New research suggests that wearing a helmet may put cyclists more at risk of being injured in a road traffic collision.
The findings are set out in a paper entitled Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates presented at this week’s National Road Safety Conference in Telford.
Former Cycling UK councillor Colin Clarke and author and journalist Chris Gillham analysed overall changes in accident risk with increased helmet wearing.
They looked at data from Australia and New Zealand, both of which have nationwide mandatory helmet laws, the US and Canada, where compulsion is widespread particularly for children but laws vary in local jurisdictions, and the UK, where there is no legal requirement to wear one.
Summarising their findings, they said: “Bicycle helmet wearing globally has increased over the past 30 years via promotion and in some cases legislation.
“Various reports have assessed the changes in wearing rates, accidents, injuries and cycling activity levels.
“A limited number of reports have analysed overall changes in accident risk per kilometres cycled, per hours cycled or in relationship to cycling levels via survey information.
“A significant number of findings suggest a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage and there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”
Besides highlighting an increased casualty rate among cyclists wearing helmets, they also noted that according to census data, the compulsory helmet laws introduced in Australia and New Zealand in the 1990s had led to a reduction in cycling.
For example, they highlighted that “Children’s cycling in New Zealand reduced from 23 million hours to 13.6 million hours in less than a 10 year period and currently is about 4 to 5 million hours per year.”
That ties in with one argument often put forward by opponents of mandatory helmet laws, namely that discouraging people from cycling through such legislation ultimately has an adverse effect on public health generally.
To put that another way, the perceived reduction in casualties of cyclists brought about by making helmets compulsory is outweighed by the fact that such laws deter people from cycling, and therefore do not aid efforts to tackle more widespread issues such as obesity which exercise can help address.
In conclusion, Clarke and Gillham said: “The possible reasons for increased risk of injury per cyclist, particularly upper extremities, appear to be due to increased falls.
“It appears helmet use increases the accident rate by more than 40 per cent.
“This should be the subject of further research to determine why overall accident and injury rates outweigh head injury benefits provided by helmets.”
93 thoughts on “Wearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research”
“It appears helmet use
“It[b] appears [/b]helmet use increases the accident rate by more than 40 per cent.”
You would think that such a marked effect would be easy to prove conclusively, and ought to be apparent even on casual observation.
Sriracha wrote:
yes, it sounds like extrapolation gone mad to me. As an Aussie I’m familiar with the ridership changes that followed mandatory helmets. Fact is, if you make it look like a risky activity you only get the people comfortable with the risk doing it. You reduce your data set mainly to people riding as an athletic activity, so fewer riders overall but those riders travel greater distances which increases their exposure risk. I don’t see it that helmets increase the risk, they just discourage casual riders whose lower risk level would improve the average.
The bigger problem in my experience is driver attitude and poor decisions. As ridership levels have decreased, so has the ability of drivers to behave appropriately around cyclists while their sense of entitlement has increased. It’s compounded by increasing traffic congestion raising stress levels and aggression. But those factors never show up when evaluating helmets.
Philh68 wrote:
yes, it sounds like extrapolation gone mad to me. As an Aussie I’m familiar with the ridership changes that followed mandatory helmets. Fact is, if you make it look like a risky activity you only get the people comfortable with the risk doing it. You reduce your data set mainly to people riding as an athletic activity, so fewer riders overall but those riders travel greater distances which increases their exposure risk. I don’t see it that helmets increase the risk, they just discourage casual riders whose lower risk level would improve the average.
The bigger problem in my experience is driver attitude and poor decisions. As ridership levels have decreased, so has the ability of drivers to behave appropriately around cyclists while their sense of entitlement has increased. It’s compounded by increasing traffic congestion raising stress levels and aggression. But those factors never show up when evaluating helmets.— Sriracha
100% Agree. While its good that studies like this are undertaken to help keep people informed of their choices, they often lack scope to actually, to say much more than we saw a change but their don’t quite know why.
There have been studies that show that helmet wearers take more risks, but that was when helmet use was mandated and doesn’t factor in the personal choices someone makes to wear a helmet. Is it that they are risk adverse or are thrill seekers who know they are taking risks so want a bit of extra protection.
So while I find these studies of interest my personal decision (and I believe it should be a personal decision) to wear a helmet will be based my own risk profile and values.
kt26 wrote:
the biannual cycling participation survey in Australia has shown a 5% decline in weekly participation since the survey began in 2011. The average weekly riding time has increased. Fewer cyclists, riding more means greater risk exposure time per rider. And over 80 percent of respondents indicate recreation as the reason. 70 percent are not interested in riding for transport. So the kind of riders is heavily skewed. Female cyclist numbers are low. Teenage numbers are dropping. Middle aged males are where the increases are. I don’t believe they are deliberate risk takers, and I’m not convinced that wearing a polystyrene hat makes anyone feel safe. Maybe there are connections being drawn that don’t exist, while failing to connect the circumstances that matter?
Philh68 wrote:
the biannual cycling participation survey in Australia has shown a 5% decline in weekly participation since the survey began in 2011. The average weekly riding time has increased. Fewer cyclists, riding more means greater risk exposure time per rider. And over 80 percent of respondents indicate recreation as the reason. 70 percent are not interested in riding for transport. So the kind of riders is heavily skewed. Female cyclist numbers are low. Teenage numbers are dropping. Middle aged males are where the increases are. I don’t believe they are deliberate risk takers, and I’m not convinced that wearing a polystyrene hat makes anyone feel safe. Maybe there are connections being drawn that don’t exist, while failing to connect the circumstances that matter?— kt26
Almost certainly the case. I think there are a lot of things that need to be taken into account, which make drawing any conclusions on research of this kind very difficult. As of yet I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest that helmets are either “good” or “bad”. Only that removing the choice to wear one isn’t the answer. It stands to reason that mandating helmets implies cycling is dangerous and an undesirable activity and as such people don’t participate, despite other research undertaken where helmets aren’t mandatory suggesting cyclists are likely to live longer than non-cyclist when considering death by any means.
kt26 wrote:
Mandating helmets also means those who cannot wear a helmet for various reasons* will be harassed and victimised if they choose to ride a bike. Far worse than now.
Whenever anyone mentions mandating helmet use, the first argument against should always be on behalf of those who cannot use a helmet. You could even call it disability discrimination, as those affected are more likely to already be disabled in some way.
*e.g. physical – pressure & weight can cause mild to severe head and neck pain, some head shapes just don’t fit; mental – claustrophobia, spiritual concerns; financial – affording something which fits and doesn’t cause pain. (Please note: the above are examples, not an exhaustive list. For me, helmets have triggered headache and neck pain severe enough to keep me off a bike. I know people who wear helmets despite the pain they cause – that’s their choice though – and those who sadly won’t go near a bike due to the helmet issue.)
If you’ve never realised some people can’t actually wear helmets, please make this more widely known. Especially if you’re able bodied. Awareness and consideration/empathy for others really does help. Thanks.
Sriracha wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I’m not sure that casual observation would detect a difference between 1 or 1.4 falls per 1000 mile cycled (note figures for illustrative purposes only).
None of the data comes from controlled conditions, it is collected in a myriad number of ways, supplied from different agencies, each with their own bias. Hence it is difficult to come to a conclusion
However it would seem to me that the logic of mandatory helmet use stands up about as well when applied to pedestrians and car drivers as it does to cyclists.
Sriracha wrote:
That does seem excessively high and makes me doubt the research. Showing a large effect one way or the other seems unlikely with cycle helmets as we all know that road safety has NOTHING (for certain values of nothing) to do with wearing PPE.
hawkinspeter wrote:
That does seem excessively high and makes me doubt the research. Showing a large effect one way or the other seems unlikely with cycle helmets as we all know that road safety has NOTHING (for certain values of nothing) to do with wearing PPE.— Sriracha
We’re so lucky to have geniuses like the pair of you here, who can conclusively prove or disprove extensive research carried out based on a couple of third-hand quotes.
Mathemagician wrote:
Not so lucky to have the supercilious and sarcastic.
Mathemagician wrote:
I couldn’t see if he’d published the extensive research or not, so unfortunately third-hand quotes are all that I’ve seen and as reported, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Would you mind sharing a link to the paper in question?
Sriracha wrote:
In Australia the rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5% per year over the 17-year period of the report. Even more concerningly, in the last six years of the report, the increase was 4.4% per year.
The rate of injury for middle aged and older Australians has increased substantially while the injury rate for children and teenagers has declined.
https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-the-rise-in-cycling-injuries-and-deaths-in-australia-116660
Helmets are widely reported to reduce the head injury rate by anything up to 85%. Looking at the above data you would think that such a marked effect would be apparent even on casual observation. Casual observation would say the reverse was true.
“It appears helmet use
“It appears helmet use increases the accident rate by more than 40 per cent.” How does this correlate with generally increased traffic levels, use of helmets in differing environments, and at specific times of day I wonder. I can hazard a guess.
Well I think it is important
Well I think it is important to discern the cause behind the relationship. Otherwise it results in poor decisions.
If wearing a helmet increases the risk of individual injury then I am better off not wearing one. If however it is an effect only at the population level, perhaps for the reasons outlined by Philh68, then I would be wrong to assume I am safer not wearing my helmet.
Sriracha wrote:
they are different things. I try to be realistic about helmets, having something certified to limit head acceleration to 250G’s could help in the unfortunate event you need it while accepting it’s hardly likely to save your life in a serious crash. But something that may lessen injury in a collision does not mean it reduces the probability of the collision.
Too often the debate gets bogged down confusing the probability of incident with injury. As long as we allow that, then we let authorities legislate the activity rather than improve the environment for the activity, which is the situation Australia has with mandatory helmets and little safe infrastructure for cycling.
Given that helmet promoters
Given that helmet promoters have used disproved, discredited statistics for many years, of 85% reduction in head injury, 40% seems quite reasonable. But like most of the commenters here, it does seem less than likely, but it might be best to view it as indicative, showing that helmets do not improve safety, which has been the result of many credible studies.
Helmet laws and propaganda campaigns were based on faulty, biased research which predicted massive effects, none of which have been realised. The very best that can be said about helmets is that they prevent scratches and bruises, but they do not affect the ksi rate, or at least, not positively.
I haven’t been able to find
I haven’t been able to find the actual paper or presentation but I’ve found some of this guy’s previous work.
Reading his discussions with another researcher it appears the crux of this argument relates to the cycling rate post mandatory helmet law introduction.
If the rate fell then his argument regarding increased injury rates has merit, if the rates actually remained fairly static as others have argued then the injury rates figures actually support helmet use (TBIs declined faster than other injury types).
Unfortunately there is no way to determine who is right regarding the cycling rate.
Personally I’d always believed that the cycling rate fell rapidly after mandatory helmet laws but the arguments that it did not are quite convincing, now I’m not so sure.
Good starting point for the counter argument:
https://injurystats.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/colin-clarkes-assessment-of-australian-helmet-laws/
Rich_cb wrote:
It could be a good starting point if most of the references weren’t from Jake Oliver, someone who’s recent paper relied on “no change in the rates of cycling since the Australian law was brought in”.
It appears both sides of the argument rely on the change in the numbers biking. Both sides present conflicting information.
I’m inclined to believe Colin Clarke over Jake Oliver. Schools in NZ are taking out their bike parking; before the law they were full.
Based on how the ‘research’
Based on how the ‘research’ is described, it sounds like a comparison between completely different countries to try to find some kind of correlation. This guy has no background in this kind of research, or seemingly any research at all, and it shows. There are far too many variables to even count, so trying to draw any conclusions is ridiculous and not even worth attempting. Unless of course he has found a way to control all variables except helmet usage, which is incredible and groundbreaking.
A link to the actual paper
A link to the actual paper would be good if there is one available. It’s certainly interesting.
There seems no reference to
There seems no reference to increased number of cars on roads or other things that may make cycling on the road more dangerous such as increased use of road bikes on roads vs other types of slower bike. Increased use of bikes as a commuting method which clearly is more dangerous than leisure cycling in low traffic areas.
…Also in the modern world hasnt the accuracy and reporting of everything has increased from crime to health statistics to accidents?
If you want to find out the
If you want to find out the protection benefits of wearing a helmet then try this experiment. With your cycling helmet on bang your head against the living room wall. Now wearing no helmet bang your head against the living room wall. Which hurt most? That should help you determine if there is a safety benefit to wearing a helmet.
hobbeldehoy wrote:
HAHAHAHA, typical ignorant comment from someone who hasn’t got a clue about the basics with regards to the matter at hand, that’s not how you validate whether something is offering protection or not despite the similarities that the in lab tests (of helmets) would like to portray.
How about sending out women at night on their own in well know sex attack hotspots and seeing how many get raped with/without anti rape garments, maybe we could come back afterwards and say that women were raped less with anti rape garments ergo all women should wear them or be financially penalised or be victim blamed if they get raped and aren’t wearing (which is what happens in cycling by police all too often), fair’s fair right?
hobbeldehoy wrote:
What about when I’m not cycling in my living room? Does it still work?
hobbeldehoy wrote:
Please, whatever deity happens to be reading this, not another.
I’m too tired and haven’t had enough alcohol to enlighten you, but take a look at cyclehelmets.org and take the time to actually read what it says.
And never post nonsense like that again.
burtthebike wrote:
Why do you take such delight in your atrocious lack of manners, not only here but on the Guardian website (and doubtless elsewhere)? You contribute nothing to debate beyond sneers and rudeness. Perhaps it’s time you took a break from commenting and had a good think about what your immature behaviour says about you.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Wow, not only cross-thread feuds now, but ones from other websites! Maybe you should take your own advice?
hobbeldehoy’s comment was itself rude, with thinly-veiled aggression and misguided contempt for other opinions. So he started it!
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Burt is one of the elder statesmen of this here site, newbie, so mind your manners.
Do you not think that hob was being a teensy bit rude/immature and confrontational?
brooksby wrote:
Been a reader of road cc since it began, I just happen to have a life so haven’t the time to post 5000 comments like yourself. I wasn’t aware that being an “elder statesman” on a particular site (i.e. posting more guff than anyone else) gives one the right to be rude. And no, the OP wasn’t rude, unless you think rude means “doesn’t agree with me.”
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Don’t care about the post-count thing, but you are completely and obviously wrong on the last point. The OP was most definitely rude.
They said:
That’s bloody rude. Patronising, insinuating anyone with a different view must be an idiot who has never enountered this ‘insightful’ argument before, and with the usual thinly-vielled fantasy for those who disagree with them to suffer violent injury that keeps coming up on these sorts of arguments.
For you to claim that isn’t rude, is insulting people’s intelligence. Which makes you rude yourself!
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
That’s hilarious – no reasonable person with no chip on their shoulder would claim that the OP was rude. You can say it’s obvious, or that you don’t agree with it, but it’s not rude. And to say the OP has the “usual thinly-vielled fantasy for those who disagree with them to suffer violent injury” is insane. Whereas burtthebike’s comments are almost without exception, at least on the helmet issue, patronising, aggressive, demeaning and rude.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Nope, it’s very obviously rude and I explained why – but apparently your reading-comprehension isn’t very good. Or rather, you only see what you want to see because of your bias, presumably because you have an existing antagonism to burtthebike (who may or may not be rude, but he didn’t start it this time)
And do you not notice how often helmet pushers non-arguments involve fantasies about the helmet-skeptics suffering violent injuries? You might want to ignore the obvious subtext to that, but that’s again becuase of your bias.
Nope, it’s very obviously
Nope, it’s very obviously rude and I explained why – but apparently your reading-comprehension isn’t very good. Or rather, you only see what you want to see because of your bias, presumably because you have an existing antagonism to burtthebike (who may or may not be rude, but he didn’t start it this time)
And do you not notice how often helmet pushers non-arguments involve fantasies about the helmet-skeptics suffering violent injuries? You might want to ignore the obvious subtext to that, but that’s again becuase of your bias.
[/quote]
Oh yes, it must be my reading comprehension. Leaving aside the fact that I am a professional writer and qualified English teacher, do grow up. “helmet pushers [sic] non-arguments involve fantasies about the helmet-skeptics suffering violent injuries? You might want to ignore the obvious subtext to that, but that’s again becuase [sic]of your bias.” Those two sentences preclude your being taken seriously in any way at all. You have forfeited the right to be offered the courtesy of a reply, so froth all you want, you’ve made yourself look incredibly stupid and I’m done with you. Good day.
hobbeldehoy wrote:
Do you wear one in the shower in case you fall over?
hirsute wrote:
If you want to find out the protection benefits of wearing a helmet then try this experiment. With your cycling helmet on bang your head against the living room wall. Now wearing no helmet bang your head against the living room wall. Which hurt most? That should help you determine if there is a safety benefit to wearing a helmet.
— hirsute Do you wear one in the shower in case you fall over?— hobbeldehoy
Don’t be silly – they only work in the living room.
hirsute wrote:
Or while walking down the stairs, or, of course, while in a car.
Why is there always one who smugly presents hobbeldehoy’s bit of foolishness every time the topic comes up, apparently thinking they are being clever and original?
I agree with those expressing skepticism about the particular bit of research reported in the item, however.
I’m increasingly cynical about almost all research in everything, I find. At least anything that isn’t exclusively about the properties of inanimate objects. Anything that has anything to do with psychology or politics or social behaviour usually turns out to be wrong and affected by the researchers’ bias or shoddy methodology. Someone should do a study on it.
(Oh, I guess they have, hence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis – but should I trust their findings? )
hobbeldehoy wrote:
This post is about as useful as stating that Brexit must get done because it’s “the will of the people” i.e. not at all useful.
Perhaps you’re new to cycling and this topic and don’t understand that the effectiveness of cycling helmets not a binary thing. It’s not bare headed cycling = death or injury on one side vs wearing a polystyrene hat = right as rain on the other. If you are new to all this then it would make you look less of a dick if you listen/read first before posting.
Here’s some other factors
Here’s some other factors that result in a higher rate of accidents that are totally not helmet wearing related. The article is USA centric but I’m sure the same factors apply in a lot of places.
So, if more people wear a helmet out of habit/convention as much as anything and there are more accidents because of all of the above, that might account for some of the apparent more helmets = more accidents.
Also factor in that ‘drivers’ tend to be more blase about safety around a cyclist wearing a helmet because of the myth we’re all being sold that they are not just a lump of polystyrene but also a magic force field… 😉
The study does not seem to
The study does not seem to make sense. In my study with a sample size of one, I hit a car and slammed my head onto the pavement. As my head hit, the first thought in my brain was “thank, God, I am wearing a helmet.” I actually rode away OK (for a few miles at least). Without a helmet, best case sceanrio is death, worst case is long term severe brain injury and residence in a nursing home. There is no way that helmets worn by high mileage and high speed cyclists cannot help but save lives.
IrishBearcat wrote:
Your first post, and so full of bs it would be doing us all a favour if you didn’t make another.
burtthebike wrote:
Your first post, and so full of bs it would be doing us all a favour if you didn’t make another.
[/quote]
So it is BS that I slammed my head on the pavement and attribute my life to a helmet? Should I post the pic of the Gorbachev-esque abrasions even with the helmet? I think your name should be buttthebike.
IrishBearcat wrote:
You don’t make sense.
You hit a car, yet your take-away fact is that your helmet is important? How about we tackle road safety so that cyclists don’t keep hitting/getting hit by vehicles?
Also, you don’t seem to be aware that risk compensation is a thing although the evidence for/against it is contested.
Personally, I would have thought that helmets would benefit slower cyclists more as high speed cyclists are more likely to exceed the design limits of the helmets (12mph?).
hawkinspeter wrote:
You don’t make sense.
You hit a car, yet your take-away fact is that your helmet is important? How about we tackle road safety so that cyclists don’t keep hitting/getting hit by vehicles?
Also, you don’t seem to be aware that risk compensation is a thing although the evidence for/against it is contested.
Personally, I would have thought that helmets would benefit slower cyclists more as high speed cyclists are more likely to exceed the design limits of the helmets (12mph?).
[/quote]
I will type slower for you so you can understand. I had an A C C I D E N T where I hit a car after crossing train tracks and making a a turn at a 30 degree angle. It was an A C C I D E N T. If I did not have a helmet, I would be D E A D. No one is arguing for mandatory helmets, just suggesting them strongly for high mileage and high speed riders by sharing an anecdote. U N D E R S T A N D?
IrishBearcat wrote:
You don’t make sense.
You hit a car, yet your take-away fact is that your helmet is important? How about we tackle road safety so that cyclists don’t keep hitting/getting hit by vehicles?
Also, you don’t seem to be aware that risk compensation is a thing although the evidence for/against it is contested.
Personally, I would have thought that helmets would benefit slower cyclists more as high speed cyclists are more likely to exceed the design limits of the helmets (12mph?).— hawkinspeter
I will type slower for you so you can understand. I had an A C C I D E N T where I hit a car after crossing train tracks and making a a turn at a 30 degree angle. It was an A C C I D E N T. If I did not have a helmet, I would be D E A D. No one is arguing for mandatory helmets, just suggesting them strongly for high mileage and high speed riders by sharing an anecdote. U N D E R S T A N D?
[/quote]
Where did you get the idea that helmets provide protection for high speed riders?
You don’t seem to get that a simply providing an anecdote is pointless without some analysis and consideration of the issues.
IrishBearcat wrote:
Can you explain how this research backs up your claim that high mileage/speed riders would benefit from helmets when surely the higher speed would ensure that the helmet would be least effective (they’re typically only rated up to a 12mph collision) and the higher mileage would increase their exposure to the increased risk (e.g. from close passes etc) due to the risk compensation effects?
I’m puzzled as to how you know that without the helmet you would be dead. I could understand someone thinking that may be the case but without performing tests how can you be sure? Was the impact measured and then replicated somehow? Could you also be sure that if you weren’t wearing a helmet you may have been more careful and thus not hit the car? I’m also puzzled by your use of the term “accident” – was there no fault on either party?
I could share anecdotes of falling off my bike and not hitting my helmet/head, but it doesn’t add to the discussion (as your anecdote adds nothing to this discussion). I must admit to being curious about your patronising use of capital letters – do you think that bumping your head gives you incredible insight about road safety and the wider effect of concentrating on PPE and that you are the only one who understands how helmets are supposed to work?
As you seem to be very learned, I wonder if you are aware of the research by Dunning-Kruger?
IrishBearcat wrote:
In all fairness, bearcat, whilst I can appreciate that you consider that the helmet saved your life when you misjudged the train tracks and hit (or were hit by) a car, most of the studies and evidence suggest that helmets are of most use for low speed collisions (basically, for protecting your head when you ‘just fall over’ (like if you’ve had too many beers, allegedly, according to a friend…)).
The studies and evidence – backed up by the helmet companies’ own recommendations – suggest that the people who would gain most from wearing a helmet are the low speed riders and the total beginners, the ones most likely to ‘just fall over’ at a low speed and from a low height, onto a flat surface.
The high speed riders are the very people that helmets are not there to help. They’re on their own, I’m afraid.
IrishBearcat wrote:
You can’t know what would have happened if you hadn’t been wearing a helmet. In my sample size of one I was hit by a car and flew over the bonnet. I was basically uninjured. Thank goodness I was wearing a helmet!! Mind you, my helmet didn’t touch the ground so I guess it must have saved me by altering the path of my flight through the air. Without it there would have been greater air resistance on my head and I wouldn’t have managed to rotate so far when I was somersaulting through the air and would have landed on my head rather than my back.
That makes about as much sense as your idea that your helmet definitely saved you from cataclysmic injury.
I’m with bearcat on this. I
I’m with bearcat on this. I wear a cycling helmet because I have to take blood thinners due to a heart condition. If I come off my cycle and manage to headbutt the road it’s not bruising of the brain in my case but more likely a brain bleed. And before any smart alec arsehole asks me if I wear a helmet walking around, in the shower or having a shite I don’t f’ing walk, shower or shite at 15mph plus, so pi55 off.
sodit wrote:
And do you think a helmet is designed for such speeds and impacts?
Is a cycle helmet the best option for your situation?
You are just generalising from the particular as is bearcat.
hirsute wrote:
But aren’t we all trying to decide what is best for our own situation, as well as the generality?
Personally I am 100% against compulsion, even though I wear a helmet more than 99% of the time. I’m faster than most non-fitness cyclists and slower than most fitness riders, cautious on descents, on ice, leaves, mud etc. I know a helmet is f-all use at high speed, but am not convinced it is a bad idea if I can scrub off enough speed to get below 15 mph before impact. I’m not convinced that I’ll get more consideration from motorists if I’m not wearing one, nor that the extra 200g of weight (in 5kg?) and 30 mm radius makes me more likely to be injured.
This “research” (just a presentation at a conference, not peer reviewed, not by trained scientists) does nothing to change my personal decision, and I cannot see a way around the scientific impasse as there are too many variables and not enough people willing to be crash test dummies.
Can’t see what someone’s
Can’t see what someone’s number of posts has to do with it.It’s not as if we come here with no life experience to share.Plenty of high mileage posters talk absolute claptrap.It’s not a badge of honour,more the opposite if anything.
Argus Tuft wrote:
Trolling.
All too often a first time poster only wants to wind people up rather than contribute to the discussion, especially on a contentious subject like cycle helmets.
It’s often done as a binary argument even though anyone who has read or discussed the topic knows full well that it’s far more nuanced than that.
Argus Tuft wrote:
The issue is, I think, that hit-and-run troll posters have low post counts. They turn up, say something uninformed or deliberately offensive, then disappear again. Many of them are not even cyclists, maybe even motorists who got done for some driving offence and are furious about it.
That doesn’t mean every low post count poster is such a troll, it doesn’t work that way round. And you have a very good point about the “more the opposite” (dammit).
Dunning Kruger – weren’t they
Dunning Kruger – weren’t they in that film with Nicolas cage? National treasure or something?
hirsute wrote:
Wasn’t that “Freddy” in the 2004 Troy film?
To those posters who tried to
To those posters who tried to understand my point, thank you.
To the others who prefer to scoff and ridicule without context, let me expand.
1. Not a troll. New to the site which I discovered while reading about aero bikes.
2. I wanted to share an anecdote and said that it was a sample size of one i.e. me.
3. My accident had nothing to do with car and bike interactions. I made a mistake on a very sharp turn that came right after crossing train tracks where a friend fell and broke his collarbone earlier in the season.
4. The side of my head slammed the ground so hard that my neck was stiff for the next four days and I could only turn my head robotically.
5. I also had abrasions on the side of my head from the force of my head striking the pavement.
6. Other than serious road rash and a shoulder that required Alleve for a month and caused some discomfort while sleeping for six months, I was fine and incredibly fortunate.
7. I know that the helmet saved me from death or serious injury.
8. No, this is not replicable to see what would happen if I were not wearing a helmet (and that point above is just silly. Would you tell someone that he cannot claim an airbag saved his life without experiencing the same event without an airbag?).
9. I think helmets are good for high mileage riders merely because the more one rides, the greater the odds of eventually having an accident where a helmet affords protection.
10. I think they are good for high speed riders because they have less time to react due to speed and might experience an accident where a helmet would protect them. The reaction time could cause them to slow down dramatically but not enough to avoid the accident entirely.
11. If helmets do not matter for high speed riders, why do TDF riders use them?
12. I am not mandating anything, just providing a story that someone might find helfpul. As a somewhat new road rider, I appreciate tips and advice.
Satsified?
IrishBearcat wrote:
Hi IrishBearcat. Everyone has to make their first helmet safety post (in fact I think this might be mine. Wish me luck). Unfortunately this is a recurring and much debated topic with well rehearsed arguments.
Commenting on your points extracted above:
2 and 7 – You just can’t know the helmet saved your life. You can believe it and make future choices based on that, but it is not the same as knowing on empirical evidence. It is possible for example that your head would not have hit the floor at all if you were not wearing the helmet, and therefore that the helmet actually caused you injury you would not otherwise have suffered. We can’t know either way. See also: “my helmet broke in half, good job it wasn’t my head.”
8 – no, it’s not replicable, which is why neither side of the argument can truly know. Your comparison with airbags is a bit different because they get tested using crash dummies and sensors to compare the effect with / without. Helmets get a degree of testing, but are only rated for low speed falls.
11 – TdF riders wear them because they’re mandatory. As they are for many mass participation events because insurance. That doesn’t mean the organisers / insurers have conclusive evidence that they make a difference. TdF riders also ride heavier bikes than they would like because there is a minimum weight limit, and wear shorter socks than aerodynamically optimal because the UCI also have a maximum length.
For context, I always wear a helmet, based mainly on pressure from family; hadn’t given any of the counter-arguments any thought until I started reading this and other sites; but still can’t bring myself not to wear one because it’s now just normal and I will never know which is actually the right answer.
3 if you knew the area was a
3 if you knew the area was a problem, what action did you take to mitigate it? Or did you rely on ppe?
9 If you are worried the remedy is not to cycle.
10 makes no sense based on the spec of a helmet
11 They have to. When they had a choice, they didn’t wear them. Do you really think a rider crashing at 70 kph would be protected? When they crash it’s all about collar bones, wrists, legs
hirsute wrote:
Hirsute, if I was not new to these parts, I would call you an idiot. Instead, I will keep that thought to myself. I really do not know what point you are trying to make and maybe you do not either. You don’t like helmets? You don’t like people who like helmets? You just like making contrarian, non-sensical points?
I can be concerned about an accident without having to give up the sport altogether. I can be concerned about a car accident, but drive carefully to try to avoid an accident while wearing a seat belt to mitigate the consequences of an unlikely accident. If I were a rock climber, I could be terrified of a fall, but would use ropes to protect me in the event of a fall. Same with a bike helmet – I can be leary of an accident but wear a helmet to minimize damage in the unlikely event of an accident.
I am well aware that TDF riders wear helmets because they are required. That begs the question about why they are required. Because they provide some protection. Maybe injuries are all collarbones etc. because the helmet does help protect the head.
You did not read all of 10 closely. If a rider going 40 mph is only able to slow to 10 mph and not avoid an accident entirely because he was going so fast, then fall, the helmet would help him.
As if I need to explain myself further to you, I rode across train tracks at a 90 degree angle at a reduced speed but still drifted left of center when making my sharp right turn because I was too far to the left on the train tracks. Of course, you likely have some pithy criticism of that, too.
Go ahead and have the last word. You seem to need it so you can feel superior. .
IrishBearcat wrote:
You have called me an idiot, so best to drop the passive aggressive bullshit. Still, it does dovetail well with your patronising comments to hawkinspeter.
In that case why did you you not ask that question? Don’t post stuff after the event to claim that my response was incorrect to what you posted. It’s an asynchronous, anonymous forum. All the reader knows is what you posted, not what is in your head.
That’s a big if. What distance would have been covered and over what time period?
What if they hit a pothole or had a mechanical at 40 mph ?
Besides which, if they are only going at 10 mph when the incident happens, why write about riders going at speed?
Obviously you need to explain more given the lack of previous information.
Statistics, statistics and
Statistics, statistics and damned lies! Are these people suggesting that by wearing a helmet you are more likely to have an accident? Seriously? Does a helmet make you more careless or unbalanced? Does this mean that you are more likely to be hit by a van, such as I was? Let me just say that had I not been wearing a helmet, I would be dead. Words said by the paramedic. This debate is pure stupidity; if you fall from your bike and hit your head on the road surface, guess what happens.
Peter1950 wrote:
It’s risk compensation – the idea that behaviour changes with the assessment of risk. This is at the population level.
There is also a claim backed up by one or two studies that other road users treat helmeted and non helmeted differently.
You don’t simpl fall from your bike and hit your head. It’s a bit more complicated than that
I would suggest that before
I would suggest that before anyone supports/criticises this research – that the full research paper is read – before jumping to conclusions based on a Road.cc article (who are a bastion of accuracy of course). I want to read the whole thing to understand how wearing a helmet increases my risk of upper extremities injuries?!
Smartstu wrote:
Dead right-I’ve had a skim through and couldn’t find the most important metric-Of all cycling related hospital admissions,how did the proportion of head injuries change post helmet law?.It looks sketchy so far.
The work done by the Monash University Accident Research Centre seems more credible.
I suspect many contributors here have formed their opinions and are looking for “facts” to back them up-and have done no research beyond reading the above article.
Did someone leave the gates
Did someone leave the gates unlocked at Arkham again…? Seems like there’s a sudden influx of opinionated newbies (even being generous and presuming that they’re not *intentionally* trolling).
brooksby wrote:
Like a breath of fresh air,isn’t it?
Argus Tuft wrote:
A definite whiff of something… 😉
brooksby wrote:
5000 odd posts-and you’re proud of that?
Argus Tuft wrote:
Yeah, well, I thought it was witty.
Pretty sure you’ve already said that you think number of posts doesn’t equal importance or quality, you Young Turk – I just come here for the social life 😉
brooksby wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
hawkinspeter wrote:
Huh. Never heard of that before, but yes I think that seems appropriate.
I must be getting old.
First post on helmets – eek
First post on helmets – eek
– and a request for information rather than an argument. I had a recent trip to Copenhagen, then Amsterdam. In Copenhagen, my impression was that traffic and bikes were not particularly segregated, and a rough estimate (for personal interest) from countimg cyclists at traffic lights, around 20% wore helmets. In Amsterdam in the course of a day walking round, I did not see a single helmet – almost every other type of headwear from baseball cap to wooly bunnet, but no helmets. In both cities, there were the expected uncountably (to me) huge number of cyclists. Given the above (admittedly unscientific) observations one would expect that both cities would have very high absolute (not relatively) high numbers of cycling-related head injuries (huge numbers of individuals doing a ‘risky’ activity). I cannot find on the internet such data (almost certainly it exisis somewhere), and also for the UK – RoSPA seem to no longer publish such data. I am aware of the pitfalls of absolute numbers (in the UK trousers were more dangerous than guns), but at a population level- interesting. Anyone better placed than me able to access/produce such information ?
peakingintwomonths wrote:
You didn’t come here to have an argument?
Seriously ,before you start looking at the number of head injuries,take a look at the number of cycling-related hospital admissions. The effectiveness of helmets can be determined by comparing the ratio of head injuries to the above admissions pre and post helmet laws. The net public benefit of compulsory helmets (reduced activity,diabetes,obesity,etc) looks to be a negative,but that’s a separate issue.
Argus Tuft wrote:
The effectiveness cannot be measured in this way.
The reason is given later in your post.
The cycling population changes after mandatory helmet laws are introduced.
If the pre and post law populations are different then any comparison between the two groups is meaningless.
Rich_cb wrote:
You didn’t come here to have an argument?
Seriously ,before you start looking at the number of head injuries,take a look at the number of cycling-related hospital admissions. The effectiveness of helmets can be determined by comparing the ratio of head injuries to the above admissions pre and post helmet laws. The net public benefit of compulsory helmets (reduced activity,diabetes,obesity,etc) looks to be a negative,but that’s a separate issue.
— Rich_cb The effectiveness cannot be measured in this way. The reason is given later in your post. The cycling population changes after mandatory helmet laws are introduced. If the pre and post law populations are different then any comparison between the two groups is meaningless.— Argus Tuft
You’re right-I’ll just take as an indicator until someone can explain it better.
Argus Tuft]
Thanks for the reply, but I’m not sure you actually read my post properly. Never mind, this is the helmet debate.
peakingintwomonths wrote:
Interestingly Denmark like some other countries have actually been pushing helmet wearing. EU road safety report actually points the finger at DK and NL as being dangerous for cyclists based on deaths per population head and quotes low helmet wearing as to the reason why, utterly ignoring the cycling journey numbers/modal share.
EU road safety commission wants cyclists to wear helmets as part of the solution to the ‘problem’ of people getting killed, they’d rather offer this up as a solution than to address the actual real problem as to why people on bikes get killed/injured even in countries such as those with very low helmet wearing rates. If you look at their web pages hi-vis and helmets are plastered all over and programmes of introducing helmets are part and parcel of getting people on bikes as part of that, it’s similar to bike ed here for both children and adults, helmet and hi-vis or exclusion, basically compulsion via the back door.
Of the circa 3100 SI as part of the STATS19 the estimates vary massively s to which are head injuries, also bearing in mind head injuries covers parts of the head that aren’t covered by a helmet, the range covers circa 500-1200 depending on which orgs estimate you accept.
From the general population head injuries reported to hospitals is 1.3million ish with circa 160,000 hospitalisations, that data is from various sources including HEADWAY, there was a data collecting request from E&W hospitals IIRC that came to the figures. So on the basis that a large portion of serious head injuries are not going to require an overnight stay you have a massive disparity between cycling head injuries even on the lawless roads of UK (most of which are caused by criminal motorists) and those from the general population, but only one group is coerced/forced to wear.
IF and so far the IF is actually without strong evidence, helmets actually worked, the one group that requires helmets the least is people riding cycles, used elsewhere would surely save billions if they worked, so why isn’t there the focus by UK gov or even the EU seeing as they beleive in the protective values of such?
Nope, it’s all about diverting the focus from the real isses at hand, in Australia when they had a crackdown on driving/speeding they saw a significant reduction in cyclist KSIs, then they introduced helmet rules and stopped focussing on motorists, the rest as they say is history, increases in injury rates and lowered cycling.
The whole cycle helmet wearing thing has not just an effect on the individual but the population and the industry/activity as a whole as well as changing the way the law is enforced/upheld and discrimination towards one group only.
It’s scary as how this has occured, the removal of freedoms and criminialisation of cycling with less protection by those employed to uphold law and protect us from criminals is abhorrent and in itself is unlawful.
I have destroyed 3 helmets in
I have destroyed 3 helmets in my lifetime. Each one I am convinced saved me from a trip to A&E or worse.
Each incident involved me taking a risk that I would not have taken had I not been wearing one.
I’m pretty sure they are great at saving you from minor injuries on a personal level, but at a population level and after much research I’m changing my opinion towards the negatives outweighing the positives.
Mungecrundle wrote:
What did this process involve? Did you think “I shouldn’t do this but what they hey, I’ve got a helmet on so I will?”
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
What did this process involve? Did you think “I shouldn’t do this but what they hey, I’ve got a helmet on so I will?”— Mungecrundle
Pretty much:
1. Attempting to ride down some stone stairs, over handlebars onto edge of a stone wall, deep crease across crown of helmet.
2. Downhill in the wet, lost the front end and head hit the kerb. That was probably more a learning experience about riding in the wet to be fair rather than deliberate decision to take a risk.
3. Racing, overlapped a wheel absolutely smashed my head into the ground also injured my shoulder. I’d never close group ride or race without a helmet, it’s inherently risky but the incidents are more likely in the realm that a helmet might save you some skin.
I appreciate that other people’s experiences will have led them to different attitudes to what is risky. Personally I refuse to wear a helmet for my commute to work as that should not be an inherently risky activity.
The only thing we can be sure
The only thing we can be sure that helmets protect you from is the concerned tutting of onlookers.
vonhelmet wrote:
Aero helmets can protect quite a bit of your hair from bird poo.
Now, I know the aero helmet makes the effective size of your head bigger, thus increasing the chance of a strike. And I’m also aware that one may risk-compensate and hence be bolder on the poo front. Though I am still on the fence about whether the pigeons give you less space because the helmet is both present and aero. And above a certain speed, the poo would spread over the helmet onto my jersey – 12-15 mph I expect is the limit, and even I won’t always be able to slow down to under that – ESPECIALLY WITH MY CABLE DISK BRAKES.
Furthermore, I do not wear an aero helmet because they are mostly more expensive (exception: Carnac) and would make a slow rider like me look an utter wally. But that’s my personal decision and cannot be extrapolated to populations, especially as the acceptable degree of walliness cannot be determined in a double blind randomised controlled trial.
More research needed, surely.
vonhelmet wrote:
Don’t forget the nagging of family-members.
(the reviews of helmets seem to neglect that factor – never mind the physics, how well does it perform at fending off nagging and tutting?)
When I go shopping on my bike
When I go shopping on my bike, which usually involves going into several shops in a high-street, I rarely wear a helmet becasue it is an encumberance. I live at the bottom of a steep residential road – when I am returning home wearing a helmet I go faster and take more risks: when I’m not wearing one I am aware of the extra consequences of a fall and go more carefully.
John Pitcock wrote:
That’s probably a situation where a helmet would be of net benefit due to low speeds, kerbs and other street furniture.
John Pitcock wrote:
This precisely describes the effects of risk compensation, we see this not just in cycling but in many sports and activities including the work environment/building sites, when RIDDOR was introduced the stats I looked at found that accident rates didn’t go down despite the massive increase reporting procedures + hard hat and hi-vis wearing. As with cycling the biggest influence in terms of H&S are down to modifying behaviour of people through work practises, changing environment and enforcing the rules + retraining/refresher and effective supervision/management to ensure people are abiding by the rules in place.
Things like wearing a hard hat on a site is mostly because other people are acting carelessly/recklessly, people wearing hard hats take greater risks on site because they feel more protected, that crane operator wearing a hard hat actually influences how they themselves feel toward risk despite them not actually been at risk themselves so there is an increased chance of incident.This is replicated by the actions of people in cars and their safety cell/protections and backed up in tests on children and adults when studying the effects of risk homeostasis.
The most noticeable effects of helmets in cycling is within competitive racing, despite all the safety changes particularly at elite level where on course protocols have changed, more marshals/warnings of hazards, more barriers and the added better brakes/tyres, cyclists still crash more often, get injured more often and die more often (compared to pre helmet rule era) despite 100% helmet wearing.
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
Is it allowable to believe my
Is it allowable to believe my helmet may have saved me from serious injury without supporting mandatory helmet laws?
Kitten-I strongly disagree with the opinion expressed in your last post,but I’ll die in a ditch defending your right to promote it.
Argus Tuft wrote:
Also – not sure what the point here is. Is that the same ditch as Boris Johnson was going to be found dead in? I guess it’s still available as he didn’t follow through on the promise.
Anyway, I don’t get the relevance – I wasn’t aware anyone was proposing censorship or a Stalinist purge on the basis of beliefs about helmets, either way.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Not so much censorship-more bullying and belittlement-And brush up on your Voltaire,Sonny Jim!
Am I in the right place to
Am I in the right place to discuss battery hens? I’ve had a drink, (I’m worried about that comma) before you start.
efail wrote:
Well, they’ve got positives and negatives.
https://www.researchgate.net
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367329_Effects_of_bicycle_helmet_wearing_on_accident_and_injury_rates
Hoping this helps