Do you wear a helmet? Who cares? Lots of people. Some of them, friends and loved ones, may have a vested interest in your head and feel a helmet is a no-brainer; others will be more interested in promoting their view of how a cyclist should present him or herself to the world. And some just like a good argument.
Although I've got my own opinions about the H word, I'm not out to convert anyone. I want to know what you think about the helmet debate itself. This is, in short, a listening post. (Previously I set one up at the site of what may be the www's longest running helmet discussion.) Are you new to cycling and still making up your mind? Has anything you've read or heard moved you one way or the other? Are you a veteran, sick of the endless fascination with helmets whether or not you wear one – or do you occasionally find yourself drawn in?
If you like polls, there's a quick one here.
62 thoughts on “The Great Helmet Debate”
its not cycling without a
its not cycling without a helmet that is a problem it is hitting your head on the ground or a car.
In minor accidents fall etc
In minor accidents fall etc then I can see the benefits to separate your head from the direct impact, BUT in major accidents with vehicles it’s about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. I still wear one though 🙂
In minor accidents fall etc
In minor accidents fall etc then I can see the benefits to separate your head from the direct impact, BUT in major accidents with vehicles it’s about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. I still wear one though 🙂
In minor accidents fall etc
In minor accidents fall etc then I can see the benefits to separate your head from the direct impact, BUT in major accidents with vehicles it’s about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. I still wear one though 🙂
We had this debate allready,
We had this debate allready, i’m not going to comment anymore if anyone wants to have this debate, go here: http://road.cc/content/review/134947-sealskinz-belgian-cap#comments
About everything is said there.
My main point: if it would be only 1% chance that it can save u why don’t wear one?! And no, u don’t look cooler without one and u don’t get faster!
You definitely look cooler
You definitely look cooler without one. I’ll take the 99 per cent chance not wearing one will not affect me, and I’ll have cool hair as well.
I use one, I have had 3
I use one, I have had 3 separate accidents where the helmet has saved skin and bone over the last 20 years. I understand they won’t always help, but when the hardshell has been shaved down 5+mm on top of your hard, you realise sometimes they’re worth it.
However, in an increasingly blinded justice system, the most important function is to ensure if anything did ever happen, my family would get the full compensation, and not have some muppet judge reduce it as I wasn’t wearing one!
Men should not be wearing
Men should not be wearing helmets in church anyway; they count as hats.
The whole helmet debate is a
The whole helmet debate is a very convenient distraction, it lets us get on with driving like idiots. Being honest many cyclists are drivers, and being really honest, how many drivers do not break the law and do things that are stupid? Often when there is a court case someone will say well what do you expect with a judge and jury composed of drivers? Or how about the comments from many who claim to be cyclists. but only ride a few times a year.
The debate has to move from THEM to ME. Could I improve MY driving. The whole debate needs from protecting them and allowing me to carry on being an idiot. To I need to change, I need to adapt my actions, if I make a mistake I need to understand why and make changes to prevent it happening again.
Does it really matter if a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not when they get hit by a car? Surely the question that needs to be asked, the question that doesn’t get asked enough is what do we do to stop cars hitting cyclists?
A bigger issue is
A bigger issue is stabilisers. I know people who don’t use stabilisers anymore. Or rather, I knew them. I killed them all because I hated them so much. Better off dead than sending an irresponsible message to the younger generation. They deserve everything they get coming TBH. Including me killing them.
I don’t get it; stabilisers stop u falling off. People get hurt when they fall off. Why not use them!? And no, u don’t look cooler without them, and u don’t go much faster!
“Some of them, friends and
“Some of them, friends and loved ones, may have a vested interest in your head and feel a helmet is a no-brainer; others will be more interested in promoting their view of how a cyclist should present him or herself to the world”
You missed out a critical third group:
“Some want to see the peer-reviewed evidence that helmets make a difference, that they don’t inadvertently cause harm through rotational injury, that they don’t cause collisions through motorists applying risk compensation, and also to have it explained why in countries with helmet compliance at 95%, the number of cyclists halves whilst the danger for those remaining doubles*”
Include that group’s description and I’ll be less likely to look upon this as no more than clickbait 🙂
* http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/nz-injuries-participation-per-cyclist.gif
For road use, there’s 2
For road use, there’s 2 issues that need resolving.
1. Is the risk of a head injury whilst cycling on the roads significantly higher than for other activities for which we consider helmets unnecessary?
2. Do bicycle helmets significantly reduce that risk compared to any adverse effects? i.e. is there an overall reduction in risk.
Anecdotal accounts (“a helmet saved my life”) or thought experiments (“imagine if someone hit your head with a hammer”) do not help because they do not quantify the risks.
ribena wrote:For road use,
Risk is calculated as the probability of an event multiplied by the expected damage from the event. Helmets reduce the damage (those pesky anecdotes you want to ignore) so they reduce the risk. Since this applies to all events, you can argue that helmets are the biggest single risk reducer.
As for #1: riding a bicycle relies on dynamic balance — its natural state is to be on the ground — so yes the probability of a cycling event (aka fall resulting in head trauma) is higher ergo the risk is higher (than walking, running, etc.)
#2 is too ridiculous for a response. Please provide some evidence that helmets increase the expected damage. (Note: this argument has been tried wrt motorcycle helmets with laughable results.)
ribena wrote:
Risk is
Yes, but the amount by which it reduces the expected damage is negligible compared to the overall damage of a serious crash with a car. And it does nothing to reduce the probability of an event.
Unlike, say, providing proper separated cycling infrastructure, which doesn’t reduce the expected damage at all, but massively reduces the probability of an event. The overall effect on the risk for this is much greater than for a helmet.
(Another minor point, it doesn’t apply to all events, as it’s not going to help you if snap your leg.)
Bikebikebike wrote:
Yes, but
You have completely missed the point about risk and helmets. Helmets don’t have to reduce the chances of an event to reduce the risk. They significantly reduce the risk because they reduce the damage (e.g. death, brain damage, facial damage) regardless whether it was a fall on a bike path or getting hit by a car. If you seriously believe that getting hit by a car isn’t likely to result in head trauma, then good luck with that mitigation strategy.
I agree that bike paths greatly reduce the chances of a car event (as do bike lanes) — this reduces the risk by changing the environment. Wearing hi-vis, using lights, not running stop signs/lights, not riding against the traffic flow, etc. also improves the odds — reduces risk by changing behavior.
The multi-dimensional nature of bicycle safety means all three approaches need to be considered.
massspike wrote:
Risk is
The vast majority of head injuries occur when people are travelling in motorised transport, drinking alcohol or when climbing/descending stairs.
Therefore, if we are serious about reducing this ‘risk’, helmets should be worn first for these activities before later considering the use of helmets for cyclists.
MAss pike wrote: Risk is
MAss pike wrote: Risk is calculated as the probability of an event multiplied by the expected damage from the event.
The assumption that wearing a helmet can only reduce the severity and does not affect the probability of it happening is a fallacy. Plenty of studies show compensatory behaviour (both cyclists and other road users) so the probability is likely to shift.
A helmet adds mass and size to your head. In a dynamic system it is more likely to hit the road so you cannot decouple probability and severity.
The additional size of a helmet increases some injuries through increased rotational acceleration (worse for your brain than a straight impact)
My own experience in over 50 crashes (I have ridden fast and furiously for a long time), of 8 crashes with a helmet – in races I bumped my head twice. Of the other 40 plus crashes without a helmet at similar and higher speeds under many conditions (cars knocking me off, overshooting corners, head over handle bars on mountain bikes etc) I have never hit my head.
Anyone jumping up and down in certainty about this issue must have held on to the certainty of being right that normally only a teenager can hold.
gnarlyrider wrote:
The
Cite a study…just one study that proves wearing a helmet increases your chance of an event (the helmet is the cause).
The helmet increases damage myth has been debunked in the motorcycle helmet studies, Believe it or not in the USA, the right to not wear a helmet comes up periodically in some states (e.g. Massachusetts because New Hampshire doesn’t enforce it), As a result, they have studied impact scenarios and basically for almost every impact the helmet helps. One exception is that a flying object would miss the rider if not for the extra volume.
massspike wrote:
Cite a
First issue, find me a mtber who doesn’t wear a helmet, basically risk compensation, the more risks you take the more protection you seek, end result nothing changes, I believe that studies have been done on Skiers.
Second, bicycle helmets are not hardshell full face motorcycle helmets, the ability to cope with crashes are not comparable. Start with the design parameters of a helmet, then look at the energy it needs to dissipate in a crash and cycle helmets are crap, and getting worse.
Third cycle helmets are the wrong debate. Consider the two cases on these pages where cyclists were driven over by cars.
gnarlyrider wrote:
My own
Aaah…the “I’ve never needed a helmet argument”. I am glad that you haven’t and everything worked out for you. I could also reference my positive outcomes or the negative outcomes for a schoolmate (fatality), acquaintance (de-facing), and friend (permanent, relatively minor, brain damage).
Look if it wasn’t for the fact that my tax dollars have to help pay for the hospital visit, rehab, etc. I wouldn’t care. However, I am certain about the net benefits of wearing a helmet and don’t tolerate the BS from the anti-helmet crowd. If you don’t believe wearing a helmet is a cost-effective safety strategy, that is your choice.
Aggression, inaccuracy and an
Aggression, inaccuracy and an inability to understand facts. Have you bumped your head?
massspike wrote:
Aaah…the
Aaah __ the old “I’ve known at least three cases where helmets saved my life/others/etc” ploy. Classic.
I’ve never worn a helmet when cycling in my life but I *always* wear a St Christopher cross and/or carry a rabbit’s foot in my pocket. Not really.
I have absolutely no idea why, in nearly 50 years of cycling, I haven’t been killed or suffered brain damage, from ‘not wearing a helmet’ whilst cycling.
Maybe it’s because cycling is an inherently safe activity … as verified by the millions of helmet-less cyclists in Holland and Denmark … where cycling is the safest in the world.
I’ll take my safety cues from our Continental counterparts thanks, rather than the embarrassingly risk-averse, helmet-wearing wimps from the UK.
UK cyclists need to grow a pair, ride appropriately to the conditions and stop handing over ridiculous sums of money for useless bits of foam that they strap to their empty heads.
Joeinpoole wrote:
Aaah __ the
Just to be clear my 3 negative outcome cases were not wearing helmets. The fatality was in the 1974 (before helmets) so that was just bad luck. The other two owned helmets but chose not to wear them that day. The de-facing would have definitely been prevented by a helmet. He went head first into a rock and it peeled his face off from the top of his forehead (you can actually survive this if your cycling buddies put it back and stem the bleeding; and they can re-attach your face with good results).
I don’t really know why
I don’t really know why people care so much… live and let live.
I wear a helmet because I might fall off at low speeds and whack the pavement. I understand that at high speeds I’ll be in trouble.
Also, I think my helmet looks cool! It’s a Catlike Whisper so it makes me feel like I’m Valverde B-)
Others are free to make their own choices, and shouldn’t be judged for them. More people on bikes please, regardless of how they’re dressed.
Quote: Why do we debate
Because it’s Click Bate…
I’ve never hit my head on any
I’ve never hit my head on any of the (few) times I’ve crashed but will still wear a helmet. Any protection for my bonce is well received in my mind.
the only reason I’m wearing
the only reason I’m wearing one ATM is that it’s the only way I can mount some blinkies up top on my noggin… plus it helps keep my head dry and warm… when my trips are dry and there’s plenty of light, the helmet stays in the cupboard… unless taking part in anything that mandates it be worn such as a club ride or sportive…
A helmet isn’t going to do
A helmet isn’t going to do anything in a crash that will cause serious injuries, e.g. when you’re hit by a car.
It probably will help in less serious crashes e.g. when you fall off your bike after skidding on a manhole cover in the wet.
I’m not that worried about the second one. I am worried about the first. So the only reason I wear a helmet (which I usually do) is to carry my helmetcam, and to ensure that if I do get knocked off that there is no sharing of liability.
It may save you from a freak accident where a simple fall manages to kill you at vast odds. It’s not going to help in a serious crash. Anyone who says differently is selling something (probably helmets).
What does dynamic balance
What does dynamic balance mean? It’s a tautology at best if used in a bio mechanical sense. Balance is an active process for cycling, running, walking and standing. A bit less for sitting in a moving car, but only a bit.
Not sure how this applies to risk related behaviours, or helmets.
Kenbuterol wrote:What does
A bicycle rider typically maintains their balance by moving forward…how many people can track stand? Its a property of the bicycle vs. say a tricycle.
I see almost everyone who has
I see almost everyone who has responded has ignored the author’s request for opinions on the helmet debate, which beautifully illustrates the point I assume he is trying to make!
I will express no opinion on helmets, but the debate itself is a complete waste of time. I’ve observed this “discussion” on the internet for over 15 years now. People on both sides still repeat exactly the same arguments, I have never seen anyone change their mind, and it always turns into a bad natured confrontation.
Just make your own mind up and get on with your life, but don’t waste time reheating the same old discussion.
According to the Health and
According to the Health and Safety Executive: PPE should only be used as a last resort when alternative measures cannot be deployed in order to mitigate risk.
Bike helmets were originally developed for high risk activities on a bike.
When racing collisions with other riders are likely so falls at high speed are likely.
Mountain Biking, high speeds, loose surfaces and rough terrain, therefore a high chance of a crash.
BMX/Trials etc learning and performing tricks on the bike is likely to result in fall.
Pootling to the shops at 5-15mph in dry conditions or on off road routes does not imply a high enough risk of head injury to warrant the use of PPE by an experienced cyclist.
Commuting sits in the middle, I haven’t had a head impact in a fall since my first winter of commuting so now I wear a lid more out of habit than necessity.
So, before making helmets mandatory to cyclists the following measures could be considered or deployed to minimise their risk of injury:
Give vulnerable, non-pedestrian road users priority over motorised traffic in line with the “Cyclists Must Give Way to Pedestrians and Horses” rule for Bridleways and Shared Use paths.
Apply strict liability in collision resolution.
Adopt a minimum passing distance law for motorised traffic.
Make more sections of road car free, enforce this with pop-up bollards.
Improve driver awareness and rider training. e.g. hit a cyclist, pass Bikeability Level 3 before you get your license back, same for cyclists deemed to be at fault, do the course or pay a fine.
A review of the road layout at any site where near misses or accidents are reported.
A change of road ‘design rules’ to improve cyclist safety without reducing cyclist numbers (if anything design for more than expected) cycling speed whenever a roadway is improved or built.
A review of collision avoidance technology with a view to making some devices mandatory to new vehicles.
Provide larger, longer ASLs and delay motor traffic with respect to cycle traffic at complex and high traffic junctions.
Provide more roads for cyclists (as opposed to shared use paths).
Once all this is in place and it can be shown that the occurrence of cycling head injury in utility cycling is lower in a meaningful statistically significant way for those who wear helmets then consider making them mandatory.
Lots of the arguments I have
Lots of the arguments I have seen in favour of helmet compulsion are based on the idea that helmets necessarily make things safer. Ignoring the fact that there is no population study that confirms this, and quite a few that suggest the opposite (see the NZMA’s investigation of the efficacy of helmet legislation in New Zealand), this misses the point, IMO – the decision on what personal safety equipment is required should be reserved for the individual.
I will accept that there are other areas where we allow the law to impinge upon this personal responsibility (safety belts in cars, helmets for motorcyclists) but this is not a good reason, in my opinion, to allow this continued creep to a legislative framework that mandates personal safety. If you want to extend the logic that leads to mandatory head protection for activities that have a similar or greater risk of head-injury in comparison to cycling, we will have car helmets, walking helmets and bathroom helmets.
The key thing, above all others, that makes cyclists safer on the road is this: more cyclists. More cyclists: more driver awareness, greater push for better facilities. More helmet compulsion: fewer cyclists.
Lastly, to anyone who would try to characterise me as anti-helmet: I have no desire to take your helmet from you, nor do you need to justify your wearing of it to me. It is your choice. I would simply seek to maintain that choice for every cyclist. Oh, and I wear a helmet – because, even though I think it extremely unlikely it will save my life, I think the chances of it injuring me are also pretty slim (not non-existent), the inconvenience is mitigated by its utility as a camera-mount and it (generally) stops people who would impose their choices on me from lecturing me.
I despair at the extremists
I despair at the extremists on both sides. One side says the have never wore one and never will and due to their expert bike handling skills will never need one. That they are therefore uncool and dangerous, causing ‘rotational’ injuries.
The other side says helmets (and Hi viz) are required because we are putting people at risk exposing them to drivers.
There are plenty of people in between with a spectrum of views. I just find it sad that the moderate view of wear a helmet if you want to and it makes you feel safer, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to; is always drowned out. I personally wear a helmet when I am wearing my bike kit, because I AM going faster and think it will protect me if require and it looks the part too. If I am wearing street clothes I generally don’t wear a helmet because I am going slower (in jeans) and just going to the shops. I don’t like being told by either side that I am wrong whatever I do. And I don’t like being told what to wear even if it is safety equipment. My personal clothing choices are up to me. I would feel like a right berk with a flashing light attached to my head. I have just bought some ridiculous expensive bike lights from kickstarter so I can choice to wear all black in the winter if I want.
Yes there is no empirical evidence helmets work. The reason being we do not throw fit healthy human beings at static concrete blocks both wearing helmets and not, and see which ones die or are brain damaged. There will NEVER be any empirical evidence. So the anti brigade dismiss the anecdotal evidence of people who have crashed. How dare they characterize other peoples experiences. If some one tells me a helmet saved their life I take this at face value. This is the only evidence available. It is impossible to believe that a helmet never saved anyone’s life. Just look at other sports, I have done some extreme things in my younger years and some things you just wouldn’t try without a helmet [Helmets ARE Cool.]
I find the antis the most delusional, whilst the ultra pros are damaging participation and freedom of choice and stoking blame culture.
Please stop telling other people what to do. {Did I say helmets are cool?}
I wear a helmet to stop twigs
I wear a helmet to stop twigs and stuff whacking me on the head, and in the summer keeps the sun off my head.
If I fall off it may protect me marginally and save a nasty bit of gravel rash on my head, but I seriously doubt it will protect me from 2+ ton of metal travelling at 60mph (saying that, neither would a large metal box with windows and a steering wheel).
Time and again experts have proven how our perception of danger is seriously out of whack with the reality (like the fact more people are killed by cows than sharks, so why aren’t there any Spielberg films about giant rampant cows tearing up the countryside?). At the end of the day, I say if a helmet makes you feel safer, then stick it on, if you would rather not then fine. However you most definitely MUST NOT under any circumstances be allowed to wear baseball caps!
Bikeboy76, not sure i agree,
Bikeboy76, not sure i agree, the argument comes down to those who basically don’t give a f*** if you wear a helmet or not and the other group who think your an insane moron.
One group says if you want feel free, just don’t think it is a panacea. The other group seems to assume helmets offer more protection than they do. After all we are not talking Motorcycle helmets and if the issue was safety wouldn’t we ban baths, showers and stairs????
About 4 months ago I was hit
About 4 months ago I was hit by a car whilst riding home, I was wearing a helmet at the time. I believe that the helmet both saved me from serious injuries and cause serious injuries.
I went over the bonnet of the car and landed on the crown of my head, I then bounced up about a foot and landed again on my head.
The helmet was crushed and cracked in a number of places but my skull was fine however the shock wave led to me compressing 3 of my vertebra, breaking 6 ribs and bruising my chest.
It could have been that without a helmet my skull would have been fine, and my chest/back ok. Or I could have serious head injuries and still have the chest/back injuries. I just don’t know, and as the police never bothered to come out then we will never know.
I’ve only just started returning to work this week
I would like to ride without a helmet, but it’s too risky for me. But it’s peoples choices.
Sheldon Brown was a helmet
Sheldon Brown was a helmet advocate. He needed somewhere to put that eagle. In Helmet Wars – bottom of the page – he wrote “Although small in numbers, [helmet skeptics] are adamant, and fill blogs and bulletin boards with anti-helmet messages, giving rise to the term ‘helmet wars’.”
My take on that is, as an early adopter, he probably suffered years of “Why are you wearing one?” Combat fatigue is the only way I can explain his experience being so at odds with mine: “Why [i]aren’t[/i] you wearing one?” seems far more common, the most adamant anti- being anti-compulsion. In keeping with my mission statement, have you ever been grilled (either way) in person, or is the debate largely an internet phenomenon?
—
Almost obligatory xkcd.
—
Thanks for voting.
Sam Walker wrote:Sheldon
Ironically (and a bit sadly) when Sheldon’s MS forced him off his bike and on to a recumbent trike, he stopped wearing a helmet: he figured he wasn’t going to fall, he was close to the ground, and his brain was screwed up anyway.
I think the best way to
I think the best way to approach the h-word is user experience both with and without the helmet. This year I finished a build of mine early January. I rode from January until July without a helmet. I’ve had very bad wrecks with helmets on, and I attributed them in part to reckless riding becasue of a helmet. I started wearing a helmet again becasue my speed was becoming dangerously quick. I’m riding fixed brakeless, becasue all other riding is yawningly boring. I would have a brake, but the fork isn’t drilled. Regardless of any of that, I started wearing a helmet becasue my delivery job requires it. Now I’m back to loving helmets. I also invested in a Giro Atmos—highly recommend—lightweight and looks good for city and road.
I think helmets are “in” right now, the debate seems mostly over as cars and bikes are becoming increasingly more hostile towards each other, a lot of cyclists are wearing helmets becasue of dangerous drivers, and I think that’ll stay that way until we have a more public, less private, transportation in the States, i.e. self driving cars. But as far as helmets in the case of strictly road riding, tough call. You don’t want to be the only guy wearing one, and you don’t want to be the only guy with one.
I’ve had three people at my
I’ve had three people at my work suggest I should wear a helmet. I suggested they all read this from the NHS, where the writers have decided not to claim that helmets improve safety, but I don’t think they read it.
bdsl wrote:I’ve had three
All you can garner from the NHS paper is that they don’t have the data to explain the lack of a significant decline in KSI (killed or seriously injured) cases at ERs when helmet use is legislated. They do acknowledge that helmet users may not end up not being KSI as frequently (they may just suffer minor injuries thanks to the helmet). The problem is that they have the data on reported cycling accidents, ER admissions and head injuries but nothing on whether the patient was wearing a helmet or not (never mind the unreported events).
However the referenced BMJ editorial (by Ben Goldacre) does a better job of trying to explain the phenomenon that helmet legislation (note: not helmet usage) only minimally reduces “serious” head injuries. “This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to reconcile with case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing helmets are less likely to have a head injury”. Basically they don’t have the data so they make intelligent guesses as to why legislating helmet use doesn’t significantly reduce serious head injuries.
Goldacre cites a Canadian study (http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674) that also doesn’t explain it but does make some stronger points in particular: “Helmets reduce the risk of injuries to the brain by up to 88%, the head by up to 85%, and the face by up to 65%.”
The Canadian study conclusions make the case against compulsory helmet use (my position as well FWIW): “From 1994 to 2008, we observed a substantial and consistent decrease in the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries across Canada. Reductions were greatest in provinces with helmet legislation. Rates of admissions for head injuries, however, were decreasing before the implementation of provincial helmet legislation and did not seem to change in response to legislation. While helmets reduce head injuries and their use should be encouraged, this study suggests that, in the Canadian context of provincial and municipal safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce the number of hospital admissions for head injuries is uncertain to some extent, but seems to have been minimal.”
And I finally got round to
And I finally got round to buying a helmet after going on my first ride with a club and being told it was (or might be) comulsory as a club rule. I can see that there is probably more risk of falling off when riding close to others.
Saying that a helmet won’t do
Saying that a helmet won’t do anything in a serious crash is simply rubbish.
It might not stop any injury, but the fact that the polystyrene shell absorbs some of the impact will reduce the amount of G applied to the cranium, and therefore the chances of the brain getting injured by hitting the inside of the skull.
That is the science of the issue.
Helmets aren’t required to be tested for protection against anything other than a fall from standing to be sold as cycle helmets, but that doesn’t mean that they offer no protection in a higher impact crash, just that the level of protection is unquantified.
If your head gets crushed by a truck then no helmet will do you much good, but if you get knocked off by a truck your brain will suffer less trauma on hitting the floor if some of the impact energy is taken up by the deforming of a cycle helmet.
I don’t always wear a helmet, but I’m not trying to convince myself of some absolute rubbish about them being of no use. The fact is they will help, but whether they’ll help enough to make the crucial difference is largely unproven as the current standards are not measuring them in the context most of us want them to work in.
patto583 wrote:Saying that a
[quote=patto583]Saying that a helmet won’t do anything in a serious crash is simply rubbish.
It might not stop any injury, but the fact that the polystyrene shell absorbs some of the impact will reduce the amount of G applied to the cranium, and therefore the chances of the brain getting injured by hitting the inside of the skull.
That is the science of the issue. /quote]
No it isn’t, if only life were so simple!
The science says that the amount of energy absorbed is minuscule compared to the total energy involved in even a moderate impact. It also says that the minuscule protection thus provided will be accompanied by a similarly minuscule increase in the duration of the impact during which the brain may be shaken and impacted, that the size of the forces and energy vary depending on the exact nature of the impact, relative velocities and direction etc.
In fact the science says that there is no repeatable measurable reduction in brain injury by wearing cycle helmets whilst cycling. That’s why the debate keeps on raging. There are plenty of hypotheses but no actual scientific evidence.
Science says we don’t know!
I am pretty much anti-helmet
I am pretty much anti-helmet and I guess I’m also anti other people wearing helmets, not that I am advocating a ban by any means.
Helmets cause more harm than good because they give the impression that cycling is a dangerous pursuit that requires specialist safety equipment. The statistics on cycling injuries does not reflect this perception. And yet if you ask a sample of adults why they don’t try cycling they say they are scared to do so. In fact even in anecdote my non-cycling friends most commonly tell me that I’m “brave” or “foolhardy” for cycling on our “deadly” roads.
If the perception of cycling can be corrected from the bias of the overblown culture of fear to being a perception of being a safe and normal thing that you can do in normal clothing then we can get more people cycling. Such a culture shift will improve air-quality, improve the nation’s health and simultaneously make the already safe roads even safer.
My change of viewpoint began when watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY
And developed further in the years since then. It seems many more people who think about such things are coming to the same conclusion. So, go on, grow a pair! Throw away the lid! 🙂
ask these people about
ask these people about helmets… they’d laugh at you 🙂
in the entire video, there is only one person wearing a helmet and he’s also the only person wearing lycra…
The helmet debate is stupid
The helmet debate is stupid and should be stopped because it is a sink for all the energy, money and effort that could be going to far better ways of improving safety.
I do wear a helmet because its my personal opinion that taking everything into consideration, there probably is a benefit, albeit a minor one.
Why does this get debated to
Why does this get debated to death?
For me its because there is no concrete evidence ether way. Lots of statistics that have been manipulated by either camps to demonstrate what they want to promote, yes… but categoric evidence, no, I’ve not seen it.
So… there is lots to be debated.
However for me I think the killer reason why this gets done to death again and again is because it has the potential to affect all of us… pro, anti, somewhere in between.
What I am talking about is legislation, and the adoption of compulsory helmet wearing.
I fully understand why those completely convinced by helmets can see that legislation is that answer to stopping the delusional anti’s from themselves.
However, these pro compulsion are the tiny minority. The vast majority have made a decision either way and are happy to live that way and see it makes sense for all to make their own choice.
The anti’s feel threatened by potential legislation and naturally fight hard to resist it.
Now, both minority camps use pretty extreme arguments to fight their case… arguments so inflammatory it brings the more moderate into the debate.
So there.
Personally I couldn’t care less what people think or do… but I will will stand up and start shouting when certain people try and force their will on me.
The helmet debate is
The helmet debate is essentially poinless. Helment wearing is not a legal requirement for cyclists, therefore cyclists can make their own choice about whether to wear one or not based on their own opinions. As another poster commented, no-one is changing their opinions based on the “debate” being held on these & many other pages.
The helmet debate, in my opinion, causes a distraction from the real issues and any rational approach to the risks involved in cycling. Helmets are intended to reduce the risk of injury when you’ve been involved in a fall or collision. For it to do this, you need to have had a fall or collision first. The priority should therefore be to reduce the number of falls or collisions. I believe this was at the heart of Chris Boardman’s recent comments.
There is an upleasant undercurrent of victim blaming in some circles, where a cyclist involve in a collision will be viewed as less responsible if they weren’t wearing a helmet. In my opinion the helmet debate perpetuates this.
As far as my own habits regarding wearing/not wearing helmets and hi-viz, I’ll keep that to myself 😀
Pootling to the shops at
Pootling to the shops at 5-15mph in dry conditions or on off road routes does not imply a high enough risk of head injury to warrant the use of PPE by an experienced cyclist.
^^^^^^^
It’s statements like that that makes the point of a debate pointless.
I will get involved in the
I will get involved in the debate for two reasons.
1. To defend my right to choose.
As a non-wearer I generally take the view of “You wear what you want, I’ll wear what I want.” I never try to dissuade people from wearing them or promote not wearing them.
2. To show that there is another view.
When I feel that people are just assuming that there is no opposition to helmets, or that they are just the most obvious thing to do to improve cycling safety. The recent attacks on Chris Boardman for his saftey interview on the BBC gave rise to a lot of that, missing the point he was making.
Other than that I will respond if someone genuinely seems to be asking why someone would not wear a helmet.
I’m not reading through all
I’m not reading through all the usual stuff again so I won’t quote any figures, just offer my own observations.
1. Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. Here’s my own anecdote;
At the age of 15 (in 1979, no helmets existed) I was hit from behind (on my bike) by a speeding driver. My bike absorbed the shock and was written off. I was thrown to the ground but got up and walked away with only a small scratch on the back of my hand. Does this prove that speeding cars may damage bikes but are harmless to cyclists? Similarly, I can go into any church in the country and find any number of people who will testify that their lives were transformed for the better when they ‘accepted the Good Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour.’ I doubt however that anyone would accept any number of such anecdotes as reason to make religious observance compulsory.
2. Association is not causation, ie, just because one thing happens after or alongside another it doesn’t mean that one has caused or led to the other. This is the sort of ‘evidence’ quoted in support of astrology, homoeopathy and which led to the MMR autism affair.
3. Modern bike helmets have been around for almost 30 years. Research into their effectiveness has been ongoing for most of that time, as has this f@(k!n9 debate!! I can’t believe the question is that hard to answer. If there were any good evidence out there surely someone would have found it by now!
Sorry no bike or socks for
Sorry no bike or socks for participating; even Purple Harry’s Super Sponge was beyond my budget.
It is a choice, simple,
It is a choice, simple, decide for yourself. If it was the law, then you have no choice. Me, I wear a helmet, my choice.
First the helmet has to be
First the helmet has to be worn correctly if it is to be on any benefit ask any motorcyclist about the importance of a correctly fitted helmet.
We will never know the true data because how many accidents allowed the cyclist to walk away.
Its down to personnel choice, but for me as a motorcyclist the speeds I can achieve on my bike are greater than a 50cc scooter ride who must wear a helmet. I don’t want to spend time in A&E and save our already stretched NHS resources for people who genuinely need them and not waste them on me because I choose not to protect my head from an injury.
Haven fallen off my bike and hit my head the helmet does work if worn correctly and its a good quality one.
I wear a helmet on main roads
I wear a helmet on main roads but not elsewhere. Tesco trip is off road; I cross one road. I see my risk as higher on roads. Paramedics I met at an event said I should wear a helmet every time. Helmet use is linked to the “they don’t pay road tax” and “shouldn’t be on the roads” and victim blaming (especially for cyclists, commented on above), mentality of some drivers that the police and media have bought into and thus cyclists not entitled to the care other injured people receive.
Personal choice simples
I
Personal choice simples
I wear a helmet when I Cycle, Ski, Roller Skate, and play Ice Hockey. The only one that is compulsory is the last, but it is a full contact sport. The others I wear it because I think it will help if I have an accident. But it is my choice, and everyone has the same choice.
Boy there is some hot air
Boy there is some hot air blowing around. I wear a helmet because my wife (a retired A&E nurse) will not let me go out on my bike if I dont.
‘
However I would wear one anyway because in the event of a crash involving head truma I feel a helmet would reduce the consequences; and that makes it worthwhile.
I’ve ridden a lot of years, I tend to go a bit crazy on the decending. I’ve crashed numerous times, once hitting my head, which resulted in 9 stitches. On that occasion a helmet would have saved my a lot of pain. Not to mention the look of horror on the faces of tourists in Skipton North Yorkshire as a dripped blood down the high street ridding my way home.
And I don’t buy the arguement driver take more care with those that wear helmets.
I am just back to cycling
I am just back to cycling after a break of over 40 years. In the 60’s and 70’s hardly anyone wore a helmet partly because the ones available weren’t really any good and the culture was that you didn’t wear a helmet. Now I wouldn’t dream of going out without one, traffic and the consequent risks of accidents is greater and the helmets today are so good you hardly know you’ve got one on.
I came off today on black ice and gave my head quite a bang, who knows what would have happened if I had not been wearing a helmet.
Davidn37 wrote:traffic and
And yet the Government, many road safety experts and those who believe them, tell us the roads are getting safer. This is because the road accident death rate is decreasing.
I don’t mind if you wear a
I don’t mind if you wear a helmet or not when you cycle, but don’t wear one in a church.
That should cover another angle of helmet umbrage that had been sorely neglected on road.cc