Wear that helmet!

[ohHello]

Justin Cyder said:

This business of trying to argue whether a helmet would or wouldn't have helped is spurious to the point of irrelevance. In effect it's trying to prove a negative.

The link I supplied to the teenager who ended up with life changing injuries because he was concerned about his hair do is pretty cut & dried, as is Vipers' tale. As for the evidence argument, I don't believe any well designed peer reviewed study exists, but feel free to use that line to shore up a patently obstinate position. I don't mind in the slightest if you don't want to wear a helmet, it's really neither here nor there to me, but you are going to have to marshal a better line of argument than you've managed so far if you're going to convince me.

It's not cut and dried at all: You have not the first clue whether wearing a helmet would have made any difference at all, and neither do I.

[S10GTA]

ohHello said:

Those sports have a much greater risk of head injury than cycling. Cycling is a low-risk activity.

The risk of head injury when walking is broadly similar to that when cycling - a bit less, but in the same ball park. And because many many more people walk than cycle, pedestrian helmets would undoubtedly save many many more lives than cycling helmets. Yet no one promotes them.

The evidence is clear: cycling helmets do not offer a significant protective effect against head injuries.

FFS, you are talking utter crap. Shirley you would rather have a bit of polystyrene hit the floor first than your head? It's just common sense.

I know full well if my head was about to hit something I'd rather take my chances with something between it and the object than nothing. It might make a difference, it might not but I'll take my chances.

[Birdthom]

ohHello said:

Cycling is a low-risk activity.

If you are just popping to the post office on your step-through, maybe.

I've banged my head more times cycling than I have skiing, canoeing or climbing.

[ohHello]

S10GTA said:

FFS, you are talking utter crap. Shirley you would rather have a bit of polystyrene hit the floor first than your head? It's just common sense.

I know full well if my head was about to hit something I'd rather take my chances with something between it and the object than nothing. It might make a difference, it might not but I'll take my chances.

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.

I have already said that I think there are probably some limited circumstances where a helmet could help, but that the likelihood of such an incident is so vanishingly remote as to be not worth wearing one.

I think that they are probably quite effective in preventing cuts scrapes and road rash, but they are not very effective in preventing serious head injuries - if they were, we would be able to detect it in the data.

[ohHello]

Birdthom said:

If you are just popping to the post office on your step-through, maybe.

I've banged my head more times cycling than I have skiing, canoeing or climbing.

You're quite right that different types of cycling carry different risks, yet that is a nuance utterly lost on the pro-compulsionists who want all cyclists to wear a helmet at all times.

As it happens I do wear a helmet when mountain biking, because I fall off quite a lot, and at the sort of speed where a helmet might help. I do not bother when road cycling, because the risk of a low speed off is extremely remote.

[S10GTA]

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.

I have already said that I think there are probably some limited circumstances where a helmet could help, but that the likelihood of such an incident is so vanishingly remote as to be not worth wearing one.

I think that they are probably quite effective in preventing cuts scrapes and road rash, but they are not very effective in preventing serious head injuries - if they were, we would be able to detect it in the data.

I'm sure people do trip and hit their heads when walking, but they are doing 4mph, not 10-25mph. I'd also suggest a pedestrian will have more reaction time too. I'm pretty sure the increased speed involved in cycling is a logical reason to wear one over walking.

[Justin Cyder]

ohHello said:

It's not cut and dried at all: You have not the first clue whether wearing a helmet would have made any difference at all, and neither do I.

Oh I think it is. But you are a rascal, what with mere facts & reason failing to persuade you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-...

BBC article said:

He did not wear a helmet on the ride because he did not want to mess up his hair.

The question here is, what harm would it have done had he worn one?

[walm]

ohHello said:

I think that they are probably quite effective in preventing cuts scrapes and road rash, but they are not very effective in preventing serious head injuries - if they were, we would be able to detect it in the data.

This is the key though.

As you note, the risk of SERIOUS head injury on a bike is vanishingly small.
But the risk of anything from road rash to a serious concussion/stiches is much higher - surely higher than walking? (Just guessing but if you are cycling at any serious pace not just collecting the paper on your Pashley...!)

So from that perspective it helps.

And to everyone suggesting "it won't help if you are hit by a truck" - I disagree there.
It is HIGHLY likely you will end up on the deck if hit by another vehicle.
(Sure it's curtains if you end up UNDER the truck - but that is very rare.)
So if I know I am going to hit the deck - with some extra momentum from whatever hit me then sure as hell I would like something - however fragile - giving my noggin some extra protection - even if it is just from cuts, scrapes and road rash!

[WinstonWolf]

Helmets, yes. Compulsion, no.

[/End]

[Mr Will]

jimbop1 said:

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

A motorcyclist (even with helmet) has roughly four times the risk of being killed than a cyclist. Poor comparison. (that's if you measure it per mile travelled, if you measure per hour the difference is even greater)

The figures if you are interested:

Type	Fatalities
Motorcycle	88.8
Walking	30.9
Bicycle	24.2
Car	1.9

Figures are deaths per billion kilometres travelled, taken from the 2008 DfT data.

[Mr Will]

S10GTA said:

I'm sure people do trip and hit their heads when walking, but they are doing 4mph, not 10-25mph. I'd also suggest a pedestrian will have more reaction time too. I'm pretty sure the increased speed involved in cycling is a logical reason to wear one over walking.

Unless you crash directly in to something, horizontal speed makes no difference. A ~6ft fall is a ~6ft fall, whether you are standing still or doing 100mph.

(The road rash will be worse in the later case, I agree)

[S10GTA]

Mr Will said:

S10GTA said:

I'm sure people do trip and hit their heads when walking, but they are doing 4mph, not 10-25mph. I'd also suggest a pedestrian will have more reaction time too. I'm pretty sure the increased speed involved in cycling is a logical reason to wear one over walking.

Unless you crash directly in to something, horizontal speed makes no difference. A ~6ft fall is a ~6ft fall, whether you are standing still or doing 100mph.

(The road rash will be worse in the later case, I agree)

If you fall when walking you are likely to hit your head once maybe? If travelling at 15mph (for example) and took a tumble, would your head impact the ground more?

[Mr Will]

S10GTA said:

Mr Will said:

S10GTA said:

I'm sure people do trip and hit their heads when walking, but they are doing 4mph, not 10-25mph. I'd also suggest a pedestrian will have more reaction time too. I'm pretty sure the increased speed involved in cycling is a logical reason to wear one over walking.

Unless you crash directly in to something, horizontal speed makes no difference. A ~6ft fall is a ~6ft fall, whether you are standing still or doing 100mph.

(The road rash will be worse in the later case, I agree)

If you fall when walking you are likely to hit your head once maybe? If travelling at 15mph (for example) and took a tumble, would your head impact the ground more?

There will only be one significant impact in either scenario. Once you've hit the ground the first time the majority of the energy is gone and any extra bumps are very minor by comparison.

The one big exception to this is stairs (or similar) but personally I avoid them on my bike...

[EggsBenedict]

ohHello said:

It's not cut and dried at all: You have not the first clue whether wearing a helmet would have made any difference at all, and neither do I.

Your line of argument is totally familiar to me. It's the same as a US friend of mine has about gun legislation. He argues that there's no reason to legislate to control gun ownership because there's no evidence that it reduces the number of gun fatalities. So he wants to wait until there's been enough kids killed by gun wielding maniacs that they can form a correlation between this and gun legislation before he'll accept. Seems a pretty costly way to go about it.

That said, I'm for freedom of choice - you don't want to wear one, I wouldn't see it legislated for. There's enough nanny state to go around without a law.

[ohHello]

EggsBenedict said:

Your line of argument is totally familiar to me. It's the same as a US friend of mine has about gun legislation. He argues that there's no reason to legislate to control gun ownership because there's no evidence that it reduces the number of gun fatalities. So he wants to wait until there's been enough kids killed by gun wielding maniacs that they can form a correlation between this and gun legislation before he'll accept. Seems a pretty costly way to go about it.

That said, I'm for freedom of choice - you don't want to wear one, I wouldn't see it legislated for. There's enough nanny state to go around without a law.

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.

[S10GTA]

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.

Yeah, because wearing one is soooo much effort?!

[GarryDK]

These helmet wars threads are about a tedious as cars v bikes threads.

[Westy Carl]

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

[yellowjack]

GarryDK said:

These helmet wars threads are about a tedious as cars v bikes threads.

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...

[Soop Dogg]

Mr Will said:

There will only be one significant impact in either scenario. Once you've hit the ground the first time the majority of the energy is gone and any extra bumps are very minor by comparison.

The one big exception to this is stairs (or similar) but personally I avoid them on my bike...

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?