Wearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research

Smartstu wrote:

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?!

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.

Peter1950 wrote:

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.

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

hirsute wrote:

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, 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:

Hirsute, if I was not new to these parts, I would call you an idiot.

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.

Quote:

I am well aware that TDF riders wear helmets because they are required.  That begs the question about why they are required. 

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.

Quote:

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. 

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?

Quote:

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.

Obviously you need to explain more given the lack of previous information.

IrishBearcat wrote:

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.

...

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?).  

...  

11.  If helmets do not matter for high speed riders, why do TDF riders use them?

 

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.  

hirsute wrote:

Dunning Kruger - weren't they in that film with Nicolas cage? National treasure or something?

Wasn't that "Freddy" in the 2004 Troy film?

Argus Tuft wrote:

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.

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:

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.

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).

sodit wrote:

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.

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:

sodit wrote:

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.

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.

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.

IrishBearcat wrote:

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. 

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:

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. 

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:

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?).

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:

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?).

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?

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:

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?).

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?

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:

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. 

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.

hobbeldehoy 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.

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:

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.

What about when I'm not cycling in my living room? Does it still work?

hobbeldehoy 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.

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.