Molgrips – Well be aware of your surroundings then. Active safety is always preferable to passive safety. Where you not maoning about crashing and getting injured recently?

Myself I prefer not to crash by being aware and in control. Feel vulnerable be safer

you are more likely to get a head injury when drinking, driving a car or getting out of the bath than you are cycling

Where I do think that risk compensation can come into it is with drivers. From talking to none cycling drivers and my experiences on the road I honestly think drivers are likely to take more risks with your life if they see you wearing a helmet than if you don’t.

100% true IME.
it’s not just down to the helmet tho, I’ve had drivers slow down and cross the centre line to give room when I’ve been riding BMX in jeans and a Tshirt (helmetless) on the pavement where as I’ve had **** only just miss me with their wingmirror at 70mph while on the roadbike in biking gear. I reckon a wobbly carrier bag on the handlebars is the best deterant.

Molgrips – Well be aware of your surroundings then. Active safety is always preferable to passive safety. Where you not maoning about crashing and getting injured recently?

No, I wasn’t.

And yes of course I am aware of my surroundings. Just because I wear a helmet doesn’t mean I think I am invincible and stop caring about other road users.

It just means that should the worst happen, and either me or a driver gets it wrong, my most precious bit (my brain) has some protection, and hence more of a chance of surviving.

tbhTJ that photo does not really look like there’s much to hit. Say you went to a bmx track, a dh course did something like that, then a helmet would be required.

molgrips earlier today

I always wear a helmet, it makes me feel better about riding.

However I was in belgium a couple of weeks ago. everyone rides a bike, and i mean EVERYONE. no one wears a helmet, literally no one. I didn’t see piles of bodies, or queues outside hospitals with head injuries. I t definitely made me think about why there is such pressure to wear a helmet in the UK.

Because in the UK, drivers think we are the enemy and we’re getting away with using their roads without paying “Road Tax.”.

Not sure what that’s meant to mean, TJ!

Well, I’ve read this thread*, I’ve studied the studies# and I shall continue to wear my helmet when on a bike. Most of the time.

*well, a few snippets
#not really

I find it strange why there are so many arguments against helmet use, often backed up by studies that try to prove the benefit is not as great as thought.

Regardless of these studies, the benefits still massively outweigh not wearing one at all. Yes you may get into an accident and the helmet does nothing. But then it has not harmed you wearing one either. On the other hand you could get into something more serious and it sasves your life.

I’ve seen these arguments more over ski helmets and I’m convinced it’s mostly down to vanity. Interestingly ski helmets are worn far more in North America than Europe and they’ve just become accepted. Almost trendy.

Anyway, I don’t want to become the helmet police, but taking a big smash the other week in Swinley putting me unconscious in Frimley ICU, I feel the helmet may have saved my life, or at least reduced the effect of the impact. I’m not going to insist people wear them, but I do recommend them if only to help out ambulance crews, hospital staff, and friends/family. At the very least so they aren’t having to deal with someone potentially becoming a vegetable or worse having to deal with a death certificate.

Oh and helmet is only one part of what I needed. I could have done with spine protection also, but I was lucky in what I fractured is going to heal okay. I could quite easily be looking at a wheelchair from now on.

tbhTJ that photo does not really look like there’s much to hit. Say you went to a bmx track, a dh course did something like that, then a helmet would be required.

and if I understand TJ’s position he’ll probably agree, remember he has already said he’ll wear a helmet at trail centres, in fact I’ve seen a picture of him wearing one, he’s not anti helmet wearing, I think he’s anti COMPULSORY helmet wearing, and so I am

BTW I wear a helmet, most of the time

I have never personally heard of anyone injured because they were wearing one.

it would be hard to know if they had. I was told of an incident witnessed by a friend at Appletreewick where a rider fell off their bike and broke their neck 🙁 So it can happen.

fair point. I am TJ fan really.

Risk compensation.

A bit of polystyrene perched on the top of your head might help if you crash, but if you ride harder because of the helmet and crash then you’re clearly at more risk of injury because of the helmet.

I reckon I’ve had as many crashes with a helmet as without and I doubt I wear one for more than 5% of rides.

Deadkenny

Regardless of these studies, the benefits still massively outweigh not wearing one at all. Yes you may get into an accident and the helmet does nothing. But then it has not harmed you wearing one either

So you simply are going to ignore the evidence and make your mind up that the evidence is wrong? I suggest you look again at the CTC link and the links and discussion about rotational injuries in my earlier posts. Numerous studies show that as more cyclists wear helmets casualty rates do not fall.

It is not about vanity not wearing one – all helmets are uncomfortable sweaty and unpleasant to wear.

So you simply are going to ignore the evidence and make your mind up that the evidence is wrong? I suggest you look again at the CTC link and the links and discussion about rotational injuries in my earlier posts. Numerous studies show that as more cyclists wear helmets casualty rates do not fall.

Casualty rates not falling does not make helmets a bad thing though. Given that most people wear helmets these days I strongly suspect there is not enough evidence to show the real result of not wearing them at all. The evidence that is there is from a minority, and from what kind of riders, what skills do they have, what trails do they ride? Being such a small number compared to those who do wear, it’s highly likely that they are just lucky. Rates not falling despite increasing number of wearers can also indicate that there are an increasing number of riders, rather than an increasing number of existing riders taking to wearing helmets. More riders, more accidents.

If casualty rates massively increased by wearing them, I’d be very concerned. This isn’t the case.

Besides, wearing a helmet doesn’t stop you having an accident anyway. It’s more to do with what injuries you can sustain when you do have an accident.

I can’t say for certain if my helmet saved my life the other week when I ended up unconscious in Frimley ICU for a couple of days, but I struggle to see at all from any evidence that’s been presented anywhere and from my own experience myself and with another rider in a similar situation, just what benefit not wearing a helmet would be at all. Regardless of any supposed studies, I strongly believe the helmet can make a huge difference. NHS staff appear to have the same opinion and I’ve heard quotes of “that probably saved your life”.

Sure, they’re not academics sat behind a desk binding statistics together for a “study”. They’re just people on the front line who deal with this stuff regularly (and Frimley deals with Swinley accidents on a very regular basis).

It is not about vanity not wearing one – all helmets are uncomfortable sweaty and unpleasant to wear.

Aside from a full face which is hot and sweaty, I’ve got no problem at all wearing a helmet from both aesthetic and comfort point of views.

You need to have a look at the studies. The links are there. The data is nothing like you assume.

I have, though one based on past research demands a fee to view it.

However all the links cycle round back to the single study by Dr Elvik of Norway. Whilst it’s a piece of academic study, it needs independent review, and back up from alternate studies.

Also, I can’t see what casualties he’s looking at. Specifically are these road causalities, or (as I assume of main relevance here), MTB. Two entirely different disciplines. It’s one thing bumping your head onto a flexible bonnet of a car, and an entirely different thing crashing down a hill head first over the bars, into a tree.

To quote the NZ Hearald’s summary though…

* New research indicates wearing a helmet reduces the risk of head injury in a crash by 43 per cent.

* Previous research found the risk reduction was at least 60 per cent.

* The new findings are disputed.

Fairly simple then. I don’t even dispute the reduction of risk may be true. That doesn’t change my statement about the massive benefit of a helmet. The risk of getting a head injury is one thing, but this study does not go into the subsequent damage caused. Risk could still be 43 per cent, but with a helmet your life could be saved, without you could die or have more severe damage. Either way you have a head injury, just your prospects may be much better with one.

Also, I can’t see what casualties he’s looking at. Specifically are these road causalities, or (as I assume of main relevance here), MTB. Two entirely different disciplines. It’s one thing bumping your head onto a flexible bonnet of a car, and an entirely different thing crashing down a hill head first over the bars, into a tree.

Are you suggesting that being run over is safer than falling off a mountainbike?

That’s quite a different risk assessment to mine. I try very hard to avoid any road miles I can. I certainly wouldn’t ride in a town.

However all the links cycle round back to the single study by Dr Elvik of Norway

No they don’t.

Studies such as the one you quote showing large reductions in injury all share a series of massive flaws that mean their accuracy is very questionable. Its a self selecting sample, no account is taken of risk compensation or of injuries caused by helmets and there is no way of knowing how the group attending hospital compares with the group that don’t

Numerous studies looking at total population of cyclists show that as helmet wearing rates increase no reduction in head injuries is found. If the 60% ( long discredited) figure or the 43% figure was actally right then we would see this reduction in death and injury as helmet wearing rates rise. We don’t so there is clearly some other effect at work.

No they don’t.

Studies such as the one you quote showing large reductions in injury all share a series of massive flaws that mean their accuracy is very questionable. Its a self selecting sample, no account is taken of risk compensation or of injuries caused by helmets and there is no way of knowing how the group attending hospital compares with the group that don’t

Numerous studies looking at total population of cyclists show that as helmet wearing rates increase no reduction in head injuries is found. If the 60% ( long discredited) figure or the 43% figure was actally right then we would see this reduction in death and injury as helmet wearing rates rise. We don’t so there is clearly some other effect at work.
Don’t helmet laws reduce the number of people who cho0se to cycle? That must reduce the injury rate very impressively.

Similar to the ridiculously complex motorcycle tests. Doesn’t make anyone safer, but cuts the number of motorcyclists drastically.

There’s a simple test to take. Have a big crash with a helmet. I’ve done that myself.

Then have one without (try to reproduce the same crash). Report back if you survive 😀

I don’t think these studies tell us much though given the level of inaccuracies. Yes, they could be right in that the percentage figure is lower. What does that tell us about helmets? Does it say that helmets don’t save lives as some seem to want these reports to say? No. Does it say that they reduce or increase injuries? No.

I still maintain though that the best people to speak to are those who have actually had a serious accident with one, and medical staff who have treated those who have had such an accident. I’ve had experience of both of these and have made my mind up clearly as to the benefit of a helmet, even if they are not perfect.

All the studies are flawed, I’m sure I read that some pages back, so they can’t be used for either side of the argument. And anyway, I don’t want to live my life in a cloud of peer-reviewed stats.

If I had a major crash, helmet with obvious signs of impact and suffered no rotational injuries I’d be certain that the helmet improved the outcome.
Today I rode 4 hours in hot sun, no sign of any discomfort from wearing a helmet (Xar), it kept a few branches from hitting my face and was glad of the peak for shade.

Your head, your choice.

I still maintain though that the best people to speak to are those who have actually had a serious accident with one, and medical staff who have treated those who have had such an accident.

Rather than the people who research into accidents and the mechanics of them? People such as the TRL?

The TRL report is worth a read. All you need to know about how helmets work and a review of helmet studies. A free download at

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm

I believe helmets provide some protection but not as much as some people think. For technical off road riding they are more worthwhile as crashes are more frequent and more likely to be withing the desgn parameters of helmets.

For road cycling, (with the possible exception of racing) they are not needed. For an experienced rider road cycling is safe. Anyway, in the event of a life threatening crash a helmet is unlikely to help.

“A specialist biomechanical assessment of over 100 police forensic cyclist fatality reports predicted that between 10 and 16% could have been prevented if they had worn an appropriate cycle helmet.”

From page 48 of the TRL review liked to above.

In the UK there are about 100 cyclist deaths a year. So with about 2 million cyclists that is a 1:20’000 chance of a fatal crash. So I’m not going to start wearing a helmet that has a 10-16% chance of saving my life if the 1:20’000 chance of a fatal crash happens.

Of course other people may assess their risks differently. I would ask then if they wore helmets for the activities responsible for the other 99% of head injury admissions to hospitals. Drinking helmets would be a good start.

Another good look at this complicated issue. Well done to TJ and others to keeping the debate sensible

This thread here is intresting. Lots of long pots from a person involved in a court case where no expert witness would state that wearing a helmet made you safer

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/one-in-10-would-stop-cycling-if-forced-to-wear-a-helmet-poll-suggests-29978/?pageno=1#comments

Am I correct in assuming that these studies never include people who didn’t attend hospital after a crash? That seems to make the whole thing bunk.

I’m not buying the level of head injury in the population argument either. The way we cycle and the way we drive have changed in a way I would expect to swamp the effects of helmets. When I was growing up cars travelled slower in town and there were lees of them. lots of cycling was sit up and slow commuting. Now its all arse in the air on a carbon bike

Finally on the dreaded rotation, don’t fix a camera or light to your helmet unless it can rip free……..

In all the arguments for not wearing helmets people keep referring to this rotational injury malarky. Ok, so in a major crash, helmets might not reduce overall mortality/serious morbidity, but they sure as hell reduce other morbidity to some extent. Now, if that approach was taken for instance in the NHS, what would actually be offered to us? The attitude would be if its not going to kill you then we may as well not bother.

If you were going to fall of your bike and had the choice of a scar across your face and concussion or wearing a helmet that might prevent this….which one would you choose? Seems like a bit of a dumb question. The overall risk/probability of you being involved in a minor crash like this is higher than being involved in a major crash (with lots of potential for rotational injuries). So therefore surely there is more potential to benefit in wearing a helmet than not? Though I suppose this brings up the question as to what is more important; life or quality of life?

Also, based on this rotational injury theory….would those who support that therefore advocate that motocross racers/downhillers do not wear helmets at all?

So therefore surely there is more potential to benefit in wearing a helmet than not?

Unless you take risk compensation into account.

I’d have thought it’s pretty obvious a helmet will offer some protection. But when you look at the population as a whole risk compensation cancels out the protection offered.

I bet the split differs by age though. I know when I as young (before they’d invented helmets) risk didn’t cross my mind. Now I’m old I modify my behaviour. So… helmets for youngsters may well offer a net benefit.

I don’t know if that is really fair to say 5th elephant. there is some effect that means when you look at whole populations no benefit is seen from helmet wearing.

Risk compensation is one possibility but there are other possibilities as well and its probably multifactorial. Helmets causing some injuries thru rotational impacts or other causes, helmet wearers being more likely to crash for other reasons ( inexperience??) Faults in data collection /interpretation on both sides ( so benefits are small much lower than usually estimated and thus cannot be seen in large scale views with small % of injuries)

To my mind all you people who cry so loudly for helmets would be better off shouting for better road design, better quality research and better testing and design of helmets( cycle helmets test worse for rotation than helmets for other sports)

As I’ve said before, it all depends what we are talking about here. Road or off-road, or is this discussion being general and ignoring the actual use? Given the nature of this forum I would have thought there’d be more of an off-road bias, but maybe not.

Personally I’m of the opinion that on-road and off-road helmet benefits are entirely different. I have little interest in on-road cycling myself anyway, but I would assume that the actual number of incidents are relatively very low compared to off-road and likewise the benefits of a helmet in a road incident is perhaps lower.

Off-road is a very different situation, although it partly depends what kind of riding you do (saying that I’ve seen serious incidents on a tame trail as much as on serious trails). Personally I think you’re mad to go doing things like downhill stuff without a helmet, and ideally full face.

I don’t insist anyone has to wear one, it’s up to you, but just about everyone I know wears a helmet for what they believe is a very good reason. Many as a result of having an accident or their wearing is reinforced by an accident they’ve had or witnessed

What I will say is if a particular location is private and demands a fee or membership to ride, and if they say helmets are required to ride there, then you wear a helmet. End of.

I have serious doubts that those who are fairly anti-helmet have ever actually had an accident or witnessed someone who has had one. I would seriously like to know the experience and opinions of those who have had one (mainly off-road) and whether they still believe in helmets. Personally I believe front line experience from those involved counts far greater than cold academic studies based on sources that aren’t fairly comparable or accurate, or the studies are somewhat generalised. Just saying that a helmet has a certain percentage effect in reducing the risk of a head injury, doesn’t paint the entire picture about the benefits or otherwise of a helmet itself. The way I look at it is you are very likely to sustain a head injury in a crash, helmet or not. That is not what I look at out of a helmet. I’m more concerned about whether I will survive and/or avoid ending up paralysed. If I get a head injury that is recoverable from and live another day, then the helmet is doing the job. In my opinion, and based on personal experience.

So you think anecdote counts for more than rigorous and valid peer reviewed studies? despite the conclusions?

Some neurosurgeons won’t wear helmets at all because of the rotational injury issue causing greater trauma.

The way I look at it is you are very likely to sustain a head injury in a crash, helmet or not.

complete and utter rubbish. Head injuries are rare. This is one of the common bits of nonsense spouted by the helmet evangelists.

I have serious doubts that those who are fairly anti-helmet have ever actually had an accident or witnessed someone who has had one. I would seriously like to know the experience and opinions of those who have had one (mainly off-road) and whether they still believe in helmets.

I have had literally thousands of crashes while mountainbiking.. I’ve ridden all my life (BMX/road then MTB) and didn’t ever wear a helmet until I was around 21/22yrs old, and that was only because a friend entered me in an XC race so I borrowed a helmet for the event, I did quite well so I then went on to race XC and then DH regularly for around 15years so ‘obviously’ wore a helmet during that time. I haven’t raced for around 5 years now and rarely wear a helmet these days.. probably ridden most days this year and have worn a helmet maybe 3 times, one of these times was at a DH event and because of the rules I had to wear spine protection and gloves too (I wouldn’t have worn either if I didn’t have to). FWIW I am neither pro or anti helmet but I am definately anti blinkered pro-helmet bores both in forums and real life.

The way I look at it is you are very likely to sustain a head injury in a crash, helmet or not. That is not what I look at out of a helmet. I’m more concerned about whether I will survive and/or avoid ending up paralysed. If I get a head injury that is recoverable from and live another day, then the helmet is doing the job. In my opinion, and based on personal experience.

so how many times have YOU crashed while biking?

and Paralysis? WTF?

cant be arsed reading all this.

other than two of my old mans mates died from head injury on the bikes,helmet may-would have saved them…

fell off bike on monday,banged my head on a rock,so glad i had helmet on.

I have serious doubts that those who are fairly anti-helmet have ever actually had an accident or witnessed someone who has had one. I would seriously like to know the experience and opinions of those who have had one (mainly off-road) and whether they still believe in helmets

I said early on in this thread that I had a big off last year without a helmet, and had I been wearing one I’m sure I’d have claimed it saved my life. But I wasn’t and I was fine.

I’m neither for nor against helmets (I wear one occasionally). I do think that people vastly overestimate the protection they offer. I’m talking about the the bits of polystyrene that people have balanced on the top of their heads, not proper full face helmets. Risk compensation aside I imagine proper helmets are worth wearing. I’ve crashed enough MX bikes using my face to stop and I’m not dead (and still beautiful), so I must be right… 😆

Some neurosurgeons won’t wear helmets at all because of the rotational injury issue causing greater trauma.

So you’d rather trust a neurosurgeon who probably doesn’t ride a mountain bike, over mountain bikers who have actually been in many accidents and know the real results.

complete and utter rubbish. Head injuries are rare. This is one of the common bits of nonsense spouted by the helmet evangelists.

Wow. I must be special then. I had a serious head injury just the other week. Someone else I know had a fairly serious head injury also a few months back. Came across a kid with a bit of a head injury some months back also. The folk over of MTB Britain that I sometimes ride with found someone with a head injury very recently in the same location I did mine.

Sure it’s semi anecdotal. There are a lot of anecdotes in mountain biking. Most are factual also and aren’t based on statistics generated from perhaps even more vaguely anecdotal information. I mean, from my own experience I have doubts that accurate information is actually recorded in accident situations. Ambulance crew & ICU staff are more interested in saving your life and ask limited questions about what happened. In my case they know it involved a mountain bike although I doubt that is actually recorded. They also know I had a helmet on. Is that recorded? It’s not on the records they gave me. It all contains a basic summary and a long list of the drugs administered, CT scan, x-ray and so on they had to do.

So you think anecdote counts for more than rigorous and valid peer reviewed studies? despite the conclusions?

Erm, yeah. I’d rather use the actual evidence that helmets may well have saved the wearer from more serious injury, and my own experiences, than what’s written in some ‘study’.

See, what none of the studies have done, is taken a suitable test group, and hit the subjects heads in various places, with heavy objects, then repeated the exercise with the subjects wearing helmets, and compared the results. You can’t do tests like that, it’s not allowed. So, the findings of any studies, no matter how posh the people writing them, are little more than theory really, aren’t they?

Does that not occur to you, that such studies aren’t alt all conclusive, and the ‘evidence’ of many people who believe they’ve bin saved from further injury, not mean anything at all? My doctor believes I was spared serious injury due to me wearing a helmet. That’s just as valid an onion as any other, and as it’s my bonce, even more valid if you ask me.

My doctor is a lot more female and lovlier than you, TJ, so I’ll listen to her instead of you. Oh, and she’s a doctor. An actual real one; I’ve seen her stificates.

Some neurosurgeons won’t wear helmets at all because of the rotational injury issue causing greater trauma.

I need to see proof of this statement please. Now.

TandemJeremy
So you think anecdote counts for more than rigorous and valid peer reviewed studies? despite the conclusions?

OK, but…..

TandemJeremy
One of the things that is clear the more you read up on this is how poor, biased and limited much of the research is

….that would be those rigorous and valid peer reviewed studies then 😆

TandemJeremy
I am sure risk compensation is a factor. You feel more vulnerable without a helmet and ride more carefully

Nice anecdote 🙄

TandemJeremy
all helmets are uncomfortable sweaty and unpleasant to wear.

Based on what, your own experiences, again nice anecdote 😆

So, in summary:
The research is flawed, except that which TJ decides isn’t
Anecdotes are invalid, except for those of TJ

Hilldodger – nice selective quoting. I thought you had flounced off months ago after getting fed up of stalking and attacking me but now you are back to do the same.

You really are a tiresome bore and your continual attacks on me show this

Erm, yeah. I’d rather use the actual evidence that helmets may well have saved the wearer from more serious injury, and my own experiences, than what’s written in some ‘study’.

Surely they’re both actual evidence, it’s just one is more personal to you and therefore you ascribe more emotion to it than a larger evidence base collated from a wider variety of more distant sources? Not a particularly scientific approach, but a very human one!

See, what none of the studies have done, is taken a suitable test group, and hit the subjects heads in various places, with heavy objects, then repeated the exercise with the subjects wearing helmets, and compared the results. You can’t do tests like that, it’s not allowed. So, the findings of any studies, no matter how posh the people writing them, are little more than theory really, aren’t they?

Well, that test ignores all factors prior to the impact occuring. i.e. behaviour preventing the accident in the first place (the risk compensation alluded to earlier). It also ignores behaviour while the accident is occuring, i.e. impact preparation, moving your head so it is protected by your body/limbs. This is a lot more difficult when you’ve got a couple of inches of polystyrene increasing the diameter of it. Then one has to consider the impact itself, whether the presence of additional material increases certain injuries over others, but also the relative seriousness of those injuries over ones sustained sans helmet!

It’s all a bit more complicated than it first appears, a bit like all accident prevention and investigation really!

Hilldodger 9 months ago. I have been ignoring you and given my own tantrums didn’t feel like bringing this back up. However lets just let daylight disinfect your poisonous attitude.

hilldodger – Member

TJ, this is my last post ever here so I don’t need to ‘fear the Mods’ so I can say that your internet persona is the most annoying I have ever encountered, you have never added anything constructive to any discussion, and are a negtaive and disruptive influence to any attempts at serious discussion with your huff’n’puff attitude.

I sincerely hope that one day you talk IRL to someone in this manner and they inflict heavy, disfiguring and permanent damage upon your smug, middle class pseudo intellectual McAss…………

…over and definitely out

TandemJeremy – Member

Hilldodger – nice selective quoting. I thought you had flounced off months ago after getting fed up of stalking and attacking me but now you are back to do the same.

You really are a tiresome bore and your continual attacks on me show this

But you still won’t answer the questions you old fraud, and as soon as you start being shown up as inconsistent you pull the old ‘personal attack’ card 😆

Are most of the studies flawed, and if so how did you arrive at this conclusion ?

Is you ‘being sure’ of something anecdotal or not ?