The Great Helmet Debate

I will get involved in the debate for two reasons.

1. To defend my right to choose.
As a non-wearer I generally take the view of "You wear what you want, I'll wear what I want." I never try to dissuade people from wearing them or promote not wearing them.

2. To show that there is another view.
When I feel that people are just assuming that there is no opposition to helmets, or that they are just the most obvious thing to do to improve cycling safety. The recent attacks on Chris Boardman for his saftey interview on the BBC gave rise to a lot of that, missing the point he was making.

Other than that I will respond if someone genuinely seems to be asking why someone would not wear a helmet.

I'm not reading through all the usual stuff again so I won't quote any figures, just offer my own observations.

1. Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. Here's my own anecdote;

At the age of 15 (in 1979, no helmets existed) I was hit from behind (on my bike) by a speeding driver. My bike absorbed the shock and was written off. I was thrown to the ground but got up and walked away with only a small scratch on the back of my hand. Does this prove that speeding cars may damage bikes but are harmless to cyclists? Similarly, I can go into any church in the country and find any number of people who will testify that their lives were transformed for the better when they 'accepted the Good Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.' I doubt however that anyone would accept any number of such anecdotes as reason to make religious observance compulsory.

2. Association is not causation, ie, just because one thing happens after or alongside another it doesn't mean that one has caused or led to the other. This is the sort of 'evidence' quoted in support of astrology, homoeopathy and which led to the MMR autism affair.

3. Modern bike helmets have been around for almost 30 years. Research into their effectiveness has been ongoing for most of that time, as has this f@(k!n9 debate!! I can't believe the question is that hard to answer. If there were any good evidence out there surely someone would have found it by now!

It is a choice, simple, decide for yourself. If it was the law, then you have no choice. Me, I wear a helmet, my choice.

First the helmet has to be worn correctly if it is to be on any benefit ask any motorcyclist about the importance of a correctly fitted helmet.

We will never know the true data because how many accidents allowed the cyclist to walk away.

Its down to personnel choice, but for me as a motorcyclist the speeds I can achieve on my bike are greater than a 50cc scooter ride who must wear a helmet. I don't want to spend time in A&E and save our already stretched NHS resources for people who genuinely need them and not waste them on me because I choose not to protect my head from an injury.

Haven fallen off my bike and hit my head the helmet does work if worn correctly and its a good quality one.

I wear a helmet on main roads but not elsewhere. Tesco trip is off road; I cross one road. I see my risk as higher on roads. Paramedics I met at an event said I should wear a helmet every time. Helmet use is linked to the "they don't pay road tax" and "shouldn't be on the roads" and victim blaming (especially for cyclists, commented on above), mentality of some drivers that the police and media have bought into and thus cyclists not entitled to the care other injured people receive.

Personal choice simples
I wear a helmet when I Cycle, Ski, Roller Skate, and play Ice Hockey. The only one that is compulsory is the last, but it is a full contact sport. The others I wear it because I think it will help if I have an accident. But it is my choice, and everyone has the same choice.

Boy there is some hot air blowing around. I wear a helmet because my wife (a retired A&E nurse) will not let me go out on my bike if I dont.
'
However I would wear one anyway because in the event of a crash involving head truma I feel a helmet would reduce the consequences; and that makes it worthwhile.

I've ridden a lot of years, I tend to go a bit crazy on the decending. I've crashed numerous times, once hitting my head, which resulted in 9 stitches. On that occasion a helmet would have saved my a lot of pain. Not to mention the look of horror on the faces of tourists in Skipton North Yorkshire as a dripped blood down the high street ridding my way home.

And I don't buy the arguement driver take more care with those that wear helmets.

I am just back to cycling after a break of over 40 years. In the 60's and 70's hardly anyone wore a helmet partly because the ones available weren't really any good and the culture was that you didn't wear a helmet. Now I wouldn't dream of going out without one, traffic and the consequent risks of accidents is greater and the helmets today are so good you hardly know you've got one on.

I came off today on black ice and gave my head quite a bang, who knows what would have happened if I had not been wearing a helmet.

I don't mind if you wear a helmet or not when you cycle, but don't wear one in a church.

That should cover another angle of helmet umbrage that had been sorely neglected on road.cc

Pootling to the shops at 5-15mph in dry conditions or on off road routes does not imply a high enough risk of head injury to warrant the use of PPE by an experienced cyclist.

^^^^^^^

It's statements like that that makes the point of a debate pointless.

The helmet debate is essentially poinless. Helment wearing is not a legal requirement for cyclists, therefore cyclists can make their own choice about whether to wear one or not based on their own opinions. As another poster commented, no-one is changing their opinions based on the "debate" being held on these & many other pages.

The helmet debate, in my opinion, causes a distraction from the real issues and any rational approach to the risks involved in cycling. Helmets are intended to reduce the risk of injury when you've been involved in a fall or collision. For it to do this, you need to have had a fall or collision first. The priority should therefore be to reduce the number of falls or collisions. I believe this was at the heart of Chris Boardman's recent comments.

There is an upleasant undercurrent of victim blaming in some circles, where a cyclist involve in a collision will be viewed as less responsible if they weren't wearing a helmet. In my opinion the helmet debate perpetuates this.

As far as my own habits regarding wearing/not wearing helmets and hi-viz, I'll keep that to myself

Why does this get debated to death?

For me its because there is no concrete evidence ether way. Lots of statistics that have been manipulated by either camps to demonstrate what they want to promote, yes... but categoric evidence, no, I've not seen it.

So... there is lots to be debated.

However for me I think the killer reason why this gets done to death again and again is because it has the potential to affect all of us... pro, anti, somewhere in between.

What I am talking about is legislation, and the adoption of compulsory helmet wearing.

I fully understand why those completely convinced by helmets can see that legislation is that answer to stopping the delusional anti's from themselves.

However, these pro compulsion are the tiny minority. The vast majority have made a decision either way and are happy to live that way and see it makes sense for all to make their own choice.

The anti's feel threatened by potential legislation and naturally fight hard to resist it.

Now, both minority camps use pretty extreme arguments to fight their case... arguments so inflammatory it brings the more moderate into the debate.

So there.

Personally I couldn't care less what people think or do... but I will will stand up and start shouting when certain people try and force their will on me.

The helmet debate is stupid and should be stopped because it is a sink for all the energy, money and effort that could be going to far better ways of improving safety.

I do wear a helmet because its my personal opinion that taking everything into consideration, there probably is a benefit, albeit a minor one.

ask these people about helmets... they'd laugh at you

in the entire video, there is only one person wearing a helmet and he's also the only person wearing lycra...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I_GO22jels

I am pretty much anti-helmet and I guess I'm also anti other people wearing helmets, not that I am advocating a ban by any means.
Helmets cause more harm than good because they give the impression that cycling is a dangerous pursuit that requires specialist safety equipment. The statistics on cycling injuries does not reflect this perception. And yet if you ask a sample of adults why they don't try cycling they say they are scared to do so. In fact even in anecdote my non-cycling friends most commonly tell me that I'm "brave" or "foolhardy" for cycling on our "deadly" roads.
If the perception of cycling can be corrected from the bias of the overblown culture of fear to being a perception of being a safe and normal thing that you can do in normal clothing then we can get more people cycling. Such a culture shift will improve air-quality, improve the nation's health and simultaneously make the already safe roads even safer.
My change of viewpoint began when watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY
And developed further in the years since then. It seems many more people who think about such things are coming to the same conclusion. So, go on, grow a pair! Throw away the lid!

Saying that a helmet won't do anything in a serious crash is simply rubbish.

It might not stop any injury, but the fact that the polystyrene shell absorbs some of the impact will reduce the amount of G applied to the cranium, and therefore the chances of the brain getting injured by hitting the inside of the skull.

That is the science of the issue.

Helmets aren't required to be tested for protection against anything other than a fall from standing to be sold as cycle helmets, but that doesn't mean that they offer no protection in a higher impact crash, just that the level of protection is unquantified.

If your head gets crushed by a truck then no helmet will do you much good, but if you get knocked off by a truck your brain will suffer less trauma on hitting the floor if some of the impact energy is taken up by the deforming of a cycle helmet.

I don't always wear a helmet, but I'm not trying to convince myself of some absolute rubbish about them being of no use. The fact is they will help, but whether they'll help enough to make the crucial difference is largely unproven as the current standards are not measuring them in the context most of us want them to work in.

And I finally got round to buying a helmet after going on my first ride with a club and being told it was (or might be) comulsory as a club rule. I can see that there is probably more risk of falling off when riding close to others.

I've had three people at my work suggest I should wear a helmet. I suggested they all read this from the NHS, where the writers have decided not to claim that helmets improve safety, but I don't think they read it.

I think the best way to approach the h-word is user experience both with and without the helmet. This year I finished a build of mine early January. I rode from January until July without a helmet. I've had very bad wrecks with helmets on, and I attributed them in part to reckless riding becasue of a helmet. I started wearing a helmet again becasue my speed was becoming dangerously quick. I'm riding fixed brakeless, becasue all other riding is yawningly boring. I would have a brake, but the fork isn't drilled. Regardless of any of that, I started wearing a helmet becasue my delivery job requires it. Now I'm back to loving helmets. I also invested in a Giro Atmos—highly recommend—lightweight and looks good for city and road.

I think helmets are "in" right now, the debate seems mostly over as cars and bikes are becoming increasingly more hostile towards each other, a lot of cyclists are wearing helmets becasue of dangerous drivers, and I think that'll stay that way until we have a more public, less private, transportation in the States, i.e. self driving cars. But as far as helmets in the case of strictly road riding, tough call. You don't want to be the only guy wearing one, and you don't want to be the only guy with one.

About 4 months ago I was hit by a car whilst riding home, I was wearing a helmet at the time. I believe that the helmet both saved me from serious injuries and cause serious injuries.

I went over the bonnet of the car and landed on the crown of my head, I then bounced up about a foot and landed again on my head.

The helmet was crushed and cracked in a number of places but my skull was fine however the shock wave led to me compressing 3 of my vertebra, breaking 6 ribs and bruising my chest.

It could have been that without a helmet my skull would have been fine, and my chest/back ok. Or I could have serious head injuries and still have the chest/back injuries. I just don't know, and as the police never bothered to come out then we will never know.

I've only just started returning to work this week

I would like to ride without a helmet, but it's too risky for me. But it's peoples choices.

Bikeboy76, not sure i agree, the argument comes down to those who basically don't give a f*** if you wear a helmet or not and the other group who think your an insane moron.

One group says if you want feel free, just don't think it is a panacea. The other group seems to assume helmets offer more protection than they do. After all we are not talking Motorcycle helmets and if the issue was safety wouldn't we ban baths, showers and stairs????

I wear a helmet to stop twigs and stuff whacking me on the head, and in the summer keeps the sun off my head.

If I fall off it may protect me marginally and save a nasty bit of gravel rash on my head, but I seriously doubt it will protect me from 2+ ton of metal travelling at 60mph (saying that, neither would a large metal box with windows and a steering wheel).

Time and again experts have proven how our perception of danger is seriously out of whack with the reality (like the fact more people are killed by cows than sharks, so why aren't there any Spielberg films about giant rampant cows tearing up the countryside?). At the end of the day, I say if a helmet makes you feel safer, then stick it on, if you would rather not then fine. However you most definitely MUST NOT under any circumstances be allowed to wear baseball caps!

I despair at the extremists on both sides. One side says the have never wore one and never will and due to their expert bike handling skills will never need one. That they are therefore uncool and dangerous, causing 'rotational' injuries.
The other side says helmets (and Hi viz) are required because we are putting people at risk exposing them to drivers.

There are plenty of people in between with a spectrum of views. I just find it sad that the moderate view of wear a helmet if you want to and it makes you feel safer, but you don't have to if you don't want to; is always drowned out. I personally wear a helmet when I am wearing my bike kit, because I AM going faster and think it will protect me if require and it looks the part too. If I am wearing street clothes I generally don't wear a helmet because I am going slower (in jeans) and just going to the shops. I don't like being told by either side that I am wrong whatever I do. And I don't like being told what to wear even if it is safety equipment. My personal clothing choices are up to me. I would feel like a right berk with a flashing light attached to my head. I have just bought some ridiculous expensive bike lights from kickstarter so I can choice to wear all black in the winter if I want.

Yes there is no empirical evidence helmets work. The reason being we do not throw fit healthy human beings at static concrete blocks both wearing helmets and not, and see which ones die or are brain damaged. There will NEVER be any empirical evidence. So the anti brigade dismiss the anecdotal evidence of people who have crashed. How dare they characterize other peoples experiences. If some one tells me a helmet saved their life I take this at face value. This is the only evidence available. It is impossible to believe that a helmet never saved anyone's life. Just look at other sports, I have done some extreme things in my younger years and some things you just wouldn't try without a helmet [Helmets ARE Cool.]

I find the antis the most delusional, whilst the ultra pros are damaging participation and freedom of choice and stoking blame culture.

Please stop telling other people what to do. {Did I say helmets are cool?}

Lots of the arguments I have seen in favour of helmet compulsion are based on the idea that helmets necessarily make things safer. Ignoring the fact that there is no population study that confirms this, and quite a few that suggest the opposite (see the NZMA's investigation of the efficacy of helmet legislation in New Zealand), this misses the point, IMO - the decision on what personal safety equipment is required should be reserved for the individual.

I will accept that there are other areas where we allow the law to impinge upon this personal responsibility (safety belts in cars, helmets for motorcyclists) but this is not a good reason, in my opinion, to allow this continued creep to a legislative framework that mandates personal safety. If you want to extend the logic that leads to mandatory head protection for activities that have a similar or greater risk of head-injury in comparison to cycling, we will have car helmets, walking helmets and bathroom helmets.

The key thing, above all others, that makes cyclists safer on the road is this: more cyclists. More cyclists: more driver awareness, greater push for better facilities. More helmet compulsion: fewer cyclists.

Lastly, to anyone who would try to characterise me as anti-helmet: I have no desire to take your helmet from you, nor do you need to justify your wearing of it to me. It is your choice. I would simply seek to maintain that choice for every cyclist. Oh, and I wear a helmet - because, even though I think it extremely unlikely it will save my life, I think the chances of it injuring me are also pretty slim (not non-existent), the inconvenience is mitigated by its utility as a camera-mount and it (generally) stops people who would impose their choices on me from lecturing me.