Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Helmets

Helmets Yes or No?

Last year on 17 th July I was struck by a 4/4 driver who apparently "didn,t see me" I suffered life changing injuries,almost complete severance of my right arm ,broken ribs,concussion and a brain bleed,if I hadn,t been wearing a decent lid I don,t think I,d be here so my point is it might not be your fault when or if you get hit,but that lid WILL save you.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
Stumps | 7 years ago
1 like

Its a simple choice really, you dont wear a helmet and run the risk of causing splits, abrasions cuts (or possible fractures) etc to your head if you come off or you wear one and run the risk of muscular damage from neck twists, throat burns from straps.

Either way its your choice, no one else, and ultimately no one has the right or privilege to decry someone else's choice in the matter.

It would be interesting to know if any people who decry the use of helmets are in a club which allows them to cycle without wearing one ?

Also as far as any future legislation is concerned it would be way way down any cops list of priorities to try and stop a cyclist without one as we are to busy eating dohnuts cool

Avatar
Morat | 7 years ago
0 likes

I wear a helmet but I don't think they should be compulsory. They only really help with self inflicted accidents (road tumbles at low speed, MTB stacks etc) but they've been elevated in the eye of the public to some fantastic shield against cars, buses etc which is just completely impossible.

Perhaps some of the more anti-helmet readers might start videoing the results of running a helmet over with a truck?

What I will say is that the anger towards helmet wearers from the anti-helmet brigade is divisive and unhelpful. If I choose to wear a helmet, that's my choice. I don't inflict my decision on anyone else and I expect the same courtesy in return.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to Morat | 7 years ago
2 likes

Morat wrote:

What I will say is that the anger towards helmet wearers from the anti-helmet brigade is divisive and unhelpful. If I choose to wear a helmet, that's my choice. I don't inflict my decision on anyone else and I expect the same courtesy in return.

This, this is exactly why there can be animosity aimed at helmet wearers by those choosing not to wear a helmet. 

I couldn't care less if someone chooses to mitigate against the perceived risk or not, but I certainly do care when they try to force their opinions on me.

I wouldn't mind if the evidence of risk was demonstrated, and helmets demonstrated as a truly effective solution, but its not... its opinions based on perceptions and the marketing of those set to make money from wider helmet use. 

Avatar
felixcat replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
0 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Morat wrote:

What I will say is that the anger towards helmet wearers from the anti-helmet brigade is divisive and unhelpful. If I choose to wear a helmet, that's my choice. I don't inflict my decision on anyone else and I expect the same courtesy in return.

This, this is exactly why there can be animosity aimed at helmet wearers by those choosing not to wear a helmet. 

I couldn't care less if someone chooses to mitigate against the perceived risk or not, but I certainly do care when they try to force their opinions on me.

I wouldn't mind if the evidence of risk was demonstrated, and helmets demonstrated as a truly effective solution, but its not... its opinions based on perceptions and the marketing of those set to make money from wider helmet use. 

 

I have honestly never heard or read any animosity from the bareheaded towards the helmeters, except perhaps in the circumstances Jimmy Ray Will mentions.

Perhaps Morat can find some on this website, though I doubt it. It seems possible to me that helmeteers mistake reasonable disagreement for animosity. It may be they feel their dearly held beliefs are under attack.

I have been known to react vigorously to those who tell me what I should wear on my head, but I always try to do so in a civil manner. There is not always time to react with a rational retort to an inane comment shouted from a passing car window.

Mr. Will's last point may be explained by this quote from a British Medical Journal editorial by Ben Goldacre, Wellcome Research Fellow in Epidemiology and David Spiegelhalter Winton Professor fot the Public Understanding of Risk.

They could find no evidence that cyclehelmets reduce injury risk.

"In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefits from helmet promotion or wearing is unlikely to be reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may lie not in their direct benefits- which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies- but more with the cultural, psychological and political aspects of popular debate around risk."

http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12.05.png

Avatar
L.Willo | 7 years ago
1 like

I always wear a cycle helmet.

a) I am pain averse. If my head is going to hit anything solid and unyielding, I'd rather a lid took the blow than my skin.

b) Modern helmets are so light, easy to carry and well designed, you barely notice they are on after a few minutes.

c) In the unlikely event of suffering a serious head injury or worse due to someone else's stupidity, I would not want to see the compensation paid out to my family slashed due to my "negligence".

Quote:

The Reynolds case is the first occasion where the courts have reduced a cyclist's compensation in this way, but it seems to be part of a wider trend in the law's attitude towards helmets. The Cyclists' Defence Fund have suggested that deductions for not wearing a helmet are now common in out-of-court settlements of head injury claims brought by cyclists. And when cases have reached the courts in recent years, the courts have held that cycling without a helmet is negligent (at least for the purposes of contributory negligence), largely because it involves ignoring the Highway Code's recommendation that "you should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened".

This conclusion was first expressed by Mr Justice Griffith Williams in the 2009 case of Smith v Finch, and has now been adopted by the High Court in its last three decisions on the issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/sep/08/helmet-lega...

d) I cannot hold drivers to account for ignoring the Highway Code re: safe driving practices etc if I decide to pick and choose which parts of the code apply to me. Without looking like a hypocrite, that is.

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
1 like
L.Willo wrote:

I always wear a cycle hemet.

How do you wash your hair?

Avatar
L.Willo replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
2 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

I always wear a cycle hemet.

How do you wash your hair?

Go for a ride in the rain. That is what the holes in the lid are for. Drainage.

Avatar
fukawitribe | 7 years ago
0 likes

The suppression was poor, but that does not imply that there is no effect (the point made by matthewn5 is pertinent here as well). See e.g.

 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Final regulatory impact analysis amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Passenger car front seat occupant protection. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1984. Publication no. DOT-HS-806-572. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/806572.pdf

..and others. The US has some interesting over-views of passenger protection

Avatar
felixcat replied to fukawitribe | 7 years ago
0 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

The suppression was poor, but that does not imply that there is no effect (the point made by matthewn5 is pertinent here as well). See e.g.

 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Final regulatory impact analysis amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Passenger car front seat occupant protection. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1984. Publication no. DOT-HS-806-572. Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/806572.pdf

..and others. The US has some interesting over-views of passenger protection

 

I think many readers don't bother to click on links. It seems a good idea to give a summary of the point you hope to make, and to back it up with a link for those who want to read further and check.

Avatar
matthewn5 | 7 years ago
2 likes

@adamthekiwi, seat belts saved the lives of people in cars, but the evidence suggests that drivers drove faster afterwards and took more risks and killed more cyclists, children and pedestrians. Fewer people cycled and walked as a result.

See Dr Robert Davis's book Death on the Streets. Nothing is clear-cut in this debate.

 

Avatar
felixcat replied to matthewn5 | 7 years ago
0 likes

matthewn5 wrote:

@adamthekiwi, seat belts saved the lives of people in cars, but the evidence suggests that drivers drove faster afterwards and took more risks and killed more cyclists, children and pedestrians.

PACTS is the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Traffic Safety. They have always been advocates of a seat belt law.

John Adams writes on his site.

 

"Four prominent road safety experts who describe themselves as being “among the leadership of the Pacts” – Richard Allsop, Oliver Carsten, Andrew Evans, and Robert Gifford – published an article in Significance, a journal of the Royal Statistical Society, in which they advanced a much more modest claim for the number of lives saved by the seat belt law: not 2400 per year but 164.

Also intriguingly, for the first time of which I am aware, serious, statistically-qualified, advocates of seat-belt legislation acknowledged a risk transfer effect:

“The clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists”.

and

“the best estimates from both the analyses summarised here are that extra deaths to vulnerable road users did accompany the introduction of mandatory wearing of seat belts.”

PACTS figures show an increase in pedestrian deaths of 8% (150 deaths) and of 13% of cyclists (38 more deaths.)

Even if they are correct that seat belts reduced motorist casualties (which I do not accept) I find it unacceptable that more safety for the dangerous and already well protected, is gained at the expense of the vulnerable and unthreatening road user. Particularly when the measure increases my own risk.

A medical intervention which helped some patients at the expense of others would be regarded as unethical.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/08/1061/

Avatar
Rich_cb | 7 years ago
3 likes

The helmet debate is often far too narrow in focus.

There are obviously certain situations in which a helmet will reduce your risk of injury.

That is true for cyclists, pedestrians, construction workers, office workers etc etc.

Whether you choose to wear a helmet on your bike or even on the bus is entirely up to your individual perception of the risks involved.

However, if we are to legislate to make helmets compulsory we have to consider the wider impact of the legislation.

If compulsory helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling and those people instead travel by car or bus then those people will actually be placed at higher risk of death/serious illness.

This is because even a small amount of light-moderate intensity cycling (approximately 100 minutes a week) has been shown to reduce All Cause Mortality by around 10%.

Those who are discouraged from cycling by compulsory helmet laws will therefore lose this protective effect and be more likely to suffer heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc.

There is also the effect of pollution to consider. Outdoor air pollution contributes to approximately 40,000 deaths in the UK every year.

Every journey by car/bus/train etc contributes towards this death toll.

If compulsory helmet laws lead to people choosing other, more polluting, modes of transport over cycling then they will, in effect, increase that death toll.

In conclusion, even if helmets were effective in preventing injuries, is a small reduction in such injuries worth the increase in deaths and illnesses that will occur when people choose to reduce, or even stop, their cycling as a consequence of compulsory helmet laws?

I would argue that the overall harm to society caused by such compulsory laws far outweighs any asociated benefits and as such they should not be introduced.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 7 years ago
1 like

I like helmets... my current helmet is an absolute beauty... lovely quality of build, exquisite fit, and I look proper boss pro in it as well.

There is no real reason not to wear a helmet, you look more pro, its comfy, means your hair doesn't blow around in the wind... etc.etc.etc.

However, and this to me is the killer one, statistically, there is no need for me to wear it... so generally I don't. The statistical chance of me falling off a bike, and in doing so, falling off in such a way that my head impacts something with suitable force that could damage my head, but not so hard that its beyond the limitations of the helmet, is really rather slim. 

As I've said before, the moment I start to believe its dangerous out there is the day I stop riding a bike... its not dangerous, its something kids do perfectly safely every day. As a grown adult with 30 years experience, I am fairly confident that we are talking about mitigating against risk that sits firmly in the freak event category. 

I don't mind a good helmet debate, ok thats not true, I find them tiresome... but only because of the lack of willingness to look at why we need a helmet in the first place.

We can talk about injury reduction, relative effectiveness, bigger picture repercussions all we like, but what is the fundamental requirement for a helmet? Really... like, deep down really? 

 

Avatar
zanf | 7 years ago
2 likes

Wearing a helmet:

increased risk management from cyclists
increased risk management from drivers
Increased neck injuries despite statistically lower head injuries
Increased inability to distinguish between a comma and an apostrophe, or punctuate sentences.

 

Avatar
Martyn_K | 7 years ago
6 likes

I wear a helmet but i'm under no illusion as to it's effectiveness if i was hit by a car/ truck/ bus. Any impact with a large chunk of metal at any speed is going to cause more injures than a helmet can mitigate against.

I wear a lid for potential low speed issues. Not being able to unclip and falling on to a kerb stone corner, not being able to scrub off enough speed on a corner and bailing out towards a wall etc. A couple of weeks ago i was zipping along a country lane, went around a tight left corner with limited visability and a bramble branch was poking out about face height. I thought nothing of dipping my head and letting the helmet take the impact. If had not been wearing one i would likely have suffered some pretty nasty cuts and lacerations to my face/ head.

In a small amount of cases a helmet may be effective a saving a life. But i think most of the time it does the job of preventing an injury that would cause discomfort or a bit of time off the bike.

 

Avatar
EddyP | 7 years ago
0 likes

Good point, I am happy that you are well now my friend. It's crucial to wear helmet, there is no question about that. 

Avatar
ciderman_100 | 9 years ago
0 likes

it's choice who the hell can tell anybody what to do as long as you are civil and polite to your fellow human being then live and let live. We live in a very health and safety driven culture, and perhaps people who tell you what to do are jealous of the free spirit of the none conformers, how often do you hear the phrase " Their strange they are " just because they don't conform to the masses thinking. If you don't want to wear a helmet then don't if you do then please feel free to do so, BUT do not try to impose your thinking on me or other people who dare to say no to you or other Orwellian holier than thou people. Life is about choices and if they are different to yours so be it.

For the record I wear a helmet when on my fast road bike ( I'm currently in bed with a broken hip from smidsy incident 26mph into a car) yes my helmet saved my head. When I am on my vintage flying gate on a club run speeds very rarely go above 15mph so no helmet its all about danger perception, We are not made of sugar and we do not need to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

Avatar
issacforce | 9 years ago
0 likes

i must be a pillock, cause i wear one, but it my choice to be a pillock  103

Avatar
Welsh boy | 9 years ago
1 like

My personal choice is based on this:
Next time you are doing 30mph in your car, look out of the window and ask yourself if you were to jump out at this speed, would you rather have some head protection on or not. Why should hitting the road at 30mph when coming off a bike be any different?

Avatar
gazza_d | 9 years ago
6 likes

I hope all these people who swear by helmets wear them when in vehicles etc.
//pbs.twimg.com/media/B-y6vOEVEAA32VA.png:large)
Helmets are not designed to protect against impacts by vehicles. Infra prevents that.
Helmets don't protect against concussion & bleeds either.
They should be personal choice based on personal risk assessment, nothing else.
No compulsion, no evangelising.

Avatar
pants | 9 years ago
0 likes

Before wearing a seat belt in cars was made compulsory, people argued that they don't need it. They might have argued that if everyone drove or used the roads properly and they'd never need it. I am not saying everyone should wear one, I just think if a helmet offers us a bit of protection even 1 out of 10 falls, why not?

Avatar
adamthekiwi replied to pants | 7 years ago
3 likes

pants wrote:

Before wearing a seat belt in cars was made compulsory, people argued that they don't need it. They might have argued that if everyone drove or used the roads properly and they'd never need it. I am not saying everyone should wear one, I just think if a helmet offers us a bit of protection even 1 out of 10 falls, why not?

The key difference between those two forms of safety equipment is that there was solid evidence that wearing a seatbelt reduced deaths and injuries for drivers and passengers before the law was passed. There is a fair bit of research on the matter of cycle helmets, and no clear consensus that their use offers a positive contribution to safety. Mandatory helmet laws do appear to significantly reduce the number of cyclists, though, which has fairly serious health implications at a population level - the NZMJ published "Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law" in 2012, which concluded that New Zealand's mandatory helmet legislation has *cost* 53 lives per year.

There's also a raft of evidence that suggests that head injuries are more likely if you're a pedestrian or a passenger in a car than if you're a cyclist. I assume that, for consistency, you're also calling for helmets to made compulsory for those forms of transport too?

The final thing that is worth mentioning, IMO, is this: the main thing that kills cyclists is careless or dangerous driving. Focussing on helmets, as this entire thread does, put the focus squarely onto the risk-assessment that cyclists carry out, and takes it firmly away from authorities' duty to provide safe environments and drivers' duty to drive carefully and considerately. When *no* (or, at least, the minority of) cyclists are killed by drivers doing stupid things, that is the right time to focus on whether helmets are required for cyclists' safety.

Cyclists (and pedestrians) have *every* right to use the road - as a society, we should be ensuring the roads are safe for them before we start attaching conditions to that use.

Avatar
felixcat replied to adamthekiwi | 7 years ago
0 likes

adamthekiwi wrote:

The key difference between those two forms of safety equipment is that there was solid evidence that wearing a seatbelt reduced deaths and injuries for drivers and passengers before the law was passed.

 

I would be interested to see this evidence.

Before our seat belt law was passed the Dept. of Transport commissioned a report on seat belt efficacy.  J.E. Isles concluded that laws making them compulsory “has not led to a detectable change in road death rates”.

John Adams wrote about this (and a great deal more on seat belts and on risk compensation) on his website. If anyone is interested in the subject, and not merely in confirming the beliefs thet already have, I recommend the websit and his book Risk.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/

 

"However within the Department of Transport, the promoters of the seat belt bill, my study had raised concerns. The Department commissioned a critique of my report by J E Isles. His report examined evidence from eight European countries (a subset of the 18 examined in my report) that had passed seat belt laws. He concluded that a law making the wearing of seat belts compulsory “has not led to a detectable change in road death rates”. For promoters of the bill this was an inconvenient truth. The Isles report was dated April 1981, more than three months before the parliamentary debate that led to the passage of the legislation. But it was suppressed. It was not published, and was not allowed to inform that debate. The Isles Report did not see the light of day until its existence was disclosed by New Scientist in an article published on 7 February 1985 – more than three years too late.

Avatar
kwi | 9 years ago
2 likes

I wear one, by choice, but have no illusions as to it's effectiveness in collisions with fast moving cars. I have knackered one coming off on ice, but don't claim it saved my life.
Always liked this site.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html

Avatar
PonteD | 9 years ago
0 likes

Personally I'll wear my helmet, most cyclists I see wear helmets, it's rare that I see non helmet wearing cyclists these days TBH. If you don't want a lid fine, if you do then that's also fine!

We've all made a choice, the law (or lack of a helmet law) allows us the freedom to make that choice. My children are made to wear a helmet, but that's because I have to make that choice for them as their parent and since I choose to wear a lid, it is only natural I will choose for my children to also wear one. When they are adults and responsible for their own well being we can discuss the relative merits and if they choose to go lidless then that will be their choice and I will have to respect that choice.

Avatar
crikey | 9 years ago
2 likes
Quote:

Oh dear! Is it time to dig out the definitions of "Anecdotal" and "Evidence"?

Or do we just do ALL CAPS because shouting proves that we are right?

Nice. Excellent deployment of the question mark, subtle but effective exclamation mark and accurate, timely and sensible quotation marks. Some may question the use of 'Or' to begin a sentence, but I think it acceptable in this instance.

Avatar
shay cycles | 9 years ago
2 likes

Oh dear! Is it time to dig out the definitions of "Anecdotal" and "Evidence"?

Or do we just do ALL CAPS because shouting proves that we are right?

Avatar
Quince | 9 years ago
1 like

I'm Pillock.

Avatar
crikey | 9 years ago
3 likes

 103
Edit: Just to point out that this thread is demonstrating an alarming confusion between the comma , and the apostrophe ' .

If you are going to rehash yet another tiresome helmet related thread, let's at least use it as learning exercise.

Avatar
crikey | 9 years ago
2 likes

Hurrah, yet another helmet thread.
I'm sure this will be as illuminating as all the other helmet threads started by pillocks who think we need to be told to wear one.

Pages

Latest Comments