Wear that helmet!

[Mr Will]

Soop Dogg said:

Except that in the case of cycling, you have significantly more horizontal movement going on. As you travel faster, you'll go further if you should fall off as you have more momentum. (until something other than friction stops you)

Whilst sliding along the ground, you're more likely (I should imagine many more times more likely than if you were walking) to come into contact with something vertical. Like those pesky 3 inch high walls we know as 'kerbs'.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but whilst road cycling, I've seen these kerbs fairly often. In fact, one or two of the roads I cycle on are lined with these things on both sides.

I've been wondering if one of these things might provide a site for a second 'significant impact' to occur after the initial fall? Seeing as how they're reasonably common and all?

I see them fairly often too, but usually beside me. If you are regularly seeing them directly in front of you, then I respectfully suggest you are doing it wrong...

Now when walking around the city, I regularly encounter these things called stairs. They are often in sets ten or more feet high, with lots of little 90 degree edges all the way down. I dread to think what would happen if you stumbled at the top of one, you could bounce all the way to the bottom.

[EggsBenedict]

yellowjack said:

Good to see we're all getting into the spirit of the WWI Centenary commemorations, though.

Two sides, with equally entrenched views, fighting for years without a break and each making virtually no ground over the other...


I know the law (helmets, happily, are NOT compulsory) and I do what I feel is right for me. Sometimes (mostly) that means wearing a lid, and occasionally it means I don't bother. My son has just started college. He's a bright lad, studying Chemistry, Biology, Geography and Environmental Studies. Up until he turned 16 I insisted he wear a helmet. His safety was my responsibility. Since then, I've encouraged him to wear one, and mostly he did, but now that he's commuting to college every day, the helmet becomes an encumbrance as soon as he's off the bike. Leaving it on the bike is a non-starter, because of theft and damage/interference. Carting it about all day at college is a pain too, because he's already weighed down with a bag full of books and folders. He's mature enough to have assessed the risk for himself, and so he rides without one, just like his mother commutes without a helmet.

Both sides of this argument would do well to 'live, and let live' - nobody is trying to force you to wear a helmet (yet, anyways) if you don't want to, and there aren't packs of baying anti-helmet activists ambushing those who choose to wear one on street corners, cutting their straps. There are far more important issues to solve with regard to cycling for us to waste any more bandwidth on an endless back-and-forth argument which doesn't feel like it's ever going to produce a clear cut victory for either side...

This.

[anonymous-user]

ohHello said:

I just wish people could understand that it isn't a decision I have taken lightly. I have examined the evidence, and decided that the minuscule benefit a helmet offers isn't worth the effort of wearing one. I find cycling much more pleasant without one, so I don't wear one.

I'm open to arguments, when backed up by proper evidence, so if I found persuasive evidence that helmets were a significant benefit I would wear one.

No you wouldnt, I'm not being belligerent but you wont wear one again and your mind has been made up. No research will turn you back into a cyle helmet wearer. Every shred of evidence that supports their use will be dismissed as anecdotal, irrelvant, incidental, biased or unsubstantiated..... but try these for starters...

http://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-content/upload...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24686160
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24365521
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169296
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377086
and of course http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC388833...

The problem with helmet research is the sheer number of variables that are invovled in each accident which may have a determining effect on the cyclists, helmeted or not. This makes an accident where someone who was wearing one and still suffered fatal injuries difficult to compare with someone who wasnt wearing one, was also involved in a simiar accident but who surviuved. As an example, the following will all be in some way a factor in an accident and affect the chances of survival; type of bike, cyclists speed at the time of impact, experience of cyclist, time of day, weight of traffic, road surface (assuming its the road the cyclist lands on), point of impact, speed of impact, area of body which took the impact, cyclists health and fitness, type of helmet and helmet fit.

And what Yellowjack said, the biggest issue regarding cyclists safety by far is road furniture and the sheer numbner of irrelevant, confusing and unnecessary signs, bollards, cycle lanes and traffic calming measures on the roads today.

[ohHello]

Westy Carl said:

Please tell me this is a wind up

Not at all. Perhaps you can explain to me why you wish to prevent cycling head injuries but not pedestrian ones?

[Soop Dogg]

Mr Will said:

I see them fairly often too, but usually beside me. If you are regularly seeing them directly in front of you, then I respectfully suggest you are doing it wrong...

You can suggest whatever you like.

However, every time I pass a nearside junction, there is a curved kerb going from perpendicular to parallel to my direction of travel. I've actually seen a cyclist being cleaned off the road after someone knocked him off when they turned into a side street and clipped his back wheel, sending him spinning into the kerb at the edge of the side street. I don't think he hit his head, but his limbs weren't pointing in the normal directions.

But then, perhaps he was 'doing it wrong', silly chap.

When everything's going swimmingly, the world will fit your panacea. However, things do go wrong and when hit by a motor vehicle, who knows what direction you'll end up travelling?

[Justin Cyder]

ohHello said:

Not at all. Perhaps you can explain to me why you wish to prevent cycling head injuries but not pedestrian ones?

Ah, the loaded question logical fallacy. It's come to this; How long have you been beating your wife?

[ohHello]

pablo said:

No you wouldnt, I'm not being belligerent but you wont wear one again and your mind has been made up. No research will turn you back into a cyle helmet wearer. Every shred of evidence that supports their use will be dismissed as anecdotal, irrelvant, incidental, biased or unsubstantiated..... but try these for starters...

Well you're talking nonsense, as already stated I do wear a helmet when mountain biking. You don't know me, so don't try and second guess what my motivations or openness to evidence is. It's the evidence that convinced me that wearing a helmet was unnecessary for normal cycling - I'm not a zealot.

I will look at those, but I do keep abreast of the evidence, and the most recent meta-review showed no overall detectable benefit to helmet wearing.

pablo said:

http://www.medicineofcycling.com/wp-content/upload...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24686160
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24365521
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24169296
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23377086
and of course http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC388833...

The problem with helmet research is the sheer number of variables that are invovled in each accident which may have a determining effect on the cyclists, helmeted or not. This makes an accident where someone who was wearing one and still suffered fatal injuries difficult to compare with someone who wasnt wearing one, was also involved in a simiar accident but who surviuved. As an example, the following will all be in some way a factor in an accident and affect the chances of survival; type of bike, cyclists speed at the time of impact, experience of cyclist, time of day, weight of traffic, road surface (assuming its the road the cyclist lands on), point of impact, speed of impact, area of body which took the impact, cyclists health and fitness, type of helmet and helmet fit.

I agree that it's pointless comparing individual incidents, which is why it's rather laughable that people are find of posting "OMG, this helmet totally saved my life" when they can't possibly know that. The variables should smooth themselves out with a population study, and that is where we can see that there is no detectable benefit overall.

Maybe someone could explain how in places where a helmet law has been brought in, like Australia, has seen:
-A large increase in the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets
-A large decrease in the number people cycling
-No decrease in the proportion of head injuries sustained by cyclists

I mean, if helmets were a significant factor in risk of head injuries, we would expect to see a drop in the proportion of cyclists getting head injuries. We do not.

pablo said:

And what Yellowjack said, the biggest issue regarding cyclists safety by far is road furniture and the sheer numbner of irrelevant, confusing and unnecessary signs, bollards, cycle lanes and traffic calming measures on the roads today.

Well I'd say the biggest issue is people not driving with sufficient care around cyclists.

[ohHello]

Justin Cyder said:

Ah, the loaded question logical fallacy. It's come to this; How long have you been beating your wife?

How is it a loaded question to point out that pedestrians are also at risk of head injuries (and absolute numbers are far higher than cyclists) and wonder why people suggest cycling helmets and not pedestrian ones?

There is a logical fallacy there, but it isn't mine.

[jimbop1]

swerni said:

jimbop1 said:

Do all you helmet haters think motorcyclists should not have to wear helmets?

Do you think they should be forced to wear kevlar panels, proper trousers, boots and gloves?
I'm sure you don't but the amount you see in the summer in shorts teeshirts and trainers is scary.

I think not wearing the protective clothing would be idiotic.

[Justin Cyder]

ohHello said:

How is it a loaded question to point out that pedestrians are also at risk of head injuries (and absolute numbers are far higher than cyclists) and wonder why people suggest cycling helmets and not pedestrian ones?

There is a logical fallacy there, but it isn't mine.

That's not what you said though is it? You asked why another correspondent was not in favour of saving pedestrians. That is a loaded question, forcing them to defend a false premise as no one would ever be in favour of injuring pedestrians. A reminder:

ohHello said:

Not at all. Perhaps you can explain to me why you wish to prevent cycling head injuries but not pedestrian ones?

Therefore, it's an attempt to derail the debate by making a presumption of guilt on the other party, compelling them to defend a position they don't support. It's not enough to simply deny what all can see, but if you insist, as you have done, then sadly, your contribution is discredited.

[Vipers]

OTBC said:

Your helmet failed, catastrophically. Cycle helmets fail catastrophically, not gradually, in high impact crashes- the forces are so great that a helmet will compress and break in around 1/1000th of a second. The absorption of the initial forces during this very short period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious injury or death.

A helmet that worked properly in an accident would have a permanent depression at the point of impact, but would still be in one piece.

Your helmet failed.

So I fall 6 ft 4 inches, smash the side of my head on hard Tarmac, and didn't even get a bruise, and you say it failed, don't think so.

[Mr Will]

Soop Dogg said:

Mr Will said:

I see them fairly often too, but usually beside me. If you are regularly seeing them directly in front of you, then I respectfully suggest you are doing it wrong...

You can suggest whatever you like.

However, every time I pass a nearside junction, there is a curved kerb going from perpendicular to parallel to my direction of travel. I've actually seen a cyclist being cleaned off the road after someone knocked him off when they turned into a side street and clipped his back wheel, sending him spinning into the kerb at the edge of the side street. I don't think he hit his head, but his limbs weren't pointing in the normal directions.

But then, perhaps he was 'doing it wrong', silly chap.

When everything's going swimmingly, the world will fit your panacea. However, things do go wrong and when hit by a motor vehicle, who knows what direction you'll end up travelling?

I'm not saying it's impossible to hit your head on a kerb, just extremely unlikely. Even if helmets provided 100% protection in these cases, 100% of almost zero is still almost zero.

Now on to the serious matters - Are you going to wear your helmet when going up or down stairs? It's a far more risky activity than cycling. What about crossing the road? That brings you in to close proximity to both motor vehicles and those terrible kerbs...

[WinstonWolf]

Mr Will said:

Soop Dogg said:

Mr Will said:

I see them fairly often too, but usually beside me. If you are regularly seeing them directly in front of you, then I respectfully suggest you are doing it wrong...

You can suggest whatever you like.

However, every time I pass a nearside junction, there is a curved kerb going from perpendicular to parallel to my direction of travel. I've actually seen a cyclist being cleaned off the road after someone knocked him off when they turned into a side street and clipped his back wheel, sending him spinning into the kerb at the edge of the side street. I don't think he hit his head, but his limbs weren't pointing in the normal directions.

But then, perhaps he was 'doing it wrong', silly chap.

When everything's going swimmingly, the world will fit your panacea. However, things do go wrong and when hit by a motor vehicle, who knows what direction you'll end up travelling?

I'm not saying it's impossible to hit your head on a kerb, just extremely unlikely. Even if helmets provided 100% protection in these cases, 100% of almost zero is still almost zero.

Now on to the serious matters - Are you going to wear your helmet when going up or down stairs? It's a far more risky activity than cycling. What about crossing the road? That brings you in to close proximity to both motor vehicles and those terrible kerbs...

I knew someone who died falling down the stairs She got up in the night for a pee, tripped and broker her neck at the bottom. Was found dead the next day...

[ohHello]

Justin Cyder said:

Therefore, it's an attempt to derail the debate by making a presumption of guilt on the other party, compelling them to defend a position they don't support. It's not enough to simply deny what all can see, but if you insist, as you have done, then sadly, your contribution is discredited.

I see your point, but I think it would help to read my post in the context of what I was replying to:

Westy Carl said:

ohHello said:

So why don't you wear one when walking then? People trip and hit their heads a lot.

There is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that does not also apply to pedestrian helmets.

Please tell me this is a wind up

ohHello said:

Not at all. Perhaps you can explain to me why you wish to prevent cycling head injuries but not pedestrian ones?

I had made the quite valid point that if you are in favour of cyclist helmets you ought, to be logically consistent, to also be in favour of pedestrian helmets.

That was considered so ludicrous as to be a wind-up, but it's a fair point.

So yes, I possibly resorted to a bit of hyperbole, but I think it's fascinating that some people are more concerned about the relatively few cyclist head injuries than the far more numerous pedestrian head injuries.

[WinstonWolf]

jimbop1 said:

swerni said:

jimbop1 said:

Do all you helmet haters think motorcyclists should not have to wear helmets?

Do you think they should be forced to wear kevlar panels, proper trousers, boots and gloves?
I'm sure you don't but the amount you see in the summer in shorts teeshirts and trainers is scary.

I think not wearing the protective clothing would be idiotic.

Somewhat ironically last time I fell off a pushbike it was my knees, elbow and butt that took the brunt of the impact. Head was just fine

I've still not found out how I got massive gravel rash on my upper thighs without damaging my shorts

[Westy Carl]

ohHello said:

Not at all. Perhaps you can explain to me why you wish to prevent cycling head injuries but not pedestrian ones?

Don't twist the argument it with a assumptive question

Your comment I was responding to was;

ohHello said:

There is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that does not also apply to pedestrian helmets.

Try:
Cycling is approx 5 x faster than walking (and potentially alot more), therefore impact force is potentially 5 x higher.
Cycling is more risky due to being less natural and practised than walking and being astride a bike (not as easy to save yourself)

I guess this is why when kids learn to walk nobody bothers with helmets, but when they start to ride most people do put helmets on them.

[jimbop1]

WinstonWolf said:

Somewhat ironically last time I fell off a pushbike it was my knees, elbow and butt that took the brunt of the impact. Head was just fine

I've still not found out how I got massive gravel rash on my upper thighs without damaging my shorts

Are you sure you didn't damage your head??

If people don't want to wear a helmet that's fine..However I really don't understand why people say a helmet won't protect them.

[WinstonWolf]

jimbop1 said:

WinstonWolf said:

Somewhat ironically last time I fell off a pushbike it was my knees, elbow and butt that took the brunt of the impact. Head was just fine

I've still not found out how I got massive gravel rash on my upper thighs without damaging my shorts

Are you sure you didn't damage your head??

If people don't want to wear a helmet that's fine..However I really don't understand why people say a helmet won't protect them.

Each to their own, I've fallen off loads of motorbikes without a helmet, never did any damage whatsoever. The one time I had a big crash I was wearing an open face and managed to smash my cheekbone right up (face first into a car). Ironically the helmet helped as I hit the back of my head when I landed unconscious in the road.

I don't think a cycle helmet offers much protection compared to a motorbike one, but I mostly wear one these days because my bones break a lot easier than when I was young

[walm]

Westy Carl said:

Try:
Cycling is approx 5 x faster than walking (and potentially alot more), therefore impact force is potentially 5 x higher.

I am a bit rusty but I think it's 25x higher force.
F=ma and the a is proportional to the change in kinetic energy which is 1/2mv^2 so square the speed delta.

Either way, speed matters - ha!

[Mr Will]

Westy Carl said:

ohHello said:

There is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that does not also apply to pedestrian helmets.

Try:
Cycling is approx 5 x faster than walking (and potentially alot more), therefore impact force is potentially 5 x higher.
Cycling is more risky due to being less natural and practised than walking and being astride a bike (not as easy to save yourself)

I guess this is why when kids learn to walk nobody bothers with helmets, but when they start to ride most people do put helmets on them.

Okay, but if that's the case why is a pedestrian 28% more likely to die than a cyclist? That's the official DfT figure by the way.