- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Should you wear a bike helmet?
A balanced report; worth a watch: The Guardian - Should you wear a bike helmet?
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Cugel 2 sec ago
Frankly, British Cycling and its forebears have always been a poor organisation from the perspective of everyday cyclists, even amateur racing...
- Destroyer666 14 min 14 sec ago
I really don't get from the text or the pic how the shifting mechanism is supposed to work - what exactly is being pushed and pulled? What is used...
- OnYerBike 58 min 33 sec ago
Don't forget your hi-viz and lights, folks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c7086eepzpxo
- Velo-drone 8 hours 31 min ago
I don't think it is peculiarly Dutch even. I've travelled all over Europe for work, and I'd say that the popularity of this style of bike is much...
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 34 min ago
They most certainly do "separate like that"....
- nick h. 11 hours 18 min ago
Read it again. You seem to have missed what this is all about.
- Secret_squirrel 14 hours 20 min ago
Thanks Neil!
- slc 14 hours 26 min ago
All arguments I am hopeful to see validated, especially (a) and (b) combined....
- hawkinspeter 14 hours 59 min ago
Well, on Lundy the only predators are the humans, and they're far more likely to buy some farmed non-Soay lamb from the pub than try to chase a...
- mdavidford 15 hours 23 sec ago
"Just a little bit off the sides"
Add new comment
76 comments
The video is an interesting watch. It's good to see a journalist attempting to present a balanced view of a subject (any subject).
However, the argument against compulsory helmet laws as presented is backed up by some pretty unconvincing science.
Firstly, Dr Harry Rutter states that compulsory helmet laws "probably reduces the amount of cycling". The word probably is the key here. Probably makes it an assumption, anecdata at best. His assertions are based on studies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand after the introduction of helmet laws, but the data presented in the film in relation to these countries only relates to cycling injuries, not any increase or decrease in the uptake of cycling, the reasons for which are a different and much more complex subject given that they deal with the many factors surrounding the perception of risk in relation to cycling, of which helmet wearing is only one.
The film provides no data indicating that compulsory helmet laws reduce the uptake of cycling, nor does it reference any study that suggests, let alone proves this.
Secondly, we get to Ian Walker's study of risk compensation. This falls firmly into the category of further study needed. It's undoubtedly interesting that test subjects took more risks when performing a gambling task in a lab environment while wearing a helmet, but how this relates to real world scenarios is something that the study can only speculate on.
Furthermore, the study suggests that the wearing of protective equipment causes cyclists to take more risks, to act in a way that is above their normal baseline assessment of acceptable risk as it were. However, it's unclear whether the test subjects were habituated to wearing the safety equipment provided.
Before these findings can be related to cycling, it would be necessary to repeat the study in a real world, cycling specific context. Furthermore, comparisons between non-habitual helmet wearers and habitual helmet wearers (those who have grown up with compulsory helmet laws and never cycled without one for example) would be extremely significant.
Thirdly, we come to Ian Walker's second study into drivers' perception of the risk to cyclists. The film makes it clear that there was only one test subject, Ian himself, so we're looking at a fairly limited data set. This alone puts it into the category of further study needed. There is nothing to suggest that the data is based on repeated runs, at the same time of day in the same locations, with and without helmets. No specific, published study is referenced, so it is impossible to evaluate whether the study is good science or merely more anecdata. Furthermore, in the context of a debate on compulsory helmet laws, a comparison of driver behaviour towards helmet wearers in countries both with and without compulsory helmet laws is highly significant.
In both of the areas Walker has studied, it is not unreasonable to hypothesise that normal perceptions of risk would reassert themselves once the population became habituated to cyclists wearing helmets as a matter of course. This is by no means a given, but is an area of study that should be addressed if the debate is to be approached in a reasoned an informed way.
In the interests of balance, I should point out that the film offers no hard data to back up the claim that helmets protect wearers in certain types of crash.
The film is not an example of bad science, as much as an example of bad reporting of science. Its assertions are made either with a total lack of evidence, or based on evidence which has been taken out of context, overblown and misrepresented.
Whatever your point of view on this subject, the film adds nothing to your argument.
Actually, seriously, as the OP, I'd like to draw a line under this in much the same way Bryan Adams withdrew his single 'Everything I Do' from sale after 16 weeks at the top of the charts. Let's give it a break and start again on helmets another time.
Haven't Rapha launched something everyone can bitch on about for being grossly overvalued or something like that?
There might even be a footingball game on to watch tonight.
You could always decide to delete the topic. (Please don't, I'm saving my "Likes" for my retirement).
Why won't this topic die.
We keep beating it over the head, but it seems to have some kind of protective layer.
touché
Go for the torso.
This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
I recently retired after 30 years in the Police and during that time i've dealt with fatals, serious and generally basic rtc's. I helped scrape bits of scalp off the road after cyclists have skidded along after coming off a bike, some through vehicles hitting them and some from generally not being careful and / or observant and obviously they haven't been wearing a helmet.
But in the same breath i've dealt with cyclists with rotational injuries and strap burns who were wearing a helmet.
After seeing this i always wear a helmet as i'd rather have a rotational strain than lose part of my scalp or worse.
Ultimately though it's the individuals choice and should stay that way.
Fair enough. But what proportion of your observations come from on- versus off-road settings? If I cycle up to the Thames path (3 miles on the road from my home) and then cycle on the path for 20 miles, shared only with walkers, I understand that you're recommending (but no more than recommending) that I should wear a helmet on the road - but would I be OK, in your view, to take my helmet off on the shared use path? Would it depend on how fast I cycle?
Agreed. But I am interested in the circumstances around cyclists leaving bits of scalp on the road in sufficient quantities to require scraping up. I've seen many professional riders come off, and they travel significantly quicker than me and therefore will skid along the road further, without the need for a broom wagon to pick up the skin they've left behind.
After accidents we used to assist cleansing to make sure the road was clear of blood etc, on occasion that has been bits scalp where a cyclist has hit the ground head first and scraped along the road.
i think you might be a bit confused with my responce as i was not talking about pro riders who have to wear a helmet, just general public, hope that helps
You haven't addressed my query in the slightest. Could you try again, please? Why is a recreational cylist leaving more skin on the road than a pro cyclist (that has a greater speed and therefore will skid further down the tarmac). I was looking for the circumstances behind your comment. There's a whole lot of inconsistency in what you're saying there. What sort of accidents are they? Speeds? What type of car has knocked them off? Etc.
Given the stats I posted upthread you will of course have seen many thousands more scalps being removed, many more fractured skulls, many more serious head injuries and deaths by head injuries outside of cycling. That from children in a playground to people on ladders, to pedestrians on the street, people on a night out and the big one people in motorvehicles.
Why do you not wear a helmet for any of these clearly dangerous activities (walking/driving/other), ones we know are the direct cause of approximately 161,000 hospital admissions for serious head injuries (which is not all serious head injuries as obviously many tens of thousands do not require an admission into hospital), or is it that the group with a relatively very low number of serious head injuries (circa 1000) would be the only group to make you feel the need to wear one, if so why?
Did you victim blame people on bikes for no his-vis and no helmet when struck by criminal motorists which is the usual police stance and has been for decades?
Do you have to be sarcastic when all i did was offer my own view ?
Clearly you have a dislike for my previous profession, which is entirely your choice so i'll leave it at that.
Hell of a thread for sticking your toe in the water. I've loads of questions for you, but my iPad's being an arsehole and there's loads of time. Do hang around.
You must be new here.
More seriously, police get a bad reputation with cyclists as they are seen to be pushing a helmet-wearing agenda. It seems that when a cyclist is involved in a RTC, one of the first questions asked is "were you wearing a helmet?" no matter the relevance to the situation.
It also doesn't help when cyclists are pulled over by police for imaginary reasons (e.g. cycling 2 abreast) although that's quite rare in this country which might be to do with the under-resourcing of police.
He is like that with everybody, don't take it personal. I don't post about helmets as the level of debate is just as bad as Brexit, IndyRef or anywhere that two sides shout at each other, don't listen and can't do nuance and grey.
er, my comments are not sarcasm but genuine questions.
Read what I said, answer the questions, apply logic and then see how you show not only bias in what you said regarding head injuries thus ignoring where the vast majority of head injuries occur but also look at your ability to assess risk and your decisions on where you apply your 'safety' rules.
If you can't see that by ignoring all other aspects where people suffer head injuries massively more yet apply it for an activity that is inherrenty safe where it not for criminals harming others then you typify the 'i wear a helmet for cycling but not for any other activity and I won't look at facts not apply any logic/common sense' type.
It's important to ask the questions because otherwise people like yourself will continue on thinking helmets are a great thing when they're not. Will continue to undermine the safety of cycling, continue to ignore risk values, it's not just you it's me and everyone else that this subject matter effects. When a former police officer cannot even see their own bias/discrimination (replicated tens of thousands of times over in our police force) then it's a pretty poor do to say the least isn't it?
Purely anecdotal but I am the only member of my cycling club not to wear a helmet on club rides. I am always last down the hill. Others whizz past.
I'm not sure if this is because I'm a genuine scaredy cat or because not wearing a helmet makes me more aware of the dangers inherent in hurtling down a rutted country road with blind bends at 30+mph.
Probability is that you will crash/get hurt less often, these are basic facts, stick to what you know. I wouldn't ride around a blind bend at 30mph, that's just ludicrous,. Yes some bends are tighter than others but you just can't predict what might be there, fallen tree, broken down vehicle, big pothole, persons walking, whatever. Okay if you think you can stop from 30 in the space you can see to be clear fair enough but that's not invariably possible because most people forget about thinking time and the actual braking time/distance too. Disc brakes will also give a false sense of security because people think they can brake later and yet it's your reactions (or lack thereof) and tyres/road conditions that have by far the biggest impact in braking distance.
My friend crashes a few years ago, he was reasonably new to cycling, it was a fast downhill somewhere in Spain with his cycling mates from around his way. He stuffed his knee and I think hit his head a bit, I asked if he'd have taken it steadier if he'd not been wearing a helmet, " well of course but" stopped him there, "so you would have likely avoided the crash altogether if taking a bit more caution/not going so fast" , "well er probably". it's a bingo! still wears it though and he managed to crash again a year later ... sigh.
This is the problem, it's shown in all the stats, helmet wearers crash more, a lot more and take more risks and oout themselves into situations they wouldn't without a lid. The riskier the activity the worse the outcome and because of the futility of the helmet the outcomes are worse, much worse even without a lid.
UK, Canada, US, Australia, NZ, France, Spain even Denmark is showing increases in injuries with no increase in cycling because of the helmet wearing increases.
And yet even despite all of that the parts of our society where they might work if based on the spurious Bullshit studies it's not only totally ignored but would be scoffed at and brushed aside as pure nonsense. That doesn't even get us to the fact it's a massive distraction from the real issues and removes human rights from people and causes victim blaming/divisions/exclusions of taking part etc etc.
As I'll always say, helmets are the most damaging and insidious thing to happen to cycling since the motorvehicle could go over 10mph
I wouldn't drive a car around a blind bend at 30 mph.
Same league as a seatbelt, just do it by habit as you don’t know when you’ll need it.
See above for an explanation of why your approach doesn't appear to be working.
I wear a helmet for racing and will also pop it on when mountain biking. Generally I mountain bike alone a lot and as there is a real risk of hitting a tree or rock, I do make the effort to wear a lid.
I digress.
The other day when racing, I had the misfortune to have a crash. This was very annoying. What was more annoying was that having initially believing I hadn't hit my helmet when crashing, on closer inspection I could see the slightest, most tiny scuff on the right hand temple of the helmet.
What grated even more is that on even closer inspection, I could see that the helmet had cracked in multiple places.
so... do I believe that a helment just saved my life? Not at all. I believe that the helmet did exactly what it was supposed to do on impact, and that is fail, but the level of impact upon which it did fail (so small I did not feel it), makes me skeptical how efective these devices can ever be.
As an aside, in 25 years riding I have never fallen off a bike whilst wearing a helmet without bangin my head. Conversely I have only ever hit my head once whilst falling off without a helmet on. Take of that what you will.
But as you said previously, you recognised that when you wore one for those activities which you had a crash with it in fact made you take more risk, and was probably a factor in why you crashed so a greater chance of getting an injury by wearing. As I said upthread there is no logic to wearing a helmet in so called riskier activities when you significantly increase the risk of an incident especially at higher speeds/higher forces involved and thus a higher chance of an injury (of any sort) by wearing the helmet.
This is why in pro racing and I have no doubts at all amateur racing and the weeekend run there are more crashes, more injuries and more deaths by helmet wearers. Three times the number of deaths in the pro ranks from head injuries since 2003 compared to non compulsion era, despite improvements in tyre grip, better brakes, more crash barriers, more on course H&S protocols, doctors on course faster than pre helmet rules, and yet still more crashes, more injuries and more deaths, how can that be possible when helmets have to be worn 100% of the time?
Cycling head and all injury rates have gone up not down (in the UK), gone up by more than increases in cycling since the 2005-2009 average and have kept on going up, helmet wearing has also gone up sinificantly too.
In the meantime cycling safety has also dropped significantly comparative to pedestrians, this despite all the interventions including better medical treatment, more warnings to cyclists not to undertake at certain points, more advice to motorists, police 'operations', more segregated infra in that there london and other cycling cities ... and of course a huge jump in helmet wearing.
It hasn't done anything except increase the danger and put yet again more onus on us to keep safe yet again pushing the safety aspect away from those most doing the harm and validating a load of made up bullshit regarding helmet efficacy/effectiveness.
But you still think despite your earlier acknowledgement that wearing a helmet for your riskier activities which will increase your risk taking is a good thing, sorry but as I said, that makes no logical sense whatsoever and the facts back up that it makes no sense, it is more likely you will end up being another stat (again) because you are wearing.
I really have difficulty in imagining any scenario where I fall off anything; bicycle, ladder, chair, climbing wall or even walking where wearing some sort of protective head gear might not save me from some types of injury.
My reason for not wearing a bicycle helmet when pootling about town is that the risks are so low that the known negatives of wearing a helmet, close passes and wearers attitude to risk and wider perception that cycling must be dangerous otherwise you wouldn't need personal protective equipment, thus putting off potential cycle users, outweigh any benefit.
My analysis of figures available is that at best wearing a helmet may prevent around 6 deaths a year out of millions of cycle journeys and the 110 or so cyclists killed on UK roads annually.
However my chief concern is my own wellbeing over the benefit or harm to society in general. I have no problem strapping on a bicycle helmet for when I deliberately take risks, I have no problem not wearing one for when I do not intend to take risks. I do not put much faith in a plastic hat against being run over by a car or larger vehicle. I cannot control other road users, but not wearing a helmet makes me more cautious in my own behaviour, or at least less concerned about making progress over safety. This works for me. Other people have other conclusions based on their own experiences, the environment that they cycle in, their own levels of aggression or stupidity quotient.
How many of those non seatbelted were victims of seatbelted criminality?
According to one paramedic who was chatting on a cycling thread on FB recently he reckoned around 90% of serious motorvehicle crashes involved internal bleeding/internal damage for seatbelt wearers. Could be bollocks but despite all the numerous safety features IN motors there are a hell of a lot of head injuries for seatbelt wearers.
The last figures I saw were 185,000 reported road injuries, ICBB to find out how many are just motorist injuries but it will be a massive chunk.
The whole direction of pushing the onus of safety on to people on bikes is insidious and a complete blanket of lies and disinformation that never for one second considers the other groups who present by far the greater number (try finding motorists/pedestrian head injury numbers!) It also ignores that the vast majority of cycling injuries/head injuries are caused by criminals driving motorvehicles.
One of the 'blame' factors is named as cyclist entering road from a footway/side on, just like the person Charlie Alliston was in collision with, it seems only for people on bikes that this is not a mitigating circumstance when a motorist crushes their head!
There was an incident in 2015 when a cyclist had serious brain injuries due to a car driver colliding with him, he was wearing a helmet and then stated that a helmet saved his life so is campaigning for compulsary helmets ...oh for fucks sakes, it didn't save you from life changing injuries and it most certainly did not save your life.
When will people wake the fuck up, it's actually hurting all cyclists and helmet wearers more than non wearers!
again 160,000 head injuries admitted to hospital every single year (162,544 in 2013/14 according to Headway), this is not the total number of 'serious' head injuries as not all serious are admitted from the 1.3 million reported head injuries.
2016 saw 3400 serious injuries of people on bikes from all types, one study suggests approximately 28% of those are serious head injuries, so less than a 1000. So 162,000+ (again the actual SI figure is massively higher than this) v 1000, and which group gets plauged by the bullshit surrounding helmets, is the only group forced to wear them in some places around the world and is the only group to be victimised, excluded from participation and victim blamed by police, insurers, governments, head injury groups, busbodies and indeed the general public as well as morons within the same group ...
Let's not forget that all of those vehicle occupants who unfortunately died in crashes with head injuries were not wearing driving helmets.
IIRC if the French figures about that are applicable elsewhere, then the majority of those were in cases where the occupants were not properly restrained (e.g. no seat belt) or where the crash was considered unsurvivable n any event.
I always wear a helmet. Why? Two events. The first was the son of a friend who was trail riding and crashed head first into a tree. The helmet broke but his head didn't. He lived. The second was a neighbour who was being photographed riding an unusual bike for the local newspaper. He wasn't wearing a helmet. Due to mechanical failure he went over his handlebars and fell on the road on his head. His brain matter had to be washed off the road. Dead of course. Both are anecdotes but are true. There is of course no proof that the outcomes would have been different but I reckon it pays to be cautious.
Pages