Should you wear a bike helmet?

Mungecrundle wrote:

This is the 3rd helmet in some 30 years that I have smashed, and I am quite willing to testify that each helmet went to it's demise whilst saving me from considerable head injury. The first was on an MTB going down steps, over the handle bars and onto the top edge of a brick wall, that one pretty much split across the top. The second was downhill in the rain, sliding out and colliding with the curb, that was mostly abrasions. The one pictured was from last years Tour of Cambridge. I overlapped a wheel whilst racing and went down very heavily head first at about 25mph. Avoided a trip to A&E but did actually suffer the mythical rotational neck injury which took a few weeks to settle.

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

Then you get into the whole statistics and studies where it is actually very difficult to find convincing real world evidence either for or against helmets. After as much research as is reasonable without becoming obsessed my personal conclusion is that a helmet can save you from some injuries in some circumstances, and I'm going to stick with my personal anecdata on that one. However what does come through consistently is that wearing a helmet is not a one sided equation, as in you may as well wear one because there is no downside. There is plenty of evidence about increase in personal risk taking and in the way that other road users treat a helmeted v non helmeted rider and that is even before you get into the whole mandatory helmets reducing cycle usage and the wider impact on public health scenario.

Bottom line is that commuting round town or pootling about on a bicycle is a low risk activity that should not and does not require personal safety equipment to reduce risk to an acceptable level. There is no evidence that cycle helmets are car proof or prevent fatalities should a lorry be driven over your body. Conversely, part of the fun of cycling for me at least is in pushing my cardiovascular limits and riding as fast as I can or seeking an endorphine rush. This means that riding in a group (racing, training or even the weekly club ride), time trialling, MTB where any level of technical ability is required (I have very little), I shall be strapping my helmet on and you had best be aware that I may well be a little more psycopathic whilst wearing it.

you made valid points re your own behaviour and yet fly in the face of what you beleive to be so by wearing a helmet for the riskier activity which by definition increases that risk which in turn increases the chance of any injury including one to the head.

By wearing a helmet and indeed that by your co-riders too you are increasing the chances of a spill,  then if you add in the inability of a helmet in best case lab controlled enviroment to actually reduce the forces enough in higher speed/riskier activities to even prevent a basic consussion and with a split/broken helmet will have absorbed a tiny fraction of the forces involved (even less than at slower commuting speeds) I simply don't understand why you would continue to wear one for what you to percieve to be the riskier activity when by doing so you only make matters worse?

There is no logic in what you've done especially since you identified the behaviour pattern and will no doubt know the limitations of the helmets you posessed.

I am able to max myself out on a ride and have done so hundreds if not thousands of times over 30 years, have I crashed/come off a few times of my own doing, yes, would a helmet have made a positive difference in those crashes and over the circa 185,000 miles I've done, not one bit. For me my anecdata says I wouldn't be writing this now. I see no benefit of wearing and even less so in higher risk activities and for those that are easily influenced (like children) because this simply makes those scenarios even more riskier as you already identified.

best of luck.

Mungecrundle wrote:

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

For many years I rode a motorbike and I too shared your view that that when I felt 'safe' in my leathers and boots I rode more wrecklessly that when I felt vulnerable in Jeans & trainers. 

However I eventually realised that my safety wasn't one directional and I couldn't control others behavour. As such I realised that I could just as easily have an accident even when I drove less wrecklessly.

As such it was preferable to wear safety gear.

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

bikeman01 wrote:

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

But bike helmets make other road users act more recklessly towards you as a cyclist if you are wearing a helmet..............

Natrix wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

 

But bike helmets make other road users act more recklessly towards you as a cyclist if you are wearing a helmet..............

Personally I think that is utter nonsense. Many people I have mentioned that to say that thay don't even notice the helmet. More likely for drivers to notice you're lycra'd up, and that set an expectation that you're a) a more experienced rider or b) a stereoytpe that can cope with or deserves a close pass.

Of course your statement omits the fact that that vast majority of drivers are not influenced by your headwear and you might just get in to an accident with one of them, in which case you'd be better off wearing a helmet.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to theis debate. It's plainly obvious that helmets help reduce head injury and only a f'kin moron would argue against that.

I don't necessarily care one way or the other if helmets are made compulsory, but I lean towards that they should be - I don't care much if the stupid get hurt but I do care about the impact on teh public purse treating them and I very much care when parents push their naive views on their kids and put them at risk.

bikeman01 wrote:

Natrix wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

 

But bike helmets make other road users act more recklessly towards you as a cyclist if you are wearing a helmet..............

Personally I think that is utter nonsense. Many people I have mentioned that to say that thay don't even notice the helmet.

The teeniest amount of googling would turn up a study that shows exactly what Natrix suggests.

But who needs google when you can think 'facts' that are then confirmed by your social circle, and who needs experts and studies and inconvenient shit that disagrees with you, when you obviously have common sense on speed dial.

bikeman01 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

For many years I rode a motorbike and I too shared your view that that when I felt 'safe' in my leathers and boots I rode more wrecklessly that when I felt vulnerable in Jeans & trainers. 

However I eventually realised that my safety wasn't one directional and I couldn't control others behavour. As such I realised that I could just as easily have an accident even when I drove less wrecklessly.

As such it was preferable to wear safety gear.

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

I'm assuming you didn't bother watching the video about helmets (maybe you watched it and were too stupid to understand it).

hawkinspeter wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

For many years I rode a motorbike and I too shared your view that that when I felt 'safe' in my leathers and boots I rode more wrecklessly that when I felt vulnerable in Jeans & trainers. 

However I eventually realised that my safety wasn't one directional and I couldn't control others behavour. As such I realised that I could just as easily have an accident even when I drove less wrecklessly.

As such it was preferable to wear safety gear.

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

I'm assuming you didn't bother watching the video about helmets (maybe you watched it and were too stupid to understand it).

Yeah of course I just shared my opinion just so you could retort in this childish manner, dickhead.

bikeman01 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

For many years I rode a motorbike and I too shared your view that that when I felt 'safe' in my leathers and boots I rode more wrecklessly that when I felt vulnerable in Jeans & trainers. 

However I eventually realised that my safety wasn't one directional and I couldn't control others behavour. As such I realised that I could just as easily have an accident even when I drove less wrecklessly.

As such it was preferable to wear safety gear.

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

I'm assuming you didn't bother watching the video about helmets (maybe you watched it and were too stupid to understand it).

Yeah of course I just shared my opinion just so you could retort in this childish manner, dickhead.

 

Maybe you need to re-watch the video to get a better grasp on the finer points of the debate.

The important factors to consider is whether wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in a crash. There is some good evidence that drivers do overtake with less space on average when a rider is wearing a helmet and also good evidence that wearing a helmet makes the rider take more risks. The extra protection that a helmet provides seems to be out-weighed by these other effects, though there is variable evidence of this as we can only really measure numbers of head injuries over time versus the ratio of helmet to non-helmet wearing cyclists.

I do appreciate the irony of you referring to my childish retort and then resorting to name calling.

bikeman01 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

For many years I rode a motorbike and I too shared your view that that when I felt 'safe' in my leathers and boots I rode more wrecklessly that when I felt vulnerable in Jeans & trainers. 

However I eventually realised that my safety wasn't one directional and I couldn't control others behavour. As such I realised that I could just as easily have an accident even when I drove less wrecklessly.

As such it was preferable to wear safety gear.

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

But bike helmets are nothing like motorcycle helmets, and the ratio of 'risk under your control'/'risk not under your control' is different for each mode, but, most of all, the total health-effect of helmet-promotion is different for both.

Given that they obviously increase the risk to others, by a huge degree, I'd say it's far more foolish to drive a motorised vehicle, incidentally.

 Wear it if you wish, it's not the wearing of it I have a problem with, it's the collusion with victim-blaming and the supression of non-motorised modes of transport that is implicit in the relentless public promotion of it, including foolish comments like your final one here.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

 

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

 

.... Wear it if you wish, it's not the wearing of it I have a problem with, it's the collusion with victim-blaming and the supression of non-motorised modes of transport that is implicit in the relentless public promotion of it, including foolish comments like your final one here.

I don't think that's fair. His statement is far from foolish. 

Wearing helmets is sensible. They do some good, and the actual wearing of a helmet does the wearer no harm. The ...victim blaming and .... relentless pubic promotion  are a different matter entirely. For many many cyclists, wearing a helmet is a good idea. For all cyclists and most non-cyclist, the mandating of wearing helmets, and the relentless promotion etc is a really really bad idea. 

Perhaps an incomplete analogy is that for many many people drinking some alcohol is a very good idea (with a myriad of conflicting approaches to research and possible lifestyle benefits etc) , but the relentless promotion and victim blaming associated with it is bad for the population as a whole, and often for those engaged in the activity.

madcarew wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

 

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I'd say it is foolish not to wear one.

 

.... Wear it if you wish, it's not the wearing of it I have a problem with, it's the collusion with victim-blaming and the supression of non-motorised modes of transport that is implicit in the relentless public promotion of it, including foolish comments like your final one here.

I don't think that's fair. His statement is far from foolish. 

Wearing helmets is sensible. They do some good, and the actual wearing of a helmet does the wearer no harm. The ...victim blaming and .... relentless pubic promotion  are a different matter entirely. For many many cyclists, wearing a helmet is a good idea. For all cyclists and most non-cyclist, the mandating of wearing helmets, and the relentless promotion etc is a really really bad idea. 

Perhaps an incomplete analogy is that for many many people drinking some alcohol is a very good idea (with a myriad of conflicting approaches to research and possible lifestyle benefits etc) , but the relentless promotion and victim blaming associated with it is bad for the population as a whole, and often for those engaged in the activity.

Your statement about wearing a helmet doing no harm is somewhat contentious. Look at the studies on increased risk taking by helmet wearers and closer passes by bigger vehicles - pretty damn far from being harmless. When you weigh up the evidence, wearing a helmet is NOT a good idea (unless you plan on crashing anyway in which case it's probably better to be wearing the helmet for the crash).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Your statement about wearing a helmet doing no harm is somewhat contentious. Look at the studies on increased risk taking by helmet wearers and closer passes by bigger vehicles - pretty damn far from being harmless. When you weigh up the evidence, wearing a helmet is NOT a good idea (unless you plan on crashing anyway in which case it's probably better to be wearing the helmet for the crash).

Also, studies and surveys generally show:

- that participants wearing helmets creates the impression of an activity being dangerous

- that a/the major barrier to cycling participation is impression of danger

- that all cyclists are safer when cyclist numbers increase.

So it doesn't take much of a leap to say that yes, wearing helmets discourages non-cyclists becoming cyclists, which makes us all less safe *than we might be*.

Add to that the effect that widespread helmet-wearing must have on the creeping cultural acceptance and disproportionate onus on cyclists taking responsibility for their own safety (imagine if Clarkson's latest vomit into the pages of The S*n was about a pedestrian or driver...).

This debate is so nuanced and ideological, I doubt anyone who posted on any of these threads has had their mind changed one bit by what they read here. But it goes way beyond the safety/efficacy/personal responsibility - it IS a cultural argument. The laws that mandate helmet-wearing have not been brought in through compelling evidence - they've come about through dogma and a culture that has suggested they SHOULD be mandated. Still, it couldn't happen here...

Couldn't it? Our department for transport launched an investigation into dangerous cycling laws because ONE lad hit ONE pedestrian. That investigation did not arise from compelling evidence, but dogma and the current culture - and pandering to it.  Laws could change - laws could change!!! and if they do, it'll be off the back of that investigation, which has come about courtesy of a single outlier. The same monkeys mandating helmet-wearing is not far-fetched.

To say 'I'll wear one and it's fine - it's MY head, and that's where it stops' is gloriously short-sighted.