Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Surgeons in Scotland debate the helmet issue - do they increase cyclists' safety or not?

Neurosurgeon argues for wearing them... trauma specialist (who chairs CTC Scotland) opposes compulsion

Two surgeons in Edinburgh, both of whom ride bikes regularly and both experienced in treating injured cyclists have crossed scalpels over the issue of whether cycle helmets improve riders’ safety.

Lynn Myles, a consultant neurosurgeon at the Western General Hospital in the Scottish capital, described as a “keen cyclist” believes they do.

Taking the opposing view is Chris Oliver, consultant trauma orthopaedic surgeon at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, who also happens to be chair of cyclists’ organisation CTC Scotland.

The issue is debated by them on Surgeons’ News, the website of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, which has some 20,000 fellows and members throughout the world.

Ms Myles begins by acknowledging 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.”

Apart from in sports, where she believes the type of potential injuries justifies governing bodies making helmets mandatory, Ms Myles isn’t calling for helmets to be made compulsory; she does point out though, that “in my department all neurosurgeons, neurologists neurointensivists and neuroanaesthetists wear cycling helmets when cycling – we can’t all be mad!”

Mr Oliver, however, maintains that “there is no justification for helmet laws or promotional campaigns that portray cycling as a particularly ‘dangerous’ activity, or that make unfounded claims about the effectiveness of helmets.

“By reducing cycle use even slightly, helmet laws or promotion campaigns are likely to cause a significant net disbenefit to public health, regardless of the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets,” he adds.

Like Ms Myles, he points out that helmets “are (and can only be) designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions,” and says there is evidence that wearing one can increase certain types of injury.

Mr Oliver acknowledges that “whilst there is a correlation between helmet guidelines and reduced cyclists’ injury numbers, the evidence suggests this is wholly or mainly due to reductions in cycle use, not improvements in safety for the cyclists who remain.”

He goes on to highlight that a fall in the number of cyclists can put remaining ones at greater risk due to the absence of a safety in numbers effect, and outlines other arguments against compulsion.

He also warns against what can be termed compulsion creep, saying that “schools, employers and the organisers of non-sporting cycling events (e.g. sponsored rides) should not seek to impose helmet rules for their pupils, staff and participants.

“These rules are not justified in terms of health and safety, they are likely to reduce the numbers and diversity of people who take part in cycling, and they may in some circumstances be illegal.”

Mr Oliver believes that “individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by clear information about the uncertainties over helmets.”

As we regularly see here on road.cc, the helmet debate is an emotive one and it’s an issue that strongly polarises opinion; the fact that two senior medical professionals working in the same city and dealing with the aftermath of incidents in which cyclists have been seriously injured have such differing opinions on the subject is a reflection of that.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

85 comments

Avatar
purplecup | 11 years ago
0 likes
nadimk wrote:

Cycling carries a risk of head injury. Do you deny that?

pretty much everything carries a risk of head injury.

nadimk wrote:

helmet design is stupid these days.

But we should still all wear them, right?

nadimk wrote:

This debate needs sanity and evidence, not opinion and anecdote.

I'd agree with that, but you didn't actually provide any evidence. just your opinion.

helmets are a massive red herring. they're not what's required for safe cycling. the evidence for that is abundant: just go to a country where cycling is safe, relatively speaking, and look at what they're wearing. And then look at where they get to cycle.

If you want to make cycling safe, have a look at the hierachy of hazard control and do the most important things first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_control

you'll note that personal protective equipment is the last thing you should consider to mitigate risk, as it's generally the least effective.

Avatar
Phytoramediant | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'm still waiting for health advisors to point out that you are more likely to sustain a head injury due to mugging if you are NOT wearing a helmet.
It is for this reason that pedestrians should ALWAYS wear a helmet - especially outside pubs where so many head injuries occur.
Anyone who opposes this very simple and practical safeguard is just putting pedestrians in danger and filling up our busy A&E wards on a saturday night.

Remember this simple slogan: GFAW WAH.
Going For A Walk? - Wear A Helmet!
It's just common sense really.

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 11 years ago
0 likes

Fully in favour of non compulsion. In 95/100 cases better some padding than none at all but still - it's a personal choice.

It's as simple as that and doesn't need this lengthy, tedious hairsplitting every time.

Avatar
Phytoramediant | 11 years ago
0 likes

Of course, in most of Northern Europe, where cycling is a normal means of commuting, they regard helmet wearing as just silly.
They also regard not having decent cyclepaths and proper laws to protect cyclists as insane.
But... what would they know? They're just cyclists who aren't dictated to by a car-culture and regard cycles as transport rather than an Extreme Sport.

Avatar
sneakerfrfeak | 11 years ago
0 likes

It's like Christmas came early, a helmet debate and Rapha launch on the same day!!

Avatar
ped | 11 years ago
0 likes

If only Rapha made helmets.

Avatar
ubercurmudgeon | 11 years ago
0 likes

This helment debate is about as contrived as those new Andex adverts in which they claim the nation is divided between two different methods using toilet paper (when, by the way, did it become an acceptable thing for a corporation to ask us how we wipe our arses?)

Can helments occasionally help prevent injures in certain very limited types of accidents? Yes. Should they be made compulsory or promoted in such a way that makes cycling appear to be an inherently dangerous pursuit? No.

But it keeps coming up. Again and again. Why? Because it is a gift to so many people who are in a position to make it a hot topic. Not getting many page views on your tedious regional specialist web site? Start a helment debate! Secretly dislike cyclists who are adding a few seconds to your journey times each morning? Start a helment debate! Want to detract attention from your government's fundamentally pro-car policies despite their incompatibility with the green policies you like to spout? Start a helment debate! Need to sell your warehouses full of cycling helments that are going out of fashion? Start a helment debate!

Avatar
jarderich | 11 years ago
0 likes

I wish I'd put my lid on before I'd started reading this thread, because my head REALLY hurts now.

Oh and for the record, two sheets per wipe and front to back.

Avatar
mustard | 11 years ago
0 likes

The only thing i have to add to this is that Mr Oliver operated on my broken pinkie, which i broke in a crash in a bike race. - How's that for a claim to fame?!

p.s. I was wearing a helmet but it didn't save my pinkie :'(

Avatar
shay cycles | 11 years ago
0 likes

Most of the "evidence" for helmets' benefit is based on the "I fell off and broke my helmet but my head was OK" type of comment; or on the basis of a doctor or health professional saying that a helmet saved someone's life.

A broken helmet gives no indication of the level of damage that would happen to a head without one. A doctor is not qualified know whether a helmet saved a life in any particular situation.

There is simply no evidence that helmets significantly reduce rates of injury but there is plenty of evidence that helmet compulsion reduces cycling rates and as such is significantly harmful to public health.

For all the "show us the evidence" requests above I suggest a visit to http://cyclehelmets.org/ where plenty of evidence is detailed with references.

My advice is look at actual evidence, think about it, make up your own mind and let everyone else do the same!

Avatar
paulfg42 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Comparisons to the Netherlands seem a bit silly considering the much better cycling infrastructure they have.

Like others, I'd like to see some information on the injuries that helmets can cause.

Avatar
Some Fella | 11 years ago
0 likes

I remember in my youth no one wore helmets. If you just dicking about in the streets or you were a pro. I also remember the streets were littered with dead children and dead pro cyclists, hundreds of them. The Tour De France would loose several riders every year - sometimes dozens - all killed by head injuries. Im amazed i myself made it to adult hood and that there were any pro cyclists left to race in the pre helmet era - such was the casualty rate.
Since helmets have become more common no one has ever died whilst riding a bike.
Thank heavens for helmets.

Avatar
a.jumper | 11 years ago
0 likes

Please stop writing about helmets.

Please http://www.writetothem.com and ask them to stop building crap cycle lanes, if you haven't recently.

Avatar
sodit | 11 years ago
0 likes

Any choice wearing a seat belt No

Any choice wearing a crash helmet on a motor cycle No

At least you have a choice on a cycle all I am reading here are the same old arguments about choice not about safety.

Until they are made compulsory some will, some wont.

So if you crash at 60mph on a motor bike and hit a sign post smash your chest and abdomen then bleed out before help arrives motor cycle helmets shouldn’t be compulsory should they as they don’t always work.

The above statement is the same as what people are saying about cycle helmets and makes as much sense as some comments on here, not a lot. By the way don’t say that kind of accident couldn’t happen as that is exactly what happened to a friend of mine about 20 years ago.
Do I wear a helmet yes. Why? Beacause I have a choice and every little helps.

Avatar
CanAmSteve | 11 years ago
0 likes

Very interesting reading and comments as well. But while arguments against mandating helmet use - because the resulting drop in cycling (poorly studied, IMHO) results in lower average fitness and hence more public "danger" - ignores the reality that when YOU fall, it is YOUR head. Not an average public head. YOUR head.

So, I agree with the UK status quo. No mandated helmet use for adults. Public education. And I always wear a helmet. I care more about my head than yours. I mean you might smoke, too. Or jump lights. Ride with headphones or at night with no lights. You take yer chances, I'll take mine.

BTW - quite a few US states do not have helmet laws for motorcyclists. There seems to be a divide in who wears helmets and who doesn't. Young men don't. Harley riders don't. A nurse friend tells me the A&E workers refer to them as "organ donors".

Avatar
Paul J | 11 years ago
0 likes

Ah, more fallacies:

"You don't get a choice about seat belts or motorcycle helmets, do you?" - no, but cars and motorcycles are different things, with different issues, to bicycles. E.g., for one thing there are *NO HEALTH BENEFITS* to using a car or motorcycle (the contrary).

"Statistics, smishtics, it's *your* head - if you happens to *you* you'll want a helmet". Except, if lots of helmet use depresses cycling rates (e.g. by making cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is and so less attractive), then the lower cycling rates result in more cars that can hit you, and less political will to actually fix any of the problems cyclists have (with road safety, infrastructure). So you may be making things worse for cyclists, such as yourelf, and cycling, for a benefit that will matter to you only in a statistically unlikely event (if you cycle sensibly, and control your speed, e.g. on hills, etc.). Further, do you apply the same logic to when you go for a walk?

I've tried to collate some links on this blog post:

http://pjakma.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/the-case-against-bicycle-helmets-...

You can find links to meta-studies there which suggest the net effect of helmets on injury is *minimal*, because the decrease in head injuries is accompanied by increases in other injuries (facial, neck). The bibliographies in the meta-studies will lead you to the primary studies describing these things.

I try add further studies in the comments when I find them.

Avatar
Pjrob | 11 years ago
0 likes

Here in Victoria, Australia we started the whole helmet compulsion thing, tragically for common sense, without evidence. Now the evidence suggests the only benefit was to reduce the number of cyclists on the road as the figures for reductions in accidents are similar.
If you really want bike safety, look to the Netherlands. I rode there and in Denmark and Sweden over a few weeks and concluded that the whole area but Netherlands in particular is safer because of one thing, protective laws.
Our government had a chance to apply such laws in the 70's as they actually knew about the changes going on in the Netherlands but the whole debate was hyjacked by our motoring advocacy group, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV.
The RACV and the government worked together to create the first bike helmet laws thus ensuring that no motorist in Victoria would have to ever suffer laws that required him to be deferential around a bike rider.

Avatar
Stumps | 11 years ago
0 likes

Not that it makes any difference to peoples views but over the years i've done my job (close to 26) i believe i can count on one hand the number of head injuries sustained by pedestrians tripping over (its usually wrists, shoulders, knees) and likewise for muggings / robberies (usually threatened with violence / knife) whereas bike accidents run nearly into the 100's and the vast majority suffer some sort of head style injury even with a helmet.

These are MY experiences, not fact or scientific proof. I wear a helmet because i want to, its everyones choice and no Govt should ever try to change what is fundamentally an individuals choice unless undeniable proof is brought forward to justify a decision.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde | 11 years ago
0 likes

The case of Fabio Casartelli seems a case in point. He would be alive today (most likely) if he had been wearing something on his noggin. I sort of feel that you don't need to wear a helmet, but given they are light weight and do not impinge performance that they might protect me better than a cloth cap, or styling gel.

But what I would like to know is the stats of head injuries per population of cyclists, compared to other activities. As other people have mentioned it would be a red herring if, for example, there were more hospitalisations due to head injuries from dog walking over cycling. The problem is that we sit in a well on unknowing.

Also, it would also be interesting to know what injuries are sustained by various cycling populations, the regularity of an injury and the experience of a rider. I suspect that people popping to the shops (with few bike handling skills and heavy bikes) suffer injuries more readily than road cyclists. So perhaps the issue is to get people learning bike handling and making them aware of road safety issues, rather than slamming a lid on their head. Perhaps even banning heavy bikes which quite possibly add to the risk factors.

I have no gripe with wearing a helmet or not. I've not needed to wear one, and recognise that there are dangers involved. But putting facts and statistics out there will at least focus this debate (of which I have none).

Avatar
Chris S | 11 years ago
0 likes

As other statistics and statisticians have shown, it's all about our attitude to risk. Those brought up to look out for the bogeyman (remember him?) will think 'Be careful' and wear a helmet, those who think 'life is an adventure, and I'd rather die tomorrow than miss out on the thrills', won't. This is the attitude of the ones who smoke, in spite of all the known risks, too. My gripe is that the health service, and the emergency services, pick up the pieces for free whatever the attitude of the suckers who got themselves sick or injured, and as a non-risk-taker (except when I'm in a nice safe car with a ton of steel all around me!) I feel I'm paying more than my fair share of the cost.

Avatar
Hypoxic | 11 years ago
0 likes

Taking advice from an orthopaedic surgeon over that of a neurosurgeon for a problem which affects the brain is like asking an opthalmologist versus a urologist as to the benefits or otherwise of wearing a box during cricket! The opthalmologist will probably tell you that wearing a box is beneficial only if you really want to prevent yourself from crying after a direct hit to the goolies... but crying won't kill you, will it.
I can't believe you guys are seriously "debating" this! For a developed country, there are still a lot of things that I don't get about the UK... this and the Royals are about as laughable as they come!
Try this on for size... anyone who buys their eggs in egg cartons should wear a helmet. Don't be taken by the advice of an orthopaedic surgeon... they don't have anything to protect... I should know... I'm an anaesthetist.

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'm sorry if this has already been said before, maybe we need to look at the word "safety".

Does a helemt make a fall safer? Yes to a point.
Does it make me feel safer? Yes
Does is make me ride in a safer manner? Not always. I take more risks than I would without.
Does it make the other idiots on the road safer? Nope.
Does it make the idiots on the road drive/walk/cycle safer? Nope!

How does an inanimate object improve the suicidal/murderous tendancies of those organic sqishy things around it?

The safer things are made, the more of a risk people will take.

Avatar
DM | 11 years ago
0 likes

Compulsory crash helmets for car occupants would reduce head injuries save lives.

Avatar
nadimk replied to purplecup | 11 years ago
0 likes

I did not provide a strong opinion on helmets either way, so no evidence is needed. We need more research, less opinion.

Agree with you 100% though on structural improvements to make cycling safer. I wish we had that for sure. BUT, to say that helmets are a red herring is false, to say they are not a relatively cheap, unharmful way to protect the head is false and has no basis in evidence.

You like others cite "evidence" from countries where they do x, y, and z to say helmets aren't needed. This is highly biased "data" and does not constitute evidence. It lacks generalizability to England and the US where we don't have anything like Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

Just wear a helmet and save us the cost of taking care your head injury when you crash, particulary in England's publically funded healthcare system.

Avatar
Krd51 replied to Phytoramediant | 11 years ago
0 likes
Phytoramediant wrote:

Of course, in most of Northern Europe, where cycling is a normal means of commuting, they regard helmet wearing as just silly.
They also regard not having decent cyclepaths and proper laws to protect cyclists as insane.
But... what would they know? They're just cyclists who aren't dictated to by a car-culture and regard cycles as transport rather than an Extreme Sport.

Spot on !!!!!  16

Avatar
PhilRuss replied to WolfieSmith | 11 years ago
0 likes
MercuryOne wrote:

Fully in favour of non compulsion. In 95/100 cases better some padding than none at all but still - it's a personal choice.

It's as simple as that and doesn't need this lengthy, tedious hairsplitting every time.

[[[ "Hairsplitting? Ouch! But isn't this thread fun? In fact, if you'all have enjoyed it half as much as me, then I must have enjoyed it twice as much as you'all. Now, where's me Cinelli banana-hat?
P.R.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to Colin Peyresourde | 11 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

The case of Fabio Casartelli seems a case in point. He would be alive today (most likely) if he had been wearing something on his noggin.

Casartelli's head hit a concrete post at 80kph+.

At most, helmets are designed and tested to withstand impact speed of 24kph and that's without the momentum of the body behind the head.

No autopsy was conducted.

The doctor who examined him on behalf of the coroner said that had he been wearing a hard helmet "some injuries could have been avoided."

Max Testa, Motorola team doctor at the time (and now doctor to BMC Racing) said that even had he been wearing his usual helmet (Specialized Air Piranha) "he would not have survived."

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to Hypoxic | 11 years ago
0 likes
Hypoxic wrote:

I can't believe you guys are seriously "debating" this! For a developed country, there are still a lot of things that I don't get about the UK... this and the Royals are about as laughable as they come!

Ah, you're in Melbourne  3

Funny that, because while I think this is the first time we've ever reported two British professionals debating the issue, we've done plenty of articles where it's Aussie academics arguing hammer and tongs over it.

Royal family... yeah... but just remind me which large Antipodean country voted against becoming a republic in 1999...?

Avatar
smoothhound replied to Paul J | 11 years ago
0 likes

Oooh some actual facts - they might help me down from the fence  1 thanks Paul

[oops: I meant to quote, I was referring to Paul J's comment at 28th February 2013 - 7:52]

Avatar
Leviathan replied to Yorkshie Whippet | 11 years ago
0 likes
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Does is make me ride in a safer manner? Not always. I take more risks than I would without.

That's right, I have never been white water kayaking without a helmet, it must be the helmet that makes me do it.

Pages

Latest Comments