My helmet (probably) saved my life today

200!

sorry…

Of course the OP would never have had the accident if he hadn't been wearing a helmet. The time to put it on and the extra wind resistance meant that instead of passing safely in front of the car before it pulled out the OP was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How many of you helmet gauleiters wears a hi-viz every time you get on a bike on the road. Far more likely to save your skull.

No need to link Godwin's law, I'm aware of it.

This thread keeps going because the helmet evangelists keep going on about their 'beliefs' and us Dawkins types keep pointing to the (lack of)evidence.

Not Hi Viz, but festooned with lights front & rear for when I'm on the public highway.
Jacket, and shoes have reflective strips in-built.

I rode for 22 minutes this afternoon from Watford to Harrow and it still scares me how drivers simply don't seem to notice bikes. I was not a happy biker at all, but I would not be happy to have ridden my road route without a helmet – that'd just be plain dim – there's way too much street furniture / clutter to hit, let alone the cars trying to turn out or across my path.

Anyhow, back 20 years, and the argument was similar: the smokers all told us "it's not been proved that smoking's bad for you" We had no sympathy then and we have no sympathy now.

@kipper.nope you just made it bigger.

No dimmer than leaving the hi-viz off in daylight where your reflective strip and lights don't make a jot of difference. Your clothing was black I bet, possibly grey looking at this year's Assos collection.

To me helmets are like car insurance, you dont know when you might need it, but you'll be glad you had it.
Im an oldish git,I choose to wear a helmet, some peeps dont, their choice….

Kramer – Member

The sad fact is that West kipper and TJ have arguments against something which has been proven ( not by guys in white coats in labs or non riding stats people who never ride bikes) by ACTUAL riders on this forum to have saved them from potentially far worse injuries than they did or would of received if they had not wore a helmet. This therefore should be your real scientific studies boys

This is just wrong. Sorry.

If you read this thread you'll find that it is indeed right. Good to hear your sorry though!! 😉

non-helmet wearers clearly have very thick skulls anyhow, so no need to worry. not to mention the earth is flat, so there is nothing for them to hit that thick skull on 🙂

No dimmer than leaving the hi-viz off in daylight where your reflective strip and lights don't make a jot of difference. Your clothing was black I bet, possibly grey looking at this year's Assos collection.

Thats like saying people cant drive black cars because there less colour visible than bright yellow!!

I dont mind making the thread bigger, as long as people put forward their beliefs, I'll feel the need to counter them( and without insults).
Never the less, its true that the safest countries to cycle in are the ones that have the lowest rates of helmet use, and ones with high or compulsory use have relatively higher rates of head injury and death.
Thats why organisations like the CTC are totally against compulsion.

Car colour has a significant impact on accident rate. I haven't used the word "can't" and won't. I won't insist on anyone wearing a helmet or a hi-viz. Just pointing out the inconsistency in the behaviour of the helmet dictators. Our club's helmet dictator never wears a hi-viz and regularly jumps red lights. Typical of the "I'm wearing a helmet so I'm alright attitude". A false sense of security is the main thing a helmet provides, in terms of real protection a typical XC helmet isn't great. Wear a ful face if you wan't to protect your head properly.

As I've pointed out in a previous thread- many mountainbikers are riding way beyond the performance envelope of the best full-face motorcycle helmets, yet they are wearing flimsy pieces of plastic that shares no features of the former other than the same six letters.
If your serious about head protection while riding like this, and you're not wearing a motorcycle quality lid then, in my view, you're being way more irresponsible than me.

this thread has made my night. i thought i'd be bored stiff having a night in while the missus goes out.
i've decided to never wear a helmet cycling, a seatbelt driving, steel toecapped boots at work, oven gloves when cooking, a safety net while on a trapeze.
no false sense of security now.

may god preserve our freedom to choose, amen

We should preserve this thread and any time this debate rears its ugly head just refer back to it.

Crazy legs – indeed you do prover the point of proving anything with stats. for example the 14 times more likely to get a head injury is referring to children in the USA and the website it comes from does not quote any sources for its research. Assertion without reference is not evidecne.

Other stats from that site are easy to discredit.

the main flaw is that it uses after the fact surveys of people attending A&E this will always creat false positves as it cannot consider all cases. It does not consider those who don't wear helmets and don't crash, it does not consider those who wear helmets and get worse head injuries as a result – a rare but possible combination. it does not consider that those who wear helmets have higher rates of crashing etc etc. Very very flawed research.

Self selecting sample always create bias.

TandemJeremy – not sure if you are serious or just trying to wind people up for a change.

Would TandemJeremy like to scientifically test his head for impacts and compare the damage with someone who is wearing a helmet having the same impact. Start with small impacts and build it up……. I think not.

Point proven. Helmets CAN save lives.

end of.

…but it is a free country AND YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU LIKE

Convince me, then.
Tell me why, when compulsion was introduced in Australia* and NZ, injury and death rates relative to cyclists WENT UP?
* In Oz this was also against a backdrop of the introduction of other road traffic laws that should have seen a FURTHER hypothetical reduction in casualties
As I've said, I'm willing to be persuaded…

west kipper so you'd like to take TandemJeremys scientific test for him??

(granted that people wearing helmets may take more risks and skew the statistics)

Lesanita.

I am perfectly serious.

Read the evidence and have a think about it.

the real scientific evidence points to helmets being good at protecting you from minor impacts – bumps and bruises, cuts and scrapes. The evidence for them protecting aganst major impacts is far less convincing although some mitigation of impacts would seem probable. Tehre is also evidence that in some cases they make injury worse.

The testing and design of cycle helmets is seruiously flawed

Accross whole poulations the evidence is even poorer – as west kipper points out when helmet use rises so does head injury rates. many explanations have been put forwward for this but none are totally convincing.

The final point is that cycling is safe – a serious head injury every 3000 years of cycling accors the whole population of cyclists.

So wear a helmet if you want – but don't be fooled abnout how efffectivce tehy are

TJ, couple of questions:

1. Do you believe in the current compulsory motorcycle helmet law?

2. Would you wear a motorcycle helmet given the choice?

Just curious.

Rusty – I wear a high spec fullface crash helmet when on a motorcycle along with head to tow body armour

I am ambivalent about compulsory motorcycle helmets. Its a non isssue to me

Its a far more claer cut situation with motorcycle helmets being far more protective than cycle helmets and the risk of he3ad injury on a motorcycle being far higher.

I just get fed up with the continual evalgelic attitude of people to cycle helmets ewhen the evidence for tehm is so poor. Before cycle helmets there was no epidemic of head injuries amongst cyclist and there really is no good evidence for helmets reducing mortality and morbidity

I do wear one on occasion – for Trail centres and other riding wear the odds of crashing are high. I enjoy wandering around the countryside on easy trafic free trails wear teh odds of crashing and sustaining a head injury that would be prevented by a helmet are so low as to be insignificant. In those circumstances I am prepared to accept those odds. it really is millions to one

Lesanita,I'm guessing you're not a scientist, and thats not a scientific test, and for the impacts that would cause serious injury or worse, the difference between the polystyrene clad head and the bare one would be so minimal as to not mention.
If they made any difference in such circumstances their own manufacturers would make bolder claims for such.
The risk compensation arguement is not limited to cyclists being a bit more daft, the more worrying suggestion is that motorists take more risks with cyclists lives as they (subconciously) percieve them as being better protected. If thats true, then not wearing a helmet may PREVENT the accident happening in the first place.
Something to think about…

TJ – you are always quoting this argument…

"If the impact would have been enough to kill without one then even with one you would have had a serious injury. That's the nature of the beast"…

…which is just fundamentally flawed and simply wrong!

I seem to recall you have some involvement in the medical industry, but certainly you are lacking in gross knowledge on brain injuries, their mechanisms, and the potentially serious outcomes of even simple head injuries.

Take for example a subdural haematoma, this can occur following simple head injuries that can be sustained following a fall from standing height. The sufferer doesn't 'instantly die', but can die minutes later from the pressure effect, or be left with irreversible injury. A helmet will dissipate this energy into a 'safe amount'.
See here for further details on the secondary consequences from head injury.

Of course, if a truck were to hit you head on no manner of body armour would offer an ounce of hope, but it really is boring, repetitive, and quite simply wrong for you to forever chunter on with your ideas that all head injuries fall into one of two classes:
1 – dead without a helmet or crippled with.
2 – fine without a helmet, fine with.

This isn't a jab at you personally, just an incorrect idea you seem to have picked up somewhere…..

DrP

Dr P – and I have never said that. One of the really galling things about this debate is people continually telling me I have said things that I have not – I fully accept another category – no injury with helmet,( minor )injury without helmet. There is also another category – focal brain injury without helmet, diffuse axonal injury with helmet due to the increase in rotational forces. This is real although of low probability

""If the impact would have been enough to kill without one then even with one you would have had a serious injury. That's the nature of the beast"…" Is true as a general rule. Go and read the evidence on how helmets work. For sure you can get a subdural on a fall from your own height – but this is very rare.

Cycle helmets simply cannot absorb enough energy make significant difference to major trauma as a whole for sure you can have a very unlucky fall and have major trauma from a low impact and in that case a helmet might well substantially mitigate the trauma – but how frequent is that?

You however seem to think that helmets offer more protection than they do – like many others seem to.

It is not me that has failed to grasp the debate – you have failed to listen to what I am saying and instead make up your own version of what I am saying and also have failed to follow the evidence.

I do understand how brain trauma works – I have worked in head injuries ITU and in head injuries rehabilitation.

If you want to argue with me do so – however do me the courteousy of actually reading what I say and of following the evidence.

I would not insist that you or anyone else here wears a helmet, nor have I ever suggested this.

You have made your assessments, and I have made mine, as have various governments around the world & one assumes the may various cycling governing bodies and we have all come to two different conclusions.

There exists two camps, those wear helmets and those who choose not to, and I'm not going to tell you to wear one, nor have I ever – that's your choice.

PS – Edu, your strange assumptions about clothes are, of course, very wide of the mark.
I guess this thread has run it's course for me as I've not read anything that makes me change my mind about wearing a helmet; put simply there's no compelling evidence to overturn what I have experienced, witnessed and heard from others that would see me leave my lid at home.

T1 29r – such as the CTC? Have a read of the links on their site?

Compulsion laws in other countries have reduced the number of people who cycle – and the more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes. What's more, cycling is such a healthy activity that people are far more likely to gain from it than otherwise. It's therefore important not to put anyone off.

Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety – and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.

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

I do not say others should not waer one – but I do say that hthe evidence for wearing them is thin, the odds of injury are lo in some forms of cycling and that it is not foolish not to waer a helmet for some types of cycling

Have you actually followed any of the evidence?

I do note that no one who has been arguing that you should wear a helmet everytime you get on a bike has actually produced any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny for their position.

apart from this

crazy-legs – Member
Is this STILL going?!
Can guarantee TJ turning up on every one of these threads… You can prove pretty much anything with statistics and to show the point there's endless info here (from America) on injuries and helmet stats:

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

Particular reference to the following:
Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders.
A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
Ninety-five percent of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren't wearing helmets
Helmets may reduce the risk of death:-
almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).

but like all evidence its flawed.
Unfortuantely, there's been alot of people on this thread that have said that wearing there helmet has POTENTIALLY saved them from a worse incident. Its just wrong that you need some over paid scientist to tell you that this would or would not of prevented further injury. INstead of listening to them, listen to people that have been in accidents where they think that a helmet saved them from further injury. That to me is real evidence.
I came off whilst going down caddon bank(on video somewhere) and landed head first at about 30mph. I had major neck injuries for some months but my head was untouched. I know from my other body injuries that if i wasn't wearing a helmet( which cracked every single panel) that my head would be cut to shreds at a minimum. Now before you go on about the helmet could of caused the neck injuries i know by how i fell that regardless of a helmet then this would of happened.
As like other stories i prefer this as evidence rather to words in a document.

That to me is real evidence.

…and is the equivalent of asking smokers to tell you how dangerous cigarettes are rather than asking oncologists.

Fail.

That to me is real evidence.

…and is the equivalent of asking smokers to tell you how dangerous cigarettes are rather than asking oncologists.

Fail.

It's also on a par with the "It's cold at the moment, so climate change is a myth" argument.

I battered my head on the roof of the van when we were moving house. I hit it hard enough to see stars and feel dizzy for a minute or two. I wasn't wearing a helmet, but could easily believe that one would have been crushed if I had been.

It always amazes me how many people would definitely have died after a bike crash if they hadn't been wearing a helmet, yet the streets weren't littered with dead cyclists before helmet-wearing became more widespread.

crikey,
that, I think, is the post of the thread!

crikey – Member
That to me is real evidence.

…and is the equivalent of asking smokers to tell you how dangerous cigarettes are rather than asking oncologists.

Fail.

And thats why i wrote 'that to me'.

As i said its sad that you would take the word (because all TJ's and the others arguments about not wearing a helmet also note that if you did wear one then there's nothing to say that injuries would be less – apart from impacts less than 12mph) of science rather than those who ACTUALLY do the sport and receive the injuries themselves. But i suppose science has never been wrong 🙄

Because the experiences of those who 'actually do the sport' translate directly into medical statistics, and those statistics show that helmets are not as good as people believe.
People are easy to fool; religion, alternative medicine, katie price, etc.

so is TandemJeremy or west kipper going to take the scientific with/without helmet impact test?….

ps. west kipper – yes I am scientific. I am a chartered mechanical engineer, so aware of the benefit of taking the sting out of an impact with a bit of polystyrene.

p.p.s. I accept XC helmets aint perfect. Looks like you are entrenched in your thoughts as are the rest of us on the other side of the fence.

p.p.p.s Maybe we should be writing to Brianiac or Mythbusters? Anybody got a contact for them?

p.p.p.p.s I should be decorating now, rather than typing (it was my excuse for not riding this morning!)

do the sport' translate directly into medical statistic]s, and those statistics show that helmets are not as good as people believe.

and statistics dont take into account ALL the people who have not visited A&E because they've managed to get up after a crash and cycle on instead of been taken to A&E.

People are easy to fool indeed, relying on stats for a start.

As i've said in earlier posts, i've lost count how mant times i've crashed and hurt myself or'had a bad un' but just MTFU and carried on riding. Tell me how do science know how i've crashed ??
Fact is they cant but people like you believe that there word is god given
How many of these people went to hospital, 2or 3 maybe. How many are glad they wore a helmet and saved them from serious head injuries ( speculation i know, but doesn't take a scientist to see that it did)

crashes

Ok, if what you say has any grounding in reality, why have rates of head injury not fallen as helmet use has risen?
Let's take a hypothetical scenario, let's make helmets compulsory and let's see what happens to head injury rates…

Only its not hypothetical, its happened, and head injury rates got worse.

If helmets were shown to be effective i'd wear one all the time. If they were shown to be ineffective, would you stop wearing one? I suspect not because helmets in mountain biking are part of the look, part of the uniform, an indicator of your credibility in a sport that is very concerned with image.

They just don't work to prevent serious injury, MTFU notwithstanding…

Crazy legs – indeed you do prover the point of proving anything with stats. for example the 14 times more likely to get a head injury is referring to children in the USA and the website it comes from does not quote any sources for its research. Assertion without reference is not evidecne.

TJ, that's my point! I'm a chemist by vocation and fully aware that anything I write be it in a lab book or professional journal needs to be fully cross-referenced with every piece of data I've used quoted and catalogued. That website I linked to is a compilation of data from all over the US (some states with compulsory helmet laws, some without, some from affluent areas, some from poor areas etc) and I'm aware that it has precious little in the way of referenced data, in fact in some cases it quotes "best guesses".

However the general public who bang on about this kind of thing on the Daily Wail website have zero clue about referenced data, in fact the journalists writing it usually have sod all idea as well and will simply dumb it down to the appropriate level without even understanding what they're writing.

Hence my point that statistics can be twisted to fit any scenario you care to dream up. In the meantime I'll go with the actual evidence that I've seen and experienced in my 16 years of riding and racing bikes on and off road and exercise my personal choice to wear a helmet whenever I ride. I know it's not perfect but in my opinion it's better than nothing. Meanwhile I respect your decision NOT to wear a helmet at times.

I think it depends where you ride. All my road riding is on rural roads, I don't wear a helmet as I don't see that it will protect me if I am hit by a car/lorry travelling at 50+mph, I've seen the damage a ton and a half of metal can do and I think I would rather die instantly of head injuries than over an hour or two from internal injuries. I always wear a helmet off road as the liklyhood of a low speed bump where it would protect me is much higher.
Freedom of choice!
My main argument against compulsion is if we allow this where does it stop. High vis gear? Then what, body armour?

best of all are the riders who wear leg/body armour and no helmet 🙂