclists.

firstly, i am not sure paul hewson is qualified to say any more than his opinion, he is after all just a lecturer in statistics, and from what i can work out has done no scientific research other than analysis of statistics. wich makes him no more trust worthey a source than anyone here with real life experiance, however, for aguments sake....

Hewson emphasises that this doesn’t necessarily mean that helmets are ineffective; an alternative explanation is that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling, and he points out that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that road safety professionals have no grounds for being involved in helmet promotion, given the lack of detectable benefits for on-road cyclists.

Cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to an average weight rider travelling at a speed of 12 mph falling onto a stationary kerb shaped object from a height of 1 metre.

to start with, this is the saftey standard test, so admitedly, this isnt the best test in the world and should be a bit more vigourous, however, that doesnt mean the manufacturers dont use better test's, indeed it doesnt mean they do either.

however, 12mph is the test and they have to protect you from that to pass the test.

i assume you have seen the advert on tv to reduce speeding, goes something along the lines of a kid saying at 30 miles an hour theres and 80 percent chance il live, at 40 mph theres an 80 percent chance i'l die.

so a 10mph differance is huge, so the 12mph test by my reckoning will make a 20mph crash more like a 8 mph one and a 40 mph crash more like a 28mph one, still enough for very serious injury but might be enough to save my life. therefore im happy

jon

Why do you guys just dismiss anything that does not fit your "commonsense view"

We don't. The thing is, we are discussing a range of issues, and coming to various conclusions based on that discussion. You seem to be latching onto one single semantic point and constantly pushing and pushing, despite it's fading relevance to the topic.

You ALWAYS do this, on every single thread you get embroiled in. It's a major flaw somewhere in the chain between your conscious, your language centres, your keyboard and our brains.

Just to clear things up:

We don't think helmets will save us from any harm
We don't think that helmets will help in every kind of crash
We appreciate that the research is patchy
We do however think that having 1" of foam between your head and the tarmac is better than nothing at all.

If it wasn't for you labouring your point endlessly and ignoring ours (backed up with links you don't appear to read) this thread would have finished naturally pages ago.

TJ - This thread is proof that your a Gibbon.

nutsnvolks

The Robinson report linked to above shows no reduction in serious head injuries.

[i]If cycle helmet provided significant protection against major injury then you would expect to see this reflected in the accident stats. [/i]

Not at all.

You are conflating head protection and road safety into the same thing.
I think all but the most obstreperous would acknowledge that as your head is plummeting towards tarmac, it would be preferable to have a bit of protection around your head.
But road safety involves lots of humans interacting in subtle ways and the protection that a helmet can offer can have fair less effect than some other causes.

A classic example the opposite way round was the introduction of seat-belt laws. Britain has been given as an example of a country that had credible statistical proof that seatbelts reduced injury (surprisingly no other counties have credible evidence that compulsion has reduced accidents), for years the British stats were used as justification for other countries introducing compulsion. However on closer inspection it turns out that most of the extra lives saved were between 1am-5am.
Why would seatbelts save lives at selective times?
Well it also turns out that the year that seat belts were made compulsory was also the year that the police started using breathalysers.
What was being observed was a reduction in death rates due to a reduction in drink drivers.

Neither of which means that you shouldn't wear a helmet, or a seat belt - you *will* be better off in a crash with them. But it is unlikey that either of them will reduce you chance of being in accident. Greater forces are at work, which mean you may or may not be safer which is one of several reasons that it's highly unlikely to see a causal link in accident stats.

Classic STW - you don't like the message you attack the messenger.

Look at teh childish tags and the childish insults.

everything I have posted is backed by expert opinion and real research

paul hewson who some of your quotes come from - a college lecturer on statistics - NOT an expert by any means in anything other than statistics, has he ever even seen a helmet??? who knows!

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a paper by Dorothy Robinson (a statistician at the University of New England, New South Wales in Australia)

Why do you guys just dismiss anything that does not fit your "commonsense view"

TandemJeremy - Member
Classic STW - you don't like the message you attack the messenger.

Look at teh childish tags and the childish insults.

A fair point TJ but only up to a point... While some of the responses are childish, there seems to be plenty of well reasoned stuff above which you seem to be neatly avoiding by crying foul. Classic TJ in fact - you don't like the way the discussion's going, you try to steer it away from the issue...

TJ I haven't resorted to childish insults.

I'm trying (as always) to show you what the problem is with these arguments.

You ignored my questions and my reasonable post.

Clubber - I don't know what I am supposed to have avoided? I really have done my best to answer questions put to me and to show my sources.

Wow.

If you think that not wearing a helmet and having your head exposed to rocks or hard ground is a good thing, you're a ****ing idiot. I've never read such utter bullcrap in all my life. Apart from maybe the bible.

Yes serious injury can still occur if you are wearing a helmet, it only offers limited protection from substative impacts, but i'm afraid that the skull is actually pretty fragile when it impacts hard objects. Any protection you can get is better than none.

TJ, your posting is irresponsibe. If anyone here takes in your twaddle and decides not to use a helmet and comes off worse, it's your fault.

People like you make me so bloody angry!

which you seem to be neatly avoiding by crying foul. Classic TJ in fact - you don't like the way the discussion's going, you try to steer it away from the issue...

couldnt agree more.

before i go i would also like to remind everyone (everyone being TJ) of one important thing.

this is single track world forum....

the original post was about an accident off road....

all your "evidence" is based on ON ROAD use.....

whilst i still strongly disagree with you, by your own admission (by wearing them off road) you admit that we are all correct in terms of what we are mainly talking about (off road use)

However i am sure your selective reading skills will by pass more facts,

have a nice day, i gotta go for now.

jon

FWIW, hysterical replies like yours rossi make me pretty angry too even though I fundamentally agree....

mtb rossis - you would be right if I had said

not wearing a helmet and having your head exposed to rocks or hard ground is a good thing,

But I haven't said that at any point

You are conflating head protection and road safety into the same thing.

Everything Ian says is right and sensible. But it could lead to the conclusion TJ draws - that the benefit of helmet-wearing is a bit marginal in terms of reducing the odds of you ending up with a serious head injury on any given ride. You aren't going to crash. If you do, you may well not really hurt yourself at all. If you do, you may well not hit your head. If you do, it's possible that the helmet will make things worse, or no better. If you crunch it, you probably end up with a very, very marginal reduction in risk of injury from wearing the helmet per mile ridden. Of course, once you're into an incident which sees you whacking your head off something, you're much better with the helmet on, but that is massively unlikely. Meanwhile, if you're wearing the helmet you're definitely getting your hair messed up, you're going to have a sweaty head, and be stuck carrying a poly-shroom. All of which could get your date off on the wrong footing. It's a complicated world. 🙂

FWIW, hysterical replies like yours rossi make me pretty angry too

Sorry about that.

Clubber +1.

big dummy - the helmet could also increase your risk of having an accident. some of the evidence seems to point that way. Its one of the areas that more research into would seem to be indicated

if you're wearing the helmet you're definitely getting your hair messed up, you're going to ahve a sweaty head, and be stuck carrying a poly-shroom. All of which could get your date off on the wrong footing. It's a complicated world.

do you have real statistical evidance from expert statistical analysers to prove that what you are saying is fact? cos if not then how can TJ take your word for it, if he chooses to read that bit

This thread is evidence that internet arguments can never be won. I'm waiting for the comparison between hitler and nazis to be posted up, then the thread will be complete. 😀

I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate a solid causal linkage between wearing a cycle-helmet and unsuccessful dates. This is speculation and extrapolation based on a very small and self-selecting data-set. But I'm still right. 😀

Ah but scientifically speaking, there are no facts, just degrees of probability 🙂

Can't believe this thread is still going on, but there does seem to be one key omission from the arguement.

All the discussion revolves around contradictory evidence about trauma to the brain resulting from rapid decceleration. I completely disagree with TJ but see where he is coming from. Interestingly there seems to be no statement on exactly what type of impact would be made worse by a helmet which

What a helmet clearly will protect against is an impact from a sharp rock. The speed of impact may not be enough to cause deccelarative trauma but the force at the point of impact could still easily be enough to fracture the skull. Even if there is no fracture, a helmet could still prevent severe laceration to the side of the head. All the statistics seem to focus on road cyclists or children rather than mountain bikers and the very different terrain and crash types we experience

Whilst I accept that a helmet could possibly be ineffective or worse in some accidents, it will provide protection against the majority of accidents that the majority of mountain bikers have. I'll take that risk

big dummy - the helmet could also increase your risk of having an accident. some of the evidence seems to point that way. Its one of the areas that more research into would seem to be indicated

please show me EXACTLY what the evidance is that suggests helmets INCREASE RISK OF HAVING ACCIDENT please dont supply some rubbish from a lecturer af statistics but a proper piece of evidance that suggests that the rubbish you ae now uttering is remotely true.

the only thing that can possibly do that is the people wearing them having increased confidance and doing more than they normally would /are capable of, however this is down to the person not the helmet.

Not so actually - there is some evidence to suggest that it's true - sure TJ will post it shortly - however since the majority of accidents I've had in which I've hit my head have happened unexpectedly and not in situations where I was testing my courage or percieving myself to be taking a risk, I'm still happy on balance to wear one all the time.

And I suppose the simplest test would be, if you went riding without a helmet on, would you ride exactly the same? I reckon I'd be a least a bit more careful.

Nuts and volks - there is plenty.

However its statistically based or small sample so you will reject it

I suggest you follow some of the links I gave - its all there

There are 3 strands to this
1)risk compensation
2) car drivers giving less room
3) your head is bigger and heavier with the helmet on so more likely to hit things

Thank you clubber.

[img] [/img]

These biking nazis are not wearing helmets. Case closed I believe. 😀