The problem with the neurosurgeons argument is that there will be some crashes where wearing a helmet has meant the rider never becomes one of his patients.

He doesn’t and can’t know of these incidents so taking an assumption that helmets are useless is just plain wrong – but then that’s the Daily Mail for you.

The problem with the neurosurgeons argument is that there will be some crashes where wearing a helmet has meant the rider never becomes one of his patients.

He doesn’t and can’t know of these incidents so taking an assumption that helmets are useless is just plain wrong – but then that’s the Daily Mail for you.

that’s why it comes bottom of jedimasters pyramid chart on the previous page.

What a **** that surgeon is. By definition be’s only going to be seeing people with brain injuries. Its the ones he doesnt see that may ir may not have been helped.

Bull Poo.

The Neuro surgeon says it hasn’t helped the people he has treated??
Hes a NEUROSURGEON!!!

The people he treated who did wear a helmet would have been dead, the people who he treated who were not wearing helmet wouldn’t need a neurosurgeon if they were?!

What a dick.

Of course a helmet will help to some extent if you land on your head. But if you are more likely to be hit if you are wearing one, or you would rather not ride a bike at all if you had to wear a helmet and sit on the sofa getting fat instead, then helmets are definitely worse than useless.

Biking for sport, yes always wear a helmet. But riding around for transport is different. Instead of blaming the victim, try blaming the cr*p driver who hit them

It’s not even helmet compulsion which is the issue here. Mass wearing of helmets even without compulsion has a lot of the same damaging effects – it makes cycling seem more dangerous than it is (because you apparently need PPE for that, but not other activities), it makes drivers feel your safety is less their responsibility, etc. No compulsion at all required to result in those issues. I’d suggest that there’s a good chance of an overall benefit to the health of society from banning the wearing of cycle helmets on public roads.

Of course I still wear one myself (most of the time on a bike, and when riding off road or at speed (Schlumpf) on a uni – I think I’ve actually got the risk perception about right for the uni).

Oh and as it doesn’t seem to have been covered all that well, one answer to why it’s reasonable to ride without a helmet is that society agrees it’s reasonable to pedestrianise, drive and get in the shower without a helmet – all activities (amongst many others) where more lives would be saved by helmet compulsion than cycling.

Good point – have you read Risk by John Adams? Goes into risk perception a lot, very interesting stuff.

Another problem with helmets is, like fluorescent vests and stuff like that, they make cyclists seem different. A normal person on a bike could be your friend, neighbour or parent. A Lycra-clad, helmeted, fluorescent yellow person is much harder to humanise, so harder for car drivers to look out for.

I find not crashing to be better protection! 😆 seriously though this reminds me I need to buy a helmet, not had one for a few months now. Mind you I still won’t wear it all the time, I forget it half the of time, consequence of surviving 25 years without one I’d guess!

Helmets are fine. But I still don’t reckon they are the best thing for cycle saftey. Awareness of your surroundings and personal limits are much more important.

This whole argument is useless given it’s personal choice.

I won’t go down the road without one.
Forty years of serious riding; once slid on a wet diesel covered road. I slid so far I had time to think ‘this is alright’ then my head hitting the high kerb stopped me, splitting the lid in two.

Three years ago a hit and run driver hit me up the rear at 60mph. I went over the car, it’s thought I landed on my head/shoulders. The clothes were ripped off my body and the helmet had worn down to the inner web. Basically 3″ of lid got sanded off in the fall. It’s likely I’d not be here if I wasn’t wearing one.

At the end of the day it’s just not an issue, I don’t know I’m wearing one it never enters my mind. I just guess it’ll be there if I need it like a spare inner tube.

I see helmet threads are as rational and reasoned as usual then.

I’ve only once been to A&E for a head injury, which was caused by someone lobbing half a brick at my head when I walked down the street. That’s why I always wear a helmet for walking now.

I’ve never once banged my head while riding a bike, regardless of whether or not I was wearing a helmet.

lauren85 on anything but techy descents I strap my helmet to the front of my rucksack strapping on my chest. Especially in the now warming weather of the UK summer I think theres a great chance of harm through dehydration/loss of concentration through not letting your head vent heat.

My one big crash in my life was due to me riding all day, running out of water and making a mistake on a descent.

Yes the helmet helped me but avoiding getting to such a situation would help.

As such I totally agree with you. **** what others say.

I believe I am safer wearing a helmet so do, if people believe otherwise and choose otherwise that’s there right, what’s the the problem. Either way you need answer to no one, or defend your yourself to no one .

People who get all out of shape about other peoples choice, and it is their choice, I don’t understand.
The recent thread where someone was upset someone else put a helmet on their child but did not wear one themselves.
My answer to them would be, my kid my head **** off , nothing further required.

This doctor is an idiot if he said this in an official opinion as a public health announcement unless he did appropriate research.
Although if said as a passing comment as a cyclist , that’s fine it his opinion , the same as many others on here but should only affect his choice on wether he wears a helmet or not.

Thin end of the wedge.

http://road.cc/content/news/120591-make-pedestrians-wear-reflective-clothing-says-mr-loophole-lawyer-who-defended

Remember we are all pedestrians – park car, put on reflective vest before you get out.

Having had to avoid pedestrians stepping out in front of me in the past and swerving into the back of a parked van I’ll just keep wearing a helmet.

The polystyrene was completely compressed on my forehead after hitting the window blank on the back door (the softest spot really. I ended up with whiplash and probably a slight concussion that would have been worse without it.

I don’t buy this nonsense about wearing helmets only when cycling fast either, if you pivot over your front wheel and go head first onto the road then you are at real risk of injury. One of my worst crashes was a stall on a rock garden that took (what felt like) a few seconds to actually go one way or the other, eventually I went forward and landed on a flat rock head first (no idea why I never stepped off). I was stationary yet still managed to whack my head hard enough to just about knock myself out, still wasn’t right the next day either.

As for being more at risk when wearing one, dickheads are dickheads, I’d be surprised if they even noticed whether someone was wearing a helmet or not. Defensive cycling is far more useful than some imaginary statistic.

point
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
squirrelking

erniethefastestmilkmaninthewest – Member

You must love logging on.
😯

I agree with

IanW – Member

I don’t understand why wearing or not wearing a plastic hat so bothers some people. WGAF..if you like em wear one, if you don’t, don’t.

but seeing as everyone else is wading in with anecdotes…
I submit to you this; two crashes both at similar speeds ca. 20-25mph on road descents. First one was due to a front blow out and I had chance to realise I was about to crash. This was in Mallorca where helmet wear is compulsory so I had my correctly sized and fitted helmet on. Post crash and with skin loss to hand, elbows, knees and dislocated AC joint the helmet had no marks on and my head had not contacted the the ground. Obviously the rest of me was pretty **** up.
Second crash on black ice descending a Welsh road, no chance to carry out defensive tuck and roll and landed on LHS head, LHS shoulder, LHS hip, back RHS head and RHS shoulder. No marks on hands or knees such was the speed of the crash. This time no helmet just a woolly cap. Another AC joint dislocation, a busted rib and a huge haematoma that calcified.
Concussion was a given but that would’ve occurred helmet or not given that concussion comes from the brain hitting the skull and given my brain weighs the same with or without helmet and the speed at which my head hit the road was the same with or without helmet.
I have been suffering some massive headaches and had a CT scan after a month which came back all clear, no hint of any fractures or contusions. A further visit to a neurologist came back also clear with the reason for the headaches being muscular inflammation due to that pesky shoulder.
What the woolly cap did save me from though was abrasion in the first impact as it was between my head and the road. Had I been wearing a helmet I’m sure I would have one of those lovely battered helmet pics to show too. But the cap still looks like a cap.
The point being that it was the speed at which the accident occurred and my (un)conscious ability to prepare for it which prevented me from avoiding my head hitting the ground.
What I do accept is that off-road there are far more spiky, jagged rocks to puncture soft body parts than on the road so wearing a helmet there may just mean you walk/ride away with a battered helmet but not a hole in your head.
Here’s a useful diagram about where impacts occur in motorcycle crashes.
I would offer that there is a reasonable parity with road cycling crashes.

Also a concise history of my head injuries to date;
Aged 20 months fell from landing to hall floor through banister gap, brusing.
Aged 10 struck in head by thrown brick, lacerations and bruising.
Aged 14 hit by car at 30mph, unconscious, burst blood vessels in LH eye, lacerations, dislocated LH shoulder.
Aged 20 hit by car on motorcycle, creased roofline with face (full face helmet) no head injuries. Massive groinal bruising.
That’ll do otherwise the list gets too long.

shedbrewed – Member
speed at which my head hit the road was the same with or without helmet.

Incorrect…

The seatbelt and airbags on my car are also useless. In all the car trips I have had where I haven’t crashed they have done F all. Complete waste of money.

Just because some knob on the radio has a theory, it won’t change my views on bike helmets. Tarmac or concrete is effin hard, and my head would hurt if it hit it. Putting an inch of polystyrene between my head and the road can only help my head to hurt a little less…..

My thoughts exactly…. It’s gotta be better than nothing !

And this whole argument started out from an article in the Daily Fascist? And you believed it?

point
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
squirrelking

So, oh wise one, what is this point I’ve missed so badly then?

Has it or has it not been suggested that cyclists without helets are more likely to be given room by motorists?

I would like to know the basis for this assumption.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle+helmet+passing+distance

Concussion was a given but that would’ve occurred helmet or not given that concussion comes from the brain hitting the skull and given my brain weighs the same with or without helmet and the speed at which my head hit the road was the same with or without helmet.

I question the physics of that whilst not claiming that a helemet would have helped.

The idea of a helmet is that it will compress as your head approaches the road. This increases the time your head has to stop and therefore decreases the acceleration of your head. This then lessen the acceleration of the brain and thefore the force on the brain

But that doesn’t man that a helmet would have helped. If you were travelling at speeds a helmet might have increased the rotational forces on impact making things worse

I think the question of whether countries that insist on helmets see a reduction in head injuries is interesting. I found this worth reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_New_Zealand

squirrelking » Has it or has it not been suggested that cyclists without helets are more likely to be given room by motorists?
I would like to know the basis for this assumption.

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

Thanks for your predictably witty reply aracer, anyway, first hit and I found this:

http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

And in particular, this:

2013 Study by Olivier and Walter:
Walker mistinterpreted his data

Results

The previously observed significant association between passing distance and helmet wearing was not found when dichotomised by the one metre rule. Other factors were found to be significantly associated with close passing including cyclists’ distance to the kerb, vehicle size and city of observation (Salisbury or Bristol, UK). P-values from bootstrap samples indicate the significance of helmet wearing resulted from an overly large sample size.

Conclusions

After re-analysis of Walker’s data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing. The results, however, highlight other more important factors that may inform effective bicycle safety strategies.

Full study text

Thanks for that.

Again, your point is?

Well firstly http://www.helmets.org is (obviously) a helmet advocacy site, so you probably want a few pinches of salt to go with that. Though to their credit they do publish a reply from the original study author:

The full study had a lot of detail which obviously couldn’t be included in a press release, and several other factors as well as helmets were considered. Your point about absolute distances is a good one, so you might be interested in one analysis in particular. I compared the group of overtakers who came closest with the group who left the most room, and you can see their data in Figure 2 in the attached document (you can also see exactly how close drivers came from Figure 1 too). What figure 2 shows is the ratio of particularly close overtakers to generous overtakers in each category – a score over 1 means there are more people passing close than leaving plenty of room. Note that the helmet effect varies with riding position, but leads to almost twice as many people getting particularly close in the 1.25m condition when the helmet was on, which is pretty interesting I think.

Even more interesting though is if you visit this publication of that study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075424
and check out the comments, particularly this one: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=75587
which basically shoots down the re-interpretation and explains why incorrect statistical methods were used in it.

Interestingly if you check out the other published papers by those two authors they do seem awfully keen on helmet compulsion, with conclusions to their papers which ignore important and significant negative issues – I’m not entirely convinced they are totally unbiased.

cynic-al – Member

shedbrewed – Member
speed at which my head hit the road was the same with or without helmet.

Incorrect… [/quote]

Granted I did ignore that the increase of mass due to wearing the helmet would increase the acceleration and resultant force, but given that the helmet mass in relation to the mass of head is a small percentage I considered it negligible enough to write off.

If a driver is observant enough to notice I’m wearing a helmet I’m sure they are capable of not driving into me. I’m more worried about the ones that don’t notice cyclists at all!. Most people I know say the driver said “I didn’t see you” when they’ve had an incident.

Quite happy to carry on wearing my helmet weather or not it’s going to make a difference if a truck ploughs into me at 30mph. It’s been useful enough for more minor incidents and stopped plenty of cuts and sore heads from smaller offs and low branches etc.