Thank god for helmets

I dont drink so no, and I’ve yet to get over 15 mph while walking or playing football so I doubt any head injury would be of any consequence.

cycle helmets are designed to work at less than 12 mph. walking and playing football both have higher rates of head injury than cycling

common sense and intuition? Wrong again.

Bez I take your points. I certainly agree about the stimulous to change ones behaviour, I would be inclined to say the helmet prevented him from further injury (to what degree I couldnt say) but shouldn’t be used as an reason to continue ones behaviour. Slowing down and changing ones attitude should be the result.

I’d like to see a motorists reaction as they see us pushing cadavers on bikes down hills! haha! but I’d be up for it, I’ll let you source the cadavers though… 😉

A decent summary of the various arguments and links to real data

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

You are not “lucky” to avoid a head injury cycling – you are very very unlucky to sustain one. Its very rare.

Rare? From your link

For RTAs involving cyclists, head injuries were the 2nd highest injury.

In addition, I’d say incidents involving cyclists amount to a disproportionate number of incidents, given that cyclists may account for the smallest number of road users amongst peds, cyclists, motorcyclists and car drivers although motorbike riders may challenge them for the bottom spot.

So based on that table I’d say you are in with a good chance of having an accident, and if you do, there’s a good chance it’ll be a head injury.

*pops to concession stand, does anybody fancy anything? I fancy a mahoosive bag of maltesers and a veritable bucket of diet coke…*
EDIT; I’ll happily donate my body to helmet testing science should I pop my clogs any time soon…
…so long as they promise to post the video on YouTube. 😆

Again a break down of on and off road would be helpfull.

Forget the death bit, it bloody hurts whenever I bash my head on something and I’m pretty sure the helmet must take the edge off.

Oh dear boardingbob

Incidence across the population? Its hundreds of thousands to one that on any particular ride you will sustain a serious head injury. They are very rare.

Even the most optimistic slant on helmets protectiveness suggest compulsory helmet wearing would save 10 lives a year. very rare

Have a look at some of the data here

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4641

#
chakaping – Member

Forget the death bit, it bloody hurts whenever I bash my head on something and I’m pretty sure the helmet must take the edge off.

Seems fair – very effective against minor injury. ( which is why I wear one at Glentress) Questionable effectiveness against major injury

Some more analysis of the risks

http://cyclehelmets.org/1011.html

http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

There have been many studies on helmet wearing, many by groups with vested interests.
If I were to base my decision on whether or not to wear a helmet on a study, I think I’d use one by an organisation I thought was fairly neutral on the matter, like the BMA.

From here
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/transport/promotingsafecycling.jsp?page=1

“Conclusion
Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets. They have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur. This does not apply to fatal crashes but in such instances the force of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection would fail. As has been illustrated by the case studies, the consequences of traumatic brain injury are significant not only to the individual involved, but to their families and to society as a whole. It is BMA members, and in particular accident and emergency staff who witness at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have.”

I’d probably value the opinion of these people

Chair Board of Science Sir Kenneth Calman
Director of professional activities Professor Vivienne Nathanson
Project Leads
Nicky Jayesinghe, Head of Science
George Roycroft, Deputy Head of Science
Research and writing
Dr Andrew Curran, Consultant paediatric neurologist
Dr Heather Sage, Trainee, paediatric neurology
Thomas Ellinas, Research and Policy Executive

over some bloke on the internet 😉

“Rare? From your link“

Rarer than either pedestrians or motorists. Do you wear a helmet whilst walking or whilst in a car?

Also, those figures include facial injury, which a helmet would not protect against, and (obviously) doesn’t break down the figure according to the incidents where a helmet would have made an outcome difference.

Hilldodger – shame they base it on the widely discredited cochrane study and refuse to look at any negative evidence.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4690

They also completely misquote the DfT paper which in itself is badly flawed.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5339

Let’s take a look at that BMA quote, then:

“They have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur.“

Read that again and be clear about what it says (notably the last three words). It says something about the effects of wearing a helmet once an impact is underway. What it doesn’t say anything about is whether, or how, the probability of an incident occurring is affected by wearing or not wearing a helmet.

“This does not apply to fatal crashes but in such instances the force of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection would fail.“

This appears to say that they believe a helmet is incapable of making the difference between life and death. (Not that that’s the only reason to wear a helmet, of course.)

Bez, you are a bit of a monkey aren’t you? Methinks you just enjoy a cheeky little argument… 😉 I get the impression that you actually think helmet wearing is a pretty good idea, but the opportunity to poke holes in half formed arguments was just too good to miss…?

I have walked out of my shed with my bike and hit my head on the low door frame quite a few times (excited about going for a ride makes me forget to duck), I can honestly state that wearing the helmet has saved my scalp and stops me being a grumpy boy.
When I commute to work, I can put my gloves, lights, bike computer into the helmet as I walk from the bike rack into work (and on the return journey), therefore it serve as a short-term man bike bag.
My helmet keeps my head relatively warm and dry in inclement weather. Finally, as my head is one of the points that is likely to make contact with the ground when I fall off (quite often), I like the extra protection that it provides. I also wear gloves when I ride, as I tend to try to put my hands down to break my fall, time permitting.

Arguing the toss about wearing/not wearing a helmet is pointless, especially here, as most are entrenched in their views and will not concede that either side has a valid argument.

OP, hope your mate is on the mend and gets cycling soon, although clavicle break is not nice!

“I get the impression that you actually think helmet wearing is a pretty good idea, but the opportunity to poke holes in half formed arguments was just too good to miss…? “

True, but I don’t think poking holes in half-formed arguments is just a bit of fun. Remember that the people who make the legislation in this country base will cite half-formed arguments. People who make case law can be affected by half-formed arguments. People who pay insurance claims will be affected by half-formed arguments. The people who write the news certainly have the received opinion that polystyrene hats and workmen’s tabards will save the world, and stories are reported in that vein, pointing fingers at anyone not swaddled in shiny and squashy things, regardless of the relevance to the story or the incident.

So – yes. But there is a point to it. It’s the lack of reasoning behind the arguments that is the problem, and which is the thing that riles me. Not the conclusion. If something’s concluded from a rigorous process then fine. If not, it’s worthless – rather, for personal use that’s fine but it’s something that shouldn’t be imposed on others or used to evangelise to others.

TJ, In my opinion the ctc ‘critique’ centres around arguments over ‘overall benefits to public health’ arising from compulsory helmet wearing – that’s not what we’re debating is it ?

I am not arguing about overall benefits to public health, the merits of compulsion or whether any particular individual considers the likelihood of themselves encountering a situation where a helmet may have an effect significant.
I’m simply stating that the country’s leading professional body for medical care consider helmet wearing to be beneficial. And that’s good enough for me, with all due respect to your debating and googling skills 😉

Bez – Member

Read that again

I understood it the first time thanks, I’m not claiming that wearing a helmet influences the risk of having an accident but that if one should occur it may prevent significant head injury.

Fair enough. Shame the evidence they base that view on is so thin.

wunhundred!

Bez, completely agree. But that’s the stupid world we live in, isn’t it? And the weird beauty of it is that the people that hide behind half formed arguments on one side are almost always neutralised by the people on the other sides half formed arguments! Lol. And then you throw the fundementalists into the mix and it gets very messy…

Back to this thread; we can pretty much summarise by saying “wear a helmet (or not, it’s your choice). We can’t in the least bit prove it’ll save your life, but we’re pretty positive that if you do hit your head on something, a helmet will make it hurt a little less. Oh and by the way, they don’t make you invincible, so don’t think you can suddenly ride like a **** either.”

TandemJeremy – Member
Fair enough. Shame the evidence they base that view on is so thin.

Yes, it is a shame, but who’s going to formulate and fund an objective study with relevance to the many types of cyclist and cycling activities ?

we can pretty much summarise by saying “wear a helmet (or not, it’s your choice). We can’t in the least bit prove it’ll save your life, but we’re pretty positive that if you do hit your head on something, a helmet will make it hurt a little less.

does it for me 🙂

Bluddy hell – is that a sensible consensus position? Have I slipped into a space warp? Is this STW?

we can pretty much summarise by saying “wear a helmet (or not, it’s your choice). We can’t in the least bit prove it’ll save your life, but we’re pretty positive that if you do hit your head on something, a helmet will make it hurt a little less.

“I get the impression that you actually think helmet wearing is a pretty good idea, but the opportunity to poke holes in half formed arguments was just too good to miss…? “

True, but I don’t think poking holes in half-formed arguments is just a bit of fun. Remember that the people who make the legislation in this country base will cite half-formed arguments. People who make case law can be affected by half-formed arguments. People who pay insurance claims will be affected by half-formed arguments. The people who write the news certainly have the received opinion that polystyrene hats and workmen’s tabards will save the world, and stories are reported in that vein, pointing fingers at anyone not swaddled in shiny and squashy things, regardless of the relevance to the story or the incident.

So – yes. But there is a point to it. It’s the lack of reasoning behind the arguments that is the problem, and which is the thing that riles me. Not the conclusion. If something’s concluded from a rigorous process then fine. If not, it’s worthless – rather, for personal use that’s fine but it’s something that shouldn’t be imposed on others or used to evangelise to others.

Bez, I think I got on my train home thinking you were a bit of an idiot but as this thread has rumbled on I’d like to take my initial thought back. You seem like your switched on, with a bit of a cheeky streak, which is always a good thing! You sorted our cadavers to push down hills yet?

“I understood it the first time thanks, I’m not claiming that wearing a helmet influences the risk of having an accident but that if one should occur it may prevent significant head injury. “

Yes – sorry, looking at what I wrote it sounds somewhat confrontational, which it wasn’t meant to be (wasn’t even intended to be directed at you in particular). But it does illustrate that they’re (rightly) quite specific and qualified about what they state, and this isn’t the full picture.

“does it for me“

It’s near enough for me too 😉

“You sorted our cadavers to push down hills yet? “

Get me some signatures on these forms I’ve just printed off and we’ll be sorted 😉

Bez – Member
Yes – sorry, looking at what I wrote it sounds somewhat confrontational

Not a problem 😉

I agree thar the scope of the statement is quite limited, I’ll stick with v8ninety’s version 🙂

:EDIT:
so does this mean we never need have a helmet thread again on stw 😀

Bez

Benefits can only really be worked out once you’ve performed a valid control.

TandemJeremy – Member

Fair enough. Shame the evidence they base that view on is so thin.

There is evidence here http://www.bpa.org.uk/stay-safe/how-safe/
that shows that 1 in 100,000 jumps can result in death and 6 in 1000 in injury.But there is absolutely NO documented,reliable evidence available that would stand up to the high brow academic scrutiny of STW apart from odd anecdotal tales about the benefits of using a parachute when jumping from a plane from a great height. Bez fancy being part fo the control group for a new study and maybe drag TJ along with you 😉

Oh no!!!! I’ve broken the thread!!! Quick, find something to strongly disagree about, or I’m going to bed!

👿

From the bpa link, with slight alteration….

(b) You want the lowest possible risk but are prepared to accept an injury rate of up to 1 in 870 (male) or up to 1 in 650 (female), you are not very fit, you are not self confident, you want to avoid prolonged training, you just want the experience of a jump bike ride but do not yet wish to commit to regular skydiving. bike riding

Tandem skydiving riding may be the best choice for you to consider.

Noooooooooooooooooo 😆

Want a shot hilldodger?

Only if you wear a helmet….

“But there is absolutely NO documented,reliable evidence available that would stand up to the high brow academic scrutiny of STW apart from odd anecdotal tales about the benefits of using a parachute when jumping from a plane from a great height.“

Except that the figures you quoted are from recorded jumps (which presumably include details of causation where injuries or fatalities occur). So there is documented, reliable evidence of fatality rates of similar jumps from similar heights where parachutes have functioned and where they haven’t.

I tell you what, them skydivers always seem to wear helmets, now I REALLY don’t see the point in that… 😯
EDIT; I think that the (slightly tongue in cheek) point is that we don’t know that those skydiver whose chutes opened successfully wouldn’t have survived the fall anyway, as no two jumps are the same, fortuitous haystacks, leilandi trees, etc…

It’s disingenuous to imply that standard helmets have no protective effect above a 12mph impact.

nick 1962

http://www.oddee.com/item_96967.aspx

v8ninety – Member

I tell you what, them skydivers always seem to wear helmets, now I REALLY don’t see the point in that…

Joking apart… It’s obviously no use if the chute fails to open, but may be quite useful in a bad landing

folk have survived falling from 30000ft+ without a chute