Helmet on road?

They do alter behaviour but it is complex.

Yep and that complexity is all I am really arguing for: it isn’t the obvious/common-sense/darwinism that many seem to believe. Life is rarely that simple.

I prefer to spin it as enabling though

Yep – one of the reasons I like to wear a helmet is it means I feel brave enough to go faster 😀
(I do the same thing snowboarding – tear through the trees in a helmet when I wouldn’t consider it without one).

I think most of us agree that things need to be done to improve roads, we largely choose to wear helmets, we are not pro compulsion and we think it will reduce injury rather than save a life

And yep to all of that.

What is the difference and where does it end?

I still think brain injury is worse than spine injury, and probably more likely in a car crash. That’s the difference.

My father inlaw fell off his bike and hit his head. He wasn’t wearing a helmet. He died.
My sympathies, but it’s irrelevant to the debate.

It’s highly relevant. If he’d still be alive if he was wearing one, it doesn’t get more relevant than that.

SMIDSY? It’s your job to see them not the other way round

No, it’s their job, and yours to see them. But it’s a stupid argument, as if everyone did their job properly there’d be no accidents at all. You might as well say no need to wear a hard hat on a building site as it’s the builders’ job not to drop stuff.

The facts and figures I don’t have at hand, but these accounts far outweigh those I’ve read about serious head injuries.

There are dozens and dozens of stories from riders on here, on these threads, about people hitting their heads, smashing helmets, and being fine. Are you saying that these people would all still be fine if they had not been wearing a helmet?

There are dozens and dozens of stories from riders on here, on these threads, about people hitting their heads, smashing helmets, and being fine. Are you saying that these people would all still be fine if they had not been wearing a helmet?

The last big one I had I’d have been sure a helmet saved me from certain death (and been destroyed in the process). Luckily I wasn’t wearing one.

I’d be interested to hear more about that crash.

due to the injuries he cannot remember anything about it 😉

Hopefully, soon there will be video evidence of my nut being saved by my Xen (off road, so not relevant to this lovely thread). Would be interesting to see if anyone would rather have had the crash sans helmart.

Each to their own and all that. Not sure if this has been posted but I bet the lad on the bike was glad he wore his! Makes you think.

It’s highly relevant. If he’d still be alive if he was wearing one, it doesn’t get more relevant than that.

But you don’t have any evidence that a helmet would have saved him.

As you pointed out earlier “It’s your brain banging about inside it and getting hurt that causes the problem”. SNELL tests allow up to 300Gs of head deceleration – that’s still quite a bang.

And in the “sh_t happens” camp: I vividly remember watching an old woman die after she fell while walking in the street – but that isn’t a good argument for pedestrian helmets.

But you don’t have any evidence that a helmet would have saved him.

Are you trying to turn into TJ?

Would be interesting to see if anyone would rather have had the crash sans helmart.

c.f. the hammer or tarmac arguments above. No one is saying they would rather hit the tarmac/hammer/tree with their bare head. That is a straw man.

Some, including me, are pointing out that the act of wearing a helmet actually makes that crash more likely.

I’d be interested to hear more about that crash.

Totally inoccous forest track opening into a clearing. Slight downhill and going for it. High 20s I guess. I went through a patch of long grass that hid a baked solid rut at a slight angle to my direction of travel.

No high side, no low side, just an instant slap onto my side pivoting around my head/face. Knocked out for a few seconds according to my bro. More incoherent than usual for 30 seconds.

I can only assume that a helmet would have been smashed. Just like everyone with a smashed helmet assumed they’d have been dead.

I can only assume that a helmet would have been smashed

Yes, but smashed helmets have been doing their job.

You may not have been knocked out if you had been wearing a helmet.

actually makes that crash more likely.

Definitely! If I hadn’t been wearing a helmet, I wouldn’t have been allowed to race. No race. No crash.

My lordy. What a stoooooooopid argument.

So are we all in agreement now?

That it’s a stupid argument?

I agreed that 40 years ago on the first helmet debate thread.

Definitely! If I hadn’t been wearing a helmet, I wouldn’t have been allowed to race. No race. No crash.

My lordy. What a stoooooooopid argument.

So demonstrably correct – yet stoooopid?

Interesting.

Let’s say they had allowed you to race without a helmet. Would you?

And if you were forced to go helmetless then would you have gone as fast?

I tell you one thing for 100% certain – there’s a hell of a lot of morons on Mulholland Hwy!!

Yes, but smashed helmets have been doing their job.

You may not have been knocked out if you had been wearing a helmet.
Sure. And my point is… stories of smashed helmets or miraculous escapes are all meaningless.

You have no idea what the result would have been with or without a helmet so using stories as some kind of evidence isn’t useful.

What my bro said having seen the crash is… “good job you weren’t wearing a helmet, if your head dug in you’d have broken your neck”.

You just don’t know…

stories of smashed helmets or miraculous escapes are all meaningless.

They may be of questionable weight, but I doubt they are all meaningless, personally.

You have no idea what the result would have been with or without a helmet

I find it hard to imagine that in the simple case of someone bashing their head into the floor, a helmet would not lessen the damage to your brain. That’s why I would like to see laboratoy tests to measure deceleration. I reckon someone could set somethign up easily enough. It would also be interesting to simulate cycling accidents with some crash test dummies.

I would like to see laboratoy tests to measure deceleration.

I’ll have a look for some more in a minute (not cycling so not 100% relevant, M/cycle helmets are a bit different innit)

Head injury mechanisms in helmet-protected motorcyclists: Prospective multicenter study
Citation:Journal of Trauma – Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 2001, vol./is. 51/5(949-958), 1079-6061 (2001)
Author(s):Richter M.,Otte D.,Lehmann U.,Chinn B.,Schuller E.,Doyle D.,Sturrock K.,Krettek C.
Abstract:Background: In a prospective study, three research groups at Hannover (H) and Munich (M) in Germany and Glasgow (G) in the United Kingdom collected data from motorcycle crashes between July 1996 and July 1998 to investigate head injury mechanisms in helmet-protected motorcyclists. Methods: The head lesions of motorcyclists with Abbreviated Injury Score-Head (AISHead) 2+ injuries and/or helmet impact were classified into direct force effect (DFE) and indirect force effect (IFE) lesions. The effecting forces and the force consequences were analyzed in detail. Results: Two-hundred twenty-six motorcyclists (H, n = 115; M, n = 56; and G, n = 55) were included. Collision opponents were cars (57.8%), trucks (8.0%), pedestrians (2.3%), bicycles (1.4%), two-wheel motor vehicles (0.8%), and others (4.2%). In 25.4% no other moving object was involved. The mean impact speed was 55 km/h (range, 0-120 km/h) and correlated with AISHead. Seventy-six (33%) motorcyclists had no head injury, 21% (n = 48) AISHead 1, and 46% (n = 103) AISHead 2+. Four hundred nine head lesions were further classified: 36.9% DFE and 63.1% IFE. Lesions included 20.5% bone, 51.3% brain, and 28.1% skin. The most frequent brain lesions were subdural hematomas (22.4%, n = 47) and subarachnoid hematomas (25.2%, n = 53). Lesions of skin or bone were mainly DFE lesions, whereas brain lesions were mostly IFE lesions. Conclusion: A modification of the design of the helmet shell may have a preventative effect on DFE lesions, which are caused by a high amount of direct force transfer. Acceleration or deceleration forces induce IFE lesions, particularly rotation, which is an important and underestimated factor. The reduction of the effecting forces and the kinetic consequences should be a goal for future motorcycle helmet generations.

Emotional reactions to cycle helmet use.

Author(s) Fyhri A, Phillips RO

Citation: Accident Analysis & Prevention, January 2013, vol./is. 50/(59-63), 0001-4575;1879-2057 (2013 Jan) Publication Date: January 2013

Abstract: It has been suggested that the safety benefits of bicycle helmets are limited by risk compensation. The current article tests if previous helmet use influences the response to helmets as a safety intervention. This was investigated in a field experiment where pace and psychophysiological load were measured. We found that after having removed their helmets, routine helmet users cycled more slowly and demonstrated increased psychophysiological load. However, for non-users there was no significant change in either cycling behaviour or psychophysiological load.

Interesting. Is this why helmet wearers are wound up about non-helmet wearers. Increased psychophysiological load and so perceive greater risk?

If helmets were that good, wouldn’t cars be made of polystyrene covered with a thin plastic shell?

TVRs?

One more:

Risk compensation and bicycle helmets.Author(s) Phillips RO, Fyhri A, Sagberg F

Citation: Risk Analysis, August 2011, vol./is. 31/8(1187-95), 0272-4332;1539-6924 (2011 Aug)

Publication Date: August 2011

Abstract: This study investigated risk compensation by cyclists in response to bicycle helmet wearing by observing changes in cycling behavior, reported experience of risk, and a possible objective measure of experienced risk. The suitability of heart rate variability (HRV) as an objective measure of experienced risk was assessed beforehand by recording HRV measures in nine participants watching a thriller film. We observed a significant decrease in HRV in line with expected increases in psychological challenge presented by the film. HRV was then used along with cycling pace and self-reported risk in a field experiment in which 35 cyclist volunteers cycled 0.4 km downhill, once with and once without a helmet. Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in HRV. 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. 2011 Society for Risk Analysis

So is the risk of getting your head caved in real or perceived? And are you more likely to crash if you’ve got a helmet on as you turn into a TDF sprinter?

I’m sure this thread isn’t any different from any other helmet thread, but it’s still depressing nonetheless. What’s depressing about it isn’t the fact that people disagree on whether they’re effective or whether it’s a good idea to wear one or not, but the fact that there are a lot of people who seem to think it’s ok to openly criticise or abuse those who choose not to wear them. Is this sort of thing unique to cycling or mountain biking? Or just unique to this forum? Like I said up the thread, in other ‘dangerous’ outdoor pursuits like climbing you don’t get this level vitriol dished out to fellow climbers/mountaineers.

7 whole pages of people missing the point.

Go for a ride, with or without a helmet, you’ll soon see what the real issue is and just to help you even more, it’s not the polystyrene hats…

And are you more likely to crash if you’ve got a helmet on as you turn into a TDF sprinter?

And it’s not just your own risk compensation you need to worry about.

Research suggests that drivers risk compensate too and will pass closer to cyclist wearing a helmet.

For maximum space don’t wear a helmet, wear normal clothes, wobble about, and.. be a girl, ideally young and good-looking. 😀

Don’t think this has been posted yet.

Ah. Someone got there before me.

Is this why helmet wearers are wound up about non-helmet wearers. Increased psychophysiological load and so perceive greater risk?

I think in any study where you remove PPE from people who routinely wear it you will see an increased risk and in those who chose not to you will see no change of risk. Was this really worth investigating?
It s like asking if having no brakes would affect your cycling.
Drawing silly conclusions I could say it shows the problem is than non helmet wearers are so daft they cannot assess risks but i already knew this as they chose to not wear a lid 😉

Surely we all agree it changes risk perception not least because some say they would not ride without a lid – I would certainly not ride everything I do without a lid [ nor with the wrong bike for that matter

Research suggests that drivers risk compensate too and will pass closer to cyclist wearing a helmet.

Even the researcher accepted it was poor “research”
Probably true though that it affects drivers but I compensate with primary position shit loads of uncontrollable aggression towards them

ransos – Member

Do you think that in a 40mph crash, your head will do a nice neat 12mph vertical drop to the floor like they do in the laboratory, or is it just possible that other forces might just be involved? F=0.5M*V^2

Take your time.

I don’t need to take my time, I’m still waiting patiently for you to have the common courtesy of answering my question.

I clipped a curb the other day and ended up somersaulting 6 foot down a old drainage ditch. Thanks to my helmet my heads fine. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for the rest of me. So wear a helmet because you just don’t know when you’re next going to fall down a hole 😳

Here’s how the Risk Compensation bunfight plays out in the BMJ by the way (Mayer Hillman and John Adams vs the Cochrane review):

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full

It s like asking if having no brakes would affect your cycling.Drawing silly conclusions I could say it shows the problem is than non helmet wearers are so daft they cannot assess risks but i already knew this as they chose to not wear a lid Surely we all agree it changes risk perception not least because some say they would not ride without a lid – I would certainly not ride everything I do without a lid [ nor with the wrong bike for that matter

The last paper I stuck up there says

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

suggest helmet wearers over compensate. Maybe its not such a “no brainer”

And its not really fair discussing this with someone who’s returned from the dead is it? That must be one heck of a helmet.

If helmets are so great why have deaths of pro racers gone up sine they were made compulsory?

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/21/pro-cycling-and-helmets.html

Long term trends in the UK show pedestrian death rates tracking those of cyclists as helmet use increased despite no walking helmets in use. So no huge helmet effect.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html

Ah cochrane we reach the end game 😉

We accept the principal finding of their review—that protective helmets protect in the event of an accident—but not the policy conclusions that they derive from it. The issue that divides us is risk compensation—does the behaviour of cyclists change as a consequence of wearing a helmet in ways that offset the protective benefit of helmets in accidents?

IMHO it does change i guess it all hangs on whether it offsets it.
I also assume that if I rode everywhere without one eventually the compensation will be lost as I guess I will just get used to the risk though that would be equally difficult to test empirically.

Maybe its not such a “no brainer”

I have never claimed it was so direct that at those who have

Long term trends in the UK show pedestrian death rates tracking those of cyclists as helmet use increased despite no walking helmets in use. So no huge helmet effect.

I fail to see how looking at a group who dont cycle or wear helmets tells us how effective helmets are in cyclists.

Not a fan of wearing a helmet on a commute, but I do wear one. It’s dangerous out there!

Is this why a very small number of argumentative busy-body helmet wearers are wound up about non-helmet wearers…

FTFY

Haven’t read all that, but to stick my wooden spoon in and stir a little:

* Most cyclists killed on the road are as a result of crushing injuries to the chest and pelvis.
* A friend-of-a-friend looked at coroners reports of dead cyclists and concluded their non-head injuries would have killed them all regardless of their head injuries. (The friend was a doctor, and used to be the British cycling doctor, was race doctor for the Milk Race, etc. His friend was also a doctor.)
* Helmet-wearers account for 2% of Dutch cyclists, but 10% of head injuries.
* In Australia, cyclist numbers fell when helmet laws were introduced but injuries didn’t.

I fail to see how looking at a group who dont cycle or wear helmets tells us how effective helmets are in cyclists.

Helmet wearing has increased among cyclists but their death rate compared to pedestrians hasn’t changed. Therefore the decrease in cyclist deaths over past decades is due to other road safety measures not helmets.