It is an emotive subject, and made all the more so when friends or ourselves are involved, but TJ has done his best to present the other side of the debate, and I admire his tenacity and refusal to descend to insult.

It’s a worthy thing to examine, but we can’t seem to do it without resorting to abuse and ultimatums.

I did, but as your answer just then, and indeed previous posts, seem to demonstrate that you are wearing one out of some desire to fit in with which ever niche you are riding with…I am confused. No helmet – jey core, pisspot – jumping but only to LOOK hardcore – not save your head, and the inbetween time you wear a vented xc lid – why? When you have done some complex risk analysis about the type of trail, and the probility of having an accident…explain…I’m just confused..seriously.

ultimatums?

Fair enough repack. The point about saying you simply do not know what would have happened if you hadn’t had a helmet on is correct tho – you simply do not know for sure hence all the “helmet saved my life” stories annoy.

Common sense might decree that wearing a helmet is always the smart thing to do but the evidence does not actually support that without doubts. A couple of well proven things that go against “common sense”

Countries with high rates of helmet wear have high rates of head injuries. Across whole populations helmet compulsion reduces the health of the whole population by reducing the number of folk who cycle – so you save one cyclist head injury but get 3 more diabetics with heart attacks ( to oversimplify)

As someone stated above it sa bit of a faith based argument

Im with you on this Crikey its a shame this cant be discussed without it getting juvenile. Helmet design isnt perfect but its better then nothing IMO. I would love to know more about the standards involved in helmet design.

TJ – any idea where I can find out more on helmet design?

Swisstim – I was trying to lighten the argument with the niche thing. It was a joke at my expense.

Risk assessment there are many ways of doing this but there are two ways I do it.
Firstly look at level of risk and severity of risk. The level of risk rises with the difficulty of the terrain and the severity with speed.

So riding a canal towpath which is flat – speed is low, terrain is easy, so risk is low.

Riding a red route at a trail centre risk is higher as there is more to hit ( trees, rocks etc) and the terrain is more difficult and also the severity of injury is greater – higher speeds and pointy rocks to hit.

Or the other way to look at it is activity, location and person. Dicvide each into low, medium and high risk. Assess all three.

So the canal towpath – , location easy riding – low risk, activity (just riding along) low risk, person me (experienced rider) low risk so total risk low.

With this second approach the overall risk is the highest component – so a red grade at a trail centre being ridden by me would be location medium, activity high, person low thus overall risk high

Nice edit TJ,

You can’t get away with the fact that you do wear a helmet sometimes…why do you wear one? Not just for fashion, but the fact that there is an element of risk in the activity that you are undertaking – you are chosing to protect your head….

We are in agreement about compulsion though…more cyclists on the street = safer streets for cyclists. Compulsory helmet wear reduces the number of people who want to cycle, increases the danger on our streets, and has a knock on health affect.

Repack – cyclehelmets.org has some info – pinch of salt required for the editorial content but the articles are good. otherwise get googling

Ultimatums.. I mean the kind of ‘I’ll never ride with anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet’ kind of thing.

Interesting thought for the day No.1; the Netherlands has one of the lowest helmet use rates, one of the lowest cycle death rates and one of the highest rates of cycle usage.

Interesing thought for the day No.2; the US has one of the highest helmet use rates, the highest cycling death rate and one of the lowest rates of cycle usage.

It’s not black and white.

Edit; I agree about compulsion, it would be a shame.

TJ – cheers buddy, I will have a look at that.

I do think that compulsion will come; the views on here suggest that the majority of those commenting would like it.

I do so hope you’re wrong. The benefits of compulsion will be far outweighed by the negatives. A point the fundamentalists fail to recognize. Not only that, but the campaign (and the attitudes shown by many on here) is a bad thing in itself, by portraying cycling as a dangerous sport or a dangerous form of transport when it’s anything but. The point being that the benefits of helmets such as they are (FWIW I do believe they are useful, just not as magical as many people make out), aren’t sufficient to outweigh the social downside.

Well said aracer! If only I could be so succinct

+1 Aracer, well said.

Still don’t see the argument against helmets.

I can see an argument that there is no evidence of substance that supports the anecdotal facts that are at my disposal that wearing one is a good idea (because it has saved me from injury several times and never once caused me one), but surely that argument is that one that wins the day. If wearing a lid was a negative or bad thing, surely there would be empirical evidence to support that? Which if I understand TJ correctly there isn’t. Besides it is self evident that people don’t go rushing off to their local A & E to report the fact that they haven’t hurt themselves now do they so there is hardly likely to be any evidence on that side of the argument is there?
Having said that I like TJ would not wish for compulsion, I’d much prefer people to choose to do the sensible thing, through the example set them. I fear however that by the same token that Jade Goody is newsworthy in any way other than as a statistic, common sense will continue to be an oxymoron

G – there is one argument against helmets across populations in that it gives the impression that cycling is dangerous so discourages people from cycling thus not taking the opportunity to improve the health of the population by cycling.

The other arguments tend to get muddled.
Helmets on the whole do reduce injuries to individuals but in some circumstances may make them worse.
Helmets wearing may increase accident rates thru risk compensation – common IMO amongst mtbers.
Current helmet design has serious flaws from rotational impacts to poor retention systems and poor fit from single shell sizes.
I am not against helmets but against compulsion. I want to be able to ride without one when the risks are low.
I would also like to see better designed and tested helmets that offer as much protection as a helemts for other sports.

TJ – in regards to helmets ‘failing’… do you think Giro will accept my split E2 back under warranty? I hit a tree headfirst going at a fair lick on a downhill section at CyB. The helmet cracked pretty much straight through down the middle (I was was fine though). Is it worth a punt?

I doubt it alb – altho it would be very interesting to see what they say. Is the shell compressed? Thats what dissipates the energy

Ah, I’ve got you now.

I believe thats the same argument as used by Edward Debono that making cars less safe means that people will drive more safely to compensate. I’m not sure thats true though.

I also disagree about the “makes cycling seem more dangerous” thing. I reckon people getting killed by pratish motorists does that perfectly well regardless of the helmets issue. I also think that the fact that so few people get killed riding MTB and the fact that it such a collosal growth area tends to take the argument in the other direction. i.e. People see it as being safe, (perhaps in part due to the part helemts play), and therefore aren’t put off from doing it. Surely thats a more logical viewpoint?

Mmm…to conclude then. I hope dennis makes a speedy recovery, and gets back on two wheels soon.

I also disagree about the “makes cycling seem more dangerous” thing.

You’re disagreeing with the experts then (I’m not meaning TJ there – sorry!) Regarding compulsion, or even general use of helmets, we’re really talking about road, towpath or flat easy trail use, such as most of the general public might do, not hardcore MTBing where many people are surely attracted by the danger element rather than put off. Much as we might complain about motorists killing cyclists, such incidents are actually mercifully rare, hence general leisure and transport cycling is far safer than generally perceived. The idea that you need a helmet to protect yourself from pratish (sic) motorists is exactly what we’re referring to here.

This is not directly related but might be considered interesting. I am currently living in Vietnam, the roads here are dominated by scooters and small motorbikes (below 125cc) and the city roads are slow, generally below 30-40km, lots of high way speed limits are 50-60km. In Dec 2007 a law was passed making helmets compulsory (a large fine if you did not), before this most people did not wear helmets except on journeys on high ways (law passed in 2005 for wearing helmets on inter city roads). Children under 16 still do not need to wear helmets, not entirely sure why, if you were cynical you might think it was because children would not have the money to pay the fine. The reason this law was brought in was due to a massive number of traffic/road head injures, thousands annually, and deaths, 10000-13000 annually. These numbers has been reduced significantly, despite most helmets being only slightly more substantial than construction hard hats, badly fitting and no standard level of manufacture etc. This suggest to me that anything is better than nothing!

Breakneckspeed – if you had no injury with a helmet then you would have only had a minor injury without one.

Yes so wear a helmet then? Prevent you from having a minor injury and pass the cost onto the society. Or am I being daft to think that?

I am arguing for my right not to wear one when I don’t want to as cycling as a whole is not a dangerous pursuit.

So you campaign for the right not to wear a crash helmet on the motorcycle? After all it’s no more dangerous for bike.

Chipping in here…… this argument that a split helmet has failed is simply flawed and wrong!
TJ – you KNOW that helmets work by dissipating the kinetic energy of a head flying towards tree/rock/duck, and transferring this energy into the helmet. Ergo, energy into the helmet ISN’T energy passing into the head. I agree that one way of a helmet ‘working’ is for the polystyrene to crush, as this takes a lot of energy.
However, helmets that crack have also dissipated A LOT of energy too! You try pulling apart a helmet with your bare hands – it basically can’t be done! That means that when a helmet hits the dirt and cracks, it has taken an awful lot of energy to break the polystyrene bonds, and (to repeat myself) this is energy that hasn’t passed into the brain/skull etc.

It all about transferring energy. I agree that not all the energy could ever be transferred, hence people (myself included, twice, both time helmets from different brands cracked), get concussed, but the shear fact that a helmet has deformed in some way means some energy, often a vital, lifesaving value, has been transferred into the polystyrene of the helmet.

Another point on Countries with high rates of helmet wear have high rates of head injuries – do you not think the high rates of helmet wear relate to high numbers of cyclists, thus more cyclists is bound to mean more crashes? ( i do not know the answer to this).

I’m not sure where I stand on compulsory helmet wearing, and I’m sure there are some cyclists who have never worn helmets and never fallen off. However, like the few of my patients who smoke 30 a day and live to see 95 (!), it’s not odds i’d mess about with, and myself and others I ride with all wear helmets…….

DrP

Another point on Countries with high rates of helmet wear have high rates of head injuries – do you not think the high rates of helmet wear relate to high numbers of cyclists, thus more cyclists is bound to mean more crashes? ( i do not know the answer to this).

It appears to be the opposite. Countries* with the highest numbers of cyclists tend to have the lowest level of helmet wearing and the lowest level of deaths/injuries.

*I’m thinking of western counties. I’ve no idea how well this translates to India/China

I think most statistics are misleading as to be fairly useless. For example: lying in bed is the most dangerous activity as this is when most people die :lol:.

I rely on my experience; having has mild concussion from 2 head impacts due to cycling, I’m very glad to be wearing a lid. I accept that they are not perfect protection – nothing is.

I full respect the right of an indavidual to wear or not wear a helmet but as i regulary commute by bike as well as ride off road there is no way i could look my children or wife in the eyes and not wear my helmet. it may not stop that car from hitting me but it might help reduce the damage to my head and for that reason i will wear one.
The above about high levels of helmet wearing and high levels of accidents etc it strikes me that those with the low level of usage have the highest level of bikes and therefore the bikes get much better respect/treatment on the roads which will lower the level of risk anyway.

Dr P – the thing about a cracked or split helmet having failed comes from the literature about how helmets work. Actually it should read if the helmet has split before the foam has compressed it has failed. It takes a lot less energy to split a helmet than to crush the polystyrene.

Iam Munro is right – it tends to be the countries with the highest number of cyclists that have the lowest number of head injuries and the lowest number of helmet wearers. I put that in to show that a lot of the evidence is not common sense.

Here is a bunch of references and links to abstracts of research papers which are totally contradictory. enough from me. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html For example:

Reducing bicycle accidents: a re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use *

Rodgers. Journal of Product Liability 11 pp307-17, 1988

To examine claims that growth in the use of hard shell cycle helmets had been successful in reducing cycle-related injuries and death, Rodgers studied over 8 million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years. He concluded: “There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use”.

Cycle helmets: the case for and against

Hillman. Policy Studies Institute ISBN 0 85374 602 8, 1993
Contents and short summary available on-line

32-page analysis of pros and cons of cycle helmets with extensive references. Wearing a helmet only marginally reduces the extent of head injury following collision with a motor vehicle, but can affect behaviour so that wearers cycle less cautiously. Mandatory helmets would reinforce public perceptions that cycling is dangerous and encourage the view that cyclists are responsible for their own injury. Life years gained through cycling outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. Encouraging helmets leads to fewer people cycling and a net health loss. [j511]

The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: a study of 1,710 casualties *

McDermott et al. Journal of Trauma Vol 11:6 pp834-45, 1993.

Study copying techniques of Thompson 1989 research but yielding less favourable results. Own data suggests helmets give 25% reduction in risk of head injury for adults, but no reduction for serious injuries. Adjusting Thompson results to eliminate forehead lacerations, re-calculated benefit is 61% (instead of 85%). Also noted small sample size in Thompson data.

Etc etc

TJ – Looking at those reference it strikes me that its old fairly old stuff – certainly if I’m conducting a literature review or systematic review I only consider papers for the last 5 years – I’m sure that helmet technology has improved over the last ten years or so and much of that will have trickled down to the more ‘budget’ end of the market.
Also the use of anecdotal evidence is important and in research term the subjective view provides valuable data (this is not the time or place to get in debates about qualitative vs. quantitative research and the intellectual snobbery that surrounds that particular debate) – I think the themes arising from this thread point very strongly to where further research need to be focused, as do the attitudes and feelings of ‘sports’ cyclists who are using helmets in the ‘real world’

Fair point. I have to say I don’t like anecdotal or qualitative research. Too true about the lack of research in some areas for sure. Personally I don’t believe helmets have improved – if anything the reverse as now the EC testing standards are lower than the old BSI ones IIRC

my tuppence’s worth………… (fek all since the recession, IGMC)

I’m in the “i wouldnt be here if it wasnt for my giros/bells” camp, I’ll see if i can dig out th e-mail from madison which broadly said, “how the flippin hek did you manage that and walk away?”

TJ, as others pointed out, you seem to have researched the negatives of helmets in accidents quite thoroughly, but still chose to wear one on anything more seriosus than a towpath amble. Could it be that on ballance you are in favour of wearing a helmet for the majority of riding the members of this forum engage in?

FWIW I realised i wasnt wearing a hemet on my comute, probably because it wasnt in my routine to put one on, (no nice bike to prepare, no cycling clothes etc). Spent the day bricking myself about the ride home.

Risk compensation, I ride like and idiot possessed whith or without a helmet.

The mandatory wearing helmets put people off cycling is a dissproven argument Sweeden (IIRC, i cant remember the country, but sweeden rings a bell) has mandatory helmet laws, it experienced a level of cycling below that of pre compulsion, for 3 years, then a surge in popularity and rate of growth not seen pre their compulsory use.

Also the use of anecdotal evidence is important

The problem with anecdotal evidence in this debate is that it tends to be very unreliable and inaccurate as people seem to be convinced that helmets do a lot more than they actually do. I’m always very dubious about “helmet saved my life” claims – from all the stories I’ve heard I’d suggest that the majority of such claims are untrue. BTW that’s based on personal experience of crashing both with and without helmets – I survived the helmetless incident with no permanent damage, yet destroyed the helmet in what was probably a lower impact incident (also got permanent damage from that one in the form of facial scarring where the helmet didn’t protect).

The mandatory wearing of helmets is another example of counterintuative and contradictory evidence. Some studies show one result some another. neither proven or disproven.

As for researching the anti helmet side. – I am broadly in favour of using helmets for “real mountainbiking”. I have presented the arguments that are not against helmets but show the limitations to counter the fallacies put about by others and to show that there are many aspects to the debate.

I’ve just done a quick search on Google Scholar (search string Cycle+helemet+safety) and I am struck by how little resent research has been done on the actual effectiveness of helmets in crashes – most research seems to have stopped in the early to mid nineties, more current stuff been systematic reviews of the older research and focused on usage pre & post legislation changes

Just a thought is there anywhere this thread (and the plethora of other on the subject) could be sent to try and get some good quality research done – it’s got to be good for somebody’s PhD at least

How about the mag doing some articles on the topic too

There is something that strikes me in most of the studies.
None actually takes into account the typical ‘helmet save my life’ case like plenty mention above.

I think t would be interested to have figures from bell/met/giro in how many crash replacement per year they cover, and how many off them end up in the hospital.

None actually takes into account the typical ‘helmet save my life’ case like plenty mention above.

How exactly do you propose any worthwhile results could be obtained from such anecdotal stories where there is no firm evidence of the veracity?

If you are leading a group or running an event then I think it’s fair to stipulate that a helmet is required. It’s not just their risk, if someone gets injured then the whole group becomes at risk.

If the group leader needs to stay with the injured (due to being the first aider etc…) then (depending on the group) it may not be safe for the group to continue (think leading a group of kids, or even adults who don’t know the area in bad conditions).

So I don’t think it’s so much ultimatums, but more it’s personal choice if you wear a helmet, and also personal choice if you would ride with someone who doesn’t. It can be pro choice in more than one way.

P.s. Get well soon!

How exactly do you propose any worthwhile results could be obtained from such anecdotal stories where there is no firm evidence of the veracity?

Well helmet manufacturers probably can relate the force of the impact to the state of the helmet.

Mark,

give Dennis my best, hows Adele, must be shaken up herself?

Catch up later

i wear a helmet.