Idiot CTC chap on the news this morning.
Discussion
What a total moron. He sat there and basically said that cycle helmets were a bad thing because they put people off cycling. The brain surgeon who was sat next to him kept pointing out that they actually save lives and reduce the likelihood of brain injury. His view was that it was worth the increased head injury rate if it got more people cycling 
Jimbo. said:
They're not compulsory anyway.
Bloody well should be, IMO.
I don't think they should be compulsory at all. Personally, I'm a bit bored of the state telling me how and when I should do most things. I do think that everything should be done to promote the use of helmets for kids, but as a 30something adult, I can make my own decision. (All IMO)Bloody well should be, IMO.
Edited by Jimbo. on Thursday 10th July 10:09
Evidence on the public health benefits is mixed (reduced cycling leading to reduced health benefits, more risk taking from cyclists, less cautious drivers versus foam taking some of the impact). Here's some counter arguments from "Robins, RL. Bicycle helmet legislation: Can we reach a consensus? (2007) Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 86-93"
There are papers out their disputing the efficacy of helmets to make a difference to public health:
"Curnow (2005) argued that fear of death or chronic disability (which he defined as brain injuries of severity AIS4-6) was the main motive for wearing helmets. However, the majority of head injuries treated in emergency departments (73% of the 757 head injuries in the study of 3390 injured cyclists by Thompson et al., 1996) did not involve brain injury. Brain injuries >AIS2 comprised only 8% of head injuries (Thompson et al., 1996). The Cochrane review (Thompson et al., 2003) calculated odds for brain injury >AIS2 from at most 90 such injuries in two studies (4.2% and 1.8% of injuries in Thompson et al., 1989 and Thompson et al., 1996, respectively). The small numbers and potential problems of confounding noted above suggest that the conclusions concerning brain injury >AIS2 should be treated with caution."
Case-control studies have methodological problems eg:
"Evidence suggests that cyclists who choose to wear helmets may differ substantially from those who do not. Helmet wearers are more likely to ride in parks, playgrounds or bicycle paths than city streets (DiGuisseppi et al., 1989), obey traffic laws (Farris et al., 1997 C. Farris, D.W. Spaite, E.A. Criss, T.D. Valenzuela and H.W. Meislin, Observational evaluation of compliance with traffic regulations among helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists, Ann. Emerg. Med. 29 (1997) (5), pp. 625–629. Article | PDF (418 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)Farris et al., 1997), wear fluorescent clothing and use lights at night (McGuire and Smith, 2000). These factors affect both the risk of colliding with motor vehicles, and impact speed when collisions occur. The former was evident in the data of Thompson et al. (1996) in that non-helmeted cyclists collided with motor vehicles 41% more frequently than helmet wearers (OR = 1.50, P < 0.0001). The latter was demonstrated by a study of bike/motor vehicle collisions. The authors (Spaite et al., 1991) concluded: “This implies that non-users of helmets tend to be in higher impact crashes than helmet users, since the injuries suffered in body areas other than the head also tend to be much more severe”.
And helmet tests demonstrate some harms:
"Corner et al. (1987) measured rotational accelerations when dummies wearing bicycle helmets went over the handlebars at 45 km/h and hit a smooth surface. Compared with a tolerance of 1800 rad s−2 for concussion and 4500 rad s−2 for onset of vein rupture, measurements (averaging 58,000 rad s−2) were described as “enormous”. No comparable results were reported for non-helmeted dummies, but other experiments showed that wearing bike helmets increased rotational accelerations (Corner et al., 1987).
The authors conclude
"All costs and benefits need to be considered, including the cost of reduced cycling, reduced enjoyment of cycling, reduced safety in numbers, and the ability of helmets to protect against minor and serious brain injuries. These need to be compared to the cost of other road safety initiatives to reduce the incidence of bike/motor vehicle collisions that cause a majority of >AIS2 brain injuries."
Most of the posts I see advocating compulsory helmet use seem based on "helmet saved me in this situation experiences" - which is poor evidence - requires experimental and control conditions, or the the common sense view that "it's gotta help" ie ignoring other potential effects - well, even if that was sensible, shouldn't pedestrians and car drivers should wear helmets then too? I'd wager that peds get more head injuries per year falling over than cyclists.
For what it's worth, I wear a helmet, as does my wife and kid. It makes me feel safer. I once thought the fact that I came away from a pretty horrendous MTB crash with "only" 6 months memory loss justified this, but now I think it's not possible to say whether I would have had more or less serious injuries either way. Indeed, I've walked away from a 10 step gap to head-pavement interface without a helmet with no ill effects (when dicking around on someone elses BMX). I concluded from that that the skull does its job pretty well
Quite honestly, the pro-legislation argument seems very un-PH to me. What next, compulsory thudguards?
Won't somebody please think of the children?
There are papers out their disputing the efficacy of helmets to make a difference to public health:
"Curnow (2005) argued that fear of death or chronic disability (which he defined as brain injuries of severity AIS4-6) was the main motive for wearing helmets. However, the majority of head injuries treated in emergency departments (73% of the 757 head injuries in the study of 3390 injured cyclists by Thompson et al., 1996) did not involve brain injury. Brain injuries >AIS2 comprised only 8% of head injuries (Thompson et al., 1996). The Cochrane review (Thompson et al., 2003) calculated odds for brain injury >AIS2 from at most 90 such injuries in two studies (4.2% and 1.8% of injuries in Thompson et al., 1989 and Thompson et al., 1996, respectively). The small numbers and potential problems of confounding noted above suggest that the conclusions concerning brain injury >AIS2 should be treated with caution."
Case-control studies have methodological problems eg:
"Evidence suggests that cyclists who choose to wear helmets may differ substantially from those who do not. Helmet wearers are more likely to ride in parks, playgrounds or bicycle paths than city streets (DiGuisseppi et al., 1989), obey traffic laws (Farris et al., 1997 C. Farris, D.W. Spaite, E.A. Criss, T.D. Valenzuela and H.W. Meislin, Observational evaluation of compliance with traffic regulations among helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists, Ann. Emerg. Med. 29 (1997) (5), pp. 625–629. Article | PDF (418 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)Farris et al., 1997), wear fluorescent clothing and use lights at night (McGuire and Smith, 2000). These factors affect both the risk of colliding with motor vehicles, and impact speed when collisions occur. The former was evident in the data of Thompson et al. (1996) in that non-helmeted cyclists collided with motor vehicles 41% more frequently than helmet wearers (OR = 1.50, P < 0.0001). The latter was demonstrated by a study of bike/motor vehicle collisions. The authors (Spaite et al., 1991) concluded: “This implies that non-users of helmets tend to be in higher impact crashes than helmet users, since the injuries suffered in body areas other than the head also tend to be much more severe”.
And helmet tests demonstrate some harms:
"Corner et al. (1987) measured rotational accelerations when dummies wearing bicycle helmets went over the handlebars at 45 km/h and hit a smooth surface. Compared with a tolerance of 1800 rad s−2 for concussion and 4500 rad s−2 for onset of vein rupture, measurements (averaging 58,000 rad s−2) were described as “enormous”. No comparable results were reported for non-helmeted dummies, but other experiments showed that wearing bike helmets increased rotational accelerations (Corner et al., 1987).
The authors conclude
"All costs and benefits need to be considered, including the cost of reduced cycling, reduced enjoyment of cycling, reduced safety in numbers, and the ability of helmets to protect against minor and serious brain injuries. These need to be compared to the cost of other road safety initiatives to reduce the incidence of bike/motor vehicle collisions that cause a majority of >AIS2 brain injuries."
Most of the posts I see advocating compulsory helmet use seem based on "helmet saved me in this situation experiences" - which is poor evidence - requires experimental and control conditions, or the the common sense view that "it's gotta help" ie ignoring other potential effects - well, even if that was sensible, shouldn't pedestrians and car drivers should wear helmets then too? I'd wager that peds get more head injuries per year falling over than cyclists.
For what it's worth, I wear a helmet, as does my wife and kid. It makes me feel safer. I once thought the fact that I came away from a pretty horrendous MTB crash with "only" 6 months memory loss justified this, but now I think it's not possible to say whether I would have had more or less serious injuries either way. Indeed, I've walked away from a 10 step gap to head-pavement interface without a helmet with no ill effects (when dicking around on someone elses BMX). I concluded from that that the skull does its job pretty well
Quite honestly, the pro-legislation argument seems very un-PH to me. What next, compulsory thudguards?
Won't somebody please think of the children?
I never wore them for BMXing, and I don't wear the bloody things on my road bike, it's not the fact you don't look cool, frankly I will never look cool, it's the fact your head gets sweaty, it feels like someone has sat a hollowed out tortoise on your bonce, and the chin strap gets on my nerves.
I would however wear one for mountain biking as the chances of coming off and hitting a rock are substantially higher.
I would however wear one for mountain biking as the chances of coming off and hitting a rock are substantially higher.
Jimbo. said:
They're not compulsory anyway.
Bloody well should be, IMO.
I think they should most certainly be highly recommended, but I don't want to be open to prosecution for not wearing one every time I ride my bike.Bloody well should be, IMO.
Surely I'm not the only one to remove helmet occasionally on really tough climbs when the weather is hot, or just to ride along the road to the shop (aka pub)
I'm generally pro-helmet, but strongly anti-compulsion. I shouldn't be forced to wear one when I'm nipping down to the shops on quiet roads, and I wouldn't want to force anyone else to either. By the same logic, if I was commuting and hit by a car, my chances of survival (or escaping serious injury) would be drastically improved if I was in full DH kit - full-face helmet, armour, back protector, etc. However, on the risk/hassle scale that would be ridiculous.
Countries with the best records for cyclist safety (Denmark, Netherlands, etc) are also those with among the lowest levels of helmet use. Studies and my own experience also show a difference in driver attitudes - the non-helmeted are viewed as more vulnerable and given more room.
Countries with the best records for cyclist safety (Denmark, Netherlands, etc) are also those with among the lowest levels of helmet use. Studies and my own experience also show a difference in driver attitudes - the non-helmeted are viewed as more vulnerable and given more room.
wildoliver said:
I never wore them for BMXing, and I don't wear the bloody things on my road bike, it's not the fact you don't look cool, frankly I will never look cool, it's the fact your head gets sweaty, it feels like someone has sat a hollowed out tortoise on your bonce, and the chin strap gets on my nerves.
I would however wear one for mountain biking as the chances of coming off and hitting a rock are substantially higher.
This is what i thought having used an old helmet for 3+ years - now use a specialized 2D or something like that and it is almost as if you arent wearing a helmet... very very impressed it is super light and very well ventilated.I would however wear one for mountain biking as the chances of coming off and hitting a rock are substantially higher.
As per many of the other posters i am anti compulsion - far too many rules already.
mat205125 said:
Jimbo. said:
They're not compulsory anyway.
Bloody well should be, IMO.
I think they should most certainly be highly recommended, but I don't want to be open to prosecution for not wearing one every time I ride my bike.Bloody well should be, IMO.
Surely I'm not the only one to remove helmet occasionally on really tough climbs when the weather is hot, or just to ride along the road to the shop (aka pub)
there is also the other opinion that motorists give you more room when not wearing a helmet which I find to be true.The CTC are not anti helmet wearing just against them being compulsory, as the above posted stats refer many cyclists die more from internal injuries than brain injuries and most helmets are really only good for low speed impacts.
When I do choose to wear one it is not because I believe I will be better off medically but my family would have a lesser battle with an insurance company looking for a way out
What I take away from that kind of scientific blurb is:
Edited to add: As per CAB's post above, if you're finding your helmet too hot, open your wallet & get a better one.
- Those who currently choose to wear helmets are generally safer cyclists anyway and are therefore less likely to be involved in an accident.
- The morons who ride about on clapped-out rusty bikes with no helmets are the sort who will get themselves squashed by a bus no matter whether they are forced to wear a helmet or not.
Edited to add: As per CAB's post above, if you're finding your helmet too hot, open your wallet & get a better one.
Edited by pdV6 on Thursday 10th July 11:46
Been off too many times to not even consider not wearing one. Either through my fault or cars, rabbits, friends...
For those who say I get too hot, I have the new Giro Ionos for the roady. It is unbelievably good. Sure it's pricey but they do an amazing replacement policy, if you do fall off and hit your head....which I did during the winter whilst wearing my G2...hence the new helmet.
For those who say I get too hot, I have the new Giro Ionos for the roady. It is unbelievably good. Sure it's pricey but they do an amazing replacement policy, if you do fall off and hit your head....which I did during the winter whilst wearing my G2...hence the new helmet.
For me a helmet is a no-brainer. I like wearing my it because I think I look cool in it!
Also - I have cracked a couple of hemlets after falls, so I'm very pleased my head didn't take all the impact of those tumbles. When cycling through wooded areas, the helmet stops my head being bashed by branches and scratched & stung by nettles & brambles.
I'm also thinking of getting a ski-ing helmet now. More to keep my head warm and to look like 007, but with the added benefit of protecting my bonce.
Also - I have cracked a couple of hemlets after falls, so I'm very pleased my head didn't take all the impact of those tumbles. When cycling through wooded areas, the helmet stops my head being bashed by branches and scratched & stung by nettles & brambles.
I'm also thinking of getting a ski-ing helmet now. More to keep my head warm and to look like 007, but with the added benefit of protecting my bonce.
Being a bit of a mtb nut i've got a small collection of helmets. I fell off my downhill bike on a bmx track and broke my collar bone. I'm convinced that my helmet saved my life, the scuffs and scratchs on what was a brand new helment were a shock. I admit that a bmx track is far removed from a road or pavement but I landed on mud, hate to think wat tarmac would have felt like.
Although I wear one for road riding, I'm not convinced of its value. So far any incidents on the road bike normally involve coming off due to lack of traction in the wet and have never hit my head due to one of these incidents. On the MTB it is a different story and I'd feel under dressed without one. Having taken a few light knocks myself and witnessed a mate smash his helmet on a rock and come away with mild concussion ,I'd hate to have seen the state had he not had a lid on.
However, I am completely angainst making them mandatory. It is up to the rider to make their own choice or the parent of the rider in the case of children.
However, I am completely angainst making them mandatory. It is up to the rider to make their own choice or the parent of the rider in the case of children.
I really don't think you need to make it compulsory. I'd say enough people wear them nowadays, and will further increase usage over time as it's become culturally acceptable to wear one even if you might look a bit of a nob (I still look cool tho...)
Why force the minority to wear them when the accident rate must be fairly small anyway, and the cost in legislation, prosecution etc would outweigh any benefit to society?
Saying that, when has this government passed up an opportunity to invent an income stream via enforcement/tax in the guise of benefitting the greater good...
Why force the minority to wear them when the accident rate must be fairly small anyway, and the cost in legislation, prosecution etc would outweigh any benefit to society?
Saying that, when has this government passed up an opportunity to invent an income stream via enforcement/tax in the guise of benefitting the greater good...
edward1 said:
Although I wear one for road riding, I'm not convinced of its value. So far any incidents on the road bike normally involve coming off due to lack of traction in the wet and have never hit my head due to one of these incidents. On the MTB it is a different story and I'd feel under dressed without one. Having taken a few light knocks myself and witnessed a mate smash his helmet on a rock and come away with mild concussion ,I'd hate to have seen the state had he not had a lid on.
However, I am completely angainst making them mandatory. It is up to the rider to make their own choice or the parent of the rider in the case of children.
Definitely shouldn't be mandatory.However, I am completely angainst making them mandatory. It is up to the rider to make their own choice or the parent of the rider in the case of children.
On the road front, I was knocked off by a deer
a few years ago and ended up with some fairly nasty scrapes on the helmet (plus broken wrist and skinned LHS of body). It's the over-the-handlebar accidents that are more likely to result in head/helmet impacts.Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff