Having had a number of offs on my MTB some of which involving a knock to my head that resulted in the helmet taking the brunt of the impact, same can be said from wearing eyewear as a blow to the face from an off has resulted in eyewear reducing any damage. Why take a risk when an injury could be less or prevented through wearing a helmet.

This is why I wear a helmet on or off the road. I don’t need to trawl through the thread for opinions, science and facts for and against.

No thanks, I understand what a helmet is for thats why I wear one!

You don’t seem to understand there is a spectrum of risk from downhill MTBing at one end to riding along a traffic free path for a mile to the shops at the other end. Are you seriously suggesting you are risking your life if you don’t wear a helmet every time you get on a bike?

I’d guess almost everyone would wear a helmet for downhill mountain biking while many would consider them overkill for a short ride to the shops depending on road conditions.

If you think a helmet is needed for those shopping rides then maybe you should keep it on going round Tesco. What if you slipped on the floor and banged your head?

I’d suggest that as almost nobody is killed in cyclist only falls (look for yourself) that the human skull is perfectly adequate for protecting the brain at typical utility cycling speeds of 10-20mph. If it wasn’t there would be scores or hundreds of cyclists dying in cyclist only falls every year. It almost always needs a motor vehicle to kill a cyclist. No helmet manufacturer claims any protection in motor vehicle accidents.

In any case unlike technical off road or road racing where falls can be expected now and then it is possible to ride for tens of thousands of miles without an injury accident when touring and commuting. I don’t thinks that sort of risk needs head gear.

The DfT stats show one cyclist fatality for every 28 million miles cycled. Cycling is not dangerous. Avoid some of the big killers like left turning lorries and your risk will be even lower. Those DfT stats also show walking risks are in the same ballpark as cycling risks. Walking helmet?

http://road.cc/content/news/68212-dft-casualty-statistics-rank-driving-cycling-walking-and-motorcycling-risk

Are you seriously suggesting you are risking your life if you don’t wear a helmet every time you get on a bike?

Errr no where did I say that? I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to. I don’t have to justify that to anyone. Nor have I gone into the facts about fatalities and injuries due to vehicles.

Argue the toss all you like and carry on making assumptions about my reasoning for wearing a helmet as opposed to not. Its more sensible to wear a helmet for the just in case what if scenarios than not.

I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to

And yet you ride a bike?

I think you probably set the tone for debate when you waded in with this considered and eloquent starter:

flippinheckler – Member
Anyone that chooses not to wear a helmet is stupid.

POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

It’s not unreasonable that others might expect you to expand on why they are “stupid” really 😕

I want to protect my head I just think its stupid not to. I don’t have to justify that to anyone.

Yes you can call anyone you like stupid and you dont have to justify it.
You can refuse to explain why,
You can refuse to read any science or debate/thread on the very issue you are discussing
You could also accuse them of insulting you as well whilst you keep calling them idiots

People may draw some conclusions from this if you do though… I know I have 😀

So

02.05.2003
MANDATORY WEAR OF HELMETS FOR THE ELITE CATEGORY :

The International Cycling Union (UCI) announces that as from 5 May 2003 it will be mandatory to wear a hard shell helmet in Elite Men’s events for classes 4 and above.

This decision was taken in agreement with all parties represented in the Professional Cycling Council : Sports Group Associations (AIGCP), Races Organisers Associations (AIOCC) and the Professional Riders Associations (CPA), who supports this initiative although some divergences have been expressed by some of its members.

Underlining however that this decision has received full support from its principal leaders in the field, the UCI is conscious that a small number of riders invoke the “individual freedom” to oppose the obligation to wear a helmet. Whilst respecting their opinion, the UCI invites them to reflect on the consequences this attitude can generate.

Death or disability of a rider in fact represents a great sourceor sorrow for close ones and also a great loss for cycling. The fact that the rider takes the risk in all “freedom” will never take away the discomfort linked to such tragedies.

Demands from a small group of individuals should not prevail on the general interest of the sport and its followers: it is with this conviction that the UCI presents today the amendments to the regulations concerning the obligation to wear a helmet, confident that all riders will carefully observe it.

and

Reduction In Fatalities

In 2008, as part of a report for the UK Department Of Transport, “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.”

Also

Meta-analyses

There are several meta-analyses and reviews which synthesize and evaluate the results of multiple case-control studies. A Cochrane review of case-control studies of bicycle helmets by Thompson et al. found that “helmets provide a 63 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%.”.[34]

A 2001 meta-analysis of sixteen studies by Attewell et al. found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.4 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.5 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 3.7 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[35][36]

A 2012 re-analysis of the 16 studies in the Attewell meta-analysis, by Elvik, found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.5 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.3 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 4.3 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[37][a] When 5 new head-injury studies were added to the model, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.9 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain a head injury. When head, face and neck injuries were combined, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.4 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain an injury to the head, face or neck. The odds ratio for brain injuries reported by Elvik (95% CI 0.33-0.50) is consistent with the odds ratios using hospital controls reported in the Cochrane review (0.05-0.57 for brain injury and 0.14-0.48 for severe brain injury). In noting that the results of the meta-analysis were inconsistent with the results of the Cochrane review, Elvik may have been referring just to the head injury results (95% CI 0.26-0.37 in the Cochrane review; in Elvik’s meta-analysis, 0.38-0.48 using the studies in the Attewell analysis, 0.49-0.59 when 8 new studies were included).

TRL Report PPR 446
FINDINGS
The Potential for Cycle Helmets to
Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence
Abstract
There has been much debate in the literature and elsewhere regarding cycle helmets and their
potential to prevent injury. This cycle helmet safety research report was commissioned to
provide a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of cycle helmets in the event of an on-
road accident, building on previous work undertaken for the Department for Transport (Towner
et al
., 2002). The programme of work evaluates the effectiveness of cycle helmets from several
perspectives, including a review of current test Standards; a biomechanical investigation
of their potential limitations; a review of recent literature; and finally an assessment of the
casualties that could be prevented if cycle helmets were more widely used.
Main findings
Assuming that cycle helmets are a good fit and worn correctly, they should be effective at reducing the
risk of head injury, in particular cranium fracture, scalp injury and intracranial (brain) injury.
•
Cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of accident conditions, particularly:
•
the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle, often simple
falls or tumbles over the handlebars; and also
•
when the mechanism of injury involves another vehicle glancing the cyclist or tipping them over
causing their head to strike the ground.
•
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.
•
Of the on-road serious cyclist casualties admitted to hospital in England (HES database):
•
10% suffered injuries of a type and to a part of the head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated
or prevented; and a further
•
20% suffered ‘open wounds to the head’, some of which are likely to have been to a part of the
head that a cycle helmet may have mitigated or prevented.

Oh.

Yes, haven’t read back but that must be the first bit of hard evidence for or against helmet wearing.

Actually I mentioned the Cochrane Review quite a way back along with the Hillman/Adams objections to it, which are basically that it fails to consider the risk compensation aspects.

Interesting stats in that post by dales_rider,but it doesn’t change my position. As I said about 12 pages ago, I deem the risk to be so minuscule that multiplying it it by a factor of 2 or 3 is immaterial.

Also some of those stats and quotes support exactly what other people have been saying: that helmets are most effective in “cyclist falling off bike” rather than traffic accidents, and even then only 10% of the accidents involved head injuries that may have been prevented by a helmet.

A bit over sensitive to being labelled stupid for not wearing helmets even though some respondents also confess to wearing helmets. I also draw my own conclusion.

Over sensitive to being labelled stupid 😆 The diplomacy cores loss is our gain

You complained about being insulted when no one was insulting you and now you want to talk about over sensitive

Loving your work

flippinheckler: if you actually have something to add to the debate then please do.

If you only came here to call people stupid then you’ve done that. Well done. Mission accomplished, now kindly jog on.

It’s great seeing you respond so eagerly to my comments. I tilt my helmet at you.

One thing I have never understood about risk compensation & cycle helmets:
How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking, while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike. Odd that. No matter which way you look at it wearing a helmet is detrimental to cycling (especially if you don’t like wearing a helmet) Rather a magical property of helmets.

How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking

Plenty of MTB trials would not be ridden by me or I assume others without a helmet

while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike.

You need safety gear to do it safely so it must be dangerous. you dont need a helmet to drive a car so it must be safe.

No matter which way you look at it wearing a helmet is detrimental to cycling

Compulsion may be I am less sure that it is helmets per se as it enables me to ride many trails I would not otherwise ride.

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

How is it that wearing a helmet can encourage a sense of safety which leads to greater risk taking, while at the same time wearing helmets can make people feel that cycling is so dangerous that they are discouraged from riding a bike. Odd that.

They’re two completely different things.

One is the perception of someone who is perhaps thinking of taking up cycling and weighing up the pros an cons in a rational manner.

The other is the perception of someone already cycling, somebody already committed to it, and perhaps weighing up the risks of giving it some beans on a descent.

We are supposed to be talking road riding JY. Of course risk compensation exits & I agree it plays a massive part in off road riding. The point is that nobody has shown that it is a significant factor in road riding, likewise, nobody has ever proved that wearing a helmet on the road is anything but a response to the danger that people are easily able to perceive as they go about their daily business. It does seem amazing that helmets have a negative effect by both increasing and at the same time decreasing the sense of risk. Until either of these things are shown to be true I will still lean towards the idea that both of these problems are brought up as an argument against helmets by people whose main motivation is that they don’t like wearing a helmet.

flippinheckler – Member

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

You did pick out a biased source but do you have a walking helmet? I’ll add that I don’t wear a helmet on the road but often do mountain biking.

Today, whilst riding the 5 miles or so to Cannock Chase I thought “the good thing about riding to the Chase rather than driving is that you know you haven’t forgottten anything”.

Then I noticed the wind in my ears was a bit louder than usual, which made me realise I’d forgotten my helmet.

It didn’t change a thing. So I’ll try not to forget it in future.

GrahamS – Member

Actually I mentioned the Cochrane Review quite a way back along with the Hillman/Adams objections to it, which are basically that it fails to consider the risk compensation aspects.

Yes but not to mention the fact that when studies done on risk compensation are done the following applies…..

In one experimental study, adults accustomed to wearing helmets cycled more slowly without a helmet, but no difference in helmeted and unhelmeted cycling speed was found for cyclists who do not usually wear helmets.

Goverde, Marcel (September–October 2009). “Helmets Make You Bicycle Faster”. Annals of Improbable Research 15 (5): 6–9.

that been mentioned before and all it says is that when you remove some safety equipment from folk who choose to use it their behaviour changes and those who dont care dont care – that is bit of a no shit sherlock research tbh
I would like to see a longitudinal study with my hypothesis being that their speed returns to what it was with a helmet if they ride helmetless for a long enough period of time – days,weeks or months
ie helmets dont make you faster but removing PPE makes you slower [ whether the PPE is needed or not is a separate debate]

The research that Dales Rider presents, is logical ie of course a helmet offers more protection than not wearing one, but the stats are incomplete. Ok you may double your chance of head injury not wearing one, but what is the risk in the first place? 1% of all accidents? 60% ? Useless without all the stats to back it up.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work related, 10% sporting related.

So in reality you need to be more careful walking down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work related, 10% sporting related.

So in reality you need to be more careful walking down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

Hardly. The general population (made up predominantly of unfit/pregnant/disabled/fat/lazy/old people) doesn’t really do any sport. Even for those who bother to do any sport, time spent doing sport << time spent getting on with the daily grind.

The point is that no one has done a decent trial to prove the benefits of helmet wearing one way or another. Because no one has quantified the risk, we are all just guessing, really. Logically, I think one has to assume that they do some good in an accident – and for that reason I’ll always wear one but as a libertarian I think people can do whatever the hell they like, for whatever reasons.

However – Most helmets these days are light / aero / vented / fashionable so besides cost there isn’t a compelling argument against them, apart from a few statistically dubious stats about increasing risk behaviour.

Ok ok just read some interesting stats and it appears non helmet wearer my not be stupid after all.

Congratulations on entering the debate with such an even handed post. You might want to try and work out who hijacked your account earlier though.

However – Most helmets these days are light / aero / vented / fashionable so besides cost there isn’t a compelling argument against them,

Or a compelling argument for them. The so light and aero argument applies to walking helmets but they are not popular. I assess my risk while commuting or touring as so low that a helmet is not needed. DfT stats agree with my assessment. Why should I wear a helmet for a low risk activity like my cycling or walking?

Helmets have been widely available and widely worn for such a long time now, you have to ask, perhaps the reason cycling is statistically safe is not in some way because of helmet use?

OK guys here’s a suggestion:

Wear a helmet if you want, don’t bother other people about it one way or the other.

I mean, c’mon – are those of you taking a side on this ever going to convince each other? Are you going to stop people in the street and try and change their mind as to whether wearing one or not is a good idea?

Why don’t we all have a nice cup of really hot tea [or Elderflower cordial], pass the peace pipe and just leave it here?

I assess my risk while commuting or touring as so low that a helmet is not needed.

The helmet-wearers disagree with that assessment.

The difference between cycling and being a pedestrian is that you usually are’t mixing with the cars when you are walking. You have a pavement to yourself. So you are most likely to be injured crossing the road. And if you are careful you can eliminate risk when doing that.

It’s not possible to eliminate risk when cycling on the road.

Superficial the only point I was making is that walking is much much higher risk than people think. Ive not seen people walking down the night street wearing pads and helmets, because that would be silly wouldn’t it?

Crosshair I don’t quite follow, are you suggesting it was unsafe before helmets?

This thread is stupid, as are almost all helmet threads on the internet. However I just felt the need to point out something.

Not related, but surprised me, in one year in one big
hospital 40% of open fractures were caused in car
accidents, 40% simple falls ie trips etc, 10% work
related, 10% sporting related.
So in reality you need to be more careful walking
down the street, than you need to be on your bike.

What percentage were lion taming related accidents? 0? I’m guessing we can conclude lion taming is safer than driving a car, or walking down the road.

No FD, but every time someone compares cycling to walking in terms of safety, they’re arguing as if helmet use doesn’t exist. I’m saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

FunkyDunk, what you forget is that a large proportion of those people admitted are either drunk or elderly. It is one of the things people conveniently forget when they try to make out for that walking is risky compared to cycling. Have a look at how many people break bones falling out of bed. Do you think those stats are made up of fit, healthy people?

Helmets have been widely available and widely worn for such a long time now, you have to ask, perhaps the reason cycling is statistically safe is not in some way because of helmet use?

Yet much less safe than the Netherlands or Denmark, where most cyclists don’t wear helmets.

I suggest reasons for safety statistics (whether good or bad) don’t have much to do with helmet wearing.

Good point.

Hands up who wears a drinking helmet?

I’m saying, perhaps one of the reasons why in the stats, cycling is as safe as walking is because a lot of people already wear helmets.

So you are suggesting that it was unsafe before helmets? Because that’s the only possible conclusion if you attribute the safety of cycling to the helmet.

I took my helmet off for a long road climb at the weekend. TBH, didn’t make me noticably cooler than before and for the climb after it I kept it on.