The BBC reports on a 12-year-old girl who is campaigning for there to be a mandatory cycle helmet law after she was told by doctors that hers had saved her life. Maisie Godden-Hall was riding to school more quickly than usual after struggling to find her helmet when she went over her handlebars and under a car.
Speaking to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Air Ambulance website, Maisie recalled the events leading up to the incident on November 3, 2016.
“On the morning of my accident I got ready for school as usual, but I was running a bit late as I couldn’t remember where I’d put my cycle helmet. It was a strict rule that I wasn’t allowed to cycle without it, and by the time I did find it, it was later than usual.
“I was cycling my regular route, which involved using the crossings and cycling on the pavement. There is a junction on my route where I generally move into the bus lane, as there is a wall that blocks the view for drivers. I was travelling quite fast to make up some time, but I realised that a car at the junction was moving out and I needed to brake hard. I don’t remember much about the next few minutes, only what people have told me, as it all happened so fast.
“As I braked, my bike stopped, but I didn’t. I flew over the handlebars of my bike and landed in front of the car. The driver didn’t see me and, spotting a gap in the traffic, moved forward over me. Her son was sitting in the passenger seat and saw me fall so it didn’t take long for her to realise that something had happened.”
Maisie sustained three breaks in her pelvis, a broken collarbone, major facial injuries and the loss of seven teeth.
She stayed in hospital until November 28 and by the time she left was allowed to sit in a wheelchair for one hour, twice a day. By Christmas she was on crutches and she has now recovered sufficiently that she is back doing gymnastics.
Having been told that without her helmet she would probably have died, Maisie said: “I know I am only 11 years old, but I really want to use what happened to me to promote the cause for wearing cycle helmets; I think it should be law.”
Campaigners including Cycling UK say that it should be up to individuals to decide whether or not to wear a cycle helmet, often citing Australia as an example of a country that made them mandatory only to see levels of cycling plummet.
Opponents say that legislation deters people from riding a bike and therefore has an overall negative effect on public health.
British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman has previously been critical of the perennial debate, saying: “It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.”
Responding to a link to the BBC article by Hampshire Roads Policing which stressed the importance of wearing a helmet, he tweeted:
The girl was ran over by a car and had her pelvis crushed….and this what you take from it? Wow https://t.co/XameeHMdm0
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) December 15, 2017
116 thoughts on “Girl who went under car after braking too hard and going over handlebars now campaigning to make helmets compulsory”
“I chose to do something, so
“I chose to do something, so you should be forced to do the same thing.”
Sorry, no.
It’s obviously sad that a
It’s obviously sad that a young girl has been seriously injured in this manner and it could well be that the helmet saved her life. Regardless this is an individual instance and policy must be based on evidence not anecdote, however emotive.
Quote:
The paramedics told me that my accident would probably have been a fatality if I hadn’t been wearing my helmet. Despite the fact that my head hadn’t hit anything – all the impact being taken on my thigh, which broke. It’s hard to understand how wearing a helmet helped me at all (save for providing a sort of cushion for my head as I lay in the road waiting for the ambulance.
Its probable that they were making poorly-informed guesses as to how my accident had occurred, but as it been moved a few metres from whe it actually happened (the middle of the road) to the gutter (near a big, solid wall) they were putting two and two together to make eight.
Best to let the medics deal with medical things, and allow statisticians and safety experts to make the case for (or actually against) mandatory helmet use.
So she crashed because she
So she crashed because she was hurrying due to finding her helmet? No helmet, no crash. Ban helmets.
She hit a parked car. Ban parked cars.
She crashed as she’s shit on her brakes, ban brakes?
alansmurphy wrote:
Or more likely ban children from cycling until they do a bikeability course so they learn how to brake in an emergency, and know not to suddenly appear from behind parked cars when other road traffic can’t see them.
Bluebug wrote:
Or more likely ban children from cycling until they do a bikeability course so they learn how to brake in an emergency, and know not to suddenly appear from behind parked cars when other road traffic can’t see them.
— alansmurphy
Here is a chance for a real journalist to do some proper journalisming.
The circumstances of the crash seem to have contributed to it’s occurence via a number of factors. (Surprise – there isn’t just a single factor to blame – real life, eh). The child seems to have been inept at cycling in a number of ways, resulting in bad braking, whilst riding in a place and a fashion that was likely to require emergency braking. So ….
A journalist might ask the question: how and why is such a child (and this one in particular) so inept that she places herself into potentially lethal danger? Without wishing to put words in the mouth of this hypothetical journalist, one might suggest that consideration be given to the possibility that the cultural regime in which she took up cycling has eschewed some useful training & education about cycling in favour of a magic bullet (the helmet) plus some wishful thunks (I wish nothing bad to happen so it won’t).
Step forward parents and educational establishment, not to mention law makers and others who might regulate the use of bicycles in a fashion that is actually of utility to riders rather than fodder for creating pariahs and scapegoats for the gutter press to chew on.
And how about the notion that motor cars doing 10mph in urban environments might be much more likely to stop before they run over understandably inept children than are those doing a (legal) 30mph or the more common (illegal) 37mph?
Cugel, on the lookout for fundamental causes as opposed to made-up-stuff.
alansmurphy wrote:
Ban front brakes perhaps 🙂
alansmurphy wrote:
ban pelvises!
Hold on a second – she was
Hold on a second – she was “forced” to wear a helmet (due to a “strict rule” presumably from an over-reaching headteacher). It sounds like she was running late due to not being able to find the helmet and so was travelling faster than she normally does. She then attempted to brake to avoid an incident and instead went over the handlebars.
To my mind, this sounds like the requirement to wear a helmet was a key reason that she was travelling at an unsafe speed (as evidenced by not being able to emergency brake successfully) and thus is one of the causes of her crash. The other main cause would be the driver of the car not seeing and reacting to her which prompted her to emergency brake.
So, a girl has a major injury, in part due to being required to wear a helmet, and now wants everyone to be required to wear a helmet!
I suspect that if she hadn’t been forced to wear a helmet, she would have instead left a bit earlier and not been rushing. She may then have been more cautious (due to not wearing a helmet) and not got into the panic situation at all.
I think she’s being used to promote an agenda.
In what way did this helmet
In what way did this helmet prevent which injuries that would have resulted in her death? The uninformed opinion of the doctor (or rather what the girl relates the doctor told her) is no evidence.
Let’s see her helmet. Was it’s polystyrene foam crushed flat in an area that covered a critical part of her head? If not, the helmet did nothing to mitigate head injuries.
Cycling helmets are flimsy things. It doesn’t take much of a blow to make them look wrecked. For them to have actually absorbed any significant force (of the mere 7 Newtons they are build to absorb, at best) the polystyrene must go from fully expanded to fully crushed. A cracked shell and/or a broken part does not mean that the helmet protected the head in any significamt way.
Stories like this also have that unintended consequence of making wearers over-confident which increases their risk appetite.
These are probably the main reasons that helmet wearers statistically suffer more head injuries than non-wearers. Helmets protect very little; they make wearers believe they are immune from harm (“It’ll save my life”).
As to the opinion that people refuse to wear them because they are “not cool”…. In fact, the “coolest” dogma-riding MAMILs and similar would not be seen dead without a helmet, to go with all their other pretend-I’m-a-professional pose. I never a met a helmet wearer yet who knew anything about the testing regime (or lack of it) for cycling helmets – what they can and can’t actually protect from. They wear one because everyone else does; and they read an advert about how Cav or Bertie wears one.
Why are the facts that helmets provide little protection and induce over-confidence never mentioned in the “a helmet saved my life” anecdotal news blurbs? Perhaps there is a PR thing going on somewhere, paid for by helmet purveyors? Those things must be highly profitable! £100 or more for a bit of plastic that probably costs a few pence to make. As we know, 95% of so-called news these days is in fact PR blurb uncritically reiterated by so called news sources because it’s a lot easier than doing real journalism.
How did this particular story emerge into the BBC News and elsewhere, eh?
Cugel the sceptical.
Cugel wrote:
Shamefully I actually Googled it while I had an argument with one of my brothers’ about wearing one.
His son and a few other people I know told me to wear one because they know I will try stupid things to emulate the local teenagers….
Cugel wrote:
I don’ t think that helmets should be compulsory, however a proper helmet does provide protection, not the very vented plastic covered Polystyrene Foam crap, which are I know 1st hand is weaker and often doesn’t protect enough of the head!
I had tooth lose and expensive dental repair from a crash, and immediately realised that any helmet without chin protection cannot protect the jaw, so only look for full-face helmets now!
I discovered the inferiority of plastic skin covered Polystyrene Foam helmets compared to tougher helmets:
* I had two MET Parachutes, a slightly tougher MTB-shape plasic-covered Polystyrene Foam helmet, with hard plastic chin guard, with loads of annoying wind noise, no insect screens, annoying securing, and needed a rain cover during wet weather; on crashing , both were mostly-cracked complete-write-offs, with localised shell deformation and compression, and minor stunning; the 2nd ones chin guard protected my chin, but cut my chin. Never buying them again!
* I’ve had two Urge down-o-matic helmets, with a Fibreglass shell and padding, insect screens, easy securing; the 1st only had about a 1mm of the chin guard scrapped off despite it being grated for about 1 to 2m at higher speed, no cracks, no stunning, and no damage to my head/face, but replaced anyway. They don’t need a rain cover in wet or cold weather either.
I don’t wear a helmet all the time, but do for commuting, steep gradiants, or longer distances.
I sent a complaint to the BBC
I sent a complaint to the BBC via their website regarding this video – I consider that it is lazy journalism, as at no point are the contentions of the child, the parent, or the ‘expert’ adults ever questioned.
How can they state so categorically that the child, who ended up with a car on top of her, would have died but for her plastic hat? What possible evidence do they have for that, or for suggesting that this incident (awful and frightening though it must have been for the girl and for her parent) supports compulsory helmets?
There seems to be an institutional bias in the media about cycle helmets, completely unjustified by the available ‘efficacy’ data, or tempered by the international evidence that making helmets compulsory reduces cycle use. Given the health and environmental benefits of cycling, that’s verging on negligence in my opinion.
I do hope the girl makes a complete recovery, continues to ride her bike, and remains free to make a personal choice about wearing a helmet.
No Sweat wrote:
It’s worse than lazy – it’s deliberately coming to a flawed conclusion based on the BBC’s anti-cycling agenda.
She wasn’t free to make a personal choice about wearing a helmet and I think wearing that her that helmet most likely caused the incident. That’s the complete opposite of what the BBC is reporting.
> as there is a wall that
> as there is a wall that blocks the view for drivers
That’s the issue here – poor junction design. That and a motorist not paying attention. The helmet is irrelevant and whoever told her it saved her life is ignorant.
Is there any proof that it
Is there any proof that it saved her life? Nope.
Tired of all these total rubbish claims about cycle safety. Do a proper scientific test, publish a peer reviewed journal, then I’ll notice.
In the mean time, I’ll continue to ride wearing a helmet, safe in the knowledge that if a lorry driver doesn’t bother to indicate and/or use their mirrors, I’ll still be very squished regardless of the helmet.
wellsprop wrote:
Easy, now… graphs might happen.
Great, yet another helmet
Great, yet another helmet related feature to argue about.
drosco wrote:
Am waiting to read about what brakes she had, after all if she had disc brakes, then perhaps they were too powerful for her ability, so perhaps children should have quaint rim brakes…
Grahamd wrote:
Am waiting to read about what brakes she had, after all if she had disc brakes, then perhaps they were too powerful for her ability, so perhaps children should have quaint rim brakes…— drosco
Hey! My bike has rim brakes; nothing wrong with rim brakes…
brooksby wrote:
I have one bike with each and my kids have had bikes with each. From my experience the differential between the two brake types was significantly greater on my kids bikes than between mine. Fully appreciate that this is a tiny sample group, but it is clear from her account that the bike stopped much quicker than she anticipated, which gets me wondering.
Grahamd wrote:
But aren’t disc brakes supposed to offer you wonderful modulation over rim brakes, and yet when in a panic situation, (which we see with the pros as well when they lock up and lose traction/steering ability) whether it’s discs or rim brakes it makes jack all difference if there’s enough power to stop someone in their tracks and high side it.
Disc brakes for kids is IMHO not a great idea and certainly not a solution to a problem that wasn’t there in the first place.
““On the morning of my
““On the morning of my accident I got ready for school as usual, but I was running a bit late as I couldn’t remember where I’d put my cycle helmet. It was a strict rule that I wasn’t allowed to cycle without it, and by the time I did find it, it was later than usual. “
And there we have the real problem, she was in a rush.
Ban watches and clocks and timetables and time!
Must be time for someone to
Must be time for someone to pop up a helpful graph to help this discussion along?
or maybe a video?
a graphic?
It is up to you not to wear a
It is up to you not to wear a helmet… but nobody abolished natural selection. It works!
P.S. Darwin was right…
rix wrote:
The issue is not whether I want to wear a helmet. The issue is what more important measures are being ignored while everyone focuses on helmets.
rix wrote:
I don’t think this example reinforces the point you’re trying to make, unless you think we should be evolving polystyrene lids to protect us from hurtling down pavements and somersaulting into traffic?
rix wrote:
Most people on here actually wear helmets.
It is those who don’t know the limitations of helmets that are the problem. If you are cycling at around 30 mph and crash into the open door of a van then don’t expect to live.
rix wrote:
Not really sure you understand natural selection.
Regardless of whether or not
Regardless of whether or not the helmet helped reduce her injuries and the fact that both the cyclist and the driver made errors that contributed to the accident, I am surprised that nobody has picked up (unless I have missed the comment) on the fact that she was cycling on the pavement for part of her regular route to school. So she is under strict rules to wear a helmet (not a legal requirement) but not under strict rules to not cycle on the pavement, which i am making the assumption wasn’t a shared use pavement.
Sounds like the rule-maker, whoever that might be, isn’t very consistent!
Dan_h_b wrote:
Because the presence of a helmet at the end of her ride is observable by whatever clown made the rules. Pavement cycling, bad cycling, bad driving, crap junction design are all out of his or her view.
I think she’s persuing the
I think she’s persuing the wrong end of the stick here. She’s crusading for helmet use rather than ‘pay some fucking attention’ to those driving.
Watch the BBC video and it
Watch the BBC video and it clearly shows the white car, hit her after it crossed the hashed give way markings, there is even a bike painted on the road indicating a cycle way. The girl tried to brake and lost control, which may be down to inexperience, but it’s clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention. Take the helmet debate out and this child was hit by a driver who was not paying attention, just like the many videos road.cc insists on showing. This is where the focus should be and maybe a campaign for cycling perficiancy to be included in the school curriculum.
lllnorrislll wrote:
And what you’ve said highlights the part of the many problems that helmets create, instead of focusing on the criminal/dangerous behaviour of the person behind the wheel of a killing machine pretty much everyone concerned are paying homage to a bit of polystyrene foam and trying to force their will on everyone else all the whilst being utterly devoid of understanding of the problem and the very real likelihood the helmet did shit and certainly did not prevent her other severe injuries.
As others have said, if it weren’t for the fucking stupid helmet rules and the needing to wear the helmet in the first place and a motorist that is trained properly, is observant and willing to slow down, look and see (i.e. obey the law) and give a shit about safety this incident does not happen.
This BS is replicated so many times and yet when head injuries occur elsewhere in society many hundreds if not thousands of times over (remember the 300,000+ serious head injuries annually admitted into hospitals alone) they are ignored with no calls to implement a law that makes matters worse not better.
The BBC are a fucking disgrace as always and doctors should be banned from making false statements that have not a jot of evidence to back up their claims.
I hope whatever this girl is doing falls flat on its arse and someone actually tells her and her family that they are making a massive mistake in judgement and should focus on getting criminal behaviour by motorists to be reduced and helmet rules removed so that children aren’t rushing and taking risks when they wear one.
lllnorrislll wrote:
I’d like to take invasive action against many brummie drivers.
lllnorrislll wrote:
It sounds like the driver was at fault for creating a risky situation which cause her to panic and emergency brake, which can cause front wheel lock and an over-handlebar crash, then run-over. I’ve had over-handle-bar crashes while getting used to stronger V-brakes, then sussed to tuned front brake lever for slightly less relative leverage than back, on adjustable (premium) brake levers; unfortunately most V-brake levers don’t provide leverage adjustment!
The helmet is probably a distraction, but a lid is pretty flimsy protection and trivial against tonnes of metal with several horsepower moving it, and it couldn’t protect the rest of her body from injury, which can be easily be fatal! I somehow doubt that even motorcyclists would want to wear substantial body armour!
Enclosed vehicle drivers need to be aware of just how vulnerable to injury and death people not in enclosed vehicles are, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclist. I’m aware of the several years of struggle and surgery, with permanent tendon/wrist damage, for a fully kitted motorcyclist friend, who nearly died after colliding with a motorist who pulling out of a junction without looking properly!
urbane wrote:
It sounds like the driver was at fault for creating a risky situation which cause her to panic and emergency brake, which can cause front wheel lock and an over-handlebar crash, then run-over. I’ve had over-handle-bar crashes while getting used to stronger V-brakes, then sussed to tuned front brake lever for slightly less relative leverage than back, on adjustable (premium) brake levers; unfortunately most V-brake levers don’t provide leverage adjustment!— lllnorrislll
If you cycle on the pavement and then suddenly join the road, which this girl admitted doing and I’ve personally have seen a lot of teenagers do, you cannot expect those using the road to see you and stop in time regardless of road markings and the vehicle they are using. There are lots of Youtube videos of cyclists doing this to other cyclists. Most are near misses but not all of them are.
If you don’t like the biased
If you don’t like the biased reporting on the BBC, then make a complaint like I did.
Nothing may change, but then if no-one complains, nothing will change…..
Here’s the link;
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?lang=en&reset=&uid=362530853
No Sweat wrote:
As per usual they come out with the susual BS, I press and press all the time but they can do what the fuck they like.
i’ve got 3, inch and a half
i’ve got 3, inch and a half long scars on my right eyebrow, from a crash last month, and still i’ll fight for it to be the riders choice to wear a lid.
ashliejay wrote:
Your choice to use a mere lid; just wait until you see damage further down, including teeth!
Yeah I’m not going to be
Yeah I’m not going to be forced to wear a helmet because you can’t ride a bike.
In my line of work, as in
In my line of work, as in many, I have to waste several hours per week jumping through hoops that only exist because other people are substantially less careful than I am. But my employer pays me to do so. I do not wish to be forced by law to do likewise when popping down to the shops on the weekend.
Yes, let’s make policy by an
Yes, let’s make policy by an emotional response to one specific situation where the main claim is completely untested or challenged.
The most common cause of head
The most common cause of head injuries in the UK is motor car accidents. So why is there no campaign to make helmets compulsory whilst driving?
It’s simple. Because all of this helmet compulsion BS is driven (no pun intended) by the motor industry as it’s in their interest not to have people cycle or walk or take the bus.
Someone told her that the
Someone told her that the helmet saved her life, well I am telling her that it didn’t. Are the BBC going to write another article now?
I think you should all calm
I think you should all calm down. You’re not going to be forced to wear a helmet against your will.
You may not agree with her viewpoint, but she’s entitled to have it; we do live in a democracy, after all. And she doesn’t deserve all the condescension and knee jerk criticism levelled at her.
She’s only 12 and, however misguided, she doesn’t want other people to potentially lose their lives and is trying to do something about it, instead of feeling sorry for herself.
That strikes me as laudable from someone so young and is to be admired, even if many people disagree with her viewpoint.
Kadenz wrote:
Condescending, you say, while applauding her for being misguided and 12.
Kadenz wrote:
The reason we are not going to be forced to wear a helmet against our will is precisely because we fight against as much biased, car-centric and ‘it stands to reason’ fuckwittery as we can. We look at all the evidence and highlight the fact that helmet wearing should be a free choice. If people were not doing this then fairly quickly an ineffective compulsory helmet law would be in place.
Rather than than talking about helmets, we (as a country) should spend time and energy discussing topics that truly matter.
Kadenz wrote:
I think you should all calm down. You’re not going to be forced to wear a helmet against your will.
You may not agree with her viewpoint, but she’s entitled to have it; we do live in a democracy, after all. And she doesn’t deserve all the condescension and knee jerk criticism levelled at her.
She’s only 12 and, however misguided, she doesn’t want other people to potentially lose their lives and is trying to do something about it, instead of feeling sorry for herself.
That strikes me as laudable from someone so young and is to be admired, even if many people disagree with her viewpoint.
— Kadenz
Opinions are worthless without some form of cogent evidence to support them. Worse, uninformed opinions made in ignorance, whilst also recommending some draconian action to be forced on others, can be highly detrimental.
Would you, for example, treat racist opinions with associated policy recommendations as merely democratically-held opinions that the racist is entitled to hold and of equal value to less prejudiced opinions based in the overwhelming evidence that the notion of race is a long-debunked Victorian notion of use only in promoting & justifying colonialism? Perhaps so, as alt-facts are all the rage just now. Why not, then, consider the opinions of the phrenologists and flat-earthers too, eh?
Nor do you know what her motives are in being a vessel for this uninformed draconian opinion – if it is her opinion and not one inserted by an axe-grinding adult into a vulnerable 12 year-old.
In short, don’t be so simplistic and naive.
Cugel
Cugel
How many people posting here
How many people posting here who object to wearing helmets drive a car?
I take it that you don’t wear your seat belt either as it should be your choice?
You could argue that with modern airbags you don’t need seat belts.
You can always produce statistics to back up your argument.
There is a kid who passes me regularly on his way home, no helmet, no handson the handlebars, head down on his mobile phone!!! When I last spoke to him his reply was ‘what’s your problem’ With a reg plate I could at least tell the school and then maybe his parents might explain to him why you shouldn’t cycle along the road looking at your mobile phone. Heaven help us in a couple of years when he starts learning to drive.
There are many traffic laws we don’t like but we abide by them and they don’t deter people from driving cars. I suspect any cycle laws wouldn’t affect the core of people who cycle and who knows, it might make our roads safer from the idiots with no lights etc etc
wknight wrote:
There’s already a law for this.
What’s your (misguided) point?
don simon wrote:
Say what you really mean!
Bluebug wrote:
There’s already a law for this.
What’s your (misguided) point?
— don simon Say what you really mean!— wknight
I would, but there are too many that get offended easily.
wknight wrote:
You really need to investigate the safety standards for cycle helmets. If you did you would wear a motorbike helmet when cycling especially when going down hill.
Bluebug wrote:
You really need to investigate the safety standards for cycle helmets. If you did you would wear a motorbike helmet when cycling especially when going down hill.[/quote]
I’d be interested to know. I think it’s a trade off. I don’t wear a MTB full face, body armour, brace etc when on the road. But nor do I think they are ineffective. What studies would you point to for riding 10-30mph on a bike? For example, a quick Google pulls up articles like this:
A major study of bike helmet use around the world from more than 64,000 cyclists has found helmets reduce the risks of a serious head injury by nearly 70%.
The study also found neck injuries are not associated with helmet use and cyclists who wear helmets reduce their chance of a fatal head injury by 65%
wknight wrote:
I’d say most.
The objection isn’t ‘helmets’.
The objection is along the lines of the efficacy of these types of helmets;
any mandating of them;
them being treated as a panacea;
the effects and unintended consequences of their use;
the avoidance of proper root cause analysis of cyclist deaths while focusing on them;
the flaws in encouraging PPE in environments that haven’t been properly designed;
the victim-blaming aspects of cyclist PPE.
So you can tut and think I’m an anti-helmet nut. I actually wear one fairly regularly – for various reasons, not just because I blindly believe it will save my life. There’s plenty of ideology on both sides, but what you tend to find on here is the considered arguments are those challenging the mindless acceptance of helmet use. So I’d challenge you to research the arguments and not just dismiss them as bullshit because they don’t fit your ideology.
wknight wrote:
there were plenty of people arguing against compulsory seatbelts on freedom of choice grounds at the time the law was introduced in Britain.
Those arguments are still valid, but the government decided that the health benefits outweighed that argument, and outweighed the health benefits (there are some) of not buckling up. Since most people abide by the law we now buckle up as a habit.
Wearing a helmet is not compulsory, so your argument falls at the first hurdle.
While we still have a majority of people, fortunately including MPs, who think that evidence matters, you won’t see cycling helmets made compulsory in the UK. That’s because the population-scale health costs that would follow compulsion massively outweigh those of not wearing them.
Of course our masters are very inconsistent in their approach to this sort of thing. For example, even though the large-scale health costs of our collective driving addiction are enormous, and the health benefits of cycling, with or without a helmet, are enormous, they have not banned the use of cars and made cycling compulsory, which the logic of the health versus choice argument would dictate.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I agree totally,but you have alot more faith in our lawmakers than I do, to make the right decisions on stuff like this as opposed to them taking decisions that makes them look better in the papers and among a tiny noisy section of their electorate, there will always be millions of more voters who drive who would be in favour for whatever random reason they like vs cyclists who arent.
its not even a debate that splits in to two defined camps really because there are a bunch of cyclists, even pro cyclists,who will still say whilst they remain pro choice,a helmet totally saved their life when they crashed 🙁 and so always wear one, and then really any such helmet compulsion law wouldnt impact them.
did no-one else see Cavs tweet this week about how he looks at icy roads and for whatever his personal choice reasons, now wouldnt dream of riding without a helmet
Awavey]
[quote=ConcordeCX]
….did no-one else see Cavs tweet this week about how he looks at icy roads and for whatever his personal choice reasons, now wouldnt dream of riding without a helmet
— Awavey
As with many other activities, cycling requires the cyclist to be able to do a risk assessment for their rides and the circumstances of those rides. This is not a trivial ability, though, especially as most humans are very, very poor at judging both the liklihood of a risk realising and the “cost” of the associated consequences.
Still, better to make the attempt (practice makes perfect … or at least a better-informed behaviour).
For example, I will ride an icy road but only with a helmet and spiked ice tyres; and extremely carefully. There are other circumstances where a fall & head bang from a bike become more likely than the norm – on a slippery bumpy path; in the woods; riding with sprogs in a race. 🙂 Helmet on! Extra vigilance! Perhaps an avoidance of riding that way. (I no longer race with sprogs).
But unless one is a cack-footed klutz with poor proprioception and/or a touch of death-wish, a cycling helmet is not generally required. For example, being a careful fellow allergic to pain, I have not banged my head via falling from a bike in 57 years and hundreds of thousands of miles of cycling. But I know several cyclists who seem almost keen to hurt every part of themselves and have done so.
We are not all the same, with the same risk profile. Consequently, there is no hard & fast right safety procedure for everyone without exception, in all circumstances. Is this a surprise to anyone except those inclined to the totalitarian?
Cugel
Awavey wrote:
And that decision making defies all logic.
Before helmets were a thing people on bikes that were cycling in wintry conditions weren’t having ridiculous numbers of head injuries, nor indeed deaths due to such. In fact the numbers of pedestrians who had serious head injuries and those of motorists losing control in icy conditions were very much higher than those on a bike, massively so.
I watched one of the crashes he was involved in/he caused, 6 riders hit the deck not long before the line, in every instance where a riders helmet hit the ground without it the head wouldn’t even touch the tarmac, yet you risk greater rotational injuries, concussion or worse, you increase the risk of striking your helmet/head through that increased circumference, you take more risks when wearing a helmet (the stats for injuries in the pros is a prime example of this post helmet compulsion) so going out on ice with a helmet but not without is a prime example of risk compensation even when you take into account that the stats simply don’t back up that banging your head in the first place sans helmet is a massive problem and no greater than other aspects in life in similar conditions.
I’ve ridden in snow, ice, 40+mph winds, have been offed several times, hit n run from the rear, high speed crash due to a crevasse in the road, couple of self induced spills and in 30+ years I’ve yet to hit my head. The high speed crash I would at least have suffered serious head and neck injuries if I had been wearing a helmet, I tucked and rolled, the impact being on the back side of my shoulder pulling it out of its socket and tearing tendons and muscle. I live with the after effects still but with a helmet at that speed and with my body weight I reckon my brain would have been pulverised to fuck as the helmet hit the deck and my neck snapped backwards.
I’ll never wear a helmet, not even if it becomes law, as I’ve said before, I’d rather go to prison than pay a fine or be forced to wear something I know is never likely to protect me above any other activity I do in life and also makes my environment worse and for that of everyone else.
You probably won’t find a more anti helmet person, I really know they do so much harm and offer extremely little direct help to wearers even in a low speed incidents. The facts speak for themselves but if intelligent people like MC can’t understand or isn’t interested in acknowledging the facts then we have little hope in swaying the tide even if you presented him woith the facts regarding how pros are dying, crashing and getting injured more often post helmet rules (despite better on course medi care, better maarshalling, better tyre grip, better brakes, bikes with better handling etc etc)
This reminds me of that line
This reminds me of that line in Black Adder goes forth just before they go over the top.
Blackadder: Don’t forget your stick Luitenant.
Luitenant: Rather! I woldn’t want to face a machine gun without this!
Anyone want to tell the
Anyone want to tell the pricks that made this video that if a helmet is so important why the girl isn’t wearing it properly. Twats!
Name and specialty of the
Name and specialty of the doctor saying this, on the record please.
Then could we have them opine on the housing crisis, the evidence for anthorpogenic climate change and Brexit? Thank you.
Also, shame on whoever put this child up to it.
Ush wrote:
This; very much this.
If Mr Cav is reading I tend
If Mr Cav is reading I tend to wear a helmet on a Sunday ride, less so for a quick bio to the shops. If it’s Icy I use a bike with big nobbly tyres and go slowly, or use Zwift (which shouldn’t be made compulsory either). Also when I’m duking it out in the TDF I tend to avoid going for non existent gaps in bunch sprints*
* One of these things isn’t true
I wear a helmet, and on my
I wear a helmet, and on my commute I’m in bright colours unless those tops are all a bit stinky. The colour choice is purely to shut the ‘didn’t see you’ brigade up. Much like cricket (which I used to play sans helmet as a child/young adult) I’ve become used to wearing one, and actually look alright in it.
I highly doubt helmets or hi-viz will become compulsory in the UK, but if they do I’m wearing just a cap on me noggin and commuting in black. Fuck ‘em.
I’ve filled in a bias
I’ve filled in a bias complaint for the BBC now. It’s a shame that the repugnant adults that put the poor girl up to this will never be held accountable, but then that’s why they hide behind a 12 year old girl.
I always wear a helmet on my bike now (it prevents arguments with the wife) but have never hit my head either with or without one. To my mind, gloves are the essential PPE – every time I’ve fallen off, I’ve had some kind of injury to my hands/gloves, but I certainly don’t believe that gloves have stopped my hands from being permanently disabled.
Back in the day, I used to commute on a unicycle and never wore a helmet, but then you do get a reasonable amount of practise in falling off. I even rode it a couple of times in ice and snow without major injury, though I certainly did lose control several times. Again – no helmet worn or required.
driver pulled out, cyclist
driver pulled out, cyclist not experienced enough to deal with it and this means all cyclists must wear helmets to mitigate the impact of bad driving?
I often quote a study of experienced cycle commuters in Canberra that reported no collisions because in almost all cases the cyclist took avoiding action when drivers made errors – add in that a high majority of cyclist/vehicle collisions at intersections are driver at fault – explain the problem that needs fixing – helmets in some situations may mitigate injury but don’t stop the problem
and the problem is “……..The driver didn’t see me and, spotting a gap in the traffic, moved forward over me ” this is after the girl has braked to avoid the car pulling out
We all want to keep people
We all want to keep people safe, so what’s the best way to save the most lives from TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury)?
Well, the number one cause (14%) of TBI is to vehicle occupants in motor vehicle accidents, so clearly we should start by making everyone inside a motor vehicle wear a helmet. We want the most lives saved after all.
Then we can talk about cyclists.
Just bunged in a complaint
Just bunged in a complaint http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/:
“This article and video present the unsubstantiated claim that a cycle helmet saved a child’s life with no evidence, when all the scientific, reliable evidence shows that to be extremely unlikely. The video is extremely emotional and lacking completely in balance or any factual information, quite blatantly using the mother and child’s emotions to manipulate the viewer. The statement by the road safety officer was not challenged and was accepted as fact while it is merely assumption. Basically, this “report” if I could dignify with that name, is nothing but helmet propaganda, with not even the most cursory attempt at balance or due impartiality, and gives undue prominence to the views and opinions of those people who believe the helmet was effective. There was no attempt to counter these with facts, data or scientific analysis.
The BBC has been promoting cycle helmets for thirty years, but this is the most blatant, obvious, clear example of helmet propaganda there could possibly be. I look forward to you rejecting my complaint with the usual tedious, irrelevant excuses.”
If you make a complaint on line, make sure that you copy and paste it into a text document before sending it so that you have a record.
burtthebike wrote:
Nice one, I omitted the last bit and changed/added some bits but have done a complaint too.
The problem is that as far as
The problem is that as far as I know there are no proper tests of helmets so its impossible to argue convincingly for, or against.
Can someone not do proper euro NCAP style simulations of accidents with dummies, cars, pavements etc, rather than just dropping a bit of metal on the helmet?
What worries me is that people are being strongly encouraged by the media/govt/highway code to wear helmets, when no one can make an informed view of how safe a particular model is. At least with a car you can take a view based on Euro NCAP etc.
Its such a big issue, surely its time it was properly looked at with independent testing, if such a thing is possible.
PRSboy wrote:
Either you’re new to this or a troll, and I’m going to assume the first.
There are proper tests, real life, whole population tests over a long period, as done by those kind Aussies and Kiwis. This kind of data is much, much more reliable than laboratory testing or any of the other research used by helmet promoters which are inevitably small scale, short term studies.
The results from the reliable research are clear: no reduction in risk despite near universal cycle helmet wearing. Not only no reduction in risk to cyclists, but massive negative unintended consequences in health, pollution and congestion terms.
A wise man once said “If you don’t understand what’s happening, follow the money.” In this case, helmets are a licence to print money for a product that doesn’t work and can’t be taken back when it fails, and probably more profitable than drugs.
cyclehelmets.org
burtthebike wrote:
They do work sometimes though don’t they?
alansmurphy wrote:
Either you’re new to this or a troll, and I’m going to assume the first.
There are proper tests, real life, whole population tests over a long period, as done by those kind Aussies and Kiwis. This kind of data is much, much more reliable than laboratory testing or any of the other research used by helmet promoters which are inevitably small scale, short term studies.
The results from the reliable research are clear: no reduction in risk despite near universal cycle helmet wearing. Not only no reduction in risk to cyclists, but massive negative unintended consequences in health, pollution and congestion terms.
A wise man once said “If you don’t understand what’s happening, follow the money.” In this case, helmets are a licence to print money for a product that doesn’t work and can’t be taken back when it fails, and probably more profitable than drugs.
cyclehelmets.org
— burtthebike They do work sometimes though don’t they?— PRSboy
The only way to tell is with some graphs…
burtthebike wrote:
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
What I’m trying to get at is; assuming I have made the decision to buy a helmet, how do I know which will provide the best protection within the sort of circumstances in which such a device could reasonably be expected to help?
PRSboy wrote:
I’d pop along for a quick read here http://road.cc/content/news/233382-dad-stops-kid-crashing-bike-parked-car-link-video I believe that all your helmet related questions will be answered conclusively…
don simon wrote:
You are mean…
PRSboy wrote:
All have to conform to EN1078 so a £30 model is expected to function as well as one costing £150. Some (IIRC Bell and Specialized) conform to the apparently higher CPSC standard set in the USA.
This is from an old usenet post: “To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12 mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a vehicle going much faster than this.
The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m, with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g.”
You should bear in mind that a lightweight polystyrene hat – which in some cases appears to have more hole than hat – can only do so much to protect your skull when it comes into contact with a hard surface. The benefits of MIPS technology are unproven so take any claims about that with a large pinch of salt. Selecting a helmet that fits you properly and is correctly adjusted is the most important thing to consider.
Simon E wrote:
Thanks for a helpful reply. It doesn’t look a particularly rigorous test!
Clearly a helmet will be of little use should I get run over by a truck, or hit a tree at 40mph. However, there may be some value in a low speed impact, say an unclip fail onto a kerbside, or black ice. It also might just reduce an injury below a critical level, who knows. The only certainty to me is that if I don’t have one I wont have any protection at all, which makes it worth it even for a small chance. But that’s my choice, each to their own.
We already know that a helmet
We already know that a helmet cannot by its design reduce the forces enough to prevent a serious TBI. The info is out there, the reduction level isn’t sufficient in a lab with just a head weight never mind the additional mass and kinetic energy of a human body.
And if you are minded to wear a helmet for protection at low speed incidents then by definition you should also wear one for when you are walking and driving, you know for when in inclement weather, or you miss the kerb/trip on a raised bit of pavement, someone bumps into you and catches you off balance, that person pulls out in front of you whilst you are driving etc etc.
This is why the whole idea of wearing a helmet for low level incidents only whilst riding bikes is such a nonsense, you yet again increase the chance of hitting your head when at these lower speeds even small children are able to keep their heads away from hitting the ground when they fall off a bike. The vast majority of serious child incidents involve a motorvehicle, something the helmet is not designed to help with and again is not enough protection to mitigate a serious TBI.
We know this because the rates of child head injuries whilst cycling at any grade have never ever being higher than many other activities including being on foot, in cars, sport and in the home, even long before helmet wearing was ever a thing. Again not just here but in Aus and NZ which proves this. Recorded deaths of all children riding a bike from all injury types in the UK is half that of child deaths in motorvehicles by head injury alone in just England and Wales for the same period (2016)
The thought that wearing helmets just in case or for lower speed incidents really doesn’t add up and there is no evidence to prove otherwise (unless you are rich_cb of course), it’s incredible that people have irrational thinking when it comes to riding a bike yet ignore that same line of thinking when it comes to other asepects in our lives and the wearing and promotion of helmets actually makes that environ for everyone including the individual less safe than not wearing, all the whilst destroying freedoms and focusing yet again on the wrong thing and victim blaming left, right and centre.
PRSboy wrote:
There’s not a huge amount of difference between different road-style helmets. Some are tested to slightly higher standards so you can assume that they provide marginally more protection. If you really want proper head protection, you’ll be wanting to use either full-face off-road or motorbike helmets. However, they’re significantly more hassle to wear and will cause much sweating in summer.
The usual rule of thumb is that a typical road helmet will provide protection up to about 12mph providing you only hit your head against a flat surface (e.g. not a kerb corner or another vehicle).
The most useful way of protecting your head is to keep a very high level of awareness of other vehicles and try to anticipate where they are going and react accordingly. This should allow you to avoid most crashes, but it takes experience to know where the dangerous places are (e.g. schools, take-away shops etc) and how to negotiate them safely.
PRSboy wrote:
If you have made the decision to buy a helmet, you are ignoring all the reliable evidence. What data and evidence did you consider before making this decision?
Here’s the text of my
Here’s the text of my complaint to the BBC in case it helps anyone else write one too:
Cycling UK recommends against schools introducing any rules to penalise cyclists (including mandatory helmet wearing): https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/stop-making-cycling-school-difficult-says-cycling-uk .
It is curious that the girl was subject to ‘strict rules’ about wearing a cycle helmet even though there is no such law – this suggests that her school have decided to implement a policy that covers road safety outside of school (which the school has no such authority to do). It would provide balance to investigate how the school polices the children arriving by cars e.g. are they prevented from being dropped off outside the school gates to lessen the effects of the air pollution on all the children and staff?
It would appear to me that the poor girl’s accident was actually brought about by the arbitrary requirement to wear a helmet. If she was allowed to cycle to school without a helmet, she would have left earlier and not been rushing – this would have resulted in her travelling at her usual speed which was always previously without incident.
This incident actually highlights the complete misdirection that is the ‘cycle helmet debate’ – cycle helmets are not the relevant question. More relevant questions are:
In all seriousness PRS, they
In all seriousness PRS, they have to pass a standard so will all provide a level of protection somewhere between ‘nothing’ and ‘magic’. Bugger I forgot to be serious.
If you decide to wear one, fit is the most important thing followed by comfort and style i.e. will you continue to wear it. You can get extra vents to keep your head cool or less to be aero, dial fitting systems, carbon for lightness etc. They now offer MIPS which supposedly helps the skull rotate a little to assist potential brain damage.
I crashed in a Boardman Carbon helmet and it took a big impact against a metal pole, my head survived and my shoulder and helmet didn’t. Had cost me £50 in sale, replaced with a Giro with MIPS at around £40…
Is that the first Road CC
Is that the first Road CC post from beyond the grave?
alansmurphy wrote:
I think that you’ve mistaken BikeBikeBike for BikeLikeBike – totally different people.
Mandatory helmets are coming,
Mandatory helmets are coming, its only a matter of time.
We have an institution who’s entire raison d’etre is perversely warped. A police force who do not think it is their job to police things and provide protection for people, but continue to demonstrably victim blame.
UK Police do not give a fuck about the safety of road users. They are not fit for purpose.
UK Police do not give a fuck
UK Police do not give a fuck about the safety of *non-motorised* road users. They are not fit for purpose.
FTFY
kitsunegari wrote:
But thankfully the police don’t make the laws, our representitives in Parliament do – the police are there to enforce them (sometimes!)
Another point, having watch the vid again, there seems to be many references to children wearing helmets ‘not looking cool’ ‘messing up hair’ ‘A helmet saved Maisie’s life. Now she wants other children to wear theirs’ – I’m just wondering if this is a cack-handed attempt to suggest helmets should be compulsary for childen? If so, then it should really be clearer. But even if it is relating to children only – is this a different debate?
I suspect the drop off in cycling due to making helmets compulsary would be even greater in the under 16s – and reinforcing the perception that cycling is inherently dangerous.
KendalRed wrote:
In Australia massively so, teenage girls in Victoria gave up cycling at the rate of just over 90% post MHL! Cycling to school dropped like a stone and children cycling as a whole dropped at a ridiculous rate and thus turned a generation into overweight motons who’ll carve you up at the drop of a hat instead of being a person more likely to cycle into work or going where they need to by bike and when driving have respect for other people.
This gave the tossers in charge the ammunition to state that head injuries had gone down, perversely ignoring that they had gone down by less than the overall drop in cycling/people on bikes not even taking into account other measures that had a positive effect on cycling safety that also benefitted pedestrians. This is the type of thing that people like Rich _cb will not take any notice of.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
We all know you post lies continually.
Just leave me out of them.
I’ve never called for compulsory helmet laws, in fact I’ve argued against them on this page several times.
Think i might start wearing
Think i might start wearing my helmet whilst reading this site just to spite you all. melon twisters
SteveAustin wrote:
It’d save your life!
Well, a helmet can help.
Well, a helmet can help..granted it won’t make you immortal. A family member had a recent low speed 20kmh off, helmet broken, head OK and the unprotected parts of head now stitched back together. It’s harrowing applying your basic first aid in such situations to keep someone breathing, there’s a lot of blood and mess, but sitting in the ambulance, waiting in the Emergency Department etc I was relieved to think at least the head had some protection, the Drs thought similarly and the patient walked out the hospital a few days later.
rnick wrote:
You are so full of shit it even leaks out into your posts.
Almost a year ago to the day,
Almost a year ago to the day, my son went under a car in similar circumstances on the way home from school. He ended up with a fair amount of soft tissue damage, an imprint of the bottom of the car on his face and was extremely traumatised. His head however was OK, with his helmet destroyed by the car, road or a combination of both.
While I don’t understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet on a commute or a school run, I don’t believe they should be compulsory. I can fully understand however, when in a situation where a child has been in an accident and a helmet appears to be a contributary factor for lessening injury, why people would be evangelical about their use.
How do you know the helmet
How do you know the helmet reduced the injury, are you deducing that from the fact the helmet was “destroyed”?
Given that his head was under the car and his face pushed upwards into the underside of the car don’t you think this was entirely due to the extra circumference of the helmet and the fact his face/head was reasonably ok(as in face not ripped off) if he wasn’t wearing a helmet his face would have been untouched? It certainly shows that his face/flesh is stronger than the polystyrene foam in the helmet.
If the pressure of the car on his face was enough to destroy the helmet did it crack/split, did it compress fully before being destroyed?
It’s all too easy to add helmet and have survival = helmet mitigated but in instances like this the crushing force of a car is well beyond the protective capacity of the helmet so they fail rapidly absorbing a very tiny fraction of the forces and if the material does not depress fully then this means it’s reached nowhere near its lab test thus has failed. That you have the extra circumference added to the head pushing the face up into the vehicle says to me the helmet did not mitigate at all, but probably made matters much worse.
Have a think about it.
Also the logical step isn’t to continue wearing, if the driver was at fault then the driver behaviour neefs modifying, if your sons fault then he needs training and as I’ve mentioned before, kids wearing helmets take far greater risk than those not wearing. Consider that too.
I’m glad he’s alive but simply adding up to your conclusion is too simplistic and the global and indeed nationwide stats re helmet wearing don’t back that conclusion that it mitigated otherwise we’d see massive reductions over and above what we see in other activities involving road users, which we don’t and is explained at length on another thread and elsewhere on the www.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
A simple home experiment might help those who need proof. You’ll need a friend to assist plus a shovel or other similar flat, blunt object which for this purpose replicates a car door / road. Ask the assistant to apply the shovel, with modest force to your head, whilst not wearing and then wearing the helmet (order does not matter). Now, I guess most people will find the “with helmet” experience a little better.
rnick wrote:
I see that you like arguing about helmets. Can I interest you in a thread that just needs a few more comments? http://road.cc/content/news/233382-dad-stops-kid-crashing-bike-parked-car-link-video
In the meantime, your comment is somewhat simplistic. Most people think that helmets provide a certain level of protection against impacts, but the issue is whether they provide sufficient protection to out-weigh the disadvantages of wearing one.
The problem is that when people try to insist that everyone on a bike needs to wear a helmet, it’s making riding a bike seem to be much more dangerous than it actually is. You are actually more likely to damage your head whilst being in a car, but there’s very little call for compulsory helmets for car passengers/drivers.
In fact, the whole helmets issue is a complete misdirection. You know what makes people safer? Good infrastructure.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’ve found that my Bern Brentwood helmet is warmer than a cap during the winter (I’ve only got a Walz cotton cap and one of those water resistant Endura ones). So, if there’s ice/frost on the ground then I’ll wear a
helment helmet – the perceived extra warmth outweighs the inconvenience of banging my head on doorframes as I go out the door…brooksby wrote:
A door-frame in my kitchen is only just above my head, but I nearly always bang my head on it when wearing a helmet. The number of times that I’ve thought “glad I was wearing a helmet” before realising that I don’t bang my head when not wearing one.
brooksby wrote:
Chapeau! My choice of head protection is a casquette in summer (another debate – peak up or down?), a Sealskinz waterproof belgian cap for winter. Might consider a helmet in a hail-storm though, thise little buggers sting!
CygnusX1 wrote:
Oh, peak down, definitely
brooksby wrote:
I’d have thought that the peak’d blind ya.
don simon wrote:
F’ing biblical, mate.
rnick wrote:
Did you read BTBS’s comment? A more accurate experiment (if you trusted your friend) would be for them to take a really hard swing at your head with the shovel so that it comes within 1cm of your skull. While probably scary, with no helmet there would be no contact. With a helmet, there would be contact, albeit with the helmet itself. However, your skull would be in the helmet and so would also absorb some of the forces.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
The part of BTBS argument I don’t get is what is the mystery force field that stops the shovel/car door 1cm from my face?
Normally if I am going head first towards the ground, my head keeps going until something stops it. If I use my super ninja skills, I can tuck and roll, but the usual outcome would be a faceplant.
Similarly, if I am going to go under a vehicle, I might be spectacularly skilled, and perfectly find the gap, but more likely I am going to intersect it somewhere. The slightly larger helmet volume just means I intersect fractionally sooner.
There is one near-miss video that oddly never made it onto roadcc though, which does contradict my argument.
[url]https://youtu.be/lFLpwRMS00g[/url]
Drinfinity wrote:
The additional circumference of the helmet (over and above a human head) means instances where you weren’t wearing there is no contact, when wearing there is contact and thus a non contact/non injury event turns into a contact/injury event, and so many helmet saved my life/saved me from serious injury stories are born which exceed the number of actual deaths/serious injuries pre helmet wearing by a massive factor.
Humans happen to be quite good at understanding how big their heads are and being able to duck and move them out the way or hold them up and away from objects when falling, nature/evolution being what it is we have neck muscles even from a relatively young age to be able to do this.
If you change that balance, increase weight and circumference you end up with a problem, in children this is even more relevant, for small/younger children you could be adding 15% in size and 10% of extra weight that neck muscles and awareness of the size cannot be accounted for. On older children and up it isn’t as big a difference but increasing the mass/kinetic energy of the head being thrown back or forwards in a fall for instance because of the extra weight and having an increased size is not a positive.
Again though, of the 1.4million annual reported head injuries in the UK and 300,000+ hospitalisations cycle head injuries have always been a tiny fraction.
Child head injury deaths are not very high, when they did a study a few years ago (it’s not done often because of the amount of work involved and is very costly and some hospitals won’t/can’t provide data) they found that deaths/serious injuries to children were a hell of a lot more away from cycling, take away that a lot of serious head injuries are the fault of an adult and there is a very very obvious solution and it isn’t forcing kids to wear helmets or ban children from cycling. Aus and NZ and parts of Canada/US did the former and effectively did the latter through doing so then found no change in incident rates in children, quelle surprise!
rnick wrote:
So you wear a helmet 24/7, just in case someone hits you on the head with a shovel? Seems a mite eccentric, but each to their own, I guess.
head injuries per million hours travelled (from http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets#.VFi8mfmsXPs)
Cyclist – 0.41
Pedestrian – 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant – 0.46
Motorcyclist – 7.66
(and, yes, I would assume the ped figures are higher because more peds are elderly and the elderly are more prone to fall over, but still, your shovel experiment doesn’t seem specific to cycling, so what is your point?)
I’ve come to realise my biggest gripe is not with helmet-wearing, not _even_ with helmet laws, it’s with people turning up and making comments that they don’t seem to realise have been made a million times already and which are only the very start of a very long argument, not the killer-point they seem to imagine it is. Maybe people shouldn’t be allowed to post on the topic till they’ve waded through existing enormo-threads and answered a quiz about them?
BTBS, I think you’re giving
BTBS, I think you’re giving people’s cycling skills way too much credit. Last time I flew through the air I didn’t know which way was up, absolute jack shit chance of me being able to control my noggin!
alansmurphy wrote:
I tend to agree, I have a background of over 30 years judo so I know how to fall in a controlled manner. When I had a big off last year I instinctively knew to relax and roll, and hence only had a scuff the size of a 50p and little else, however it was so fast that I did not have the time to think what to do. This is where regular training can develop intuitive actions.
On the flip side, no pun intended, when I had an enormous off a few years ago, thanks to a friend misreading a route and turning in front of me when I was flat out; I had enough air time to assess everything and roll without even a 50p scuff.
Have not any other offs of note to compare further, but feel that learning to fall is a valuable skill and it is this that has saved me rather than my unscathed helmet.
alansmurphy wrote:
As I explained, with a helmet you significantly increase the chance of hitting your head in pretty much every scenario no matter how much or little you are in control and the extra weight on the head especially children has an adverse effect.
Personally I came off at high speed due to a very big and significantly deep hole on a downhill that was pretty much hidden blended by shadow and I’d swerved to avoid a critter running out from the side of the road. As the front wheel impacted the far side inside edge I was flipped forward at an angle, I tucked my head and the impact was directly on the back of my shoulder, with a helmet I’d have been fucked, not just head wise but neck wise also.
Yes you are out of control on occasion but no more than many other activities, I played plenty of rugby in my time, seen some absolutely shocking head clashes not to mention illegal head shots, soccer is not great either.
I’m not over exaggerating the skills of people on bikes simply saying that adding extra girth and weight to your head is a bad thing and that looking at helmet wearing as a defence system for certain outcomes in one activity but ignoring the risk of similar in other aspects in life makes no sense whatsoever. That time you might get pushed from behind whilst on a night out and you crack your head, there’s no call for drinking helmets, same with lots of other stuff. As I pointed out, the numbers of head injuries of people on bikes in the study period (long before helmets were a big deal) is a small % compared to all hospital admissions for head injuries.
That helmets for cycling actually have many other negative impacts as well as not having any noticeable safety impact is why I am absolutely anti helmet, it makes my life less safe, it makes my community less safe and it makes the nation and every other country less safe and also helps with victim blaming, freedom removal, bias, unjust outcomes and bias/discrimination shown in the legal/justice system not to mention governments failing to address the real issues with road safety for people on bikes.
There simply is no upside for cycle helmets and never has been.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
There is definitely merit to the argument that the extra size and weight of a helmet could lead to contact that otherwise would not have occurred. However showing this on a case by case basis isn’t easy and is why your anecdote should carry the same weight (no pun intended) as the stories claiming a helmet saved someone’s life. The truth is, without recreating the same accident exactly, but changing only the wearing of a helmet, we would never know whether the outcome would have been different.
Of course! Why, only last
Of course! Why, only last week I used my skills as a Jedi master to float between those two fence posts, and, using The Force, selected to return to earth in a bank of crispy leaves. Thank goodness I wasn’t wearing a helmet, or it would certainly have jammed between the posts, and I would have been toast. That extra 20 mm makes all the difference when I am dodging street furniture mid air.