Anyone have an opinion for or against? 😈

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12333783

From that page:

One of the great pleasures in life is feling the wind in your hair whilst free-wheelig on a bike

I get that with my Giro Atmos!

When on the road a fall at any speed, or even from stationary and unable to unclip, is enough to smack your head against the concrete and give you concussion – and therefore possible medical attention costing the nhs, and therefore us via our taxes. Money better spent on people with critical illnesses.

Maybe the rule should be that any medical attention for injuries that could have been mitigated by the use of a helmet will be chargeable. Then all the ‘risk assessors’ will be happy because they ‘know’ that they will never have such injuries and will never have to pay.

Met Parachutes for everyone I say…

Someone who worked on a cycling promotion scheme I used work with at a local authority went round telling everyone they were probably safer without a helmand as it impaired your vision. I just laughed, far to loudly and walked off. stupid cow. People believed her too, even the blokes with no hair to mess up.
I personally wear a helmet, there’s no reason not to, it does provide protection and I’ve been over the handle bars enough times to know that the top of my scalp would have taken a fair bashing if I hadn’t worn one. Blood and crusty scab hair are not a good look for us girls you know!

What a pile of donkey toss. Personally, I’m pro helmet but I’m also pro choice. Is it really worth the effort to save (if it even does) a relatively small number of lives amongst a demographic who are probably healthier than the average when we still have a nation of people eating, drinking and smoking themselves into an early grave after draining the limited resources of the nhs.

Done too many times now.

The actual evidence for wearing helmets is poor. compulsory helmets use when put in place saves no lives and reduces cycling greatly thus losing he health benefits.

The CTC have a decent summary of the debate here
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4641

Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand impact speeds of around 13mph (equivalent to falling from a stationary riding position), and not for collisions with moving traffic. 93% of the serious and fatal injuries which cyclists suffer on our roads are due to collisions with motor vehicles, and 22% of cyclist fatalities result from collisions with HGVs.

Compulsory helmet-wearing in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere has not led to any detectable safety gains for cyclists compared with other road users. A series of recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no evidence of a link between cycle helmet wearing rates and cyclists’ safety.

Teh BMJ positionis not nearly as robust as that says. It was always against helmet compulsion from the point of view that it discouraged cycling thus incresaed ill health. The debate was hijacked in a very undemocratic way 5 years ago.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1171.html

I generally don’t wear a helmet. I’m not interested in the pros and cons, I just choose not to.

But opponents say such a move could be detrimental to the nation’s health, arguing it will put people off using their bike and getting much-needed exercise.

The real reason people don’t get on their bikes now is because it’s too much like exercise.

I just choose not to.

Same for me, a question of choice. In Madrid city I don’t wear a helmet, in the summer on the road climbs I don’t wear a helmet in the mountains, alone, I do wear a helmet. I’m not ar5ed about the TJ for or against argument it’s been prattled on about enough times, but I am interested in the removal of freedom of choice.

Firstly, I should say that I’m with onzadog – pro-helmet and pro-choice. I also accept that there’s a trade off whereby forcing people to wear one will discourage some people from riding at all (a bad thing).

And…

I do almost all of my riding off-road, but all the research and statistics are done for cyclists on the road. Is there any analysis of the safety benefits, or lack of, for off-road riding…?

sod off, no thanks.

i’ve been working on a TJ-translator, i’ve been feeding it with previous ‘TJ vs Helmet vs the world’ debates for a few weeks now and it’s come up with this:

“cycling is safe, serious crashes are rare – serious crashes resulting in serious head injury are even rarer. Cycling is basically safe”

and i’m inclined to agree.

i’d love to see numbers for ‘cyclists who sustain head injuries’ vs ‘townie drinkers on a friday night who sustain head injuries’

that’s it, when i’m in charge i’ll make it illegal for bar staff to sell lager to anyone not wearing a helmet.

i only wear a helmet when reading TJ’s helmet threads….generally over my eyes

Is there any analysis of the safety benefits, or lack of, for off-road riding…?

Not a lot.

It would appear that as helmets are good at dealing with minor injuries and minor head impacts are common off road thatw earing helmets offroad makes more sense than on road.

No decent research that I have seen – just some after the fact statistical analysis that is badly flawed.

Not an awful lot of point in passing a law that’s ostensibly unenforceable for 70% of the instances its designed to cover. You may as well pass a law that says ‘helmet use while cycling is compulsory in areas only where there is any real chance of you getting caught. Otherwise, do as you please’.

It would be interesting to have a bylaw say that covered just the congestion charged part of London. That might be more workable and more valuable.

Thanks TJ – I suspected as much.

My own experience is such that I will always wear one, but I won’t join in the “look at that idiot riding without a helmet” conversations either. Like I said, pro choice.

Done too many times now.

So you won’t mind stepping away and being forced to repeat yourself so that some of the new blood on here can have their opions heard then?

Well I always wear one.
Mainly for several reasons.
If I crash it will save me even from minor injuries (TJ you’ve seen me and you’ve seen how hot I am, no need to get this pretty face of me some scars)
Second now I have a kid at home. And I want to set up the good example. His helmet is showing a few battle scars too. And I know damn well that if he injures himself on the head his mother will kill me (or at the very least emasculate me) and he’ll be too scared of biking.
Third I don’t care if people thinks cycling is dangerous. As a matter of fact it is, so is motorcycling.
Would you remove the ban on motorcycling helmet in town? After all both on bike and on motorbike you’re making progress at the same speed.

As TJ have said done too many times. No evidence will fully back up both side of the debate. If people choose not to cycle because of the compulsion to wear a helmet, well then I don’t think they would irde in winter, summer or rainy days… So not much of an health benefit. Far from it 😉

The actual evidence for wearing helmets is poor. compulsory helmets use when put in place saves no lives

– Untrue.

and reduces cycling greatly thus losing he health benefits

– from the research I have seen this seems to be true.

LHS – I know we have done this many times before but that is true as found repeatedly in large scale research in a variety of countries. However absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Why this is so is a different matter and requires investigation

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

The findings suggest that, for some, wearing a helmet is less about calculating risk, and more about having a way of feeling safer in situations that feel risky – whether or not it actually would make them safer.

Amen to that.

#
don simon – Member

Done too many times now.

So you won’t mind stepping away and being forced to repeat yourself so that some of the new blood on here can have their opions heard then?
Posted 26 minutes ago #

Thought not! 🙄

#
TandemJeremy – Member

LHS – I know we have done this many times before but that is true as found repeatedly in large scale research in a variety of countries. However absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Why this is so is a different matter and requires investigation

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689
Posted 50 seconds ago # Report-Post

Compulsory helmet wearing has to be one of the most stupid ideas out there.

When on the road a fall at any speed, or even from stationary and unable to unclip, is enough to smack your head against the concrete and give you concussion – and therefore possible medical attention costing the nhs, and therefore us via our taxes. Money better spent on people with critical illnesses.

This must be a troll as it’s such a poor argument.

Maybe the rule should be that any medical attention for injuries that could have been mitigated by the use of a helmet will be chargeable. Then all the ‘risk assessors’ will be happy because they ‘know’ that they will never have such injuries and will never have to pay.

and again a good attempt, but no one can be this retarded in their views.

The Dutch seem to do a fair bit more mileage than us on bikes in towns and cities and don’t generally wear helmets. In London the Barclays bikes wouldn’t really work as well if helmet use was made compulsory.

It’s personal choice. Off road I wear one as I have hit my head on enough overhanging branches and rocks to think it’s worth while. Pottering about down the shops etc I don’t. There really does seem to be a group of people who’s dislike for cyclists knows no bounds, in the last week I’ve heard calls for registration plates, road tax, compulsory helmets and flogging ( I may have imagined that one.

Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Dutch seem to do a fair bit more mileage than us on bikes in towns and cities and don’t generally wear helmets.

Doesn’t the law generally favour the cyclist in the land of the Dutch? So in the event of a car/cyclist accident the car will generally be found culpable resulting in the drivers being more careful, no?
Maybe pushing the onus of responsibilty on to the car driver is the solution.
I remember reading in one of the bike mags the result of a survey where car drivers generally gave non-helmet wearing cyclist more room when overtaking than the helmet wearers.

Comparing any country to Holland re cycling is daft given the usage and the status in law etc.

Not an awful lot of point in passing a law that’s ostensibly unenforceable

Lots of lawss are unenforceable unless we make everyone a copper speeding for example or parking or shoplifting bet 99% get away with it etc should we just not bother with laws?

Compulsory helmet wearing has to be one of the most stupid ideas out there

Yes look at motorcycist for example 😉

The actual evidence for wearing helmets is poor. compulsory helmets use when put in place saves no lives

I am not really sure how you can conclude that unless you make people crash with and without a helmet in the exact same circumstances and see if any more are killed in the non helmeted than helmeted scenario. Also people who survive a crash unscathed and don’t report to hospital are removed from the data pool and we can only guess at what this number is so the data is already cherry picked. Clearly a lightweight helmet won’t save you if you are hit by a truck but that is not what it is designed for. How many people are unhurt after low level impacts etc?. I have concussed my self and left a huge flat spot on my helmet. I did not even have a headache afterwards – what damage would I have done to my head without said helmet?.
I kind of get your point TJ that other factors are more important to improve our safety – driver awareness, more cyclists but basically put a helmet on I will hit you with a hammer take it off I will hit your head with a a hammer …tell me there is no difference afterwards.

How many times have we had this debate and has anyone every changed their mind on the issue?

junkyard – follow the links.

Its large scale studies showing that as helmet wearing increases head injury rates don’t fall.

No one really knows why this is. It needs to be explained but the effect is there.

Its large scale studies

One man with an agenda riding his bike around bath for a couple of hours is NOT a large scale study.

Did he also collect data on how far from the kerb he was when cars passed him? He he stay equi-distant at all times? I suspect that when he was not wearing his helmet he rode a little further out in the road to try and massage his statistics! IMPO of course!
Perhaps he should try putting his reflectors back on his bike too. That would make some good research! 😉

LHS – why do you keep saying this? Its a whole series of large scale studies that show as helmet wearing rates increase head injury rates do not decrease.

Why this effect happens is debatable but it is clear it does

have a look at the links from teh CTC

People who ride bikes are known to have anarchic and subversive tendencies, and mandatory helmets would simple by a cold, calculated attempt to kill a few more off*. It’s true. (Dr. Walker’s paper)

*deliberate tone to demonstrate how a set of facts can be used to sell even the most paranoid ideas. I’m not that bonkers.

Arguments against have some validity; The sense of security may reduce the sense of risk, rotational neck forces can be increased, motorists give less room etc but on balance, I’m pro because my personal experience of clattering my own skull suggests to me that it hurts & injures less when wrapped in a lightweight polystyrene shell. I have been slightly concussed, ruined helmets and had minor bumps and scrapes but never hospitalised. Prior to wearing a helmet, in late childhood / early adulthood, I was at the local A&E far too often, having lights shone in my eyes and steri-strips applied.

I’ve also attended countless road crashes over the last 20 years and have seen quite a few broken heads / necks / backs and helmets. Causes are many and varied but I’m persuaded helmets help more than hinder.

Your choice may differ (on your own head be it) 😆

As already said, unenforceable, however it might have some effect in terms of a “I suppose I better had do it then…..”, and equally might encourage parents to try and get their child to wear a cycle helmet.

I want a refund! This isn’t an interesting arguement. 😐

junkyard – follow the links

TJ i did and very pretty graphs /correaltions they were too ; fascinating but proves nothing.
Can you address my question/ Cue you saying you have eh
😉

Its large scale studies showing that as helmet wearing increases head injury rates don’t fall.

So it does but are you willing to do my hammer test as you seem to think this means they dont actually protect you. Perhaps we have fatser crashes or more severe impacts as more people beacome faster or race for example- there is no end to suggestions as to why this may be the case. I explained the only way to test this – same crash helmet v no helmet and assess survival rates – clearly we cannot do this.

Not sure why you think they do nothing they may not be as effective as they could be but I have been saved from a severe [certainly worse] injury by wearing one. I understand it will absorb the force and reduce the impact absobed by my skull ( how can this be a bad thing though it may not be enough to prevent harm) and therefore reduce the severity of an injury.

Saying less people will cycle if we have to wear helmets and there is ssafety in numbers is not the same thing as saying helmets do not work.
We would all be safer if mor epoel cycled and they wore helmets how we achieve that may be difficult

PAs I am pro choice Darwin and all that
If i bang my head I would rather have ahelmet on. If I bang mmy knee I would rather have pads on etc. it may not prevent injury but it wont make the impact worse – o I am not going to debate rotational injuries with you

Again will anyone change their mind re this I do understand your research and dont dount it but my view is I can take a larger impact unscathed wearing a helmet than not wearing one so I wiear one. I would also prefer car free roads and never crashing but that seem unlikely

I’m not getting involved, just know that my helmets have saved me from a fractured skull on several occasions as they were pretty much destroyed after each crash.

Junkyard

its the difference between individuals and populations

Its large scale studies showing that as helmet wearing increases head injury rates don’t fall.

is true. Why this is so is not known. Possible answers include such things as risk compensation – people wearing helmets are more likely to crash, altered behaviour from car drivers, more likely to crash into you. Helmets causing injury – the dreaded rotational injury which is not as many folk think neck breaks but a diffuse axon head injury which is a more severe sort of brain injury to a focal injury. Some research shows this to be 30% of all head injuries to people with helmets on are made worse by the helmets from this mechanism.

Its something that needs a lot more investigation but this effect – that as helmet wearing rates rise head injuries per mile cycled does not fall needs explanation

If helmets offered the level of protection that some folk claim then you would expect to see a decrease in head injuries when helmet wearing rates rise.

How often do you get hit by a hammer when riding your bike?

but TJ your probelm is all those factors are things not to do with the helmet – except rotational which we can do later.

They do not suggest a helmet offers no protection they suggest if you wear one driver behaviour alters – se ethet study re the lycra clad get passed closer as they view us as experienced etc that you cited- so better to address these driver issues than say a helmet does not protect your noggin.
I agree with all the stats and get them but it brings me back to the hammer test it must offer additional protection in a carsh re skull alone.
Why the rates of injury are not dsropping clearly needs addressing but it is about driver /cyclist behaviour not anythins casual in the helmet.

Should we not start getting abusive and disespectful soon 😉

And where have I said a helmet offer no protection in a single incident? I haven’t. Indeed I said they are very good at protecting you from minor injuries – the sort of thing you get when MTBing – bumps and bruises.

this thread was about the public policy decision of making helmets compulsory. Its shown repeatedly that increseing rates of helmet wearing does not decrease the amount of cyclists getting head injuries in any significant way. Therefore there is no basis for making helmets compulsory. Indeed the deterrent effect will cost lives in illhealth thru reduced amounts of cycling

[begrudgingly] You have a point[/begrudgingly]
Better off sorting the issues as to why hemlets [ which protect] dont protect . I suspect we are looking at driver behaviour – see the Bath study you linked to re closeness to you drivers are based on their percieved view of your skill for example

The problem is how they are using the statistics. Granted, the NZ government charts were not time bound correctly and hence show skewed data, however the data that is being used refers to head injuries and the definition of this is important.

For example, for children in the US there are around 500,000 cycling related injuries a year seen by doctors, of those there are about 10,000 who are hospitilized due to head injury. Of those, there are about 200 who die each year from their injuries.

Now it is generally accepted that helmets prevent about 60% of cycling related deaths a year, so this would mean that there are around 500 serious head traumas a year – 300 which are saved by helmets.

If helmet wearing increases, statistically deaths in children will fall. However, if 50 more chidren survive each year due to wearing helmets, this 50, compared to 10,000 head injuries only equates to a 0.5% improvement – statistically within the noise.

So in a very rambling way, the statistics may not show a reduction in head injuries, but they also will not show a marked decrease in deaths which is what a helmet is designed for.

Indeed the deterrent effect will cost lives in ill health thru reduced amounts of cycling

This is assumed only.

making helmet wearing compulsory circumvents darwinian evolution though – let the stupid people that don’t wear helments in risky situations be removed from the gene pool…