Scientists form group to pool research on bicycle helmets

Surely there are better things to work on!

I would prefer to see time and energy be spent on things that we know will make a real difference - driver behaviour, vehicle design, road design and street furniture, the things that cause most deaths and injuries in the first place.

Pro-helmet people are always full of stories about themselves and their friends and relations who 'would not be here today if it weren't for their helmet'.

Yet people who have cycled for decades without helmets or injury - considerably more of them - are not accepted as proof to the contrary - they're just lucky.

And people who have crashes with helmets and are injured are also ruled out of the equation.

If Wouter Weylandt and Juan Mauricio Soler had NOT been wearing helmets we'd have never heard the end of it. But they were, so it isn't discussed.

If this research group helps to actually bring some objective facts, instead of the sort of nonsense typically displayed, then good luck. It'll need it.

Don't get people's love affair with mandatory helmets for all. Isn't using a single standard for all cyclists problemetic?

Drivers in Formula 1 wear helmets and those helmets are proven to save their lives a lot of times. Does this mean people driving normal cars in inner cities should wear them too?

Of course, people cycling competitively should wear helmets ... for their own sakes. Sure, if you train to attempt to break the Richmond park record or the downhill record on Ben Nevis or even the club race, a helmet is almost a necessity.

But does someone commuting from City to Notting Hill at slow and steady 10-15mph need that helmet? A fall on to the street at those speeds is unlikely to cause damage to brain. The other hazard - of a motor vehicle hitting/nicking the rider ... well if it's a proper hit, a cycling helmet won't be much help anyway. So, what do the slow commuter cyclists need a helmet for? (Except to provide revenues for helmet makers and keep the oil & car industries happy)

IMO, looking at the threats faced by the regular pedal powered people, properly integrated & enforced bike lanes and bike tracks would be a more appropriate solution than a helmet.

As for those with a need for speed and a disrespect for helmets: I do wish they share any inside info they may have to enlighten the rest of us why the lids are a waste.

yes very interesting indeed. I think the more that is published and scientifically guided the better. I still see people even around richmond park on expensive bikes (going fast and should know better) without helmets. You also see commuters in london doing stupid things that a helmet will not help with, so the more we know and is publicised the better.

What I would like to see is:

even a small sample / single hospital even: the publishing of head injuries as a percentage of serious cyling injuries and deaths and whether or not a helmet was involved, and in any case where the injury was sustained. also what kind of accidents a helmet is giving a false sense of security to.

moreover, from there some more real case tests, i get the impression that cycle helmet tests are way too theoretical, furthermore i do not see even a hint of crash dummies indicating the state of the head inside (yes the helmet is intact and survived the test, but which scrambled the brains and which (if any) deformed and took the loads... this should be done from a frontal (head butt bus, branch, ground), side (land on ground?) and back (knocked off, over bars and back??) at least - not just what appears to be a crush test with no data of what forces the head inside was subjected to

fortunately for me my uncle was involved in cycle road racing when I was young and I saw two young potential racing talents end up as vegetables, so i had the "too cool for school" not wearing a helmet beaten out of me very quickly and from an early age. Very unfortunate for them and their families as their parents are still wiping their arses 20 years on....

IMO any protection for what is essentially akin to an egg/melon travelling at 30+km/h is better than non, if nothing else out of courtesy for the emergency services keeping it all together, but I get the feeling they could be so much better and no thought has been put into minimising injuries, so welcome this, especially if it looks into real case data of two points above!

I dont like the sounds of it, we're gonna end up getting told unless we were something akin to a motorcycle helmet then we aint safe