More helmet debate - but this time sensible!

[Pothole]

Birdthom said:

Pothole said:

I don't agree.

In that case, we must fight!

:-)

Bicycle jousting? No helmets allowed.

[heebeegeetee]

I came across this fabulous little film the other day (skip to 1' 20" to avoid the bloke with the beard)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FyWCutqvw

In the UK the mothers would be arrested and the children taken into care. If and when reunited the mothers would be made to transport offspring by SUV only and the children would be forced to be the unhealthiest and unhappiest children in Europe like all good UK children are.

Unfortunately I also came across this shocking little video yesterday, which graphically demonstrates what happens when a pedestrian is struck by a car (on a recent thread about helmets I was told these things don't happen but see for yourself): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vRiuEIbyrQ

As can be seen, the pedestrians head strikes the car, the ped is then projected forward at a speed considerably greater than the speed they were walking at and the pedestrian then forcibly hits the ground, possibly striking the head for a second time.

Why anyone thinks an ordinary cyclist should be forced to wear a helmet before pedestrians god only knows. The only defence is that a cycle helmet is not made to play any part at all in an accident with a vehicle, but it might save a pedestrian when he/she is flung through the air and is going to hit the ground at speed.

[944fan]

Pothole said:

Birdthom said:

Pothole said:

Might have been your skull, you can't possibly say with absolute certainty and this is where this kind of assumption muddies the waters of the debate, imho.

I think he is in quite a good position to judge that, to be fair. This isn't a second form science test.

I don't agree.

Fight!

In all seriousness I have no idea if my skill would have cracked open or not medically speaking, but my perception was that without a helmet I would have suffered more injury. Therefore my point was that based on my previous experience I always wear one. It may have helped that day, it may have made no difference. It doesn't impact me to wear one and any additional protection it may offer is good.

My wife knew someone once who never wore a seat belt. Their reason was because they had an accident in Africa or some place and hit a large animal (might have been an Elephant). The only survived because they had no seat belt on and was thrown clear of the car (convertible) which then flipped and caught fire.

[mikee boy]

I don't understand the frequently-used argument: "A helmet won't save me from an impact with a speeding car, so I don't wear one".

Helmets are designed to protect the head against impact at relatively low speeds, but they often cope with higher speed impacts. They are not designed to protect you against a car hitting you at 70mph, or protect against you hitting a tree while riding downhill at 60mph, or protect you when you get crushed by a lorry.

Helmets reduce the risk of cycling by reducing the risk of head injuries from a range of sources, but it can't make cycling totally safe. Safer, rather than safe.

For the same reason I wear gloves and glasses while riding. Safer, rather than safe.

[scubadude]

The biggest problem caused by the so called debate (I see no debate) is that it brings the worst kind of Anti-Helmet Nazi out in some people who get all militant and outraged with statements like- I will Never wear a Helmet, Helmets can't save me from being crushed by a truck and Helmet Wearing kills kittens...

Irrespective of safety the best reason IMVHO to wear a helmet is it instantly marks you out as a cyclist.
From a drivers seat looking over other cars at a junction or in the mirror a person with a polystyrene mushroom on their head is worth keeping an eye on, chances are you can't see what they are even riding.

[heebeegeetee]

mikee boy said:

Helmets reduce the risk of cycling

There's just about no evidence of that. There is no/little/virtually none (take your pic ) evidence to back that statement up. In regions where helmet wearing has either been made compulsory or has greatly increased in use (such as the UK) there have been no discernible differences in hospital admissions, in fact i do believe that stats show that risk for cyclists has gone up in the Uk despite a very measurable increase in helmet wearing.

scubadude said:

The biggest problem caused by the so called debate (I see no debate) is that it brings the worst kind of Anti-Helmet Nazi out in some people who get all militant and outraged with statements like- I will Never wear a Helmet, Helmets can't save me from being crushed by a truck and Helmet Wearing kills kittens...

Irrespective of safety the best reason IMVHO to wear a helmet is it instantly marks you out as a cyclist.
From a drivers seat looking over other cars at a junction or in the mirror a person with a polystyrene mushroom on their head is worth keeping an eye on, chances are you can't see what they are even riding.

In the last lengthy thread we had on this subject the compulsory helmet nazis continually accused the anti-complusion (or pro-freedom pro-evidence, take your pick ) supporters of being anti-helmet.

Nobody AFAIAA is anti-helmet, certainly not I who wore one when I cycled. I'm against compulsion simply because there is virtually no evidence to support compulsion for any one group - all road users, indeed all people living are at risk from head injury so there is no need to pick one group of people out.

In the last lengthy thread the pro-compulsion types were unable to produce any evidence to support their claims (because there is so very little) and so told us pro-choice peeps that evidence should be ignored and only opinion and anecdote should count.

[P-Jay]

bigdom said:

If the efficacy of the helmet is still in question, all they need to do is make compulsory for all helmets to perform to a minimum standard, just like all motorbike helmets have to do.

They do, there's a very good level of protection they have to offer, they're actually a bit cleverer than they might seem at first.

I don't believe in making them compulsory, but I'd like people to think about themselves and their loved ones when they make the decision.

I hear a lot of people say things like "if I get hit at 70mph by a car will it save me, no, so why bother" chances are if you're hit by a car doing 70 you're going to be going through the pearly gates before you've even said "whaaaat th....."
But consider this, if you were asked to take the front line in Afghanistan (I know there's no actual front line but bear with me) and you were issued with a flack jacket and helmet, would you wear it? If you're hit by shrapnel or a ricochet you might just walk away and if you're hit by a direct hit they might just save your life - but they're not 100% proof, nothing is.

[donfisher]

heebeegeetee said:

In the last lengthy thread we had on this subject the compulsory helmet nazis continually accused the anti-complusion (or pro-freedom pro-evidence, take your pick ) supporters of being anti-helmet.

Agreed, I don’t think any helmet debate ever ends sensibly. There’s always someone rabidly suggesting they should be a legal requirement, someone saying they do more harm than good, someone pointing out how many times they’ve fallen off their bike and how life saving their helmet had been, someone wailing and fretting and saying “Think of the children you selfish helmet avoiding fool” – it just goes on and on.

To add to the pointlessness of the never ending debate, I feel like we’ve got it right. Good inexpensive helmets are available for whoever wants them. Nipping down the road without one isn’t breaking the law and it’s up to you what you do. The public bicycling sports all use them and most parents I know will make their kids wear them until they get old enough to know better, and at that point I see most older children will carry on wearing them. Unless something redically new develops in the world of cycling helmets nothing more really needs to be said about it.

[bigdom]

TKF said:

bigdom said:

all they need to do is make compulsory for all helmets to perform to a minimum standard

They do

According to cyclehelmet.org

There is no mandatory, third-party testing of helmets, and independent surveys have shown that many of the helmets on sale do not meet the standards to which they are accredited. Very few meet the more demanding standards.

Unlike that of motorbike helmets - http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

[jshell]

Meh. I don't care if anyone else wears one or not, I shall, regardless. I'm just getting over the effects of a bad concussion from landing on my head in a remote Norwegian forest after going over the bars. I think the helmet helped. If not, doesn't matter, I'll still wear one.

Do what you want.

[P-Jay]

bigdom said:

TKF said:

bigdom said:

all they need to do is make compulsory for all helmets to perform to a minimum standard

They do

According to cyclehelmet.org

There is no mandatory, third-party testing of helmets, and independent surveys have shown that many of the helmets on sale do not meet the standards to which they are accredited. Very few meet the more demanding standards.

Unlike that of motorbike helmets - http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

They have to adhere to European standard EN1078, the British equivalent is the imaginatively named BS EN1078, there are a few changes for kids helmets, not to allow them to be less tough, but to avoid strangulation.

Most mid-high end MTB helmets offer more protection that that and will cover more of the skull, especially around the back as it's most likely to encounter odd shaped stuff to hit.

Edited by P-Jay on Wednesday 10th July 14:53

[mikee boy]

heebeegeetee said:

mikee boy said:

Helmets reduce the risk of cycling

There's just about no evidence of that. There is no/little/virtually none (take your pic ) evidence to back that statement up. In regions where helmet wearing has either been made compulsory or has greatly increased in use (such as the UK) there have been no discernible differences in hospital admissions, in fact i do believe that stats show that risk for cyclists has gone up in the Uk despite a very measurable increase in helmet wearing.

You are comparing hospital admissions (an actual number) to 'risks' (not an actual number). You also ignore the increase in cycling participation.

In what way would a helmet not reduce the risk of a head injury associated with falling from a bike at, say, 15mph?

[heebeegeetee]

donfisher said:

Agreed, I don’t think any helmet debate ever ends sensibly. There’s always someone rabidly suggesting they should be a legal requirement, someone saying they do more harm than good, someone pointing out how many times they’ve fallen off their bike and how life saving their helmet had been, someone wailing and fretting and saying “Think of the children you selfish helmet avoiding fool” – it just goes on and on.

To add to the pointlessness of the never ending debate, I feel like we’ve got it right. Good inexpensive helmets are available for whoever wants them. Nipping down the road without one isn’t breaking the law and it’s up to you what you do. The public bicycling sports all use them and most parents I know will make their kids wear them until they get old enough to know better, and at that point I see most older children will carry on wearing them. Unless something redically new develops in the world of cycling helmets nothing more really needs to be said about it.

100% agreed. There is absolutely no need for compulsion, there is very strong evidence against it (and hard evidence at that), but I think the situ we have here in the UK re helmets is as ideal as we could wish for, imo.

The only thing I'd add is that I do agree that the constant discussion on helmets promotes the notion that cycling is dangerous, which statistically it isn't, the fear of danger reduces the numbers of cyclists which in turn increases the danger to those who do.

[Hugo a Gogo]

yeah, I would maybe wear one if I was doing some off-road mountain cycling in a remote Norwegian forest

similarly, I'd maybe wear a helmet in a car when doing a track day, or wear a helmet if I was on foot in a busy building site


btw, 700,000 people with head injuries go to hospital in the UK every year - how many could be saved if everyone wore helmets all the time?

surely people won't just stop walking or using cars just because they have to wear a helmet, everyone will get used to it

[P-Jay]

Hugo a Gogo said:

yeah, I would maybe wear one if I was doing some off-road mountain cycling in a remote Norwegian forest

similarly, I'd maybe wear a helmet in a car when doing a track day, or wear a helmet if I was on foot in a busy building site


btw, 700,000 people with head injuries go to hospital in the UK every year - how many could be saved if everyone wore helmets all the time?

surely people won't just stop walking or using cars just because they have to wear a helmet, everyone will get used to it

Do you think that number would be higher, lower or the same if zero cyclists wore helmets, or if all cyclists wore helmets?

[Hugo a Gogo]

could go either way

how about if all pedestrians wore helmets? or all car users?

[mikee boy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

could go either way

I what way could compulsory helmets increase the number of hospital admissions due to head injuries?

[Birdthom]

Pothole said:

Bicycle jousting? No helmets allowed.

No, running at each other full pelt and banging heads together, first with helmets and then without.

[I did this with my brother a few years ago after one too many whiskies, but that's probably best left for another thread]

[Getragdogleg]

My neighbour told me off for not ever wearing a helmet, I told her I did not feel it offers any extra safety to me because in my opinion they are little more than puffs of polystyrene that have been cleverly marketed.

[Mr Will]

mikee boy said:

I what way could compulsory helmets increase the number of hospital admissions due to head injuries?

If a compulsory helmet law increase the risk of an accident by more than a helmet provides protection against the consequences. It's not rocket surgery.