Cycle helmets dramatically reduce the chances of suffering severe brain trauma according to new study

I crashed at 47mph last Sunday after hitting a pothole, on a steep descent and slid about 20ft my first point of contact with the road was my head. My helmet is smashed to bits but no head injury, just serious road rash all down my right side, ankle, knee, hip and shoulder, yes I probably would have been seriously injured had I not been wearing it, will it make me wear one going to the shops/pub? No! Just very glad it was on whilst out on a run. Personal choice every time

Quote:

It should be optional. That way, by default, the number of non helmet wearers will reduce by natural selection.

Shhh.
Not only do you not understand the debate, you also don't understand how natural selection works...

Now that cabinet maker from the Wirral (MBE) has joined in, this could get very long indeed.

The Netherlands, US, and Australia all have about the same rate of head injuries, approximately 33 per 100 cyclist fatalities. The US should be lower and OZ massively lower if helmets are effective? (or conversely, all those helmetless Dutch should be dead). Why aren't helmets reducing deaths from TBI?

I had Thai Green Curry for dinner.

It should be optional. That way, by default, the number of non helmet wearers will reduce by natural selection.

"If you believe everyone needs to wear a helmet for cycling, then you must -if claiming a logic stance- also campaign for wearing one in the car, walking, in the shower or climbing ladders, all head injury risks, on a par with or greater than cycling."

Not sure that's entirely logical Chris. One would need to take into account the proportion of accidents with each of those activities that resulted in head injury, compared with cycling.

Helmets prevent reduce the chance of head injuries....shock!!

But who are these people supposedly advocating making them compulsory?

It should be a matter of choice. Why should a load of car drivers sitting in armchairs tell those of us who ride whatever the weather what to stick in our heads

Without getting into the validity of the study itself, assuming we except the outcomes at face value and setting aside the greater societal impact of mass helmet use, a study like this is only relevant when put into context. If not then it is positively unhelpful if the aim is to save lives.

There have been 8 cycling deaths (I think) in London this year, each one attracting headlines. I believe there have been 62 pedestrian deaths.

If you believe everyone needs to wear a helmet for cycling, then you must -if claiming a logic stance- also campaign for wearing one in the car, walking, in the shower or climbing ladders, all head injury risks, on a par with or greater than cycling.

If anyone wants to campaign for mandatory helmet use for all of the above as well as cycling, I could at least respect that. If not then it's hypocritical and for those that want real safety, a distraction.

helmet use in the Netherlands is some of the lowest in the world at ~0.5% whilst also having the lowest incidence of cycling head injury in the world...

Chris B

"Well, eating five portions of fruit and veg a day is also supposed to reduce your risk of stuff. But should we enforce that? By law?"

Please don't. I hate vegetables .

But does the study say the helmets themselves reduced the brain injuries, or just that people who like to wear helmets are less prone to them, perhaps because of other aspects of their behaviour ?

Well, eating five portions of fruit and veg a day is also supposed to reduce your risk of stuff. But should we enforce that? By law? Looking both ways before crossing the road - do we legislate for that? There is a big gap between compulsion and recommendation.

Not sure if there are many testers on this forum, but I was recently at a CTT district AGM where the majority voted for mandatory helmets and rear lights for all CTT events. Yes, including hillclimbs. Hopefully it will be thrown out at the national level.

(BTW I usually wear a helmet but if it's a hot day and I'm riding with people I know and trust then it's such a nice feeling to do without)

.

Oh, go on then....

More fodder for the helmet police, but it misses the point. I think most (but not all) would not dispute that if you are wearing a helmet that absorbs impact when you hit your head you will usually reduce the risk of injury, be that falling off a bike, tripping over a curb, having a rock fall on your head etc. But, the most persuasive arguments against helmet enforcement are nothing to do with this - they are that helmet compulsion reduces cycling rates and this is a bigger cost to society than any potential benefit from reducing (relatively rare) head injuries. There are other reasons, well covered elsewhere.

The problem is doctors, and health and safety people in general are programmed to look at the immediate individual risks and not the broader consequences.

Derail it fast!

...it's not going to end well, is it ?

INCOMING!