Cyclists who wear ‘flimsy little helmets’ are wasting their time, a leading neurosurgeon who never wears one has said.
Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said his patients who have been in bike crashes have not seen any benefit from their helmets.
He told the Hay Festival, where he was in discussion with Ian McEwan about his new novel featuring a brain surgeon: “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet. In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.
“I see lots of people in bike accidents and these flimsy little helmets don’t help.”
Instead, he said, he wore a cowboy hat on his bike, which he had been riding for 40 years.
According to the Telegraph, he also cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk.
The research suggests drivers think riders in helmets are more experienced and predicatable and can be passed up to three inches more closely.
Women and the non-helmeted tend to be passed more slowly and widely.
A Department of Transport study has shown that helmets could prevent 10-16 per cent of cyclist fatalities, although this was also an estimate based on a small study.
Angie Lee, Chief Executive of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust said: “I hope he is going to take responsibility for the cyclist who gets injured because they take their helmet off following his comments.
“This may be his opinion but there are a lot more neurosurgeons and surgeons who would counter that argument.
“My advice would be the same as the Department of Transport’s which is that helmets have a place in protecting the head.”
Marsh, who retires in March, also said he jumps red lights to get ahead of the traffic.
“It’s my life at risk,” he said, ‘So I regularly cross over red lights.”
Recently we reported how three of London’s air ambulance doctors called for an overhaul of the capital’s cycle safety measures after three cyclists were killed in three weeks.
In an article for the Evening Standard, entitled How To Ride Safely, by Cyclist Doctors Who Save Lives, Mr Tom Konig, a trauma surgeon, Ali Sanders, an emergency medicine consultant and Mark Wilson, a Neurosurgeon, all defended cycling in London, saying: “Cycling remains a wonderful way to commute and travel cheaply and remain fit and healthy in the process and so should continue to be encouraged.”
But they added that it remained risky, and outlined a number of safety measures, including:
- Avoid sharing roads with buses and HGV’s
- Remember large vehicles are bigger than you and you will definitely come off worse – so give them a wide berth
- Defensive riding
- Wear a helmet
- Use all your senses (don’t wear headphones)
- Make your own decision about how ‘safe’ a cycle route is
And in 2013 we reported the comments of Lynn Myles, a consultant neurosurgeon at the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh.
Ms Myles acknowledged that she is “under no illusion that it [a helmet] will save me in the event of a high speed collision with a car or lorry (nothing will)” – a common criticism aimed at those who insist all cyclists should wear one – but adds that “most cycling accidents aren’t of the high-speed variety.”
Instead, after outlining other things that can be done to improve cycle safety such as addressing traffic speed and improving road layout, she says: “Most of the head injuries I have seen in cyclists are the result of low velocity crashes or simple falls due to ice or wet roads.
“There is no doubt in my mind that a well-fitting cycle helmet will reduce the incidence of scalp laceration and open fracture and will help to reduce the energy transfer to the brain.”






















80 thoughts on “‘Flimsy little helmets’ completely pointless, says leading brain surgeon”
Here we go again!!
Do or
Here we go again!!
Do or Don’t the choice is yours?
When I was younger, I didn’t
When I was younger, I didn’t wear a helmet. I had several crashes including being run off the road into a ditch but somehow never smacked my head.
My wife eventually persuaded me to wear a helmet about 15 years ago and since then I have smacked my head off tarmac twice.
By this measure it is surely a result of me wearing a helmet that has led to these incidents?
Seriously though, while a helmet won’t do much in a head on collision or prevent injury when a truck rolls over the top of you, it will help when you come off otherwise.
Recently, I crashed at just under 30mph and was unconscious for nearly 15 minutes, I had and still have have memory issues, mild aphasia, and issues with irritability and mood swings… Nearly three months later.
Had I not been wearing one…?
This isn’t about HGVs etc…I
This isn’t about HGVs etc…I came off my bike on black ice last winter. Bike shot right, I got whiplashed left and cracked my head on the ground. According to the neuro doc who saw me, the point of impact could have been fatal if I had not had a helmet on. Cheap little £30 helmet saved my life probably, and I was only doing 5mph! Agree the choice is yours, but for a few 100g, I will always wear one.
Pazaa wrote:This isn’t about
I’m with you on this one – I had a similar experience and while the helmet doesn’t help with concussion from the impact, it does stop your skull from cracking open on the tarmac or pavement and little splinters of bone going into your brain. I think until people who are anti-helmet have an experience like this they will keep their views. Does it discourage people from cycling? Yes, some. Do I care about helmet hair? No.
goggy wrote:Pazaa wrote: I
There is nobody who is anti-helmet. There are people who choose not to wear one and there are people opposed to any law which might make them wear one but I have never seen anyone argue they should be banned. The only people trying to force their views on others are those arguing for them to be compulsory.
Ah ha ha ha ha…. that’s
Ah ha ha ha ha…. that’s going to cause a ruckus. Though, next time someone tells me about how the bored nurse they once talked to said helmets save lives…
Im with Ms Myles on this one
Im with Ms Myles on this one so I will carry on wearing a helmet…..I fell on ice at slow speed a while ago… the helmet saved my head from hitting the road directly, so I avoided concussion at least,I think.
For me its more worrying when an emminant brain surgeon jumps a red light surely he must of seen the result of those kinds of accidents .. for me its a kind of percentage game, eventually I could get hit,(and it doesn’t get car drivers so wound up, I hope)
Agreed, it sounds as if he is
Agreed, it sounds as if he is referring to the tiny padded leather helmets worn by the pros in the 50’s and 60’s. ‘Eminent neuro surgeons’ tend to think they are experts on everything, and he will only see the most severely injured people transferred from lesser hospitals. Views of experienced road cyclists equally valid, and the jury is still out.
I was riding on black ice
I was riding on black ice once and fell heavily on my left arm. I wasn’t wearing a helmet, but I’d wrapped my entire body in several layers of bubble wrap as a precaution and this made the bruising on my arm less severe than it could have been.
FFS…Not again!
I will only
FFS…Not again!
I will only day the following… If you bang your head in a helmet and walk away unscathed, the chances are that it didn’t save your life.
If you spend three days in a coma and have a serious concussion, then yeah, maybe your helmet made a life and death difference.
It bugs the hell out of me when folk was lyrical about the magical life saving properties of helmets…. It’s an inch of polystyrene, that’s all. Yes they add protection, and that protection van make all the difference, but for lives to be at stake, you’d still be walking away with a mighty headache.
No this again…Wear or don’t
No this again…Wear or don’t wear, it’s a choice.
I don’t really care what other people do.
specs wrote:Wear or don’t
Of course it is.
I don’t accept this argument
I don’t accept this argument when one of the choices has a social cost. You get hurt or killed and society bears the cost.
Got a book to promote, do
Got a book to promote, do we?
Look – you can wear a helmet or not – your choice and I’m not in favour of laws. But let’s say we each get one smack at the other’s head with a cricket bat. I’ll have my helmet on, thanks.
Remember the MMR anti-jab ‘Doctor” ? How many people’s lives has he ruined?
CanAmSteve wrote:But let’s
Yes, but it’s an awful lot subtler than that though isn’t it? If wearing a helmet increases the chances of you getting hit in the first place, and there are studies that suggest that, then it’s not as straight forward as saying “I want a helmet on if I bump my head”
For me the most compelling argument is that the countries with the lowest levels of helmet use also see the lowest levels of cyclist head injuries. That’s probably largely down to the fact they have proper infrastructure, so that’s what we need to concentrate on instead of endless arguements about polystyrene hats.
Trouble is, he’s only going
Trouble is, he’s only going to see a narrow cross section of accident victims. While he might deal with serious head injuries. he’s not going to be seeing the minor scrapes that people walk away from, or dead people is he?
And the line about “his life, his risk” makes him sound like a complete tw@ – how about the person that hits you? I’m sure they just carry on with life as usual?
So, a helmet effectively
So, a helmet effectively makes your head significantly *wider*, and adds a modicum of extra weight. If you fall sideways and your helmet bangs the road that DOES NOT necessarily mean your helmet saved your head from a bang. Without the helmet, your head would effectively have been narrower, and slightly lighter, and may not have hit the ground *at all*.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqo4hwnJt6Y (“glad” is dutch for slippy). Note the instinctive reactions people have to lift their heads away from the fall, while sticking out their arms. There are maybe 1 or 2 people who /maybe/ hit their heads. If all those people had been wearing helmets, more would have hit the ground with helmet and have “a helmet saved me!” stories like yours I suspect.
I once, after a sportive, allowed myself and my bike to flop sideways onto a grassy bank, I was so exhausted. I was just expecting to break the fall with my hip and shoulders. I actually ended up with a bang to the head, because the width of my helmet meant it hit the ground and transmitted the shock to my head. Without a helmet, I’d have been fine.
Helmets *do* make a noticeable difference to head injury rates (circa 1.25 to 1.6 times improvement). However, they also slightly increase other types of injury, neck particularly, because of the width and weight issues – and possibly also because of risk compensation issues.
The thing is, the difference helmets make is *piddling* compared to building safe infrastructure for cyclists. The Netherlands has a *many fold* (don’t have the figures to hand, something like 5 to 7 times from memory) better death/injury rates than UK.
A 5 to 7 times improvement is *much* better than a 1.2 to 1.6 times improvement. But wait, I hear you say, surely it’s not an either/or thing? Wouldn’t it be best to have *both* the helmet improvement *and* the safe infrastructure improvement? Well, that’s an interesting question. First, if things are much safer, the small improvement may matter much less. Second, it assumes you can have both. However, what if the 1.2 to 1.6 times improvement might actually *decrease* your odds of ever being able to achieve the 5 to 7 times improvement? What if helmets made the safe infrastructure less achievable?
If that sounds ridiculous, consider that countries with helmet pushing cultures or laws, seem to also have low cycling rates, and refuse to invest significantly in proper networks of high-quality cycling infrastructure. Given that helmet pushing seems to discourage cycling (laws definitely do, so it’s not unreasonable to think cultural pressure might also), it’s actually possible there’s a causative process there:
1. In response to increasing perception of danger to cyclists on the roads, various people and orgs push helmets or help reinforce a helmet culture, and so implicate cycling as being unusually dangerous.
2. Some people choose not to cycle (or let their children cycle), because it seems dangerous
3. Fewer people cycling means that:
a) motorists become less aware of how to behave around cyclists, and so the roads become a little more dangerous;
b) politicians have less reason to do anything substantive for cycling safety, so more safe infrastructure just doesn’t get built, and any such infrastructure that’s there doesn’t get maintained. Further, the smaller cyclists become as a group, the more susceptible the politicians become to victim-blaming, cycling-reducing measures from various car and “grieving but unfortunately clueless mother” lobbies. E.g. see helmets laws in AU, NZ, etc., and the daft crack-down on cyclists in New York in the USA.
4. Go back to 1, ad infinitum.
Unfortunately, it’s really hard to setup well-controlled experiments involving entire societies. However, comparing the Netherlands and the UK, I feel the above is a very plausible effect.
Helmet cultures may make it *harder* to get safe infrastructure and *real* safe cycling for the masses.
Paul, one word for your
Paul, one word for your verbose post – and that is “yawn”.
Now, before deciding if you are going to wear a helmet or not, next time you are doing 30mph in your car, look out of the window and ask yourself if you were going to jump out at that speed, would you rather have a little bit of head protection on or not? A 30mph crash off a bike is going to be similar, the choice is yours.
The key phrase here, in the
The key phrase here, in the second paragraph, is ‘his patients‘. He only sees/operates on the patients with significant neurological brain injury, but not those who potentially saved a trip to Neuro ICU/theatre by their helmet. Equally, for all he knows ‘his patients‘ may have had even more significant injuries without their ‘flimsy helmets‘. He has extrapolated from his personal experience.
Are helmets likely to cause harm in the event of head trauma? No. Could they offer some protection in the event of head trauma? Clearly. You don‘t need a randomised–controlled trial of parachutes…
Concerning to hear drivers give a helmet–wearer less space, but this is about driver behaviour and not about the efficacy of helmets.
jamiemfranklin wrote:Are
That’s your opinion, not science. The world is clearly flat.
That’s just one experts
That’s just one experts opinion. There will no doubt be many others that disagree.
Angie Lee, Chief Executive of
1) He’s a leading neurosurgeon so yes %^&$% he takes responsibility.
2) Are you going to take responsibility for all of the close passes by drivers who assume that wearing a helmet means you don’t need to cycle around pot holes? No, because your responsibility is to bitch about things when someone threatens the profits of helmet manufacturers, money 1st right?
He wears a cowboy hat? That’s
He wears a cowboy hat? That’s cool but how does it stay on at speed?
It is a choice, Although I do
It is a choice, Although I do wonder about these studies showing motorists take more care when someone isn’t wearing one!
I had a big accident and wasn’t wearing one. Estimated impact speed 40MPH on to the road with my head leading, concussion was the least of my worries.
I wear one all the time now, otherwise the wife won’t let me out to play on my bike ~X(
Quote:I don’t accept this
Theres nothing to support this argument and a lot to discredit it.
First poster has it nailed..
As in what to discredit this
As in what to discredit this argument? Please provide support. Clearly there is a cost to society – hospital bills, cremation costs. Admittedly the latter may have a social benefit.
Your head, you decide.
Henry
Your head, you decide.
Henry Marsh talks a lot of sense, and other people in the trade have similar views. But remember they see the bad end of the spectrum.
I think RTA with vehicle = minor reduction in damage to head but even a 30 mph impact will result in no meaningful protection.
Fall on my own ie stationary and still clipped, or wash out front wheel on bend then head safer and less cut.
Legislation not the way to manage this, unless it’s part of a law that tells us how to hold a pencil when running…
I wear goggles in playing squash and a helmet to protect me from my stupidity when cycling.
Strict liability will have much greater impact…. But that’s another discussion.
I have the dubious pleasure
I have the dubious pleasure of interacting with neurosurgeons on a daily basis. It is important to ignore most of what they say that doesn’t pertain to the patient in front of them. Even then it’s important to let them change their mind a few times before taking action.
This is because they will offer an opinion on everything from the best way to brew tea to the management of head lice.
Wonderful people really….
Angie Lee, part-time “chief
Angie Lee, part-time “chief executive” of BHIT, is a single-minded heavily overweight non-cyclist.
BHIT has received approx. £750,000 over the last 5 years. Up to a half is used each year to raise more income. The rest publicises the dreadful dangers of cycling and the helmet solution to schools and the media.
No infrastructure advocacy, just the dangers and the helmets.
Here she is:
http://www.getreading.co.uk/special-features/pride-reading-nomination-angela-lee-4212874
Welsh Boy,
If you don’t care
Welsh Boy,
If you don’t care to read something, then don’t. Replying just to put others down is, frankly, the mark of a cock.
Thanks,
Paul
I wear one (I have two
I wear one (I have two actually; training & racing); the rest of you can do whatever you like 🙂 Your bonces are not my problem!
Guy crashed on my club ride
Guy crashed on my club ride this morning; broken clavicle and trashed helmet. At least he didn’t leave his scalp on the tarmac as would have happened without it.
Why take the chance with something you forget you are wearing most of the time?
Most surgeons are arrogant.
Most surgeons are arrogant. At least the ones I know.
Neurosurgeon that only sees
Neurosurgeon that only sees cyclists requiring neurosurgery believes helmets do no good. Slow =D>
I get the feeling his neurosurgery would be considerably busier if we all stopped wearing them.
Yes, your instincts are
Yes, your instincts are obviously much more reliable than the reams of evidence that show very clearly that if people don’t wear helmets, they don’t suffer more head injuries.
ok so usual witter on
ok so usual witter on here.
consider a 20mph impact and think how meaningless the speed alone is in describing the impact.
also ask yourself, what will do more damage a cyclist travelling at 20mph hitting a stationary car or a car travelling at 20 mph hitting a stationary cyclist.
1. Surgeons are arrogant;
1. Surgeons are arrogant; Agree, 99% of the ones I meet are and it seems to be something designed into their training curriculum. This chap sounds like a prime example of a self appointed cock. If I remember rightly, he is the same chap who wanted to leave the UK and work overseas because he hated his job and wanted to become an architect or something like that.
2. Neurosurgeons would be out of a job if they did not have to treat head injury patients. Maybe this chap has an ulterior motive?
3. Social cost: Well, someone has to pay for the treatment, even if it is just a large stitch to your head. It doesn’t happen for free. So the non-helmet wearing folk who fall and end up with just a gash to the head (that the other lot wouldn’t), still cost the tax paying public as such. And if on a daily basis 10 of these so called avoidable sutures could be avoided then that is 10 other patients who could be treated quicker?
4. PaulJ, your post is full of conjecture. If I could be bothered, I could make up a similar argument in favour of wearing helmets. Although I do sometimes think that not wearing a helmet may actually help with the process of natural selection. And maybe I should just agree with you.
5. Cycling infrastructure is not going to change overnight in this country. Till then I will continue to wear a helmet, but that is my choice.
indyjukebox wrote:1. Surgeons
Pot calling kettle… come in kettle… your time is up.
What a load of fucking twaddle!
I can imagine that: the worlds neurosurgeons sitting around in a room, awaiting an alert to come in on the fax that someone has fallen off their bicycle and needs emergency brain surgery.
The fact that you think neurosurgery only involves head trauma surgery shows that you are talking a load of bollocks.
This rambling mess of reactionary nonsense is easily countered with studies that show helmet wearing increases risk taking with both cyclists and vehicle drivers, and so not wearing helmets reduces your chances of being in a collision with a vehicle, therefore reducing your chance of visiting a hospital (and where I live health care is socialised and free at the point of use).
If you want to bring in the cost of healthcare then you would be arguing for taxing the fuck out of private motorised usage for journeys under 5km because those are the ones that are making people obese and so putting a huge strain n all healthcare systems around the world.
The advocation of helmets and other PPE such as hiviz, is more of a hindrance to decent infrastructure being built, than contributing to it.
zanf wrote:indyjukebox
Pot calling kettle… come in kettle… your time is up.
What a load of fucking twaddle!
I can imagine that: the worlds neurosurgeons sitting around in a room, awaiting an alert to come in on the fax that someone has fallen off their bicycle and needs emergency brain surgery.
The fact that you think neurosurgery only involves head trauma surgery shows that you are talking a load of bollocks.
This rambling mess of reactionary nonsense is easily countered with studies that show helmet wearing increases risk taking with both cyclists and vehicle drivers, and so not wearing helmets reduces your chances of being in a collision with a vehicle, therefore reducing your chance of visiting a hospital (and where I live health care is socialised and free at the point of use).
If you want to bring in the cost of healthcare then you would be arguing for taxing the fuck out of private motorised usage for journeys under 5km because those are the ones that are making people obese and so putting a huge strain n all healthcare systems around the world.
The advocation of helmets and other PPE such as hiviz, is more of a hindrance to decent infrastructure being built, than contributing to it.— indyjukebox
Yawn! You must be a surgeon too. The arrogance shines through. So does the demeaning attitude and a need to call everyone else names. Well done. Did you get a distinction with that attitude?
indyjukebox wrote:zanf
Pot calling kettle… come in kettle… your time is up.
What a load of fucking twaddle!
I can imagine that: the worlds neurosurgeons sitting around in a room, awaiting an alert to come in on the fax that someone has fallen off their bicycle and needs emergency brain surgery.
The fact that you think neurosurgery only involves head trauma surgery shows that you are talking a load of bollocks.
This rambling mess of reactionary nonsense is easily countered with studies that show helmet wearing increases risk taking with both cyclists and vehicle drivers, and so not wearing helmets reduces your chances of being in a collision with a vehicle, therefore reducing your chance of visiting a hospital (and where I live health care is socialised and free at the point of use).
If you want to bring in the cost of healthcare then you would be arguing for taxing the fuck out of private motorised usage for journeys under 5km because those are the ones that are making people obese and so putting a huge strain n all healthcare systems around the world.
The advocation of helmets and other PPE such as hiviz, is more of a hindrance to decent infrastructure being built, than contributing to it.— zanf
Yawn! You must be a surgeon too. The arrogance shines through. So does the demeaning attitude and a need to call everyone else names. Well done. Did you get a distinction with that attitude?— indyjukebox
He nailed you on point 3 though. That is a poor argument and you can use anything as an example. Crossing the street and getting hit by car? Wow, such social cost. Doing DIY and falling off a chair, oh no, poor system. Fire in your house? Very money, much fire engine.
It is interesting that all
It is interesting that all the helmeteers above attacking this surgeon keep their mouths shut when when surgeons advocate helmet wearing.
Wear one or don’t wear one
Wear one or don’t wear one it’s your choice, but, either way don’t prattle on about it. Don’t demonise those who don’t share your point of view. And, please, save your anecdata and analogies for the pub/café because none of it proves a thing.
workhard wrote:Wear one or
I’ve not seen any “demonising” in this thread, but “prattle” is not not a very respectful word.
I touched wheels and came off, banging my head, but luckily I was wearing a cotton cap. This anecdote is as valid as the ones above, but you can find real data at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/. if you are interested.
We use data to decide on many important questions. Drug efficacy for instance.
I hope that wearing a helmet does remain my choice, but in the countries where the rate of cyclist casualties are the highest helmets are compulsory, whereas the safest countries are those where helmets are rare.
Here is an article on the failure of voluntary helmet wearing to reduce casualties.
“Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm’s way.
But new data on bicycle accidents raises questions about that. The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html
The building of decent
The building of decent infrastructure costing millions of pounds has not got one iota to do with helmets and who does or doesn’t wear one.
Anyone who thinks it makes any difference to politicians views on the matter is sadly wrong.
No doubt this article will go back and forwards with the usually crappy and some insightfull comments until the road cc computer bursts.
Stumps: *If* helmet cultures
Stumps: *If* helmet cultures discourage cycling – as laws are *proven* to do – then actually helmets *would* negatively impact the building of infrastructure. Fewer cyclists == less political impetus to build infrastructure.
I fell off my bike once
I fell off my bike once and……………
…..oh………. never mind.
(|:
I work in the car industry
I work in the car industry and regularly get to see the results of pedestrian impact testing. When you see a dummies head deform a windscreen a helmet always looks like a good idea. Don’t get me wrong these tests are to prove that these impacts are survivable but i always think you maybe alive but what quality of life would you have. It’s a personal choice i’ve made my mind up.
pablo wrote: I work in the
[[[[ Pablo—I agree wholeheartedly. Pedestrians (and dummies) should definately wear helmets. Especially the ones that insist all cyclists should! Funnily enough, I must have hit the deck at least 10 times while cycling over the years, sustaining road-rash, big bruising, hip-pain, red-faced embarrassment, boiling rage almost to the point of violence, but no bone-breaks or dislocations, and it’s never been me HEAD that’s hit the roads, the trees, the vehicles, or the jay-walking pedestrians….and to think that all these years, I should, according to many pontificating promulgators (oooh!), have been sporting a lid. Actually, I do sometimes pop on the old Banana hat (trackhat, “hairnet”) over the cotton race cap, but really just for nostalgia and the funny comments, but I don’t kid myself it’ll do much for me if I head-butt a truck at 26mph….but then neither will any other polystyrene thingy.
P.R.
“he also never crashed”
the
“he also never crashed”
the debate is sensationalistic and senseless:
if you never get hit, never fall a helmet doesnt help more than a cowboy hat. NO FUCKING KIDDING.
if you get hit by a 50mph car a bike helmet doesnt help much. NO FUCKING KIDDING.
if you fall and your head hits NOTHING, the helmet is again useless. NO FUCKING KIDDING.
if you get hit or fall at 20mph the helmet MAY saves you from lacerations, trauma and potentially can even save your life.
Damn thats DIFFICULT LOGIC.
Helmets are not mandatory, we
Helmets are not mandatory, we decide. Personally I wear one…my choice. Simple. On a separate note, many years ago my brother was killed skydiving. He was unconscious in the air…he never wore a helmet, I don’t know if it would have saved him or not. (He had a D license so it was his choice, not mandatory). My point is, each to their own, but I imagine the doctor is simply seeking to plug his book.
I’m racing tomorrow and will
I’m racing tomorrow and will wear my lid. That’s because I’m going (fairly) fast and taking a lot of risk. But on the road I don’t bother, because I don’t ride that fast commuting and it isn’t nearly as risky as racing. I’ve crashed a few times when racing and I’ve no problem with wearing a lid when I’m at racing or hitting the berms at an MTB track as I was the other day with my son.
Pick a side of the argument
Pick a side of the argument
Be a dick about it
specs wrote:Pick a side of
I prefer to make my argument rationally, and with respect for those I disagree with.
I ride with an experienced
I ride with an experienced and mature doctor from time to time and he does not wear a helmet though he is cautious and would never run a red light. He explained that throughout his career he’s seen helmets make a difference in serious accidents but more often than not it’s the difference between being dead and being brain damaged. He’d prefer death. It’s a complex issue, not sure where I stand. I wear a helmet when I know I’ll be riding through busy areas or if there’s a chance of ice, if I’m doing an early weekend summer ride I don’t bother. You don’t have to be a helmet wearer or a non-helmet wearer. You don’t have to take a stand. Just evaluate the conditions and make an informed choice on the day, if you’re worried about your noggin put a helmet on, it’s your choice.
I would think that most of
I would think that most of the brain injuries a surgeon sees which are the result of road incidents are not cyclists, but pedestrians and car occupants.
So the question is, why do some medics pick on cyclists as the ones who should have worn a helmet?
The answer must be that they share the “common sense” attitudes of the rest of the population, outside their area of knowledge which is treating the injuries, not preventing them.
Science uses data to escape the limitations of common sense.
I always remember Chris
I always remember Chris Boardman saying that his helmet saved his life that time he crashed in Ireland and ended up in hospital for several weeks.
For my own 2p worth, I only recently started wearing a helmet and I’ve been a serious rider for over 25 years. Had an accident last year and the ambulance crew couldn’t believe I’d spent so much on a Trek Madone and eschewed the lid.
Bike and I were both ok by the way but I’m glad my head didn’t come into contact with the road. :S
michophull wrote:ambulance
Well, this sums up the ignorance and idiocy of it – they imagined your helmet choice was cash driven.
One valid reason to wear a helmet that we might all agree on is that the helmet protects one’s fragile bonce from having to listen to their idiotic told-you-so as one is carted into their ambulance following some unfortunate run-in with a drunk driver or dreadful infrastructure.
I have heard from lots of
I have heard from lots of people how have crashed, hit their head and then said ‘wow – thank god I was wearing a helmet, it really saved me’
Never ever heard anyone crash, hit their head and then say ‘wow – thank god I wasn’t wearing a helmet…’
Must be Mad wrote:Never ever
This is true of helmet-wearing pedestrians too.
And you never hear cyclists say “thank god I wasn’t wearing a proper actual motorbike helmet rather than this foam helmet” after a tumble. Or spine protection body armour. It’s just not something they say. Goes to show, something or other.
Must be Mad wrote:I have
I crashed hard, I had concussion with temporary memory loss (minutes not days). I do not think a helmet would have made any difference, it could have made the concussion worse – rotational injuries. It could have even lead to me being brain-damaged if I had worn a helmet – they aren’t magic. I couldn’t move my neck for a few hours, split my lip open, if I’d have been wearing a helmet then the neck injury would have most likely been worse – the size of the helmet would have caused a bigger angled deflection of my head off of the road.
All of these people saying ‘thank god I was wearing a helmet’ don’t really know what level of head injury they might have had if they weren’t wearing the helmet, perhaps wearing a helmet leads to one subconsciously protecting the head less whilst crashing. I know in the moments before a couple of the crashes I’ve had, I’ve had time to make decisions to mitigate damage, for instance rolling on to the pavement to avoid being run over.
Some of the evidence suggest that people who wear helmets are more prone to head injury, for a multitude of reasons, such as both drivers and cyclists altering their behavior for the worse. And of course the perception of cycling being so dangerous that you need to wear a helmet puts people off of cycling, for some whether or not they commute is whether or not they get any exercise.
Why aren’t all of the people espousing the virtues of helmets recommending that pedestrians wear them? And why are race cyclists wearing rubbish polystyrene helmets when obviously motorcycle helmets are far superior and better suited to the speeds they are going?
And we should recognise the fact that the dangers are vastly different for a race cyclist, a downhill MTBer and a commuter.
BS, the rotation stuff is an
BS, the rotation stuff is an excuse or the wrong helmet, and protection is picking the right kind and quality of helmet.
A decent cycle helmet makes a huge difference, and if you don’t wear one you will eventually die young or learn the hard way why you need a good one if you cycle fast e.g. as I discovered after years of crash luck with just bruises, to knocked out, NHS Max. Fax. patch up then lasting cut lip scar tissue, 4 figure dental work, loss of work time on nasty antibiotics, and later extracted root canal (ouch).
I commute and I now regard a helmet as compulsory, but no way would I ever wear an EU standard lid given the dental work; I had two Met Parachute (MTB Lid with chin guard), a bit too edge for protection (from crash experience), a pain to adjust the fit, and expensive; now on my 2nd Urge Down-o-matic, a tough MTB helmet with padded strap which needs little adjustment.
I don’t have much problem with cars, and it I do, I have some nice strong, day light visible, Exposure lights so that they notice me like a motorcycle.
Must be Mad wrote:I have
Is it really necessary to point out the flawed logic of this argument? Its the same logic that lies behind all forms of superstition.
Three times knocked off in
Three times knocked off in London; first time in 1989: helmetless, concussed and very lucky I didn’t catapault through the passenger window of the Transit van that cut across me. I’ve worn one ever since. Second time: sent spawling over a bonnet in a yellow box junction and head hit windscreen; no ill effect on me. Third time: flying over a bonnet at speed when cut across on fast downhill. Believe it or not I landed and stopped by falling off. A few cuts and bruises and helmet scraped down to the polystyrene.
It is the choice of the individual whether to wear a helmet or not, but I will always wear a helmet. Always.
gussieboy wrote:Three times
Sorry, your anecdotes have no effect on the evidence, which shows clearly that helmets have a marginal or zero effect on head injuries or personal safety while cycling normally.
fluffy_mike wrote:gussieboy
Sorry, your anecdotes have no effect on the evidence, which shows clearly that helmets have a marginal or zero effect on head injuries or personal safety while cycling normally.— gussieboy
The evidence for me personally was clear mate: I wore a helmet on the latter two occasions and it saved me from injury. What you and others choose to do based on a limited number of studies and the anecdotes of a cowboy neurosurgeon are your business entirely.
I have FAITH; You have
I have FAITH; You have SUPERSTITION.
Is the helmet debate the most polarising and entrenched in cycling? Until someone does some definitive and comprehensive research that we can all agree on then I think this matter will remain unresolved.
levermonkey wrote: Until
I think the “experiments” in compulsion in NZ, Oz and some North American jurisdictions are pretty conclusive. Take a look at this.
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/
Of course there are those who prefer not to accept evidence they don’t like, and it will always be impossible to convince them. Look at the climate change deniers.
And it is always difficult to go against conventional wisdom and common sense.
felixcat wrote:levermonkey
I didn’t mention “compulsion” in my post and I never would.
Just to make my position clear
1) I am not pro or anti helmet.
2) I am anti EN1078.
3) I am pro informed choice.
4) I am anti self appointed radicals who give themselves grandiose titles and pontificate on matters calling for actions that do not and will not affect them. Quite frankly it’s like a celibate man pontificating [note careful choice of word] on contraception.
5) If helmet wearing was made mandatory for cyclists then it should also be mandatory for all users of the highway as all users of the highway are at risk of head injury.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/helmets%20for%20motorists
I hope this helps to clarify my position. If not tough! 😀
felixcat wrote:levermonkey
To be fair, there’s a difference between ‘conclusive research’ on mandatory helmet laws, and ‘conclusive research’ on the effectiveness of helmets in accidents. They are two slightly different things (the former seems to be as you say, the latter seems to be undecided), hence you might be arguing at cross-purposes.
i don’t think many are anti
i don’t think many are anti helmet,
The problem is the pro helmet evangelists seem to be unaware of the design parameters of bicycle helmets. Read the specs, under-stand that they are crap then you might start to understand why helmets are the wrong question to start with.
Start with what causes accidents, standard approach to industrial workplaces.
mrmo wrote:i don’t think many
+1 – bear in mind too those commenting how the fatality rate amongst motorcyclists dropped when helmets were made compulsory in 76 tend to overlook that motorcycle helmets are rather more protective than the bits of plastic passing themselves off as head protection for cyclists.
I wear one. I make my kids
I wear one. I make my kids wear one. I couldn’t care less if you wear one. If they were made compulsory I wouldn’t care very much at all (although according to a poster on another thread, this is because I am a supporter of TYRANNY). I would prefer it if people who elected to wear a helmet put them on properly (not backwards – yes, I’ve seen it done – or too far back on individual’s skull). But otherwise I just don’t care. really, we should all stop this and go and worry about something much more important.
Dear Road.cc: can we please, please, please stop it with helmet articles? I assume they are only published to get page impressions up. The articles themselves are of no value whatsoever.
surly_by_name wrote:I wear
I can’t help seeing something contradictory about saying you don’t care, while simultaneously throwing your ha’pennyworth in!
I would care a lot if they were made compulsory, and I’d care even if I didn’t cycle myself.
Compulsory helmet law = cycling suppressed = more cars on the roads. I don’t want that, entirely independently of whether I cycle myself or not. For one thing, I quite like breathing, for another they get in my way regardless of whether I’m walking, cycling, or taking the bus.
My main interest in all of it really is as someone who thinks there are far, far, too many cars on the streets of cities, rather than being that bothered about my own cycling.
The biggest issue with the
The biggest issue with the whole helmet debaracle. Is that *if* the pro-hemlet lobby is correct (and I am not entirely convinced that it is) is that there is a much stronger argument for pedestrians to have madatory helmets (given that there are far more pedestrians and far more pedestrain-vehicle collisions).
Surely it’s the unpredictable
Surely it’s the unpredictable nature of a crash away from a race circuit, whether it’s an urban commute or a recreational ride with mates, that makes helmets a sensible choice. Consider a MotoGP crash, where a rider comes off at 150mph and slides down an empty track (or across the grass) generally avoiding serious injury… and contrast it with some poor commuter who gets nudged at 30mph and hits a lamppost or a kerb with potentially life-changing results.
Mombee wrote:Surely it’s the
Surely it’s the unpredictable nature of a fall or collision away from a race circuit, whether it’s an walk to the shops or a recreational jog with mates, that makes helmets a sensible choice
FTFY
Surely it’s the unpredictable
Surely it’s the unpredictable nature of a crash away from a race circuit, whether it’s an urban commute or a recreational ride with mates, that makes helmets a sensible choice. Consider a MotoGP crash, where a rider comes off at 150mph and slides down an empty track (or across the grass) generally avoiding serious injury… and contrast it with some poor commuter who gets nudged at 30mph and hits a lamppost or a kerb with potentially life-changing results.
Looking at this with a purely
Looking at this with a purely scientific view,
I’ve never seen/heard or read anyone/thing or where that managed to replicate the exact same crash they had to see if the helmet saved their life/brain or sanity. In fact replicating the exact conditions would be impossible as both parties to the crash would know what was going to happen. Nor have I seen someone produce figures that prove that the helmet reduced the impact they encountered. I.e. I suffered a 4G impact, the helmet soaked up 2G and my brain survived the resulting 2G impact. The last crash though was 5G and, oops please excuse me whilst I wipe the dribble, I suffered brain damage.
Citing an increase in brain injuries doesn’t prove the uselessness of said bits of plastic, as exactly the same figure could be used to prove an increase in cyclists, increase in cycling accidents, increase in cyclists taking chances, increase in motorists and on and on on on….
I have two, I’ve smashed several, would I want to find out if they helped, NO! Can I say they helped, no! I’m still here talking bolxs tho.
Can we put a lid on this
Can we put a lid on this thread?
It’s going round in circles like a rider at a velodrome, but with less achievement.
Very unprofessional. This
Very unprofessional. This ‘doctor’ is a disgrace to his profession – and the cycling community.