[Closed] Helmets - possibly the last word?

No comment 😉
😀

Oh the irony TJ 😆 really you and the last word are constant bed fellows

🙂 I set 'em up...........

It is a piece well worth reading tho

Q - Will this Article be the Last Word on the subject of Helmets?

A - No. No, it will not.

🙂

BD, you're ALIIIIIVE! 🙂

its about road stuff and reduced liability though and the conclusion is

It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with the person or persons responsible for the collision.

It is a piece well worth reading tho

No it isnt. Not sure why you are so determined to push this issue.
You are wrong and the BMA disagrees with you.
I'll take their word over yours and any politician.
I have reviewed the original medical evidence myself and it is non existent.

Hugor - you need to read the BMA debate. Its was very contentious the reversal of policy in favour of compulsory helmets.

Its a well written piece summarising the debate from a legal viewpoint. thats all it is.

There is evidence that helmets protect people from head injuries.
There is also evidence that making people wear helmets causes some people to not cycle anymore. This may cause people to die from cardiovascular disease related to inactivity.
The public health debate is whether the trade off of severe head injury prevention is offset by more people dying from not exercising.
Its nothing more than a law of averages debate and nobody knows the answer.
As an individual you are safer with a helmet on than without.
This is not debatable in the literature.

Levels of cycling are not likely to meet the hopes of government and local authorities until people in large numbers feel safe on bicycles. This requires confidence that they will not be run down by a motor vehicle.

Great stuff. 😀

Not debatable? Aye, right.

Latest update. Down from 590,000:
[IMG] [/IMG]
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-another-study-on-the-efficacy-of-bike-helmets#post-3128520

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/my-helmet-is-very-deformed-graphic-photo-content#post-2963127

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-woman-who-tragically-died-in-dent-on-the-letjog-ride#post-2956453

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclist-hit-15-times-with-hammer-by-driverfor-riding-too-slow-up-a-hill#post-2943106

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/motorcyclist-protesting-helmet-laws-dies-in-bike-crash-while-not-wearing-helmet/page/3

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/kids-cycling-to-school-without-helmets-is-it-me-or#post-2368335

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word

The one thing reading that has done is made me consider buying a more heavy duty helmet! Any suggestions?

As an individual you are safer with a helmet on than without.
This is not debatable in the literature.

It is debatable. You are not safer if risk compensation means your increased risk of crashing outweighs the protection.

There is no evidence of risk compensation for cycling in the literature. Next....

Yawn. 😆

The last time I came off my bike, at walking speed on a cycle path, my head hit the Tarmac leaving gouges in my Xen's visor; on previous occasions I've hit low-hanging branches hard enough to make my ears ring, and a couple of offs have left tree bark and dirt on my lid. Personally, I'll continue to wear one every time I'm out on the bike. If TJ has no issues with being someone else's care problem, being fed through a tube and having his arse wiped regularly, well, that's up to him.

I want to kill myself whenever I read anything that remotely resembles law jargon. Sorry TJ.

These studies are all centred around road riding. If you fall off a mountain bike on a normal trail and hit your head without a helmet on you are going to get hurt. Even I can understand this TJ and I'm not particularly intelligent by stw standards 😯

Hugor risk compensation is a well known and researched phenomenon and it seen in such things as ABS brakes in cars.

It must play some part in bicycles and helmets. How big? Who knows. As example on the FF helmet thread - the chap felt more confident with it on.

You are wrong to say it has no place - why would cycling be any different from driving or climbing in that respect?

I'm not going to read it. I'm happy with my full face, it's already hit several rocks and a couple of tree stumps. I don't give a **** what you put on your head.

[img] [/img]

Surely a top hat is the safest thing to wear when flogging a dead horse?

Great, lawyers apply basic common sense. Conclude evidence is unclear (but why the obsession with contact with moving vehicles?) and essentially take a libertarian view re compulsion p22. What's new!?!

Herman, that picture is most ore sum! 🙂

Herman, that picture is most ore sum! 🙂

Risk compensation with bicycle helmet use has never been demonstrated so it is merely a hypothesis. Its a moot point and your clutching at straws here.
Just because somebody feels safer with some protective equipment does not mean that they will take extra risk.
They may just be more aware of the dangers involved and exercise greater caution.
I've never been overtaken by a Volvo at 100 miles per hour, but I have have been by loads of small Audi's and BMW's.
Why don't we just legislate against any kind of protective equipment?
Being frightened is safe!
Its stupid logic.
The other thing to note is that everybody keeps quoting the Australian helmet study to support the anti-compulsion stance, and yet Australia has made it legislation for 20 years now!
Are they/we stupid or do you think there is more to it?

As I said earlier this is just a public health argument.
The question is:
If they made helmets compulsory in Britain would we save more people from head injuries, than we would lose from people quitting cycling and dying of cardiovascular disease?
If nobody quit cycling as a result of changing the helmet laws then there would be no trade off and it would be enforced.
Nobody is arguing that helmets don't offer protective benefit.

TJ - do you have children? If so do you encourage them to ride on road and off road without a helmet?

Thats not a sarcastic comment by the way, I'm genuinely interested.

If compulsion was introduced, would it only apply to road use ?
Hard to imagine trails being suddenly overrun with helmet cops and I can't recall the last time I saw anyone riding on the roads without a helmet, and that's as a non car owner who use bike for almost all my journeys.

So perhaps compulsion (which I'm personally against) may not affect that many people ?

If compulsion was introduced, would it only apply to road use ?
Hard to imagine trails being suddenly overrun with helmet cops and I can't recall the last time I saw anyone riding on the roads without a helmet

If compulsion was introduced it would be unenforcable, much the same as seat belt/mobile phone use in cars, which patently does not seem to be enforced due to a lack of Police.

Every ride I do I see people without helmets here in the Nederlands, I get stared at as I am the 'wierd one' wearing one.

It is down to personal choice, it should remain that way and we should accept that there are polorised views on the subject.

Great, lawyers apply basic common sense. Conclude evidence is unclear (but why the obsession with contact with moving vehicles?) and essentially take a libertarian view re compulsion p22. What's new!?!

The "obsession" with contact with moving vehicles is because that's where most of the case law on contributory negligence is going to come from.

The one thing reading that has done is made me consider buying a more heavy duty helmet! Any suggestions?

Just treated myself to a new one. I went for the 661 Recon, which seems to give a lot more protection around the back or the head. I wear it on and off road, and have done for years - force of habit now and I wouldn't ride without one.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=72434

Hugor why are you so biased against compensatory risk? There's every reason for it to be real and plausible.

If I ride without one I go way slower. Not sure if that's the same thing though, or whether seasoned riders like us aren't an extreme group in this respect-I've not ridden without one regularly since I was 19.

If compulsion was introduced it would be unenforcable, much the same as seat belt/mobile phone use in cars, which patently does not seem to be enforced due to a lack of Police.

If they made helmets compulsory in Britain would we save more people from head injuries, than we would lose from people quitting cycling and dying of cardiovascular disease?
If nobody quit cycling as a result of changing the helmet laws then there would be no trade off and it would be enforced.
Nobody is arguing that helmets don't offer protective benefit.

I am not a huge fan of compulsion but the only people I generally see without helmets are kids, those who own a bike but are not cyclists and older riders.
Maybe once a year I see someone off road without a lid
Pretty sure most riders on here have had a crash where a helmet reduced the injury , I know I have but I was still knocked out and split the helmet. Would i have died probably not but I would rather not find out

@ cynic-al
It bugs me cause I don't think legislation and matters of public health should be made by assumptions and long extrapolations from other scenarios.
Your comparison to yourself is not appropriate as you obviously wear helmets most of the time and feel strange/vulnerable without one.
So do I for that matter.
When people accept that whenever you take your bike out you also take your helmet it becomes normal.
It would be interesting to see if regular Australian road cyclists take any more or less risk than regular British cyclists.
That would setttle the argument.
Personally my opinion is that their risk behaviour would be identical.
I don't think the average Aussie roadie takes more risks because they feel safer with their helmet. They just think its normal. They don't even consider not wearing one.

It must play some part in bicycles and helmets. How big? Who knows. As example on the FF helmet thread - the chap felt more confident with it on.

I'll agree with this to some extent. When I used to make some very poor attempts at mincing downhill on the Patriot 7 in FF and body armour I definitely tried things and went faster than on the Cotic with only an XC lid on. Sure, some of it was obviously the bike, but a lot of it was the security of protection. I found having the FF on really focussed me on line choice as much as anything else.

That said, the absolute opposite is true on the roadie - without helmet and with wind in hair I seem to want to go faster than with helmet.

EDIT: I should add it's compulsory to wear a helmet here in Oz - There seem to be many more cyclists here in Adelaide than I remember in Manchester (similar population, but I guess somewhat crummier weather!)

Risk compensation with bicycle helmet use has never been demonstrated

it never will be either
Personally, my fastest ever lap of the red at Dalby was sans lid, after I forgot to pack it and I've done a lot of laps around there
I also go out with a small road group, a couple of the guys don't wear hats, they don't obviously ride any slower than the rest of us

When people accept that whenever you take your bike out you also take your helmet it becomes normal.

It certainly seems to be far more normal than it was when I was younger. I cycled a lot in my teens and never wore a helmet, and no one I knew wore a helmet, including in the (road) club I was in. At school you were seen as a bit of a whip if you wore one. Now I don't know anyone who doesn't use one.

Hugort - you are absolutely wrong on risk compensation.

It occurs commonly and is well demonstrated. Why should cycling be exempt?

Personally, my fastest ever lap of the red at Dalby was sans lid, after I forgot to pack it and I've done a lot of laps around there

There's the counter to all the "I ride more carefully without a lid" comments.
I see these roadies round my way absolutely blasting down these descents without lids.
I don't think risk enters their minds.

Hugor. Not exercising does not automatically put you in the queue for CHD! A sedentary lifestyle, 40 fags and 20g of sat fat a day may do.

Risk compensation is not concious.

Why when it has been demonstrated in so many other similar places should cycling be exempt? What is so unique about cycling that a well known psychological phenomenon does not occur?

Not exercising does not automatically put you in the queue for CHD! A sedentary lifestyle, 40 fags and 20g of sat fat a day may do.

Completely agree.
This is the argument for anti-compulsion. Its a flawed argument.
Excercise certainly assists in the bad to good bloood fat ratio (LDL vs HDL) which correlates strongly with CV disease.
As you point out there are other factors as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418079

Gotta love the abbreviation for that journal:

[i]Risk Anal.[/i]

😆

Interesting paper.
I'll counter that tonight.
The sun is out and the bike beckons. 😀
Its a glorious day in Wales.

you are absolutely wrong on risk compensation.

It occurs commonly and is well demonstrated.

I am sure that risk compensations happens but so does the reverse at least in my experience. I nearly always wear a helmet but just occasionally have been going for a few blasts sans chapeau. I actually push harder without a lid but with a much more elevated sense of what is happening - feels purer and more exciting. But having said that, I have cracked enough helmets to know that most rides will be avec chapeau!!

For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet. The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. They thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.

TJ I am disappointed seriously. Surely anybody let alone a health professional can see how illogical their conclusions are from the results they report.
The non-helmet wearing cyclists did not alter their speed nor exhibit any alteration in stress when made to wear helmets.
How does this support your argument exactly - Or did you just read the last sentence?
This suggests that if helmet compulsion took place then cyclist risk behavior wouldn't change.
I think you've defeated your own argument! 😆

[i]When people accept that whenever you take your bike out you also take your helmet it becomes normal.[/i]

Nope, never worn one, don't own one. Don't wanna wear one

Thanks

So TJ. As a medical professional, tell me what the problem is with this statement.
[i]Some neurologists take the view
that a helmet may increase the risk of a rotational type injury to the brain because the
diameter of the head is effectively increased[/i].

(from the silk's paper, but I think it is lifted from that well known neutral website cyclinghelmets.org)

After reading all that I think I'll leave my helmet at home more often.

A good summary this piece.

I wear a helmet off road and on the road bike but there's no way I'd want to be compelled to wear one when travelling about in normal clothes - frequently go without on the Brompton.

The para I thought was interesting was:

The risks are comparable to those faced by pedestrians yet nobody seriously suggests that pedestrians should wear helmets. What of the cyclist who crosses a shared cycle/pedestrian crossing alongside a pedestrian when both are run down by a motorist who jumps the lights?

This thread is no less boring than the thousand or so that have gone before it.

TJ, stop trolling. It's dull.

Not meant as a troll - I seriously thought the piece was worth bringing to people attention as it was a nicely written summary.

I have not argued with folk on here about it.

Yes TJ and worth posting - thank you. Not a troll at all. And best thing is the conclusion which is perfect for all these arguments:

It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with the person or persons responsible for the collision.

Well I found it intesting, TJ, and won't acuse you of trolling, just this once. 😉

And best thing is the conclusion which [s]is perfect for[/s] will never come with all these arguments, as TJ will continue to argue ad infinitum

FTFY.

Oi

I ain't been arguing despite two or three people trying to get me to do so - apart from with you of course CFH 🙂

On this thread, perhaps, TJ, but on the myriad others it's rather boring.

We know your opinion. Others disagree. We know their opinion. Continued threads, as highlighted earlier with the sheer number, don't add anything to it. Just the same argument (Even if you weren't, for once, actually arguing!) going round in circles again.

two or three people

Isn't the simple point that if I smash my head on the tarmac I'd rather do so wearing a helmet?

I can't believe people are still wallowing in the same hackneyed old arguments when there's daffodils to discuss!

No, Damos, it's the fact that you you are more likely to get hit by a car and smash your head on the tarmac if you are wearing a helmet (according to a Bath uninversity study°.

Here we go again, or you go, I'm out.

No, Damos, it's the fact that you you are more likely to get hit by a car and smash your head on the tarmac if you are wearing a helmet (according to a Bath uninversity study°.

Maybe they found a correlation between helmet use and crashes - doesn't mean helmet use causes crashes, or indeed that I am more likely to be hit by a car if I'm wearing a helmet.

Oh, go on then. The study showed drivers take less care around cyclists that wear helmets so you're more likely to be involved in a collision.

On the topic of risk compensation, there is always the possibility that being more relaxed because you believe conciously or unconciously you're more protected, means you're more relaxed and less rigid on the bike which in turn allows you to have more control on the bike? GO on any skills training course and it's all about positioning and being able to shift your weight around, difficult if you've got a death grip on the bars and your joints are all locked solid.

Just saying like......no evidence.....purely anecdotal self experience.

One final thought, would risk compensation come into to it if you've always worn a helmet? As an adult I've worm a helmet since being at university in the late eighties, fantastic lump of polystyrene with a lycra cover. Stopped me skinning the back of may head when i fell off, didn't do much to stop me breaking my elbow though.....

Also on the subject of risk compensation....

Risk compensation is about how the perception of safety encourages people to take greater risks.

So tell me how is it that people who don't wear helmets because they think 'cycling is safe' take fewer risks than people who think cycling is dangerous and therefore wear a helmet. The helmet may alter someone's perceptions but surely not to the extent that they feel safer than the helmet-less who appear think that they are in no danger at all.

Bath uninversity study

One bloke rding his bike. It is hardly the most rigourous study you can think of. He also 'demonstrated' that riding in primary led to closer passes... one for TJ to answer.

so you're more likely to be involved in a collision.

You can sometimes learn more from personal experimentation than statistics.

If you really want to be safe then forget the helmet and try this combination of things that from experience (mine and Madame's) result in drivers taking more care around cyclists:

Fit a baby seat with a doll in it, fit one of those lolipop things and wide lugage, ride erratically, wobble lots, ride in the middle of the lane and only pull in a bit when cars get close.

An interesting read TJ.
Given the evidence, along with my injury experience.....

I shall continue to wear my helmet.

SB

Fit a baby seat with a doll in it, fit one of those lolipop things and wide lugage, ride erratically, wobble lots, ride in the middle of the lane and only pull in a bit when cars get close.

As predicted by the Theory of BIG.

http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/Big.html

BIG panniers and BIG BRIGHT JACKET works for me. I also use a mirror so I can see close overtakes before they happen. I rarely get uncomfrtably close overtakes. When I do see one coming I have space to move left as I'm usually at least 4 feet from the kerb.

I think the worst thing that can happen from these debates, is that regular cyclists get discouraged from cycling because it increases their perception of danger.

And that's all it will do. Some people will wear helmets, some won't and that's their choice but the more drawn out discussions some people see around safety equipment, the more they will begin to wonder if it's worth riding a bike at all.

There is no overwhelming evidence one way or the other about whether helmets save lives, improve safety or not so there's clearly not much in it. The sooner the debate is dropped the better, people have the choice and it should remain that way.

And best thing is the conclusion which is perfect for all these arguments

[i]I think the worst thing that can happen from these debates, is that regular cyclists get discouraged from cycling because it increases their perception of danger.

And that's all it will do. Some people will wear helmets, some won't and that's their choice but the more drawn out discussions some people see around safety equipment, the more they will begin to wonder if it's worth riding a bike at all.

There is no overwhelming evidence one way or the other about whether helmets save lives, improve safety or not so there's clearly not much in it. The sooner the debate is dropped the better, people have the choice and it should remain that way. [/i]

Samuri has broken the argument. End of thread and applause for a genius.

If they made helmets compulsory in Britain would we save more people from head injuries, than we would lose from people quitting cycling and dying of cardiovascular disease?

Are there really people who would never cycle again just because helmetage was compulsory?

I expect what would actually happen, because it's what always happens in this daft country, is that a there will be a minority who make a massive fuss about it, which very quickly dies down to a general apathy, then after they realise nobody's paying attention to their stropping we'll all just buy helmets and get on with our lives ...

joao - thats the experience from everywhere where helmet have been made compulsory - massive drops in cycling and thus the benefits of good health from cycling and no decrease in head injuries.

The estimate is 10 lives at best would be saved from head injuries and 200 lost from diseases of inactivity

Links to the research are here and some discussion.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688

I doubt my neigbour would ever get on a bike to go to work again, helmet hair being incompatible with her job. [url= http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html ]Australien evidence[/url]

massive drops in cycling and thus the benefits of good health from cycling and no decrease in head injuries.

If you crash your head is better protected in a helmet.
TJ why bother very few on here are pro compulsion
You always focus on road stuff but most folk on here are MTB'ers and ride off road.

Amazing. TJ finds a note drafted by counsel where the "last word" is:

It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not
wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with
the person or persons responsible for the collision.

bwahahaahahah. oh the irony.

A typical counsel styled summary of a load of stuff we already knew. 🙂

Not just about head Injury decrease vs CVD increase is it tho hugor? Crash helmets for drivers and pedestrians would definitely save lives with afaik no CVD increase, u will however piss off a lot of people. There's dispute over the usefulness of 1" of polystyrene vs tons of cars/trucks so why the push for compulsion? You'd be on safer ground arguing compulsion for XC riding, unenforceable tho. (And I'd still be anti that