Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing

Predictably trotting out the same old brainless claptrap in the face of science and common sense.

So, another highly qualified, knowledgeable, experienced individual pops his helmeted head up to be shot at by those self-centred fools who value vanity over safety. Have fun.

dave_atkinson wrote:

Perhaps we could have a point-counterpoint thing with someone from an obesity charity

LoL...some might say i'm a charity case and the missus always has a go about my weight (btw cycling keeps you fit !!)So as a member of the above I say: wear a helmet

ermine wrote:

Predictably trotting out the same old brainless claptrap in the face of science and common sense.

So, another highly qualified, knowledgeable, experienced individual pops his helmeted head up to be shot at by those self-centred fools who value vanity over safety. Have fun.

Wow. "Shot at... Self-centred fools... Vanity over safety"

stabiliser wrote:

"As a lawyer specialising in head and brain injuries, I represent many clients who have suffered serious brain or spinal injuries, some of whom have been injured whilst cycling."

If only *some* of his clients suffered their injuries while cycling, I think Mr Harding should concentrate his efforts on making helmet wearing compulsory, for everyone, all the time.

I would also be interestd to know what types of spinal injury Mr Harding imagines would be mitigated by a helmet.

I undertsnad that the family of last week's London victim don't want their son to be exploited by vested interest groups. hame they can't honour the family's wishes.

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

ermine wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

In that case, is there not a financial benefit to wearing a helment then, even if you don't believe it will help you?

If you suffer serious injury whilst not wearing a helmet your family may have to foot the bill for your care because you didn't take all reasonable measures to protect yourself. If you wear a helmet (even if it doesn't help) your loved ones may receive enough compensation to look after you or be provided for if you are no longer capable.

Seems to be yet another sensible reason to wear a helmet. Why anyone wouldn't whilst cycling on the road is beyond me but I guess that's personal choice.

ermine wrote:

in the face of science and

Other than an unrepresentative impact test, good luck in finding any.

ermine wrote:

common sense.

Yeah, we all know how reliable that is...

ermine wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

dave_atkinson wrote:

ermine wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

I don't have any statistics (and let's face it, stats will tell you anything you like) but I'd bet that accidents per journey made by bike are considerably higher than accidents per journey made on foot.

Likewise the rate of head injuries per cycling accident is probably considerably higher than head injuries per pedestrian accident (assuming you include trips and falls, and other self caused accidents as you would include coming off the bike unaided or crashing into a wall etc...)

Finally, I would expect the seriousness of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents to be more serious, on average, than head injuries received in pedestrian accidents.

Would you say all of those are sensible guesses? Obviously without looking into the actual statistics I couldn't be certain but common sense would say all of the above would probably be true.

In that case cycling is more dangerous than walking (just saying that there are X accidents for cyclists and a similar number for pedestrians doesn't take into account the vastly higher volume of pedestrian journeys, likewise injury per distance isn't a fair representation as walking journeys tend to be shorter but slower, injuries per hour of walking/cycling could be a better stat to use).

By that extremely fuzzy logic based on wildly unverified foundations I'd say that wearing a walking helmet would not be deemed to be a reasonable precaution to take whereas a helmet when cycling may be.

mrpuncture wrote:

I still don't understand why people are so passionate about not wearing a helmet. Came off yesterday over the top on the mountain bike(I should stick to road!) and helmet took a fair old wallop...I was fine, but would i have been without a helmet?? Obviously anecdotal evidence is no good, and I'm sure that "evidence" can be found to support any view...but to me I can't see any reason not to wear a helmet other than your hair gets a bit messy and you get a sweaty line. A small price to pay surely??

Well riding on a challenging MTB track does somewhat increase your risk of going over the bars. You don't have to wear a helmet in that sort of riding, but it makes sense. The same goes for skate park riding on a BMX or competition BMX riding. I wear a helmet for all of those. But I rarely do for road riding, because the risks of going over the bars are lower. And in road riding, the greatest risk to cyclists come from high speed impacts or crush injuries. Neither of which scenario would mean helmet use would make a blind bit of difference. The CTC's analysis of cycle accidents say that in about 3% of them would helmet wearing make a difference as I remember. We might as well require all cyclists to wear body armour, leg and elbow and upper arm protection, as I wear for BMX competition. Arms and legs are the parts of the body most likely to be injured in a cycle accident on the road after all.

I'd be curious to see the statistics the chairman of this brain injury group has to back up his claims.

As many people have commented on this site recently, those campaigning for compulsory use of cycle helmets are looking in the wrong direction with regard to safety. The real issue here is bad driving.

dave_atkinson wrote:

If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

We're dealing with a common (or judge-made) law system here in the UK, therefore much of the decision-making process is based on a combination of precedent and contemporaneous observation and opinion. That element of perception might, in this instance be guided by consideration of factors such as; the availability of cycling helmets (cf the limited availability of walking helmets), the wearing of helmets by professional road cyclists (cf the limited wearing of helmets by professional walkers), the growing body of opinion from medical professional in support of the contention that helmet-wearing might reduce the number/severity of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents (cf ... you get the point). The same goes for knee and elbow pads, full-face helmets, etc - they simply are not accepted into the consciousness as default safety attire, in the same way that helmets are. The measure is, as stated above, whether the party seeking damages, has done that which would be considered reasonable in all the circumstances to mitigate the damage. Most cyclists wear helmets (certainly in the public perception) and every cycling shop sells helmets.

OldRidgeback wrote:

The real issue here is bad driving.

Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

northstar wrote:

The only people/organisations who want compulsory helmets want to reduce cycling numbers

Don't try to speak for me, or for people who share my view. I do not want to reduce cycling numbers. I am active in encouraging non-cyclists to cycle.

northstar wrote:

Pro choice - yes. Compulsion will cause more problems for the NHS, these well meaning "bodies" never think before they speak.

Compulsion WILL CAUSE more PROBLEMS for the NHS? What utter baloney! Define 'problems'. Demonstrate 'will'. Link 'cause' to supposed effect. Drivel.

drheaton wrote:

I don't have any statistics (and let's face it, stats will tell you anything you like) but I'd bet that accidents per journey made by bike are considerably higher than accidents per journey made on foot.

Likewise the rate of head injuries per cycling accident is probably considerably higher than head injuries per pedestrian accident (assuming you include trips and falls, and other self caused accidents as you would include coming off the bike unaided or crashing into a wall etc...)

Finally, I would expect the seriousness of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents to be more serious, on average, than head injuries received in pedestrian accidents.

Would you say all of those are sensible guesses? Obviously without looking into the actual statistics I couldn't be certain but common sense would say all of the above would probably be true.

In that case cycling is more dangerous than walking (just saying that there are X accidents for cyclists and a similar number for pedestrians doesn't take into account the vastly higher volume of pedestrian journeys, likewise injury per distance isn't a fair representation as walking journeys tend to be shorter but slower, injuries per hour of walking/cycling could be a better stat to use).

By that extremely fuzzy logic based on wildly unverified foundations I'd say that wearing a walking helmet would not be deemed to be a reasonable precaution to take whereas a helmet when cycling may be.

most of the analysis i've read comes to the conclusions that:

1) the risk is broadly the same in terms of KSI per billion km for walking and cycling. so risk per hour would be higher for walking, risk per journey higher for cycling.
2) the head injury percentage among admissions is broadly the same too, i've never seen data on the severity or otherwise of those injuries but pedestrian accident data doesn't include things like tripping over a paving stone and bumping your head.
3) the way accidents are reported (especially for pedestrians) means that the figures aren't particularly accurate

the basic gist of all of it, however, is that neither walking nor cycling is particularly dangerous.

i'm not particularly pro or anti helmet use, it's interesting to me that it's always such a hot topic though which is why i read around it a little. and it really is a little. sadly much of the stuff available to read is on websites with a really, *really* obvious axe to grind, one way or the other, so i don't really consider it trustworthy.

I wear a helmet when i'm riding to work or going for a longer ride, or heading off road. I don't wear one when i'm riding to the shops or pootling along the cycle path with my kids. my main bugbear with helmet compulsion is that it'll put people off riding to the shops on their bike, or pootling along the cycle path with their kids.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01785.x/abst... may help.