Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Video: Headcam user films cyclist crashing headfirst, urges riders to wear helmets

Mountain biker knocked unconscious after going over handlebars in Surrey Hills

This video of a mountain biker going over his handlebars, landing on his head and being knocked unconscious in the Surrey Hills was sent to Eagle Radio to highlight the effectiveness of cycle helmets. The uploader says the helmet took the main impact of the fall and without it the cyclist would have sustained far more severe injuries.

As it was, the man involved, Andy, was taken to hospital, where he was given the all clear. He was back in work two days’ later.

Be warned that the video does contain some images which may be upsetting for some people.

 

Tim Rowsell, who recorded the video on his GoPro, said:

"It doesn't take much to get quite a severe head injury and that's why I want people to see it. If you wear a helmet it can save your life and I genuinely believe that he would have been in a lot worse a state if he hadn't been wearing a helmet at the time.

"He was incredibly lucky and you can see at the end of the video that the helmet took the main impact and really was quite badly damaged. It was an old helmet, which he hadn't used for a couple of years, but it did the job."

Organisations such as CTC, the national cycling charity, are against making cycle helmets mandatory, arguing that cycling should be promoted as a safe, normal and enjoyable transport and leisure activity which anyone can do, with or without a helmet.

CTC points out that whether or not it is a good idea to wear a helmet may depend on both the rider and the type of cycling they are doing.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

55 comments

Avatar
Kapelmuur | 8 years ago
0 likes

If the pressure to wear a helmet "keeps cyclists off the roads", how do we account for the increasing number of cyclists?

 

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Kapelmuur | 8 years ago
1 like
Kapelmuur wrote:

If the pressure to wear a helmet "keeps cyclists off the roads", how do we account for the increasing number of cyclists?

 

 

Simple - they aren't increasing very much, the proportion of journeys cycled is still very, very low.

Plus they aren't compulsory, outside of that ghastly sounding place on the other side of the world.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 8 years ago
0 likes

I am shocked and surprised at Road CC for leaving the comments open on a story like this.

I've heard there is a pro helmet camp and a freedom of choice camp and neither will agree with the other but is convinced that multiple quotes will finally beat the opposition into submission. I've heard that the longer the post, the more quotes that are used and links to blogs of dubious authority then the more authoritative the poster believes themselves to be.

 

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 8 years ago
1 like

Personal choice is fine but pretending helmets make no difference at all isn't. As Sen Pat Moynahan once said 'You're entitled to your own opinion - but not your own facts.' 

 

I came off on diesel only last Saturday. Hit head on kerb. Helmet broken in 4 places. Skull perfectly fine. Not the first time I had this result. I've had a couple of ice crashes too that would have been far more serious if my bare head had hit the deck rather than that inch of polystyrene.  I started wearing a helmet in 1992 after breaking my shoulder and getting concussion.

There  are two sorts of people who don't think helmets can often make a difference:

-those that haven't landed on their head yet.

- and those that must have landed on their head too many times to be thinking clearly. 

Avatar
Wendyo | 8 years ago
2 likes

I am a road cyclist and helmets are compulsory in NZ. Last year (early last year) I was involved in a cycle vs truck (read VERY LARGE truck) accident whikst going out to meet my training squad. I probably hit him at about 40kph but I don't know as my Garmin didn't survive (neither did my bike).

Injuries were extensive and my helmet ended up with a large crack almost end to end. I did not suffer any head injury. I for one am very pleased tohave been wearing a helmet and wouldn't consider riding without one.

Accidents happen, anytime, anywhere, any place. You may be the one at fault or not. I still have a small amount of recovery to look forward to but I also have permanent damage to the nerve that supplies my bicep. Your bicep is responsible for many movements in your arm, wrist, imagine not having one.  That said, I am (lucky to be) alive and my brain is as good as it ever was (no rude comments here  1 ).

 

Avatar
700c | 8 years ago
1 like

@Ush

That's fine, opinions are just that - opinion and not absolute fact. Don't forget this guy isn't standing up in a court of law testifying to the efficacy of helmets. He's not suggesting that x joules of energy of impact were absorbed by the helmet and xyz medical injuries would definately have resulted had he not been wearing it.

By characterising your proponent's argument/position in this way you set him up to fail. Because of course you will never disprove this negative hypothesis (ie that helmets won't have any effect in reducing injury when a wearer is subjected to a collision with an object whilst mountain biking) because he will not repeat the accident under controlled conditions without said helmet!

Thus most of us rely on some common sense and some reasonable assumptions in the decisions we take and opinions we state. Clearly however you need empirical proof of helmet efficacy to be convinced they might be of some concievable benefit. But I ask you again, would you rather be hit on the head wearing those marshmallows for protection or a bicycle helmet?

PS I'm not saying certain people don't wrongly overstate helmet efficacy - they often do, especially non-cyclist drivers who read the Daily Mail.

Avatar
Ush replied to 700c | 8 years ago
2 likes

700c wrote:

Don't forget this guy isn't standing up in a court of law testifying to the efficacy of helmets.

Right, because contrary to your outraged declaration of "common sense" there is actually very little proof that helmets reduce serious brain injuries.  That's why the experts are pretty careful not to state that.  So, what we have here, is a story, illustrated by a video which suggests that we should all wear helmets in order to prevent exactly the sort of injury which they can do little to prevent.

700c wrote:

He's not suggesting that x joules of energy of impact were absorbed by the helmet and xyz medical injuries would definately have resulted had he not been wearing it.

Sure he is.  He's stating that without the helmet things "would have been worse", in a situation where the helmet (yet again) has manifestly failed to protect against concussion.

700c wrote:

By characterising your proponent's argument/position in this way you set him up to fail.

It's not my "characterising" that sets up the fail.  It's the over-confident,  unmeasured _assertion_ that sets itself up for failure.

700c wrote:

Because of course you will never disprove this negative hypothesis

Sure you can.  And if helmets have a large prophylactic effect then it will be easy to do so.  All you have to do is measure populations of helmeted and non-helmeted wearers injury rates and control for differences between those populations.  If it's a large effect, i.e. the sort of one that would justify me going around telling you that you should wear one, then it will be easily measurable.

 

700c wrote:

  Clearly however you need empirical proof of helmet efficacy to be convinced they might be of some concievable benefit.

That's right.  So,  where is your study showing that being hit hard enough on the head to cause TBI is significantly improved by wearing a bicycle helmet?

Avatar
700c replied to Ush | 8 years ago
0 likes

Ush wrote:

700c wrote:

Don't forget this guy isn't standing up in a court of law testifying to the efficacy of helmets.

Right, because contrary to your outraged declaration of "common sense" there is actually very little proof that helmets reduce serious brain injuries.  That's why the experts are pretty careful not to state that.  So, what we have here, is a story, illustrated by a video which suggests that we should all wear helmets in order to prevent exactly the sort of injury which they can do little to prevent.

700c wrote:

He's not suggesting that x joules of energy of impact were absorbed by the helmet and xyz medical injuries would definately have resulted had he not been wearing it.

Sure he is.  He's stating that without the helmet things "would have been worse", in a situation where the helmet (yet again) has manifestly failed to protect against concussion.

700c wrote:

By characterising your proponent's argument/position in this way you set him up to fail.

It's not my "characterising" that sets up the fail.  It's the over-confident,  unmeasured _assertion_ that sets itself up for failure.

700c wrote:

Because of course you will never disprove this negative hypothesis

Sure you can.  And if helmets have a large prophylactic effect then it will be easy to do so.  All you have to do is measure populations of helmeted and non-helmeted wearers injury rates and control for differences between those populations.  If it's a large effect, i.e. the sort of one that would justify me going around telling you that you should wear one, then it will be easily measurable.

 

700c wrote:

  Clearly however you need empirical proof of helmet efficacy to be convinced they might be of some concievable benefit.

That's right.  So,  where is your study showing that being hit hard enough on the head to cause TBI is significantly improved by wearing a bicycle helmet?

I take no issue with your decision not to wear a helmet  and your rationale for this choice (that there is no clear proof of their efficacy in preventing serious injury). That is entirely valid.

Where I disagree is that you can reliably measure the efficacy of helmets in their real-world context, since, I believe, by looking just at poopulation statistics you'll be confusing cause and effect and not sufficiently controlling environmental and individual variables.

I believe we need probably need live human crash test dummies to get reliable proof, to the standard that you will need, to sway your decision or views. This will never happen, hence you will never wear a helmet but that's fine - individuals judge risk differently and have require different standards of proof.

Thus a decision based on 'common sense' or even anecdotal evidence/ experience is not invalid and is to be expected in light of the above.

The fact I wear a helmet in the absence of absolute proof they will save my life or reduce injury is my decision - I will not wait for a 'study' to prove beyond any doubt that a helmet will save me and I am not prepare to test this theory for myself.

Yet you state in your earlier comments that as the helmet did not prevent concussion it was not helpful in preventing injury. This is an invalid conclusion, as you know. 

The logic and decision making process you apply with regards to wearing a helmet will be subject to 'human factors'- beliefs, prejudices, experiences, risk perception etc. Mine will be too. This is entirely reasonable, but means you should not rubbish another person's decision-making simply because they've not acted like a computer in evaluating available data. If you're honest with yourself, you'll realise that you don't apply this decision making equally and consistently to other matters potentially affecting your health and safety, about which you may have less strong views.

Just like being selective with quotes when debating a topic, or with the evidence you chose to accept or deny, 'Characterising' a proponent's argument or incorrectly extrapolating to lead to a false conclusion, is evidence of these human factors at work.

that is all.

 

 

 

Avatar
Ush replied to 700c | 8 years ago
0 likes
700c wrote:

I take no issue with your decision not to wear a helmet

I have not actually said whether or not I do. But thank you for your courtesy. In return I will take no issue with your decision to whatever it is you do. In addition I would like to state that I am in no way calling for, nor have I ever supported legislation which would force you to remove your helmet for your own good.

700c wrote:

;and your rationale for this choice (that there is no clear proof of their efficacy in preventing serious injury). That is entirely valid.

It is not a matter of "proof" clear or otherwise. Little or nothing can ever be proven clearly. It is a matter of reasonableness in the face of evidence. In this case, despite a well-financed attempt to discern a link between helmet usage and the reduction of TBI the evidence remains highly ambiguous.

Anecdotes like the one posted here, which explicitly argue that we should wear a helmet because someone got a concussion while wearing one are frankly lies. They lie baldly in asserting that the outcome would be worse without a helmet, and they lie subtly by ignoring all the other anecdotes which result in the worst outcomes: namely that helmeted riders die at indistinguishable rates from non-helmeted riders.

Quote:

Where I disagree is that you can reliably measure the efficacy of helmets in their real-world context, since, I believe, by looking just at poopulation statistics you'll be confusing cause and effect and not sufficiently controlling environmental and individual variables.

That is always a problem in epidemiology, but it is not completely intractable. Where there are specific confounders identified attempts can be made to control for them. I do agree that it is an imprecise and difficult area though. However, if there were a very strong effect it would probably be identifiable by now.

Quote:

I believe we need probably need live human crash test dummies to get reliable proof, to the standard that you will need, to sway your decision or views. This will never happen, hence you will never wear a helmet but that's fine - individuals judge risk differently and have require different standards of proof.

Given that the main causes of TBI (rotation injuries) are identified by now I do not see why cadavers could not be used. Similary dummies can be fitted with accelerometers. Such things have been done for seatbelt testing -- the effects can be measured. IIRC some unfortunate spider monkeys were used as live subjects in the early seventies in helmet testing. I suspect that the ballpark outcomes are known and they suggest that an effective helmet... that is, one which prevents the concussions which we saw demonstrated in this video, would be very large, would enclose the head more and would be reasonably unpleasant to wear.

Quote:

you should not rubbish another person's decision-making simply because they've not acted like a computer

I reject that. For someone that has been talking about "characterising" you have repeatedly put words in my mouth. I don't rubbish another person's decision making simply because they don't act like computers. I rubbish their decision making when they claim that their decision making is anything more than a random emotional choice and that it ought to apply to anyone other than themselves.

Again: only in Helmet Land can a video which shows a piece of personal protective equipment _failing_ be interpreted as an argument to use that equipment!

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 8 years ago
4 likes

I don't wear a helmet for riding on the road and am very strongly against compulsory use of helmets for cycle commuting.

I do wear a helmet for riding off road or racing. As I'm a BMX racer, I wear a full face and have done so for downhill MTB riding too.

I don't see why that should be hard to understand. Riding on road is a lot less dangerous than off-road riding or racing, where you are close to the limit (if you're not, you're doing it wrong).

I do wonder if this guy had been wearing a BMX/MTB downhill type full face whether he'd have been knocked unconscious. The lid he was wearing was pretty crappy.

Avatar
atgni | 8 years ago
3 likes

Good work by the camera guy.

 

Not relevant to the MTB incident:

Conclusion from DoT focus on pedal cyclists report 2013.

'Pedal cyclists have a higher rate of being killed in comparison to car occupants, however it is still far less risky than being a motorcyclist. The rate also appears to be the same for a pedestrian as it is for a cyclist.'

Avatar
Bikebikebike | 8 years ago
3 likes

If he wasn't wearing a helmet he would probably have been cycling a bit more appropriately for his skill level, and not crashed.  So he would have had no head injury at all.

Avatar
Bikebikebike | 8 years ago
0 likes

.

Avatar
Danger Dicko | 8 years ago
2 likes

I'm not anti-helmet.

I'm not pro-helmet.

I'm pro-cycling.

Avatar
DaveE128 | 8 years ago
6 likes

These helmet related stories must be great for the ad revenues of road.cc  7

Avatar
Ush | 8 years ago
4 likes

Quote:

The uploader says the helmet took the main impact of the fall and without it the cyclist would have sustained far more severe injuries

Ah, an anecdote illustrated by a video. 

Did the uploader happen to provide his expert assessment of the energy involved in the fall and the amount absorbed by the helmet?

Only in helmet-land can people see someone get a concussion from falling on their head and conclude that the helmet worked.

Perhaps someone would be interested in seeing a video of the horribly squashed bag of marshmallows I was wearing on my head after I bungie jumped onto my head without a cord?  They were completely flattened and I feel certain that my injuries would have been worse without them.  

(Good job at looking after the injured man by the camera-wearer though).

Avatar
700c replied to Ush | 8 years ago
2 likes
Ush wrote:

Quote:

The uploader says the helmet took the main impact of the fall and without it the cyclist would have sustained far more severe injuries

Ah, an anecdote illustrated by a video. 

Did the uploader happen to provide his expert assessment of the energy involved in the fall and the amount absorbed by the helmet?

Only in helmet-land can people see someone get a concussion from falling on their head and conclude that the helmet worked.

Perhaps someone would be interested in seeing a video of the horribly squashed bag of marshmallows I was wearing on my head after I bungie jumped onto my head without a cord?  They were completely flattened and I feel certain that my injuries..

Ok, you realise how obtuse you're being equating marshmallows to a hard plastic-covered polystyrene shell. .

No wait... Perhaps you don't? !

Only in anti-helmet land could such rubbish be accepted as a valid argument..

To consider, for a moment, that you're making a serious point and not just trolling, let me address a couple of points:

Firstly the mountain biker 'genuinely believed he would have been in a much worse state had he not been wearing a helmet. .' That's not the same as asserting it definately saved his life or definately took all the impact. Its a perfectly reasonable belief but cannot be proved because the cyclist is not about to recreate his off without a helmet now is he?

Nor is he providing expert analysts on how much energy was absorbed. Why should be have to, to convince you a helmet might have helped?

We know from manufacturer tests, safety standards etc how much these should absorb. Enough to potentially make a difference. That's uncontroversial to all but the most vehement of the anti helmet brigade.

Where did common sense go in this discussion?

If we're to require absolute proof before stating helmets may reduce impact and therefore injury, how about I take a baseball bat to your head, and you choose whether it is marshmallow-covered or helmeted?!

(That was a facetious joke as opposed to a threat, by the way! )

Avatar
Ush replied to 700c | 8 years ago
2 likes

700c][quote=Ush wrote:

Quote:

The uploader says the helmet took the main impact of the fall and without it the cyclist would have sustained far more severe injuries

Ah, an anecdote illustrated by a video. 

Did the uploader happen to provide his expert assessment of the energy involved in the fall and the amount absorbed by the helmet?

[snip]

Firstly the mountain biker 'genuinely believed he would have been in a much worse state had he not been wearing a helmet. .' That's not the same as asserting it definately saved his life or definately took all the impact.

Anyone can have an opinion.  In order for it to be useful to other people it helps to ground it in some sort of fact.  So, as is always the case with these anecdotes people claim that they can look at a helmet and tell how much energy it helped manage in the collision and what the medical outcome would have been without it.  That is very expert opinion.  In at least two specialized, expert fields. So expert, that I imagine actual experts would be loathe to venture such a statement (Dunning-Kruger Effect etc).

As for all the rest,  yes, we know for a very specific type of fall how much energy a helmet in mint condition will absorb.  And expert testimony before the courts in the UK (by Brian Walker, one of those experts whom you cite) suggests that unfortunately they do little, even at their best, to alleviate concussions.

Common sense is, sadly, often  nonsense.

Avatar
Wingnut | 8 years ago
3 likes

Casting aside the helmet debate instigated by the author and not wanting to start another about pro's and con's of trauma managment please lets watch and  learn from Tim's actions, he did a fantastic job. Its really difficult in stressful situations.

Avatar
BigManLittleHair | 8 years ago
2 likes

popcorn...

Avatar
BigManLittleHair | 8 years ago
0 likes

popcorn...

Avatar
hectorhtaylor | 8 years ago
0 likes

QED

Avatar
Prosper0 | 8 years ago
3 likes

The man is clearly a trauma doctor, how else would he be qualified to make such a sweeping statement? Seems to me the helmet didnt do much, he came off his bike and was concussed despite wearing one.

Avatar
birzzles | 8 years ago
2 likes

seeing kayaker on Dart Loop last weekend pissed everyone off, as it is stupid and dangerous.  Doing MTB without a helmet is also stupid and dangerous.  The problem is that someone else has to pick up the pieces, as we cant just leave you to die, unfortunately.

Avatar
Mombee | 8 years ago
0 likes

Brilliantly handled by the cameraman... The people in this video did really well to keep the chap in one position, rather than letting him get up. Having experienced a similar situation two years ago, where I was both the cameraman and the 'crasher', my mantra is "you only realise that you need a helmet when it's too late". In my case the situation was excellently handled by two mates, who managed the immediate aftermath of going over the handlebars, before getting me firstly to a Minor Injuries Unit and then onto Gloucester A&E to be stitched back together by their MaxFac team. 

I've also editted some of my video, but it shows how a great day can change in a matter of seconds... https://vimeo.com/81799411

Avatar
MrWigster | 8 years ago
4 likes

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

Avatar
hectorhtaylor replied to MrWigster | 8 years ago
5 likes

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I see you are a new(ish?) contributor and have not experienced the expected tirade until now. You could be forgiven for thinking you are in the minority but I suspect you are not. The anti-helmet brigade come out in force when a story like this hits these pages and you get the same old stories. The only explanation is they must have tested the theory, survived to tell the tale but failed to realise their reasoning became impaired due to a bang on the head...

Leave them to it.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to hectorhtaylor | 8 years ago
3 likes
hectorhtaylor wrote:

I see you are a new(ish?) contributor and have not experienced the expected tirade until now. You could be forgiven for thinking you are in the minority but I suspect you are not. The anti-helmet brigade come out in force when a story like this hits these pages and you get the same old stories. The only explanation is they must have tested the theory, survived to tell the tale but failed to realise their reasoning became impaired due to a bang on the head...

Leave them to it.

I'm NOT anti-helmet, I'm against it being mandatory to wear one...

Avatar
giff77 replied to hectorhtaylor | 8 years ago
5 likes

hectorhtaylor wrote:

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I see you are a new(ish?) contributor and have not experienced the expected tirade until now. You could be forgiven for thinking you are in the minority but I suspect you are not. The anti-helmet brigade come out in force when a story like this hits these pages and you get the same old stories. The only explanation is they must have tested the theory, survived to tell the tale but failed to realise their reasoning became impaired due to a bang on the head...

Leave them to it.

Wigster and Hector. 

 

You our will find that the "antihelmetbrigade" is actually more anti compulsion of the wearing of helmets. Many of them race or mountain bike and wear a helmet as regulations for those disciplines demand that this is so. When it comes to getting around. There is no need to get knitted up. After all. Motorists are not expected to don fire-retardant suits, neck braces helmets to go to the local shops or restaurant even with more motorist being injured per mile travelled than cyclists. 

 

I'm amazed that so many on this forum are prone to coming off their bikes and would suggest that they learn not to fall. Though if they insist that this is a requirement. I suggest that you all learn how to fall. 

Avatar
oozaveared replied to MrWigster | 8 years ago
11 likes

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I think you may need to educate yourself a bit about helmets.  How they are made, how they work, what they do and what they don't do.  No one is anti-helmet.  They are just irrelvant to road safety and even counterproductive.  

The reason is that they frame the argument in terms of making cycling appear far more dangerous than it is.  It is statistically very safe.  There is lots we can do to improve it further but helmets aren't one of them.  Most cyclists just travelling on the road gain no benefit whatsoever from wearing a helmet.  But wear one if you like.  Wear a St Christopher medal if you like, splash yourself with holy water or keep a rabbits foot in saddlebag.  They'll all have about exactly the same usefulness to the average cyclist going to the shops or riding to work. 

What they do do however is signal that cycling is a dangerous activity in need of special protective equipment.  That image (which bears no relation to the actuality) keeps cyclists off the road.  The key element that keeps cyclists safe on the road is their ubiquity.  That there are lots of us.  That as a driver you know that it is likely that cyclists will be travelling on the road. That as a driver perhaps you also cycle.  

So people don't object to helmets they object to people equating road safety with helmet use and when it arguably has the opposite effect.   You may want to look at cycling in the Netherlands  or in Denmark and contrast it with cycling in Australia which has compulsory helmet laws.    How many people are cycling, how safe are they, how likely is a newbie to take up cycling to work. 

You may be new but this is far more complicated and issue than whether you think some polystyrene will keep the roads safe.  

For example how many cyclists have been killed or seriously injured on the road where a helmet would even have mitigated any injury.  They are rated to 50 joules of impact protection when brand new and properly fitted.  

So just to get this straight.  There are around 100 or so cyclists killed on the road each year. It has come down massively over the years as have all road deaths.  Of those 100 or so, only some are going to involve any head injury.  For example the 8 people killed in London so far this year 7 were crushed by lorries over their legs and lower torso.  There were no head injuries.  Even when there are head injuries you need to discern whether a helmet would have been of any use.  So if you are whacked at high speed your head will be injured no doubt but your back will be broken and you will have your vital organs ripped apart. The head injury would be fatal as would any of the other injuries.  A helmet would make no difference to the outcome.  So you then narrow further to find head injuries that were at low enough speed for the helmet to have any mitigating effect.  In that category the effect of mitigation is found to be 10 - 16%.  So in a sub set of a sub set where helmets might work they are 10% - 16% effective at mitigation.

You mentioned seatbelts.  In a number of road accidents had the driver been wearing race standard 5 point seat belts and a helmet they would have survived a fatal accident.    A life is a life right?  So it's worth saving anyone.  But if you then started saying that all drivers and passengers should have 5 point safety belts anchored to the chassis of their vehicle and wear a helmet because if they all did so you could save 3 lives a year  you would get short shrift.

That's the same shrift you are getting here and for the same reason.

Pages

Latest Comments