Helmet debate

A touching story, but no insight to that line you started out with.

"get a better idea about helmet safety"

"The radiologist found 11 fractures in your first 11 vertebrae. You have a broken sternum, too."

How does a helmet protect your vertebrae? or the injuries to your face?

As I keep saying, a helmet is just a barrier to road rash at high speed. It does not help in big impacts, nor does it support your neck, which in high speed impacts is the most vulnerable place.

Yawn

Tells me nothing about helmet safety and a lot about what people believe.

you really need to have seen 3 cyclists get killed like I have to believe helmets work. without one my head would have been mush.

I guess you are the type of person who doesn't wear seat belts in a car too.

oh dear here we go again, nothing against your account, i wear a helmet all the time, but it will end up in another long long long arguement between those that do and those that dont.

Sorry, but thats the forum for you.

no worries.
those are the same people who think cigarettes don't cause cancer, that wearing a seat belt is stupid and the world is flat.

I am an ex-firefighter. I have a thick skin to handle all the thick heads I dealt with.

as we say in America.

DUH!

If I were not wearing a helmet, I would have been killed. a freaking sedan hit me in the head and I lived through it.
Yes, I broke vertebrae and yes I had a broken sternum, but I healed. A brain does not heal!

I smoke a little - I know the benefits to stopping

I wear a seatbelt not because its illegal not to, but because of the proven evidence it saves lives.

I don't wear a helmet because there is NO scientific proof that it does anything for you over a certain speed, normally quoted at around 12-15mph. I cycle fast than that, let alone being hit by something going even faster.

If it was a full face helmet, something akin to a motorcycle helmet, then I'd understand as they are proven lifesavers. Cycling helmets are not.

Keep thinking that.

when you are eventually hit and drooling over yourself, you might think different.

brains don't heal and they are so easy to injure.

Think this would be an interesting article for you. I'll say no more.

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/hillman1991

To be honest, I really don't care if someone makes the choice and gets killed because of lack of helmet use. I think there are too many people on the planet already.

I think to advise potential cyclists that they are better off not wearing one is pretty irresponsible and lame.

Whilst i was growing up in the 70s and 80s we all rode bikes and did some crazy shit on them. Every day.
None of us wore helmets.
Thinking back the streets round my way were littered with dead kids and those that did make it though are now all dribbling vegetables. If only we had had helmets back then.

Look at these reckless fools!
Hundreds of thousands of them.
All of them just asking to be killed or 'eventually hit'.
Im amazed there is anyone still left alive in Denmark!

http://youtu.be/FXw_t172BKY

I am not advising ANYONE not to wear a helmet, everyone has their own choice, but trying to force it on them is also wrong. I'll choose what i'm happy with, you stick to how you are happy.

But to come on here proclaiming the benefits of wearing a helmet. Not going to get much cut

YIPPEEE!!!

Someone in GB agrees with me.
I did the same shit in the Bronx, NYC.

We got away with it then, but there are a lot more idiot drivers out there now.

thanks

Like I said, there are too many people on the planet anyway.
if you survive the accident and end up drooling on yourself, please don't expect society to feel for you or the barristers to get you a few pounds from the idiot driver who struck you.

you are 100% right. I am all about freedom of choice and my article was telling it like it is. I survived because of a helmet. case closed.

I have a fan in Denmark too.
Thanks

I also wear a helmet, one because I choose to and another I just 'feel' a little safer - overhanging branches on the lanes have given my trusted Giro some battle scars, but I'm still here.
However, I have just come back from one of my many jaunts to Amsterdam, the city of litterally thousands of bikes, very upright bikes at that, and one thing that really stands out there is that I have never seen anyone wearing a helmet (only a child in a nailed together box on the front of a bike).
Two of the lads I work with in Amsterdam ride in every day and when I asked them why they don't wear helmets they both looked at me as if I was on the ganja that 'drifts' around the streets - they said 'that's for racers like in the tours,,,, isn't it'?. I will say that the apparent chaos of the Amsterdam streets looks wild, but there are some pretty strong rules as far as traffic merging with bikes and it seems to work - though I'm not too sure how many deaths from cycling there are there.
I would certainly not ride round Bristol without a helmet and it appears the majority there do wear them, though I still think it should be a matter of your own choice.

Trikeman.

I'm really glad that you survived this awfull episode of your life and are well on the road to recovery. Helmet wearing or not; vunerable road users will never be safe until motorists are educated on how to drive in a manner which keeps those not surrounded by several tons of metal.

The nations that appear to be strongest on helmet compulsion the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ and SA are also some of the most car-centric nations in the world. These same naations all appear to have the mentality of I have a car therefore I'm better than you and have nothing in place to protect vunerable road users. Compare that with some of the European countries where bicycles are a viable means of transport and legislation is in place to protect the cyclist and pedestrian. This extends to the non-urban roads where there is no infrastructure. Cycle in the mountains in Spain and a vehicle behind will wait till safe to pass and give you plenty of room. Here in Scotland I've had to pull in because of some idiot behind me gunning his engine impatient to overtake.

Helmets are a red herring, they fool motorists into thinking that you are 'protected' and do not change motorist behavior towards cyclists one iota.

I agree with you about choice. Most of the US has no mandatory bicycle helmet laws. Hell, people are motorcycles aren't required to wear one in most states.
The point of my article besides being interesting is to announce to the world that a proper fitting helmet can save a life.
That is all.
Helmets do make a difference between life and death, no brain injury vs. brain injury.

thanks

Thanks for your comment about my survival.

I was struck twice while wearing a day glow neon yellow shirt, the kind that highway workers wear to get driver's attentions. It did not make a difference. Drivers don't notice whether you are wearing a helmet or not.
They hit cyclists because they are careless, distracted or just bad drivers. it has become open season on cyclists because too many people are trying to share the roads.

I don't ride as much as I used to. I once road 10,000 K from San Diego, California to Maine. I even wrote a book about it.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_seeall_1?rh=k%3Ajeff+sambur%2Ci%3Astri...

Be safe out there.
Jeff

The car centric nations giff mentions are also the ones where the cycist casualty rate is of the order of twice the British rate, even though most of them have helmet compulsion laws and a culture of helmet wearing. It is clear that helmets have not made these countries as safe as GB, still less NL or DK.
The North European countries which have a lot more cycling than GB, and about half our casualty rate, are not helmet wearers.
Something makes a difference to cycling casualty rates, and we can argue about what that is, but helmet wearing correlates with high casualty rates.
When the introduction of mandatory helmets has led to a big jump in wearing rates in a country or state the effect on casualty rates has not been detectable, except that it they may have increased in some states.

Start with a story that will cause mixed opinions and open up discussions, then try to spark more debate by carrying on and making points about seatbelts.....

Then as the comments stop coming in, reveal that you have written a book all about your cycling travels and not just 1 but 5.

I like it, very clever and I am not trying to take anything away from the helmet debate either. I think its a very valid debate that needs scientists behind it.

You could have just sent one of the reviewers for the site a copy of your book and good a nice review out of it

But I doubt you need reviews having won a 2012 IPPY (Independent Publishers) Gold Medal Award

Can I still send a copy to somewhere for a review?
It is a good/great book about bicycle riding across the US the long way. It is hard to get the word out though.

I never realized that my innocent article on getting almost killed on a bike would cause so much of a stir. I guess the people in GB are more opinionated than I thought!

Be safe and no matter what the so called experts know, a helmet saved my life twice. That is a fact.

Best wishes,
Jeff

No, it is an opinion.

I'm sure that one of the reviewers would be more than happy to read and review your book. It does look interesting.

Drop the owners a line at info@road.cc and i'm sure they will help you out

Given you were a fire-fighter/EMT, you presumably also have seen lots of vehicle occupants with head injuries after crashes. Do you also recommend that people wear crash helmets when they drive their cars? If you do not, why not?

I believe that evidence shows cigarettes significantly increase the risk of a number of health problems including cancer, that the global climate is warming and is caused by man-made emissions (do you?), the earth is a spheroid, and that cyclist and pedestrian safety, along with public health overall is best served by engineering the roads - the helmet debate is at best a distraction from that.

Indeed, I know the evidence shows that cultures which invest their cyclist-safety faith in helmets have *worse* cyclist safety records than those which instead engineer the environment around the cyclist.

It's a *FACT* that the Netherlands has extremely low rates of helmet usage (near-0, other than amongst the youngest of children) compared to high-use countries like AU, UK and USA, while the Netherlands has much *better* safety.

The anglo-saxon helmet fetish has _provably_ *failed* to deliver safer cycling.

Most of the head injured people I saw in vehicle accidents were not wearing seat belts. The same genre of people who smoke and don't wear bicycle helmets.
As a society we all pay for others mistakes. whether the friends or loved ones have to become caregivers, or when our health insurance rates go up to cover the under-insured. (That is in the US).
I have no idea why Holland has less injuries. Don't they totally separate the drivers from the cyclists?
As far as road engineering goes, I was on a 2 meter wide shoulder when I was struck in Montana. I was less than a half meter from the edge. The sedan and it's careless driver went off the road to smear me on his windshield. No engineering can make up for careless idiots.
After over 250,000 miles of lifelong riding, I am still wondering when road cycling has become a full-body contact sport.

Really? I don't believe it. What about the pedestrians?

"I have no idea why Holland has less injuries. Don't they totally separate the drivers from the cyclists?"

It is not just NL. We in GB have a lower rate of cycle casualties than USA, Canada, Oz, SA. but a higher rate than NL DK. It really is the case that the helmet law and helmet wearing countries have a higher rate of cyclist casualties than the low rate of helmet wearing countries. Helmet wearing just does not work as well as whatever it is these N.European countries are doing. Helmet wearing is plainly a lot less effective than other ways of reducing cycle casualties. Why is there so much weight put upon this ineffective precaution? I think it is a distraction and a substitute for the effective actions. The problem is probably that the effective measures might impact upon motorists.
Nearly every motorist in GB wears a belt, but their casualty rates per hour are not greatly different to cyclists'. Most road head injuries are suffered by people in cars, but for some reason it is thought absurd that they should wear helmets.

The wearing of helmets always seems to provoke the same old arguments.

I work as a nurse in a major trauma centre in London, and have been riding road bikes for most of my life. I never wore a helmet for years including 5 years as a cycle courier. I thought they looked s**t and doubted their ability to protect me.

So what made me change my mind? Frankly, seeing people die from preventable head injuries. People like me, out for a ride with friends or training alone. Pushing it too hard or just having the shit luck to be come across some idiot who isn't paying attention. I have also seen numerous men and women airlifted into my ER with serious isolated head injuries, whose lives are changed for ever due to their brain injury, maybe not 'dribbling' but functionally their lives have changed forever, and don't forget that of their families! Importantly, I've also seen many people walk out of hospital after having serious crashes with extensive damage to the helmets they have been wearing. The forces involved in crushing a cycle helmet are huge. NO helmet and those forces are applied directly to your skull.

I can also cite my own experiences of stacking the bike in a big way. My own helmet prevented a serious brain injury when I hit a parked truck (parked in a no parking zone) at full sprint. Mark Cavendish I am not, but fast enough, I hit the truck head first at 45-50km an hour. I broke my jaw and had multiple cuts and bruises, but nothing that was going to kill me, The helmet was screwed, there was a 2" dent in the frontal area, and extensive damage/spiderwebbing to the polystyrene over a much wider area. If I had not been wearing the helmet, who knows what I might be like now, the general view of neurosurgeons I work with is I'd probably be f***ed!

I'm not going to preach, or demand that laws should be changed, but personally, my lid goes on my head any time my bike hits the road.

Those that don't want to wear helmets carry on pulling out your evidence that they don't save lives, it's your choice.

we are beating this horse to death.
I choose to wear a helmet and I know it saved my life twice. If you saw the smashed helmet, you might become a believer too.
In the U.S drivers actually veer toward riders every now and then. Go figure!

If British cyclists want to see safer roads for cyclists, and I'm sure we all do, it beats me why we should want to follow the example of the countries which have a high casualty rate for cyclist, and not those which have a low casualty rate.
Helmet advocacy is a symptom of dangerous roads, not a cure. I can understand why cyclists want to believe that helmets will make them safe, but a scrap of polystyrene is really not much defence against a ton of carelessly handled steel.

All anecdotes aside. Jump on to YouTube and compare cycling in any UK/US city to any European city and you will see a huge difference. Take note of the types of bike, style of cycling, motorists attitude towards cyclists. All this contributes to a safer environment for cyclists. And guess what, hardly a helmet!

Here's a clip http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_8dGodhGtI&api_format=3&vndel=watch

Rather than advocate helmet use we should be lobbying for better laws and infrastructure for cyclists.

Again, I really hope the nurses and EMTs here who are so sure about the wisdom of cycle helmets also advocate just as strongly for car-occupant helmets and pedestrian helmets.

Hippy69, I DO NOT want to try to discount the pain you must feel seeing the hunan results of road accidents, I would find your job very difficult. As Paul J says, surely the victims who were in cars or on foot need consideration, or, if helmets are the answer, should wear helmets.
With all due respect for your compassion and skill, I would no more take the advice of a nurse or a doctor on how to avoid an accident than the advice of a mechanic or panel beater.

Paul J & Felixcat, Guys, I was merely using anecdotes to show why "I" wear a helmet and how I believe it saved ME from more significant injury. I feel helmets should be purely optional and have no interest in making them compulsory, and yes dangerous roads probably do exacerbate the use of helmets. Helmets are not the answer to increasing cyclists safety, merely an added precaution I and others wish to take. Woulter Weylandt wasn't saved by his helmet! RIP182, but I'll still wear mine thanks.

Improving road layouts etc as they have in europe, and educating car drivers are far more effective ways of increasing safety. I've been lucky enough to ride lots of dutch streets and am constantly amazed at how safe it feels. Driver attitudes are far better in most of europe compared to the UK, I ride in france every summer and rarely experience the hostility I encounter on every ride back home. incidentally, I am a member of several campaigns to develop the 'Go dutch' systems to improve safety for me and others in London.

Cyclists are no blameless angels , we need to educate cyclists as well. Dangerous cyclists injure pedestrians by jumping lights etc. Would I ever tell a pedestrian to wear a helmet? Certainly advise them to look both ways before they step into the road! And remember, cars drivers have a big metal box and airbags around them, not fresh air and lycra, and most serious injuries to drivers are caused in high speed RTC's.

And guys, I'm the last person to ask about crash avoidance technique, my wife's getting a little fed up picking me up from hospital. Just can't resist those fast descents! the best thing about going uphill is coming down the other side. Does wearing a helmet make me take more risks, I doubt it, dude I'm dressed in Lycra, more concerned about tearing my skin off. BUT, I believe it may help me avoid a worse head injury if I wear one.

I agree with your comments completely in relation to infrastructure and laws, but as we know there are numerous drivers who dont either care or cant be bothered. In the short term a helmet will cost 60 - 100 quid whereas infrastructure changes are in the region of billions.

It should be a long term goal but there is no way on this earth that the present govt will sanction money to be spent in that amount when they are cutting back everything (apart from effects them).

I asked this once before but can anyone who does not wear a helmet explain why without rambling on about it.

For instance i wear one because i feel safer at the speeds i travel and roads i travel upon.

So if you dont feel safer please tell us or is it just down to looks

I don't wear one because they're hot.

I actually don't *want* to feel safe from wearing one. That's because I know, from previous experience, just how much the *other* parts of your body get injured in a crash. A helmet will not protect my limbs, my torso, my face. To the extent a helmet makes me feel safer, it may make the *rest* of my body less safe by making me accept more risk. I don't want any sense of false security a helmet might give.

My approach to safety is to slow down when I see hazards (e.g. cars waiting to come out of, or turn into a side road). To avoid the risk in the first place. I've been with helmeted riders in group rides who've asked me how I can be so reckless with safety. Then I see the same riders speed into turns¹, with very little margin for error. I've seen helmeted riders take daft risks on descents, then seen them on the floor after a corner. With bad cuts on their body, they've praised their helmet for saving them - but to me it looked like they risked their life speeding into blind corners on a 1-vehicle-wide, narrow country lane. Did the helmet protect, or did it suck them into terrible risks through a false sense of security?

I don't want to *feel* safer, I want to *be* safer.

1. This doesn't even always get them any further than me, because it's speed on corner exit that's the important bit - faster speed on entry needn't mean faster speed on exit.

I have a helmet, there are only two reason's I wear it, if I got to an event where you HAVE to wear it or if i'm off the roads and doing the local paths on my cross bike. Because they are shared use paths, I am never at high speeds and I can see the dangers of tree stumps and things if I was to come off.

On the road, I simply don't see ANY benefit to wearing one. Apart from the steepest of hills, I am never travelling in the 12-15mph range that helmets are designed for.

If I am hit by a car AGAIN, then a helmet is not going to do anything apart from save me going bald with scars.

If you think being knocked down by a car from your bike is going to cause any less damage to your brain by wearing a helmet, then good on you. But the fact is, there is no proof to this, just anecdotal evidence.

I feel that if I am stuck again, some foam around my skull is going to do nothing, I might aswell wear some bubble wrap, it works protecting things in the post.....

Thank You Hippy69.

I think people who are on the receiving end IE:ER nurses and first responders of these broken people have a different perspective on things.

Peoples lives can change in an instant.

Death is so long term too.

You summed it up well.

Be safe out there,
Jeff

felixcat.
please throw you (without a helmet) and your bike in front of a sedan and see how you fare?

Thanks!

Gkam 84,

Please take the test yourself and don't wear a helmet and get rear ended (like me) by a sedan going at 50 mph.

I think your opinion days will be over.
Please don't expect society to take care of you either.

I bet you smoke cigarettes too.

I just wish I had the helmet I was wearing that day to show you Neanderthals proof positive about the helmet use.

I never said a helmet is a panacea for safety.
I adamantly state that helmets can make a difference between death vs life, brain injured vs. none brain injured.

limbs and even vertebrae heal. the brain doesn't.

I have scars on my body from the crash. I am still alive.

Felixcat

My head would have been smashed like a crushed watermelon without that tiny bit of plastic.

safer roads? how about safer drivers?

Hippy69

thanks for telling the folks in GB the way it is.

I feel like I am banging my head against the wall, I better put on my helmet!

Paul J

we are talking apples and oranges.
get a grip.

After you. You may wear your helmet.

Thanks Giff

True Words!

thanks Stumps!

That is my sensation too. Have you really read and thought about the posts you dismiss?
If you think that your foam hat saved you from an impact which would have smashed your head like a watermelon I would suggest you put a deal too much faith in it.

No need to get abusive. The people who disagree with you are sincere in their beliefs. What is more, they have presented real world evidence to back up their views. You only give us anecdote and unsubstantiated assertion
As I wrote above, why are the helmet compulsion and high weearing rate countries the ones where cycle casualty rates are high? If helmets are the answer, why is your country so dangerous for cycling? It is the original home of foam hats, but still remains dangerous.
I do get the impression that you are so convinced of the rightness of your cause that you do not engage with the arguments of others.

SO you say you believe in free choice, but when we explain our choice, you slam it and say things like this.

Maybe your helmet has caused unknown damages.

As I stated before, I do some cigarettes. I have also been rear ended at high speed, as I documented on here. I was no wearing a helmet either.

I don't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK, we do take care of society, if something happened because of an accident, people are taken care of, whether that be by the NHS, friends and family, care workers.....etc

We look after our own no matter what happens to them, their own doing or not. SO please take your narrow minded views somewhere else.

I spent years doing martial arts. Much of the training involves conditioning the body in particular ways, so that (gradually-increasing) impacts can be sustained without incapacitation. Toughening up of the torso and limbs, basically, combined with the mental focus to continue to operate under such duress.

However, you can't toughen the brain or skull, so instead learn to keep your guard up, protecting the 'knockout zone'. The idea is that, providing you retain full mental capacity and focus, the other injuries can be either withstood (since taking punches etc during combat is inevitable), or hopefully recovered from. If not, then hopefully you at least got away with your life. You wouldn't believe how easy it is for a person to be knocked out by a well-placed, but not particularly forceful, impact.

Cyclists don't routinely crash, so we don't practice dealing with it. We don't fall off dozens of times a day, learning to adopt the correct posture, muscle tension, and rolling with the impact. When it happens, it's all aarggh-crunch-f*ck-hitthefloor. Some form of protection that doesn't depend on you thinking and acting rapidly is a rather good idea.

Sure, helmets aren't perfect, but if a boxer's headgear (just foam, after all) can absorb some of the impacts from head shots, I see no reason to doubt at least SOME effectiveness from helmets.

Actually, bones needn't fully heal. Even if they heal well, they're often never quite the same as before. Particularly if you get fractures or chips in or around joints. Further, sometimes they can't heal back to the way they were, particularly if bones were displaced. I have chipped bits of bone inside finger joints, and a 2-piece collarbone.

Your brain is actually very well protected, and it does have quite an ability to heal. No more, no less than other part of your body. Your mistake is to think that injuries to rest of your body are trivial compared to head injuries. They are not. They can be easily have long-term consequences, they can be life-changing.

The best way to keep yourself safe is to *use* your head, and think about the risks you are taking before actually taking them.

Helmets are designed to pass a test. The test I am familiar with simulates an impact speed of 12 to 16 mph. I would be surprised if manufacturers make them stronger than need be to pass the test. To do so would detract from other qualities the market demands, like ventilation and lightness, and would cost more, cutting profits. Incidentally, the profit margin must be huge. The energy to be dissipated by a boxing helmet must be a couple of orders of magnitude less than the energy of an impact from a motorvehicle.
The effectiveness of a helmet in any real crash must be tiny. This is born out by the accident rate changes when a large population of cyclists is forced into helmets by a change in the law. There is no detectable change.
www.cyclehelmets.org
This site has much more on the subject than I could even begin to include here. It looks at all the studies the compilers can find on the subject of cycle helmets, no matter what the studies conclude.

@Paulj
Please don't twist my words - I think we both know what I'm getting at. Being knocked out incapacitates you completely, whereas a broken leg, for example, doesn't. There's a drastic difference in how much you could then react to secondary dangers.

@felixcat
Frank Bruno's punches were measured and found to be comparable to being hit by an elephant at 30mph. How many orders of magnitude do you want?

@everyone
I provided my thoughts, but I've just realised that I can't be arsed getting into an argument where no participants, or any persuasion, are going to be swayed to an alternative view. You will note that I haven't suggested anyone else should (or should be made to) wear one. It's your skull.

I find this very difficult to believe. People hit by cars are sometimes thrown many metres. Boxers hit by another are not even knocked across the ring. If Bruno's punch had as much kinetic energy as a car doing 30 mph he could stop it dead with his fist.

notfastenough: Broken bones don't incapacitate you? I literally could not move after I broke and pulled apart my collarbone. The smallest movements (including breathing) were difficult for the next *2* days. That's a longer incapacitation than a *severe* concussion. And that was with a bone that isn't even that important! (One option for really badly broken collar bones is to simply remove them completely).

Are you really arguing that the head is the only part of your body that matters?

Paul J just so you are fully appraised of the technicalities of head injuries I suggest you do some research on subdural/extradural haemorrages, which can be caused by simply falling in the street.

And no the brain is not the only part of your body that matters, however it does control how the rest of the body works! A fractured clavicle /leg etc although debilitating and extremely painful with heal either with or without fixation, screw your brain and guess what, moving at all again may prove difficult.

The pro's and con's of helmets always stirs some debate.

I was firmly convinced of thier merits both off and on road. The on road one didn't happen to me, but I was behind a guy on the way to work minding our own business cycling along the A370 to Bristol. Then a skip type vehicle came tearing around the corner in the opposite direction and a half house brick came off/out of his skip and hit the guy in front - right on the helmet - and then the brick bounced onto the bonnet of the car just behind him and in front of me. Both I and the car driver stopped to see if the other cyclist was OK - though shook up he was fine but the helmet damage was huge, smashed the front and top of his helmet ribs to bits, in fact it just fell to bits. He was fine though.
I thought from then that a helmet was for me. Though never to be proved I honestly think it would have caused quite a gash on his head at least - for sure, the bonnet of the car was also badly damaged and I don't think any of us were going over 15 MPH - but I bet the brick part/rubble was travelling at 30 MPH+.
Food for thought - stay safe.

Trikeman.

He is right enough about Bruno's punch strength though

An oft-cited 1985 study of Frank Bruno, who'd go on to be WBC heavyweight champ, showed he could punch with a force of 920 pounds in the lab. Researchers extrapolated that to a real-life blow of 1,420 pounds, enough to accelerate his opponent’s head at a rate of 53 g — that is, 53 times the force of gravity.

Lets face it, there are people on here who will never ever wear a helmet, even if its made law, and no amount of points made for the wearing of one will ever change their minds.

Of course any accident involving these people who end up with a head injury will see them running (or being carried) to the nearest A&E dept for a check up.

Lets hope it wont be anything serious.

Your strength of feeling does you credit. Your clarity of thinking does not.

To the cyclists of Great Britain,

I never meant to start a flood of controversies on this forum. I sent my "Second Chance" story in to give people a first-person account of what it is like to wake up in a ditch, sustain major injuries and to survive.
To me the idea of helmet use is a "no-brainer" (pardon the pun.)
Whether you ride with or without a helmet, I wish you all smooth roads, tailwinds and no encounters with careless or distracted drivers.

I'll even include a lighter tale below: The only controversy is one of the main characters and it is not me!

Giving Lance “the Look.” by Jeff M. Sambur

In the furnace-like summer of 2002, I rode my bicycle 1,650 miles along the borders of Colorado as a fundraiser for the Lance Armstrong Foundation. I called my ride the “Perime-rado LAF a lot Bicycle Tour”. I groveled, pleaded and cajoled donations from friends, family members and complete strangers at Wal-Marts. A few generous folks even gave willingly. After it was all said and done, I had attained “Polka Dot Jersey” status in the LAF’s Peloton Project. For my efforts, I was rewarded with a few perks, one of which was a private ride with Lance Armstrong prior to the LAF’s main fundraiser, the Ride for the Roses. I have to admit I was nervous and excited about sharing asphalt with “The Man.”
I began to fantasize about cruising the hill country of Texas with the five-time winner of the Tour de France. We’d be motoring along at a mellow 23 mph speed, all the while conversing about race strategies, Shiner Bock beer and the new significant other in his life. Unfortunately, this was only a dream; 150 other Peloton Project groupies would be tagging along as well. I now had to set my sights on different goals for the ride. Maybe, just maybe, I could ride by his side and for one moment pass him! Now, that would be something to tell the folks back home.
In the month prior to our fateful meeting, I received information concerning the private ride from a LAF coordinator. He waxed on about the secret location of the ride, even going so far as to state that we would be blindfolded en route. (That didn’t happen.) He also mentioned that we should eat a big breakfast, always a good idea before a ride with Lance. He said that all of our other needs would be cared for beverages, mechanical support and snacks. (This was all true.) As a final note, he issued this warning: DO NOT TRY TO RACE LANCE! He added that Lance would be able to beat us while riding a one-speed bike and wearing a lead suit. This, too, is probably true. However, I was not going to allow a threat or two deter me from my mission.
On the afternoon of the ride, the weather in Austin was steamy, air so thick you’d need a broom to sweep it aside. There was a strong breeze coming out of the southeast. We boarded the buses and were dropped off at Emma Long Park on the banks of Lake Austin. The Lance rumor mill was overheard saying that he had just arrived back from Paris after the unveiling of the 2004 Tour de France route. Hmmm! Maybe he’d be tired and sluggish from jetlag. We waited like children anticipating Santa’s arrival on Christmas morning.
Later, with no fanfare, we were told to ride off and that Lance would meet us along the two-and-a-half mile circuit. The route was a tight, hilly and potholed affair. Volunteers advised us to slow down on the treacherous downhill portion. Up in the distance, I thought I spotted that familiar piston motion of Lance going uphill. After two laps, I was beginning to see my dream deflate like a slow leaking tire. Then an apparition appeared, he was there right in front of me. I approached him on his left flank. Lance Armstrong has features that could easily be drawn with a T-square. He is that angular. At the base of a small hill, I launched my bike with its 48-year-old, 5-foot-4inch, 145-pound cargo upward.
On the 10th stage of the 2001 Tour de France, Lance became famous for giving what in the future would be immortalized as “The Look” to Jan Ullrich. This was over-the shoulder glare with an “I double-doggy-dare-you to cross that line” attitude tossed in. Mr. Ullrich lost heart and the Tour after “the Look.”
Time stood still as I surged ahead of Lance by 10 feet. I paused and turned my head to give Lance a fair imitation of “The Look.” I didn’t see much of a change in his expression behind those dark sunglasses. He might have been speaking to another rider or had a speck in his eye. Nevertheless, deep down inside, I knew that I had given Lance back, his look. Now, I really had a story to tell the folks back home.

Saved, helmets do seem to provoke strong feelings. Why this means we should not discuss them I don't know. Many cyclists feel it is an important topic, whichever side they take. You obviously think so.

@ saved by a helmet - whilst you may haave some questionable views on the protective properties of polystyrene you my friend, can tell a great story. Loved your last post. May actually get a copy of your book. And may you always have a fair wind

Thanks Giff.
it is a fun read.

I really am the type of guy who is fun to drink a beer with.
I don't take myself too seriously.

thanks and be safe please!
Jeff

I wear a helmet. It can be a pain in the ass but 'hot' it never has been.

I already asked you not to twist my words.

Almost forgot the valuable coupon for a book sale!
The things I'll do to help International Relationships.

One Valuable Coupon!

Upon the purchase of one copy of “Destroying Demons on the Diagonal” the bearer of this coupon is entitled to one free Happy Hour beverage.

Fine Print: This coupon is valid only if the author is present. No rebates, refunds or reconsiderations. This valuable coupon is not valid with any other offer.

But wait – there’s more!

Buy two copies of “Destroying Demons on the Diagonal” and get a set of Ginsu knives! (Only joking), but two Happy Hour beverages would not be out of the question.

Such a deal!

Unfortunately regardless how you perceive my comments it's true though. People will go to A&E or their Drs if they bash their head and that could easily have been avoided. I would never wish ill on any other person (or should i say riders) so if thats how it came across then that is my error and not intenional.

I agree, people will go to A&E or their Doctor's.

But your point is slightly muted by the fact that anyone, no matter if they are a cyclist would go and get checked if they gave themselves a big enough crack on the head.

A pedestrian falling over on the street.
A baby jumping off a chair.
A person who walked into a door.
Someone who was fighting and got knocked out.

Just some of the hundreds of circumstances I can think of why people might need checked out for a head injury. If I was on my bike and came off hard enough whether with a helmet or not, i'd still want checked over to see I didn't have concussion or anything like that.

Agreed, but what i was getting at was a lot of people, me included, wouldn't dream of going to the drs let alone A&E, if i banged my head and had a helmet on.

Obviously if it was a really hard smash then its a natural thing to do but a small bump wouldn't mean a trip to the drs if i had my helmet on whereas without one a small bump might produce a split head or concussion (which is very possible without wearing a helmet)or road rash to be cleaned up.

I know these are my own views and will not tally with others but its a forum of peoples views, right or wrong is immaterial, its their views.

I cant honestly see why people wont wear a helmet. It wont stop you from getting squashed by a car or breaking legs, arms, collar bones etc but it will stop minor injuries to your head and, call me a softy, but i dont like the idea of getting hurt regardless of how much and as such i will always wear a helmet and so will both my kids and my wife.

Ultimately its an individuals choice and they must accept the consequences whichever route they take.

Stumpy, like Gkam84 says, people go to hospital for head injuries for all sorts of reasons. That you focus so much on the case where they might be unhelmeted cyclists suggests you're not applying your logic universally, that you have some kind of internal bias.

If your concern truly is for the welfare of people, and you truly believe helmets would help save them, then do you also put the same passion into advocating for helmets for other activities?

E.g. joggers' heads are at about the same height as cyclists, and go at about the same speed (at least, of about-town utility cyclists like my wife), do you tell joggers to wear helmets? Another major source of head injury is assaults, do you tell people to wear boxing helmets when they go out on the weekend, in case someone punches them? Also, the elderly and the young are more likely to suffer head injuries, do you tell people they should make sure their kids and elderly parents wear head gear at all times? One of the leading causes of head injury is motor vehicle accidents - both to occupants, to pedestrians and cyclists - do you tell people they should wear helmets when walking?

If you do not, then why not? Then why do you pick on cyclists?

And yes, your earlier comment sounded very much like you were wishing injury on other people.

Paulj, my mind boggles at some of the comments put onto this forum, it really does.

We are discussing the merits of helmets for cyclists, not joggers, pedestrians, motorists or joe public who get a clip whilst out on the beer.

And i have never seen a jogger going at the same speed as a cyclist, perhaps you could enlighten me on that one

Your views differ from mine and lets face it there is no common ground between our comments. Your decision is not to wear one where my decision is to wear one. I hope you dont one day regret that.

"And yes, your earlier comment sounded very much like you were wishing injury on other people "

After spending 25 years in my job trying to help people nothing could be further from the truth but hey ho i can always make an exception

Stumpy, well I similarly hope you never hit your head after a trip, or in a car accident. If you do and suffer a head injury, it'll be your own fault of course.

My wife cycles at about 15 to 20 km/h on the flat. She could go faster down hills, but she chooses not to (very sensible policy too - protects you much better than a helmet). That's not an unusual speed for ordinary, about-town cycling. If you go to the Netherlands, that's about the speed most people do there as well (who wants to arrive all sweaty?). That kind of speed is also well within the reach of joggers and runners.

I think you're victim of the widespread cultural hostility to cycling in the UK. Part of that is the denormalisation of cycling. E.g. cyclists are weirdos, poor, etc. The pressure to make them wear helmets at all times (which are inconvenient) is part of that push to denormalise cycling.

That there is no such widespread cultural pushing of helmets for other activities of not too dissimilar risk is quite relevant I think.

Oh, you didn't answer my question: Why do you not advocate for helmets for those other activities? Why do you pick on cyclists?

Never said i did or didnt advocate helmets for other sports, activities. But thats not what this forum is about is it, or has it become a free for all sports / activities to try and justify a point.

Bugger me you must have some fast joggers round where you live considering that the mens London marathon was run in just over 2hrs average speed of 19km/h so if you've got joggers doing that speed have they been on "speed"

Buts that not relevant either considering we are discussing cycle helmet use.

Give it up already, wear or not wear a helmet, lets give up trying to justify it to someone on the other side of the coin.

I officially declare this discussion closed before we all fall out......

Any other business

it's that time

Gkam you spoil sport, i love winding people up.

15 km/h is well within the capabilities of decent amateur 5 to 10 km runners.

And yes, if your reasoning for cycle helmets lacks logical consistency, I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss running and walking helmets.

That's alright, look what I do to mine

He won the Tour De Meow and Milk Race this year and proclaimed

I don't really get how there's a debate?

If I fall off and hit my head, I'd much rather have a helmet. They're not gooing to save your life in every instance. But surely they're worth it for that small percentage of accidents they will save your life.

Hi Jeff,

First let me say thank you for writing this article; it was a heartwarming recollection of your accident (did I say accident) or attempted manslaughter? There is nothing more important than life.

So pleased you made a good recovery; and I agree with you about wearing a helmet. Get A Hat And Save Your Head!

I so enjoyed reading your story; although, I hope no-one else has to go through what you went through, at least you survived and recovered from the ordeal.
My sincere Regards.

we're allowed to do a bunch of other stuff (climb ladders, drive cars, walk to work, play contact sports) without there being a debate at all. all of those things carry a broadly comparable risk of head injury to cycling; some a bit more, some a bit less.

None of those things are actually comparable to cycling.

Cycling helmets shouldn't be a legal requirement. But it just seems common sense to wear one.

Plus they look AWESOME

in terms of your likelihood of dying from a head injury, they're all directly and very simply comparable. yet you wouldn't even consider putting on a helmet for most of them. why is that?

I see...

Well I shall continue to wear my hemet and mock you thoroughly when you're licking windows for fun.

you seem to be assuming that i don't wear a helmet. you'd be wrong.

my question is: why is cycling considered dangerous when lots of other things with a broadly comparable risk aren't?

The aveage jo blogg will cycle at approx 8mph. If he/she comes off their bike the worst injury they sustain will be a cut hand or twisted shoulder. In the last 5 years I've cycled roughly 50,000 miles and come off my bike twice. Once when a ped stepped out in front of me - twisted shoulder. The second - not clipping out in time - staved wrist. I used to play squash and never wore head gear regardless of the risk of head butting a wall. Also played rugby without the need for head gear. Learn not to fall and if going to fall learn how to fall.

I did assume you don't, my apologies.

I think you're less likely to have an accident walking down the street that involves a head injury. In terms of ladders, anyone that climbs them regularly for work or whatever is genreally going to be wearing a hard hat.

It all boils down to personal choice. It certainly shouldn't be a law. But having been knocked off my bike on only my 2nd ride through no fault of my own, I'll certainly always wear 1 and advise peopl I know to wear 1.

that's what you'd assume, if you hadn't looked at the injury statistics. so go look at them.

so profesionnal ladder climbers have to wear a hat, but us amateurs can go without, eh? *thinks of parallel to cycling*

Thanks Mostyn,

I appreciate the thoughts and I am a happy guy knowing I should have been pushing up daisies after the crazy hit I took. If you will scroll down all the posts here, you will see a lighter article I included as a peace prize to the cyclists in the UK.

Be safe and be well,
Jeff

For every anecdote there is an equal but opposite anecdote:

I completely broke my collar bone 17 odd years ago (was wearing a helmet). I got knocked down by a car just under 2 years ago, and landed on my head after a bonnet surf. My head had a slight headache for 30 minutes after. My collar bone still aches and gives me back ache, 17 odd years later.

I'm not wishing ill on anyone, but people who cycle without wearing full body armour deserve to die a horrible death.

I really can't understand anyone who'd cycle without body armour. You've only got one body, and it's hardly a hassle to put on some plastic & polysterene. Anyone who cycles without body armour must be an irresponsible idiot, and if they injure their arms or torso - well they had it coming to them.

Good point, I'll make sure and wear mine when I'm cycling on the road, as well as using it for racing. I'll skip the lid for road use though as the body armour makes more sense. Most cyclist injuries in road crashes involve damage to limbs.

Not meaning to be picky but you advocate the wearing of body armour and in your own words "hardly a hassle to put on some plastic and polysterene", yet on the 29th oct you wrote "I don't wear one because they're hot" meaning the helmet, followed later by "The pressure to make them wear helmets at all times (which are inconvenient)".

So they are hot and inconvenient, yet your willing to cover yourself in plastic and polystyrene (same as a helmet) body armour which of course isn't as hot as a helmet or as inconvenient as a helmet is it

Stumps: It's called satire.

Note that, in certain contexts I'd strongly advise wearing body armour, and in such contexts I would then also strongly advise wearing a safety helmet (in which case it should be a proper, full hard-shell one - not the near-useless, fragile, soft placebo-helmets many wear on the road). In some other contexts, just a soft-shell helmet might be a good idea. However, in other contexts, including the most typical ones for cycling (like pottering about town at normal speeds), I don't see what the point is - though I wouldn't stop someone wearing them.

What annoys me is when people argue that /all/ cyclists must /always/ wear helmets. It's non-sensical. It's damaging to cycling overall. It's damaging to public health overall. It's damaging to cyclist safety overall. There is crystal clear evidence how best to achieve high-rates of cycling with good safety, from the Netherlands and a few other places, and it simply doesn't involve helmets.

(oops: cyclists of course still have the choice in the Netherlands, and a very small number do: notably those trying to emulate their sports cycling heroes).

Bones don't always fix. Even if they heal well, they may never be as strong as before (broken pelvis can be a problem for women of child-bearing age). Breaks in complex joints may never be the same again. Spinal injuries can be extremely life-changing.

I've got a few broken bones from my childhood and young adult, when my body was at the peak of its healing capabilities. I feel most of them forever more. (As I type this, my right index finger aches every time it presses a key - cause there's a chipped off bit of bone in one of its joints).

Yes, you can injure your brain too. But don't kid yourself that the rest of your body doesn't matter.

The best strategy is to go slower. Especially down hills. After motor vehicle collisions, speeding down hills seems to be a significant cause of cyclist injuries (my anecdotal impression).

The northern Euro countries are a lot safer for bicyclists because most car drivers also ride bicycles or are close to bicyclists.
Also, the majority ride much more slowly, because they are not sports cyclists.
See what the beeb has to say.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20068083
So you can't compare the injury rates, it is apples and oranges.

It is not "opinion" that a head striking a hard object is less likely to suffer to damage if is is covered in a helmet; It is a fact. It is opinion to say that more collisions occur due to wearing a helmet. But it is an incorrect opinion; bicycling is not American football.