[Closed] Wear your helmet kids!

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. 😀

If there's ever a world war based on internet forum arguing, I'll be really glad TJ is on our side.

Car drivers giving less room? Because the cyclist is wearing a helmet? Is that what you're saying?

LMAO BigDummy!

The thread can be closed now! hahaha

Car drivers giving less room? Because the cyclist is wearing a helmet?

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm ]Ian Walker's study[/url]

I can't find the link to the paper itsself immediately. It's not the conclusive last word on the subject, but it feels quite plausible.

This thread is evidence that [s]internet[/s] arguments with TJ can never be won

Fixed that for you.

Although I did manage to get a concession out of him once. I still remember that glorious day.

Rossi - strange but apparently it is true - on average rather than always.

3) your head is bigger and heavier with the helmet on so more likely to hit things

What! what utter nonsense is this? so if i'm going head first over the handlebars and hit the ground, i'm less likely to hit it head first if i wasn't wearing a helmet? this is getting increasingly ridiculous.
also, if your spatial awareness is so poor that you'll start bumping into things willy nilly just because you have some styrofoam on your head then maybe cycling isnt for you. not that you wouldn't get used to your "bigger head" if you wore a helmet a couple of times anyway.

mtb_rossi - Member

Car drivers giving less room? Because the cyclist is wearing a helmet? Is that what you're saying?

Yes - a small scale piece of research appaered to show this. Peculiar and only small scale but it is one part of the possible explanatin for the rates of serious headinjuries not decreasing when helmet usage increases

Dr Ian Walker, a researcher in traffic psychology at the University of Bath, carried out experiments to measure how much space vehicles left when overtaking him. He found that, on average, drivers passed 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer when he was wearing a helmet than when he rode bare-headed. His findings are to be published in Accident Analysis and Prevention magazine. (For more information and commentary on his findings, see CTC press release).

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

Car drivers giving less room? Because the cyclist is wearing a helmet? Is that what you're saying?

this is apparently true, according to statistics. the more "pro" you look, the less room will be given to you because people assume you know what you're doing and you are "protected" anyway.

That's only one type of accident, Tamworth. I clip my head on trees quite often when riding singletrack (I'm tall). I'd do so less if I wasn't wearing a helmet though on balance I don't think that would be a good strategy. It's not about spatial awareness but rather about cutting things fine - eg exactly what we do when we ride trails fast.

That said, I think it's a silly point as I doubt it's a major contributor to injuries.

Note that most of the helmet impact stories on here are OTBs. That is significant, no?

its a problem with comparing directly between populations and individuals.

so the point about risk compensation, driver attitude etc. is purely education - if you remove these from the "population" - be it the rider or the driver then you're left with the absolute protection from the high/low speed collision point of view.

It is quite wrong to use the statistics on legislation of populations (especially when the study is within not very many years of the legislation being passed) to add to the argument about helmets in general.

if you read the references that I posted earlier you'll see the problem with the statistics here - there's a really good reference on that.

Also - this rotational issue - quite interesting - but again read the reference posted earlier - I thinn that reference had the most recent modern helmets used compared with so many of the research from 10 years ago with those awful huge mushroom helmets - I think you'd risk an injury walking past a lamp-post in one of them!!!!

TJ...seriously - you're becoming patronising with this whole "read the research" - clearly you're searching for stuff that is helping your argument. I've chewed this over since our last encounter about 18months ago, and I can see the point about rotation - but even then, that 2008 paper seems to refute it and clearly the benefits are outweighing...

still wearing a lid.

He found that, on average, drivers passed 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer when he was wearing a helmet than when he rode bare-headed

What was the average passing distance? And the sample size? The area covered and what was the road width?

If the average distance is 3 or 4 feet, 3 inches is in the area of insignificance and mixed in with a small sample size, means nothing at all.

Now that's a classic example of a post which actually deserves the answer "read the research". 🙂

[img] [/img]

This really should have been the last word - it all goes round in circles

Perks - yes you point out flaws in the research and its interesting.

Now that's a classic example of a post which actually deserves the answer "read the research".

There is no research on the links provided.

Ah found it. 😀

What's the variation in average passing distances if you ride the same route under the same helmeted conditions?

The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars.

The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer.

However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars

Trucks and buses are bigger and will pass closer. Duh!

And passing closer by an average of 3 inches over 4.4 feet doesn't mean anything. It's also down to the drivers attitude towards cyclists and how busy the road is etc.

Not exactly great evidence either way.

I didn't realise this was still going on, so I'm going to lob in a couple of late responses to some for Tj's earlier posts

Do you have specific expertise in cycle helmets?

Bit ****ing patronising TJ if you don't mind me saying so. Not at all up to your usual standard of argument. SO DO YOU?? You have enough to say as if you had written the book on it.

I keep saying that there is no good quality evidence of helmets reducing major head injury.

And as I keep saying you cannot prove a negative. Like the OP, who has had a major off which has involved a helmet ground interface. He will not be on any stats anywhere because NOTHING HAPPENED. If he had indeed split his coconut and the milk had run out then he would. So you can only prove from accident statistics that things do sometimes go wrong. You cannot prove when and with what frequency they don’t. You then choose to ignore or discount the copious amounts of anecdotal evidence that is commonplace on here. So that in a nutshell (sic) is the flaw in your arguments TJ.
In essence it is a self fulfilling argument.

Just to join in the copy'n'pate journal abstract:

Mountain biking injuries requiring trauma center admission: a 10-year regional trauma system experience
Author(s): Kim P.T., Jangra D., Ritchie A.H., Lower M.E., Kasic S., Brown D.R., Baldwin G.A., Simons R.K.

Citation: The Journal of trauma, February 2006, vol./is. 60/2(312-318), 0022-5282 (Feb 2006)

Publication Date: February 2006

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mountain biking has become an increasingly popular recreational and competitive sport with increasingly recognized risks. The purpose of this study was to review a population based approach to serious injuries requiring trauma center admission related to mountain biking, identify trends and develop directions for related injury prevention programs. METHODS: Three trauma centers in the Greater Vancouver area exclusively serve a major mountain bike park and the North Shore Mountains biking trails. The Trauma Registries and the patient charts were reviewed for mountain bike injuries from 1992 to 2002. The data were analyzed according to demographics, distribution, and severity of injuries, and need for operative intervention. Findings were reviewed with injury prevention experts and regional and national mountain-biking stakeholders to provide direction to injury prevention programs. RESULTS: A total of 1,037 patients were identified as having bicycling-related injuries. Of these, 399 patients sustained 1,092 injuries while mountain biking. There was a threefold increase in the incidence of mountain biking injuries over a 10-year period. Young males were most commonly affected. [b]Orthopedic injuries were most common (46.5%) followed by head (12.2%), spine (12%), chest (10.3%), facial (10.2%), abdominal (5.4%), genitourinary (2.2%), and neck injuries (1%)[/b]. High operative rate was observed: 38% of injuries and 66% of patients required surgery. One patient died from his injuries. Injury prevention programs were developed and successfully engaged the target population. CONCLUSION: Mountain biking is a growing cause of serious injuries. Young males are principally at risk and serious injuries result from intended activity and despite protective equipment. Injury prevention programs were developed to address these concerns.

Looking at the bold bit, there's the same incidence of spinal injury, but not many people wear back protectors?

The last 4 crashs i've had i've smacked my head twice on either a tree or the ground. So my evidence is based on previous experience. Since starting my research i've shown that 50% of the time i'll be glad i bought a lid. 🙂

[i]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[/i]

This is why I smile when ever someone mentions Darwin when they see a helmet-less rider. Clearly they haven't realised that women have a greater sexual attraction to men who don't have lumps of polystyrene strapped to their heads.
Just look at deer for example, the Does aren't swooning over the sensible stags staying out of the rut with bits of cork over their pointy bits to reduce their odds of concussion, they're getting all hot and bothered and craving the seed from the risk takers that might die a bit earlier, but look sexier.

What a silly argument.

Looking at the bold bit, there's the same incidence of spinal injury, but not many people wear back protectors?

If I were going to the Shore, I might well 🙂

The thing is about the head is that injuring it has the worst consequences.

Ian - actually.. it's a little different with deer since they are herd animals and the dads don't need to specifically be around to help with the upbringing. Nowadays humans are pair animals and a woman needs a man who is going to stick around and provide for the offspring, not get himself killed attempting some gap jump without a helmet.

Perhaps 🙂

To be fair though the north shore and bike parks are a little different to Uk singletrack. I would think significantly more would be wearing armour and full face helmets. Not that it changes the significance of the study. I have so far never landed on my head wearing a normal open face lid. However still going to wear one incase

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

The Robinson report is also seriously flawed and has been pretty much rejected by most within the industry.

For starters the statistics do not take into account confounding factors which may affect the number and type of injuries. It is necessary to take such factors into account. One way of doing so is to compare the proportion of head injuries for cyclists to that for pedestrians (and possibly for motorists and motor vehicle passengers as well), since the latter generally don't wear bicycle helmets.

Such common factors may include changes in road conditions, changes in enforcement of speed limits, drink driving, road safety education, etc. These could result in either increases or decreases in serious injury rates for all road users over time.

Another way of skewing the statistics is how they bound the term head injury. This can include bloody noses, foreign objects in the eyes, chipped teeth, facial scratches and abrasions. Helmets are not intended to protect against these types of head injuries. What should be considered are those injuries which helmets are designed to protect against - cranial fractures and brain injuries, primarily.

Lumping all types of head injuries together dilutes the effect of bicycle helmets and skews the statistcs. Reputable studies take this into account by considering "injury to those areas of the head that a helmet might reasonably be expected to protect - the forehead, scalp, ears, skull, brain, and brain stem, the Robinson report does not.

It also, very simply, does not take into account all the incidents which weren't reported, where helmets did there job and no medical treatment was needed.

TJ, I currently work with the design of Helmets to protect pilots in Fast Jet and Rotary Wing aircraft, I have also worked closely with the design of motorbike helmets and Ski / Snowboard helmets. I work with the British Standard institute for testing of helmets and have developed bespoke tests to simulate re-world conditions for the thorough simulation of potential events. Please don't take everything you read on wikipedia as gospel.

TJ - i have indeed read some, albeit not all of the links you post wich all seem to say mixed things. most of my point is now that you consistantly ignore points raised by me and others that give a concise contradiction to your ramblings. You have done it time and time again on this thread and i am not sure how to make you listen.

i will ask some questions that i would like you (TJ) to answer in full.....(well, just a simple yes or no to make it easy)

1 - DO YOU ACCEPT THAT THIS FORUM, THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT OF THE THREAD AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE COMMENTING ARE ON ABOUT OFF ROAD USE????? YES OR NO?

2 - DO YOU ACCEPT THAT MOST OF THE LIMITED INCONCLUSIVE RESEARCH YOU KEEP POSTING UP IS ABOUT ON-ROAD USE????? YES OR NO?

3 - DO YOU BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION WEAR A HELMET WHEN OFF ROAD RIDING???? YES OR NO?

4 - DO YOU ACCEPT THAT A HEMET WILL PROTECT YOU FROM SOME INJURY IN THE EVENT OF AN OFF, WHEN RIDING OFF ROAD???? YES OR NO?

5 -

car drivers give less room if a helmet is worn

SINCE WHEN DO YOU FIND CARS ON MOTOR VEHICLES ON OFF ROAD ROUTES, (with the exception of some BOATS and ORPAS although they will usually stop and give way) AGAIN ON ROAD THEORY ON AN OFF ROAD FORUM!!!!!

Nowadays humans are pair animals and a woman needs a man ...

This is patronising and revoltingly sexist. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. And a fish with a bicycle would be well-advised to wear a cycle helmet. Or not.

[i]Ian - actually.. it's a little different with deer since they are herd animals and the dads don't need to specifically be around to help with the upbringing. Nowadays humans are pair animals and a woman needs a man who is going to stick around and provide for the offspring, not get himself killed attempting some gap jump without a helmet.[/i]

As I understand a lot of pairing animals are a bit more sneaky and will often get impregnated by the sexy gap jumper, and then get the spod with polystyrene on his head to raise the sprogs 🙂