Photo of mangled helmet shared more than 30 million times after cyclist walks away from crash

Quote:

The only strangers I care about are non human

I've seen videos about that and I'm sure it's illegal outside the Isle of Wight.

I am astonished by some of the retarded thinking that is within many comments above about, to effect of " well his helmet didn't stop him breaking his back" and so on. I ride road and have raced mtb downhill and taken many knocks to the head over the years . Batting my head off a rock at 20mph I suspect would have badly fractured my skull and most probably killed me. I had a decent helmet on , I am still here. Like the bloke featured, he lives to tell the tail and will hopefully make a full recovery, without the helmet ....who knows. When I was 6 years old a kid in my street fell off his bike pootling along....his head hit the kerb and he died. At slow speed like that I strongly believe he would have been fine if wearing a helmet. What is so wrong with wearing one anyway?!?....grow up and act like an adult I say to those who don't ..or have deluded sense that it is little use . Good luck

Migstu, why do you think that helmet debates are a recurring feature on cycling websites?

Do you think that half the people are stupid and half the people are right or do you think that just maybe, perhaps, possibly the debate is a little more nuanced and subtle than 'if you don't wear one you'll die'?

Migstu. A mountain bike helmet or downhill helmet has a totally different design to the helmets that roadies/commuters are persuaded to wear. The road helmet is the equivalent to a 'pudding bowl' that motorcycle groups prefer their members not to wear. If folk want to protect their head they need to start to wear either a full face helmet or a 3/4 helmet. I would also suggest a knock brace as well to protect from rotational injuries. If we are to see an increase in modal share we need better infrastructure and heavier penalties on those who harm both cyclists and pedestrians. The calls for helmet legislation are quite simply a red herring to improve road safety. The fact that helmets are worn suggest that cycling is a dangerous pastime or means of commuting. This is not the case. cycling is SAFE unless it happens to be one of the extreme versions. To often analogies are trundled out in regards to how a helmet protected them yet how do we know the outcome would have been any worse/better 'sans' helmet?

Watch the pros when the fall. They tuck and roll, they unclip and use their feet as stabilisers. It's very rare that they have head trauma. Us minions aren't at that level of expertise but we can still learn how not to fall and if not successful at that then learn how to fall. As for the motorist, the battle goes on to ensure they drive with courtesy, consideration and care toward other road users.

I actually once had an accident that I am convinced I would not have walked away from had I not been wearing a helmet. Obviously it's not possible to prove that, but given that I put a deep crease across the top of it as I headbutted the edge of a stone step I wouldn't want to volunteer to test the 'no helmet' hypothesis.

Having said that I don't always wear a helmet, and would still advise that gloves are the most important piece of safety equipment given that in an accident your hands will almost certainly make contact with the ground and as a wise man once told me 'broken bones will heal with dignity, but if both your hands are in plaster then someone else is going to be wiping your arse.'

I have replaced 4 busted helmets up to date but I've never had to replace my head ! Which ever camp you are in you could say that the situation is a " no brainer" !

I wonder what happened to the pictures of the mad reckless unhelmeted dutch folk that I put up?

I cant wait for it be made law and hear the howls of derision followed by the sheer horror of getting a fixed penalty which costs you more than a helmet would lol, after all the Police have nothing better to do, do they ?

At the moment though wear one if you want to, don't if you don't want to its as simple as that but don't try and force your opinions on others who disagree, whether that's for or against.

"You've got no control of what will happen when you are on the roads. As a cyclist I make a balanced decision and go by the theory that you need to expect the unexpected. You don't know what people are going to do."

This is exactly the case. You can be as careful as you like, look around you as much as you like but you cannot stop people from driving into you.

Only yesterday I had a great ride in the country until I got back into the city. When approaching stationary traffic in the lane to my right the last stationary car in the lane suddenly decided to change into the left lane without indicating. They pulled out, straight into me as I was almost along side them. I had no time to stop so I swerved left and they continued through the narrow gap. If I had been a bit closer when they made their lane change then I would have been off. Similar situation to Ben.

The solution is simple:

If everyone wears a helmet, (regardless of your persuasion), then it won't be an excuse anymore for non-action/blaming cyclists.

Then, without excuses they'll have to improve the infrastructure for cyclists. After that's done, wear if you want, don't wear if you don't want.

Oh dear, here we go again.

On one side we have the helmet zealots, telling us that a picture of a shattered helmet proves that they work, and on the other, the helmet deniers, holding up their rather less convincing evidence that at a population level, helmets don't work.

Hmmm, so which to believe, the people with only anecdotal evidence, which isn't evidence at all, but incredibly emotionally appealing, or the people with hard scientific, proven evidence?

The persistence of the myth of helmet effectiveness has to be worthy of doctoral thesis surely?

If only he'd worn a helmet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32586657

My brakes have saved my life 10,000 times.
Be sure to maintain your brakes and check for rim and pad wear at regular intervals.
Funny but I bet this doesn't go viral!

Well this is fun
So, where is the evidence that helmets are so very ineffective please?
If a child can die after a walking pace knock to the head on a kerb...and an adult can too...we've all heard the freak accident stories then we can conclude that our skulls are pretty darn fragile.
So what next ......decide that unless a helmet can save you from any impact with a truck then best not bother .....pretty daft logic..But if that's your choice then good luck,and you may well need it !

I wear a helmet not because it will save my life in the event of a fall of some kind, but because it may save my life. And because it looks cool.

'Afraid it is, basic science says so. '

Can you point me towards this science please? As a scientist, this sounds like utter shit, but it's important to have an open mind and review the evidence.

I wear a helmet on 95% of my rides but I'm not sure why. I think mostly due to peer pressure but also because it somehow feels like an inch of polystyrene could actually make a difference if it managed to come between my head and a kerb. I've been off 2 times in the last 5 years, both were my fault, no vehicles were involved and the embarrassment hurt more than the grazes.

I remember clearly during one fall wondering why I could not lift my head away from the tarmac as my helmet was scraping along it. Although I fell sideways and my shoulder and hip took most of the impact, my head was slowly twisted around until I was face-down while lying on my side; not an easy position to get into. It's clear in my mind that had my helmet not been there my head would not have made contact with the road at all as I could have easily held it clear. But having the extra inch around my head and in contact with the road meant I could not fight the friction and keep my head and neck from twisting. It was not serious but I cannot help but wonder what other damage a helmet might do in an odd situation even though in a straightforward situation it "should" be beneficial?

My embarrassment has no bearing on whether helmets are good, bad or indifferent. Anecdotal evidence like this is no evidence at all. Helmets seem like a "good thing" but then so did many things like smoking, blood letting and thalidomide. Only science cuts through these issues and it seems to me that the only way to make any progress here is to put together a well designed, large scale study that will take time, money and lives. The ethics involved in requiring people to "risk their lives" by not wearing helmets are a nightmare. While I'm sure many cyclists would be happy not to wear a helmet in the name of science that does not make for a scientific study, as all you've done is separate people into those who will only cycle with a helmet and those who don't. Which is why the AU/NZ studies are often cited; a natural experiment. Unfortunately it seems this was a non-repeatable experiment. Even though they show the injury rate went up when helmets were made compulsory, to validate the data would require the law to be repealed, at least temporarily, to see if it goes back down. So many other factors could be involved like increased vehicular traffic over that period, increased popularity of the sport (presumably more dangerous than leisure and commuting) or that the law simply removed more inexperienced cyclists (without their own helmets) from the roads than experienced cyclists (who would presumably cover many, many more miles). I don't see any way to solve this without experimenting on a whole country at-large and repeatedly changing the law to see what happens, which seems cruel and unusual!

Has anyone got any more reasonable ideas?! For now I'm going to carry on wearing a helmet as it seems to bother drivers and other cyclists and I think it might help in some situation, but I would not try to claim that they're effective in any measurable way or support a mandatory law to that unproven affect.

Saw this post on Facebook and almost replied to the guy to say that helmets, although a reasonable piece of equipment to marginally reduce the serious injury and death rate from cycling accidents (involving a car or not) are the lowest form of protection and should only be required as a last resort.

I work in the construction industry and as any competent contractor or consultant will tell you PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is the LEAST effective way of preventing or reducing the likely-hood of harm to someone on a construction site where falls from height, slips trips and falls, and contact with moving machinery or heavy goods are the most common causes of injury and death. Many of these accidents have similar comparable scenarios for cyclists, ie collisions with cars, falling due to poor road surfaces etc.

Elimination and where this is not possible segregation from the causes of these hazards has been proven to be by far the most effective way of dramatically reducing deaths and or serious injuries in construction over the last 20-30 years.

To truly tackle the risk to cyclists on the road the hazard must be eliminated at source, in the case of collisions between cyclists and cars this would be to either stop cycling completely or ban cars, both clearly not feasible or beneficial to anybody.

The first truly practical solution would be to segregate the two parties so that they never meet, which leads to the provision of good quality cycling infrastructure.

The danger with the recurring helmet debate is that the emphasis on helmets as an effective or ineffective way of preventing serious injury or death from a collision with a car or from falling from your bike distracts from the far more effective solution to improving cyclists safety, which is the provision of proper cycling infrastructure, improved road surfacing and maintenance.

You want to know why people in Amsterdam don't wear helmets? they don't need to, they have proper cycling infrastructure. One day workers on construction sites will no longer need to wear PPE but this will only be as a result of massive investment in the safety initiatives and practices brought about by the Health and Safety at Work Act, of which it is a criminal offence to breach.

If only there was a Health and Safety whilst going to Work Act............

'Basic science Andy...velocity, mass, variables, vectors, proportionality, laws of physics, applied laws of physics. As a scientist you should be capable of postulating it from source, it's kind of obvious (if you know science of course).'

Basic science says that all the above also apply to sitting in a chair, having a shower, going to the shops. To then apply these to define some kind of arbitrary 'X is more dangerous than Y' is of course very poor science. HTH.

It just strikes me as far too fanciful and unbelievable.

Perhaps the accident did happen, perhaps the paramedic did make a comment, I just find it very hard to believe that he made such a detailed observation to a complete stranger with no real involvement in the situation.

Also, your references to products strikes me as odd.

Jaguar XF, Zipp Wheels. Nobody really needs to know that.

It's like dealing with a marketing Bot.

I was first aider to someone who was struck by a car. The windscreen showed the classic bullseye markings of a head impact. The rider was unconscious with a depressed skull fracture amongst other serious injuries. I can't say categorically that wearing a helmet would have made a difference but the fracture was where a helmet would have covered. I will never forget the feeling of helplessness and subsequent guilt when I later found out that the rider died on the way to hospital. Maybe I could have done something different, maybe the outcome might of been different if any of a dozen contributing factors had been different.

Personally I don't want to be criminalised for not wearing a helmet. Mostly I do and I appreciate that others make a choice not to. Speaking only from my personal experiences I am pretty sure I walked away unscathed from an accident that would otherwise have caused a serious head trauma had I not been wearing a helmet (previous post in thread) and I have witnessed a fatality where a helmet really might have saved a life.

I am also aware that quite often a serious incident will elicit an ambulance and other paramedic responders, after the casualty has been dealt with any 'spare' responder may very well have taken the time to talk to witnesses and first aiders if only to make sure they are OK having been involved in a very traumatic incident. This is what happened in my case.

A helmet is supposed to get some damage, even total, in a crash, just like the crumple zones in cars, so that you that you get less damage, therefore the dismissive attitude from some commenters is obvious cognitive bias or complacency.

I agree that wearing a cycle helmet should be a personal choice because not wearing one will probably not hurt anyone else, unless you have dependents...

I value my whole body, including head, so have decent brakes and pads, decent tires, tough gloves and wear an exceeding standards helmet most of the time, in part, because accidents taught me in several hard, painful and quite costly ways to.

If you have higher insurance premiums, get damaged or more damaged from not wearing a (suitable) helmet or other extra costs, then I will have no sympathy for you; maybe some pity.

I find it interesting that anyone believes cycle helmet manufacturers care about anything but the following three criteria:

- Passing the standard test
- Perceived performance (breathability|weight|adjustability; in each case more or less as desirable)
- Looks (so it sells...)

To highlight that, motorcycle helmets have got larger and heavier (or fancier materials) over time, and are sold with strong safety endorsements, backed by things like materials testing.

Bike helmets are sold on light weight and racers wearing them...

I've drawn my conclusions from that. YMMV.

His science & understanding of mass, velocity & vectors are a bit off.
If the persons head had still been in the helmet pictured originally, he would be dead. Only identifiable by DNA sample.

More people sustain head injuries in RTA's, within the vehicle, than any other injury. Yet nobody is calling for motorists to wear helmets.

If you want to wear a helmet whilst riding, fine. If not, also fine. When you get hit by a car, van, bus or HGV it really won't help much (unless it is a really freak accident).

Some of the back & forth on this thread goes beyond boring...