# The Great Helmet Debate



## User (6 Jul 2007)




----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Jul 2007)

Noooooooo! Not the helmet debate!!

... but yes, I do wear one but I don't think everyone should and I'm not convinced it would be effective in a serious incident.


----------



## redfox (6 Jul 2007)

How about no and I don't make my children either?


----------



## Arch (6 Jul 2007)

I wear one much more since I bought a helmet cam...

I do, generally, but I'm quite happy for people not to. I'm sure for every "my helmet saved my life" tale, however true, there are dozens of "my helmet didn't stop me breaking my wrist" tales, or "my helmet would have been bugger all use as the bus drove over me" tales.

It should be a case of well informed personal choice. I cringe at the number of badly fitted helmets I see worn on the back of the head - no doubt instilling confidence in the poor saps wearing them...


----------



## Cab (6 Jul 2007)

My main reason for wearing one at the moment is also the helmet cam.

An interesting phenomenon has been the way that drivers treat me with the camera visibly on top of my head; they're giving me more space. Which is odd, as I used to find that just wearing a helmet drivers used to give me _less_ space.

Bus drivers around here especially seem wise to the helmet cam. Three or four times now in a fortnight I've had them smile and wave into the camera.


----------



## electricdave (6 Jul 2007)

I dislike helmets mainly because I can't find one that doesn't give me headaches (guess I have an odd-shaped head) and I don't much like the human-en-croute design of the majority of them.
Having said that, I do feel that after 6 years of commuting in London with only one major wipeout (my own fault), I might be tempting fate a little bit by not wearing one. If my commute distance increases, I'll probably reconsider getting one, especially as I now have a little girl to think of.


----------



## electricdave (6 Jul 2007)

Thanks for the tip Paul, I'll start there if I decide to get one!


----------



## Yorkshireman (6 Jul 2007)

I think that I still have one (in `as new condition`) somewhere in the garage. For comfort I prefer a baseball type cap in the summer and a `thermathingy` beany in the winter, don`t always wear one though.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (6 Jul 2007)

Cab said:


> My main reason for wearing one at the moment is also the helmet cam.
> 
> An interesting phenomenon has been the way that drivers treat me with the camera visibly on top of my head; they're giving me more space. Which is odd, as I used to find that just wearing a helmet drivers used to give me _less_ space.
> 
> Bus drivers around here especially seem wise to the helmet cam. Three or four times now in a fortnight I've had them smile and wave into the camera.


maybe i could get a false helmet cam (a bit like a pretend alarm box on your house) that might act as a deterrant at less expense


----------



## Cab (6 Jul 2007)

alecstilleyedye said:


> maybe i could get a false helmet cam (a bit like a pretend alarm box on your house) that might act as a deterrant at less expense




There was a bloke on the local news around here last year using one of these, put a lot of footage online apparently. I think theres a certain notoriety to these cameras in and around Cambridge, at least among bus drivers.


----------



## Arch (6 Jul 2007)

alecstilleyedye said:


> maybe i could get a false helmet cam (a bit like a pretend alarm box on your house) that might act as a deterrant at less expense



It's very simple. You will need the roll out of a toilet roll, some black sticky black plastic, a few old buttons (small black, not brass blazer types!), glue and a few rubber bands...  

Mine was noticed the other day, by some lads in a car - I think one of them took a picture of me! I have to say, they followed me very sedately down the road, not racing for the pinch points as is the norm...


----------



## alecstilleyedye (6 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> alecstilleyedye said:
> 
> 
> > maybe i could get a false helmet cam (a bit like a pretend alarm box on your house) that might act as a deterrant at less expense
> ...



you are lesley judd and i claim my £5


----------



## asterix (7 Jul 2007)

After commuting for years in Ipswich, Felixstowe, Manchester, Southampton and York without a helmet and no significant injury, I do now wear one in town.

2 years ago a dimwit opened his car door across a green painted cycle lane without looking and put me in hospital. Compensation is being claimed but the insurance company is saying I was negligent for not wearing a helmet and trying to reduce its liability thereby. 

Nevertheless, I still perfectly safe with no helmet when in traffic-light areas, particularly France.


----------



## Yorkshireman (7 Jul 2007)

temporary said:


> After commuting for years in Ipswich, Felixstowe, Manchester, Southampton and York without a helmet and no significant injury, I do now wear one in town.
> 
> 2 years ago a dimwit opened his car door across a green painted cycle lane without looking and put me in hospital. Compensation is being claimed but the *insurance company is saying I was negligent for not wearing a helmet and trying to reduce its liability thereby. *
> 
> Nevertheless, I still perfectly safe with no helmet when in traffic-light areas, particularly France.



Don`t stand for the reduced liability scam ... The CTC went to court against an insurance company to knock that one on the head


----------



## piedwagtail91 (8 Jul 2007)

i ride with two clubs. with the racing club i wear a helmet mainly because everyone else does and i get fed up of being asked if i forgot my helmet if i don't., with the touring club i don't because no one else does and to be honest i prefer riding without.. 
an insurance company tried the "not wearing a helmet" line with me when i was knocked off. i pointed out that the nearest injury to my head was my forearm and my helmet wasn't big enough to cover my arm so their argument was irrelevant.


----------



## Vigilies (11 Jul 2007)

Always wear one, but I wouldn't support compulsion


----------



## Jaded (11 Jul 2007)

alecstilleyedye said:


> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > alecstilleyedye said:
> ...



But probably with smaller breasts? :8:


----------



## Jaded (11 Jul 2007)

I assume that anyone who can type this:

"No, but I am such a steaming hippocrite I always make my children wear one"

Also never drives without clicking into a 5 point harness? :?:


----------



## snorri (12 Jul 2007)

As a utility cyclist, I am always concerned to see these "Do you wear a helmet" surveys as they tend to show a fairly high percentage of helmet wearers. Many of those responding will be competitive cyclists, for whom the balance between safety and performance is quite different to utility cyclists. Also off road cyclists whilst not necessarily competitive are more likely to fall off and may well choose to wear a helmet. From my own observations, the proportion of helmet wearing utility cyclists is fairly low, but it concerns me that when these surveys are publicised, the results fail to differentiate between the different branches of cycling, and there is an expectation in certain quarters that more of us utility cyclists should be wearing helmets too. :?:


----------



## Tetedelacourse (12 Jul 2007)

I recently wore one for the first time ever. I had to as I was taking part in the Etape Caledonia and so had no choice. I borrowed it from a pal. I have to say I found I was pleasantly surprised by the comfort aspect. I thought it would be much worse than it was. It didn't impede my vision at all and after a while I forgot I was wearing it and so can't claim that my sense of self-preservation was lessened in any way. It even helped keep my tete warm in the drizzle early on.

However, I will not be wearing one every day and I will not be told that I must wear one. I don't object to anyone else wearing one and my wife demands that my kids wear one. Basically it's horses for courses as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see the need for one.

Plus I agree with Snorri's point.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2007)

My views are well known elsewhere!

I did think that the "children wearing a helmet" being hypocritical is a little "Strong".

Children's heads are less developed and arguably greater protection is offered than to an adult with a fully developed Skull.

Secondly children tend to have the low impact, lower speed falls that helmets are designed to contribute to.

So the argument that helmets may be justifiable in children has more "legs" than the argument for adults.

Even so it should still be personal choice after the evidence has been read and not the emotive blackmail used by some authorities.


----------



## Toshiba Boy (13 Jul 2007)

Have always worn a helmet (originally the old "string bag" racing type and for the past 20 or so years the "full shell" type), but like other posters here, would not wish to see it made compulsory. Personal choice is fine.


----------



## chris42 (13 Jul 2007)

Toshiba Boy said:


> Have always worn a helmet (originally the old "string bag" racing type and for the past 20 or so years the "full shell" type), but like other posters here, would not wish to see it made compulsory. Personal choice is fine.



Nail and head here!

Personal Choice!


----------



## alecstilleyedye (13 Jul 2007)

Jaded said:


> alecstilleyedye said:
> 
> 
> > Arch said:
> ...


oops, how freudian of me
  :8:


----------



## simon l& and a half (19 Jul 2007)

my head's still sore from its encounter with a bus yesterday morning. Had I not been wearing a helmet I'd probably be more sore still. That seems like a pretty good deal. And this wasn't the first such encounter (or the second). And it was ba long way off being the most serious

I'm against compulsion, but I do worry about cyclists without helmets.


----------



## MartinC (20 Jul 2007)

It's OK, there's no need to worry about cyclists without helmets. There's no real evidence that they provide any benefit, it's a bit optimistic to expect 250 gms of polystyrene to provide much protection and hitting a bus is beyond the design limitations of a standard cycle helmet.


----------



## classic33 (20 Jul 2007)

To through some medical opinion on this subject. For those of you that remember the old style leather helmets, I was told that as they only cushion the top of the head they would be of little use due to the following:

1) Anything longer than the thickness of the helmet could still impact on the skull.
2) They offered no protection to the side or rear of the head.
3) They gave no protection to the face.

With these points in mind they said their use would be of no benefit to me.
At the time they were not talking about use on a bike, but when walking.


----------



## bonk man (30 Jul 2007)

Helmet related debate on a local rag website, I have diverted it slightly but still cyclist safety related if anyone fancies joining in ..link 
http://http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/wnnewslatest/display.var.1582327.0.0.php


----------



## alfablue (8 Aug 2007)

MartinC said:


> It's OK, there's no need to worry about cyclists without helmets. There's no real evidence that they provide any benefit, it's a bit optimistic to expect 250 gms of polystyrene to provide much protection and hitting a bus is beyond the design limitations of a standard cycle helmet.


Bit of a sweeping statement, what about hitting a bus at 5mph or 10mph? Things are not so black and white, there will be many factors that come in to play in determining the protective effect, if any, of a helmet in any individual accident.


----------



## MartinC (8 Aug 2007)

Just reiterating what the manufacturers and standards bodies say.


----------



## alfablue (8 Aug 2007)

MartinC said:


> Just reiterating what the manufacturers and standards bodies say.


They don't say "this will offer nil protection when hitting a bus regardless of the speed or nature of the impact"


----------



## MartinC (8 Aug 2007)

Neither did I.


----------



## Jaded (14 Aug 2007)

User76 said:


> Nothing to do with 5 point seat belts, christ knows what that was about



Insisting that kids use safety gear that adults don't. It's fairly straightforward.


----------



## col (14 Aug 2007)

MartinC said:


> It's OK, there's no need to worry about cyclists without helmets. There's no real evidence that they provide any benefit, it's a bit optimistic to expect 250 gms of polystyrene to provide much protection and hitting a bus is beyond the design limitations of a standard cycle helmet.




I think the part of the head covered would benefit on impacts not enough to break your neck.An experiment done by putting a raw egg inside a small polystyrene cube showed that the egg wasnt broke when dropped from a great hieght,so i think as long as the impact wasnt neck breakingly hard,even the limited protection would save more serious damage wouldnt it?


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (17 Aug 2007)

I have yet to speak to someone who sustained a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet who could claim that their injury would have been worse had they been wearing one. 

But then it was difficult to make out what they were saying as they ate their lunch through a staw.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (17 Aug 2007)

Of course it's all about personal choice but don't come drooling to me when you sustain head trauma.


----------



## Chris James (17 Aug 2007)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> I have yet to speak to someone .....
> 
> But then it was difficult to make out what they were saying as they ate their lunch through a staw.



Mmm, so you couldn't understand the person who you had 'yet to meet'. 

Perhaps wearing your helmet all the time is frying your brain, to come up with such nonsense?

There are arguments for and against wearing helmets, most of them rehearsed endlessly on cycling forums, but just coming out with the 'lunch through a straw' comment is very lazy. Why don't you grow up?


----------



## BentMikey (17 Aug 2007)

On the other hand Ravenbait had a crash where she sustained serious neck injuries due to her helmet. IIRC she wishes she hadn't worn it.

The lunch through a straw argument is typical of lazy debaters on the pro side. It's using fear uncertainty and doubt, and largely none of these people have spent any significant amount of time reading the studies and evidence out there. It's "common sense" that helmets are magical and always protect you according to them, and they just won't open their minds to the less appetising reality.


----------



## Kovu (18 Aug 2007)

I think its more the choice of the wearer. At the moment i dont, but i dont feel unsafe on my bike, I feel content as if I had one on. I will get one pretty soon, but I dont think it should be made for everyone to wear one, simple because I don't overly think they protect your head that much. 

Its more any protection is better than none.


----------



## Elmer Fudd (18 Aug 2007)

It's like when I was at work, I was supposed to wear ear plugs but never did, always felt safer hearing the FLT coming up behind me rather than the blood rushing through my ears. Blood going through my body (no much alcohol it contained !!) wasn't going to kill me as fast as 3.5 tonnes+ of cast iron / steel.


----------



## Jaded (21 Aug 2007)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> I have yet to speak to someone who sustained a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet who could claim that their injury would have been worse had they been wearing one.
> 
> But then it was difficult to make out what they were saying as they ate their lunch through a staw.



Well, you've never spoken to me.


----------



## MartinC (21 Aug 2007)

There's a well estabished causal relationship between people hitting their heads and them sustaining injuries. There's no established relationship between people wearing cycle helmets and head injuries being mitigated. Some people like to believe, for a variety of reasons, that there is. Endless examples of people being hurt don't make any meaningful contribution to the debate.


----------



## MartinC (21 Aug 2007)

The population wide studies don't show any benefit.


----------



## MartinC (21 Aug 2007)

They do, they include all reported injuries. We seem to agree that there isn't any evidence that cycle helmets protect heads. Population wide studies are available (e.g. Australia pre and post helmet enforcement). It would be reasonable to expect that a protection effect would be noticeable in these studies if it existed. Common sense also suggests that the energy absorbing potential of 250 gms of polystyrene isn't going to make a significant difference in an injury threatening impact. I'm still trying to follow the reasoning that 2 people had head injuries therefore cycle helmets are beneficial.


----------



## MartinC (22 Aug 2007)

That seems disingenous. Your post was, on the face of it, suggesting that in these two instances wearing a cycling helmet would have been beneficial. When challenged it seems that we both agree that there's no logic to this conclusion. As BentMikey pointed out earlier "The lunch through a straw argument is typical of lazy debaters on the pro side. It's using fear uncertainty and doubt"


----------



## spen666 (22 Aug 2007)

should all helmets be purple?


----------



## col (22 Aug 2007)

After reading this thread,i still feel that having some polestyrene between your head and a hard place must help in some way,surely?


----------



## jonesy (22 Aug 2007)

Some not unbiased helmet promotion in Oxfordshire....

http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.1636801.0.mail_offer_boosts_cycle_safety.php


----------



## Jaded (23 Aug 2007)

What a great article!

"Studies have shown cycle helmets can protect against head, brain and facial injuries and death."

So, I can drink what I like, smoke 40 a day, but if I wear a cycle helmet, I'll be OK?


----------



## niedermeyer (23 Aug 2007)

col said:


> After reading this thread,i still feel that having some polestyrene between your head and a hard place must help in some way,surely?



Yes, it probably may do. But against that you have to weigh:

-Feeling safer and taking less care
-Appearing less vulnerable to drivers and therefore having them take less care around you
-(minor point in this country with its miserable climate) getting hot/sweaty and having this reduce concentration
-having the 'size' of your head increased so that in a few cases there is an impact whereas without a helmet nothing would have touched down

so you pays yer money etc etc


----------



## col (23 Aug 2007)

niedermeyer said:


> Yes, it probably may do. But against that you have to weigh:
> 
> -Feeling safer and taking less care
> 
> ...





At the moment i choose not to wear one,but i do see the possible benefits


----------



## col (23 Aug 2007)

I was using the motorcycle helmet just as an example,but its not something i would do on a pushbike though.So thats a surprise to me,have you actually used one on your pushbike?


----------



## col (23 Aug 2007)

I see, i understand where your coming from now,i do agree that with the visor down,it can make things seem more distant,like inside a car that has good soundproofing,but as a cyclist it wouldnt make me feel any safer from vehicles on the road.
And the vespa's always seemed more reliable than the lambretta's didnt they?


----------



## Ravenbait (2 Sep 2007)

Wear one when racing cos I have to. Otherwise I don't. I used to: then I sustained a slipped disc in my neck after a low speed fall on ice caused by the helmet catching on the road surface and wrenching my head round. In my experience so far I have hit my head when falling wearing lid but haven't hit my head when falling not wearing one.

So you pays your money (quite a lot in my case, both for lids for racing and physio fees recovering from the neck injury) and you takes your choice. I'd always wear one off-roading, because of over-hanging tree branches and my tendency to fall off at low speed into tree roots and things, but I don't wear one on the road unless I have to any more. I'd prefer not to fall off.

Sam


----------



## andyoxon (4 Sep 2007)

Sorry if this has been said, but I thought the rationale of getting kids to wear a helmet, while not yourself - is fairly clear. That arguably children are much more likely to have lower speed, 'topple over', impacts that adults - the type of impact that helmets are well suited for protecting the head against. So...not so much of the 'steaming hypocrite', as just having a harder job getting them to wear a helmet..

I used to never wear a helmet while touring, LEJOG etc - only commuting; but am inclined to wear one at all times now...

Andy


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2007)

Additionally children also have a less develeloped cranium. The arguments for adults and children are totally different in this aspect and cannot / should not be interposed.

Having said that.............

The only crossover point is the perspective that cycling is dangerous enough to wear a helmet when the more common causes for head injuries are considered a fair risk.


If you look at the cause of head injuries in children only 20% are cycling related - why are all the iresponsible parents not making their children wear helmets during the activities causingthe other 80%?

(Figures from NHS Direct)

As for shopping...................


> Falls from shopping carts are among the leading causes of head injuries to young children.


link


In the States 17,300 children under 5 suffer head injuries in falls froom shopping carts - do we see helmets having a contribution here?

Will yur child be wearing a helmet nexttime you o to Tesco / Morrisons / Safeway?


----------



## MartinC (6 Sep 2007)

Cunobelin - people will get cross if you're going to argue rationally and use facts.


----------



## alfablue (6 Sep 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> If you look at the cause of head injuries in children only 20% are cycling related - why are all the iresponsible parents not making their children wear helmets during the activities causingthe other 80%?
> 
> (Figures from NHS Direct)
> 
> ...



As a _single_ cause of head injury the figure of 20% is a high one - if you could dramatically reduce the cause of 1 in 5 head injuries amongst children, then perhaps as a society we have a duty to children to act. 

The shopping issue - I am reluctant to accept figures from the US, being such a litigious society there are great incentives to seek hospital treatment following "accidents" suffered in the premesis of large companies. Also, I would suggest in most cases these occur through parental negligence - it is quite feasible and desirable to clip wayward children into trolleys ("carts") with harnesses - my kids had them.


----------



## MartinC (7 Sep 2007)

Alfablue - this is the great problem with the helmet debate. Cunobelin invites the comparison between our response to head injuries to children to that to those from another source. The comparison gets rejected on the basis of some specious arguments - the helmet proponents never argue their case logically.

If the argument is that we have a duty to try and mitigate the 20% then, clearly, there's a greater duty to examine the 80%. You haven't done this. 20% are cycling related (what does this mean?) and 80% are related to something else. Why do the 20% merit special treatment?

That the USA is a more litigious society is a popular perception. Is it true? If it is true to what extent? Does it have a significant effect on the presentation of children for treatment? There are 3 leaps of assumption in your argument that this study should be rejected, none of them substantiated or quantified.

This is exaggerating the impact of one statistic which you feel fits your argument and rejecting another because it doesn't.

I would dearly love to see someone present a fact based, reasoned argument that helmets offer some substantive protection and that cycling is such a hazardous activity compared with others that they are neccesary.


----------



## MartinC (7 Sep 2007)

It may be. It may not be. That's why you need to break it down before presenting its as an argument.


----------



## alfablue (7 Sep 2007)

MartinC said:


> Alfablue - this is the great problem with the helmet debate. Cunobelin invites the comparison between our response to head injuries to children to that to those from another source. The comparison gets rejected on the basis of some specious arguments - the helmet proponents never argue their case logically.



Sorry, I object to that; it is not a specious argument, if there is a single cause of such magnitude then it is much easier (and therefore ethically appropriate) to address than the more complex multiple causes that make up the remainder. There are many causes of lung cancer - smoking is accepted as being a single factor causing a significant proportion, we don't just ignore it because there may be a sizable proportion with different aetiology. Contrary to your view I was attempting to make a logical argument, please don't generalise and tar all helmet proponents with this "illogical" "specious" argument label - now _that_ is illogical!


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2007)

Let's accept for a minute that'
a. The most comon cause for a head injury in these children is cycling
b. Helmets can prevent many of these head injuries
c. Children should therefore wear helmets.

So therefore if : Link


> Falls are the most common cause of head injuries in children less than 10 years of age



Would we therefore accept that helmets were neccessary iin all activties that constitute risk of a fall?

Given that most of these falls will happen when "playing, running and other activities" - al playing children should wear helmets?


> Young children are more likely to have an accident or fall as they learn new skills such as walking, running, and jumping.


Link

Children suffer more head injuries whilst playing than when on bicycles!



> The total number of head injuries
> from the recreational activities studied
> (58 480) was even higher than the
> number of head injuries from bicycling
> ...


Link


By al means let's protect the children, but let's be consistent and identify and protect where the risks actually are, not where we are led by a small active group to believe they are!


----------



## Tony (8 Sep 2007)

alfablue said:


> Sorry, I object to that; it is not a specious argument, *if there is a single cause of such magnitude then it is much easier (and therefore ethically appropriate) to address than the more complex multiple causes that make up the remainder.* There are many causes of lung cancer - smoking is accepted as being a single factor causing a significant proportion, we don't just ignore it because there may be a sizable proportion with different aetiology. Contrary to your view I was attempting to make a logical argument, please don't generalise and tar all helmet proponents with this "illogical" "specious" argument label - now _that_ is illogical!



So as Cuno and co have identified this single cause of such magnitude.....and it isn't cycling....


----------



## alfablue (9 Sep 2007)

> The total number of head injuries
> from the recreational activities studied
> (58 480) was even higher than the
> number of head injuries from bicycling
> (55 998) in the same age range.


So, "recreational activities" is one single type of activity then (must be rather boring)...

And cycling makes up 49% of all head injuries...

hmmm, I _do_ see your point!


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (9 Sep 2007)

I have a few reasons for my pro-helmet, pro-choice stance.

*Pro-helmet*
1) I have crashed on the road whilst wearing a helmet - I bashed my head twice. Once on the forehead (it was the first bit of me to touch down) and once on the side of the helmet. _I know there is nothing to say it "saved me" blah blah blah, but one thing it *absolutely 100%* saved me from is road-rash on my head. And judging that the road-rash on my hip went to the bone, as did my elbow, I'm glad all I got was a bruise above my left eye from the helmet._

2) Motorbike helmets started out as a token effort, then got slightly better and slightly better over the years as more of them were bought. By weaing a helemt to cycle in, I hope to encourage more R&D into making better and more effective helmets in the future.

3) I think they look cool!

4) My helmet is light, comfortable and fits properly - I don't notice it after 5mins inside it, so why not afford myself (howerver little) extra protection if it doesn't bother me?

*Pro-choice*
1) Cycling = freedom. Helmet compusion = removing freedom

2) Cycling is a d@mn safe sport

3) I want to see as many cyclists on the road as possible, forcing them to wear a helmet will cut numbers who just want to pop to uni / shops / etc etc 

4) No catagorical proof that they help, so I cannot support compulsion.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Sep 2007)

alfablue said:


> So, "recreational activities" is one single type of activity then (must be rather boring)...
> 
> And cycling makes up 49% of all head injuries...
> 
> hmmm, I _do_ see your point!



Not the case, the paper only covers informal recreational activities.

There is also a skew if you look at age groups

If you consider 49% to be a valid reason for cycle helmets, surely if a single activity were to cause 75% of injuries (when all age groups are considered) the case for helmets would be absolutely unarguable?

Except that the 75% is in fact not cycle related, but;


> For all ages combined, three fourths (74%) of the head injuries occurred in connection with playground equipment



There is a far greater argument for helmets on playground equipment surely?


----------



## alfablue (9 Sep 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Not the case, the paper only covers informal recreational activities.



Well you have extracted selected "highlights" from the paper, and your extract suggested that it was the case - but I have looked at the link now (I should have done earlier rather than responding at face value to your selected points). I had assumed this was from up to date DOH data, but I see the study is based upon 1991 US data - apart from the methodological problems with the paper, the age of the data alone makes this study virtually useless for generalisations to today, and in the UK. There are also obvious problems with interpretation, for example the higher rates of playground head injuries amongst the under fives probably reflects that playground play is far more common than cycling amongst this age group. I think it is fruitless to attempt a meaningful discussion of these issues based on a selection of "evidence" chosen to support ones own views. There is insufficent up to date and rigorous data available to us to draw firm conclusions either way (though there is some data from meta-analyses and systematic reviews these are still controversial and inconclusive).



> If you consider 49% to be a valid reason for cycle helmets, surely if a single activity were to cause 75% of injuries (when all age groups are considered) the case for helmets would be absolutely unarguable?
> 
> Except that the 75% is in fact not cycle related, but;
> 
> ...



This is confounding two seperate sources of statistics - the 75% relates to the second data set, which did not include cycling, however given the total number of head injuries from both sources of data (cyclist data and recreational activities data) the percentages were 49% for the first and 51% for the second - however the second data source included activities such as skate boarding and in-line skating.

The paper is all about recommending multi-purpose helmets, so they are indeed attempting to make a case for this, however in the 16 years since this study, in the UK at least, providers of playgrounds have stumbled upon the novel idea of fitting rubber or bark floors to playgrounds. If you can do this, then the call for helmets for playground use is somewhat redundant - the same possibilities don't exist in relation to cycling (unless we rubberise roads, pavements, kerbs, lamp posts and vehicles, which I don't believe is reasonably practicable). The multi-purpose helmet argument probably has more relevance to skateboarding and inline skating (and some youngsters do indeed use helmets for these activities).


----------



## Tony (10 Sep 2007)

I note from your reading of the stats it says "playground equipment".
That won't be the ground, then.


----------



## alfablue (10 Sep 2007)

Tony said:


> I note from your reading of the stats it says "playground equipment".
> That won't be the ground, then.


Oh this is so tedious...

The study says "associated with playground equipment", does one assume that cycling related head injuries are all caused by the head hitting the bike??? Please!!!

The study is not really worthy of debate anyway, but this level of pedantry is really dull.


----------



## Tony (10 Sep 2007)

No. What is dull is the assumption that helmets are A Good Thing because, er, it's obvious, innit?
Picking a figure that suits you and then ignoring the stats that don't is not debate. 
Your comment "tedious" is unfortunately reminiscent of Bonj's debating style. Jacomus, above, has neatly put a rational position. He thinks helmets might be a good thing, and due to personal experience wears one. He also accepts that there is evidence pulling in both directions, and therefore opposes compulsion.
There are shedloads of stats showing how harmful helmet compulsion is, and how such legal coercion increases death and injury rates, but I won't bother quoting them as you will simply call them "tedious".


----------



## alfablue (10 Sep 2007)

Tony said:


> No. What is dull is the assumption that helmets are A Good Thing because, er, it's obvious, innit?



I do not make this assumption - check my posts.



> Picking a figure that suits you and then ignoring the stats that don't is not debate.



I have not done this, I have merely commented on the selected statistics offered by others - check my posts.



> Your comment "tedious" is unfortunately reminiscent of Bonj's debating style.



What is tedious is the level of pedantry employed in a weak attempt to score points in the debate (I consider that the implication that "associated with playground equipment" excludes falls from said equipment to floor, pedantry of a high order, and adds nothing to the debate). To compare my debating style to bonj's is an insult of the highest order, I have merely pointed out the folly of the eroneous statistics cited (even when they actually support helmet use), in particular drawing attention to their poor validity and the folly of using them without consideration of the data sources and context - check my posts. You don't like it, fair enough.



> Jacomus, above, has neatly put a rational position. He thinks helmets might be a good thing, and due to personal experience wears one. He also accepts that there is evidence pulling in both directions, and therefore opposes compulsion.



I am entirely with JAcomus, I am anti-compulsion (check my posts).


> There are shedloads of stats showing how harmful helmet compulsion is, and how such legal coercion increases death and injury rates, but I won't bother quoting them as you will simply call them "tedious".


quoting studies is fine (however it is important to understand that correlations do not indicate causation); pedantry is tedious.


----------



## Panter (24 Sep 2007)

Sorry to reawake this but...........

After reading cyclecraft I got the impression the author didn't recommend wearing a helmet.

So, searched on here and found this thread.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but what are the "anti" arguements?

Is it just the risk of it snagging something on the road and causing neck trauma and that cars may not give you as much room?

As I say, sorry if I'm missing the point but as a newb I want to make an informed choice.

FWIW I always wear a helmet, at the moment.


----------



## Jaded (27 Sep 2007)

Panter said:


> FWIW I always wear a helmet, at the moment.



Well, I think you are very sensible.

I've had several near misses when posting on an internet forum.

Wear it, and wear it proud.


----------



## Panter (27 Sep 2007)

pmsl 

Hell, it keeps the dust off anyway


----------



## KitsuneAndy (28 Sep 2007)

Panter said:


> Sorry to reawake this but...........
> 
> After reading cyclecraft I got the impression the author didn't recommend wearing a helmet.
> 
> ...



Some of the 'anti' arguments are based around the fact that it gives you a false sense of security. The sense of 'I'll be ok if I fall off/get hit by a car, I have a helmet' and detracts from the argument that being a better, more aware cyclist will protect you much more than a bit of polystyrene.


----------



## KitsuneAndy (1 Oct 2007)

User76 said:


> I love this debate, I think it is probably the one issue where those in favour are pretty un-movable as are those against.
> 
> There was a tagline used by someone on the old C+ which went something like "No proof is enough for a non-believer, no proof is needed for a believer"
> 
> ...



I personally don't wear one at the moment.

But, I'll be very tempted to if our plans to start going on regular mtb run's takes off as I can see how they will definitely help if you take a tumble and smack your head off a tree etc.

I just dont bother on the roads as I don't see the point, the car's will win regardless


----------



## alfablue (2 Oct 2007)

KitsuneAndy said:


> I just dont bother on the roads as I don't see the point, the car's will win regardless


Fine, if the only "offs" you ever have involve other vehicles, but people do fall on the road all on their own, sometimes.


----------



## Panter (2 Oct 2007)

> Some of the 'anti' arguments are based around the fact that it gives you a false sense of security. The sense of 'I'll be ok if I fall off/get hit by a car, I have a helmet' and detracts from the argument that being a better, more aware cyclist will protect you much more than a bit of polystyrene.



Hmmm. I'll continue to wear mine then.

I'm under no illusions about the consequence of getting hit by a car and fully expect to be squished, helmet or not.

As said above, I wear mine for when the back wheel kicks out and I fall and bang my noggin on the floor, or a similar scenario.

I must admit I'm quite surprised its such a controversial arguement in that case. Still, life wouldn't work if we were al the same, would it 

Thanks for the reply


----------



## Panter (2 Oct 2007)

User76 said:


> I find the most amazing thing about the "anti " arguments is they say the helmet can twist your head or otherwise effect the angle you land and cause more damage. Obviously this true, but the roads and most cars are relatively clean lined. When the discussion turns to mtbing, the vast majority of us wear helmets, I can't remember seeing anyone at Afan or up on the Mendips without one (obviously someone can prove me wrong, but look at the average commute and compare helmet use to an mtb ride), yet the chances of snagging ones helmet on an un-even obstacle are way way higher, indeed you don't even have to fall off to snag your helmet.
> 
> Oh well.



I'd have to agree with that.

I wouldn't dream of MTBing without mine, even though I doubt it would take a particularly violent rock/head interface, I'd far rather it was there.

As for snagging, I'll take my chances...........


----------



## MartinC (2 Oct 2007)

The debate is always polarised because a great number of people always start with the assumption that helmets protect your head. The sceptics don't. It's hard then to debate any of the issues because challenging this central assumption always seems to cause a lot of bad feeling.


----------



## Panter (2 Oct 2007)

Thats interesting.

I would've though that people would've accounted for differing degrees of protection in different scenarios.

Still, I'll say no more, I am but a newb and have no experience to fall back on (no pun intended) yet.

At least I now know the gist of the anti arguements and can make a better informed decision.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Oct 2007)

THe snag point is a helmet design problem.

It refers to the sharp points and protrusions on a helmet that will cause the helmet to "snag".

Leaving aside the rotational aspect - there is some evidence they can render the helmet ineffective!


In an email Dr Hugh Hurt, (Professor Emeritus-USC President, Head Protection Research Laboratory) A testing laboratory in the US explains some ofthe concerns to the ASTM, one of the american standards agencies (certify helmets standards)


> During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell.
> 
> The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.
> 
> ...




Edited - HPRL link added


----------



## Crackle (5 Oct 2007)

It's an interesting read this: I wear a helmet and have done ever since I came off on a roundabout and fractured my skull. 

It's entirely debatable if a helmet would've saved me from the injury around my temple but I suffered from it enough to make me go out and look for one, long before most people wore them. Coming from a motorbike background I've never questioned their wearing too much. Though I have always regarded them as more of a device for saving me from myself than from others. 

I too make my kids wear them and if my youngest had been wearing his on his scooter the other day it would've definetly saved him a nasty scalp wound which needed glueing. 

The rotation and protuberance points have made me think I might go out and buy myself a new helmet, one with an Ansi standard which mine doesn't have and a more rounded shape, like the Bell I used to have.


----------



## col (5 Oct 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> THe snag point is a helmet design problem.
> 
> It refers to the sharp points and protrusions on a helmet that will cause the helmet to "snag".
> 
> ...






This is why i suggested an mtb or skateboard type helmet,in a previous thread,Normal shape,no potruding parts,but is it a fashion thing,i mean how much difference does it really make at the speeds most of us travel?


----------



## yenrod (5 Oct 2007)

>The Great Helmet Debate

I like a good helmet debate most fridays and some nights in the week with the girlfriend...


----------



## KitsuneAndy (7 Oct 2007)

Panter said:


> I'd have to agree with that.
> 
> I wouldn't dream of MTBing without mine, even though I doubt it would take a particularly violent rock/head interface, I'd far rather it was there.
> 
> As for snagging, I'll take my chances...........



I think both me and the missus will be investing in helmets soon as we are both taking quite a liking to a bit of off-roading  Couple of near misses at Thetford this weekend on the muddier parts of the track, stayed on our wheels but I'm sure we'll take a spill occasionaly.

Shame we have to get the bloody train to thetford at the weekend to do it though!


----------



## Radius (28 Sep 2008)

Wore my helmet to cycle on the main roads to the park today, but took it off once in there and not in danger of any traffic. Might be strange but I felt completely in control and was not doing any high speeds. Even stranger, though, was how vulnerable I felt after I took the helmet off. Felt like something was missing. I think that says something about how wearing a helmet affects your attitude...and perhaps not in a good way.


----------



## CotterPin (29 Sep 2008)

Radius said:


> Wore my helmet to cycle on the main roads to the park today, *but took it off once in there and not in danger of any traffic*. Might be strange but I felt completely in control and was not doing any high speeds. Even stranger, though, was how vulnerable I felt after I took the helmet off. Felt like something was missing. I think that says something about how wearing a helmet affects your attitude...and perhaps not in a good way.



This is interesting, Radius. I lead regular rides for new(ish) cyclists. We catch a train out from North London to the Hertfordshire countryside. I have noticed a number of cyclists who arrive at the station wearing their helmets. Once we get into the countryside the helmets disappear into panniers and the like until we return to London.

I have never really asked why they did this and always assumed it was because they thought the country lanes were surfaced with marsh mallows . Maybe, like you, they thought that because they were away from busy traffic they were at less risk. 

Although your comment on vulnerability is also interesting as it sounds like it kind of conflicts with your other sense of control?

When I notice someone removing their helmet on my rides again, I will have a chat with them about their motivation.


----------



## Radius (28 Oct 2008)

Sorry didn't see that reply, and sorry for starting up this thread again (and it had to be this one of all threads )

I know that traffic isn't my only risk, but on a bright sunny day on smooth pathways not going terribly fast I am confident enough in my cycling to not feel the need to wear a helmet. Most of the time, I would wear it because of fears of _others_ making a mistake, not me. I think i'd wear one on country roads though, windy (as in snake-y), and people drive fast down them...
I think the vulnerability may have been due to the fact that despite my efforts, the helmet _did_ introduce an element of hubris with its protection, so I felt that disappear, which makes more sense: you notice something you're missing far more than when you've gained something (invisibly, that is)


----------



## Chris James (28 Oct 2008)

MartinC said:


> The debate is always polarised because a great number of people always start with the assumption that helmets protect your head. The sceptics don't. It's hard then to debate any of the issues because challenging this central assumption always seems to cause a lot of bad feeling.



I agree to an extent, however I think the bigggest disgreements occur because quite a few of the pro helmeteers move from this assumption to compulsion which is really an altogether different argument.


----------



## alfablue (28 Oct 2008)

Chris James said:


> I agree to an extent, however I think the bigggest disgreements occur because quite a few of the pro helmeteers move from this assumption to compulsion which is really an altogether different argument.


I see very few proposing compulsion, are there examples on this forum that I have missed? I suspect that it is more the case that the anti's fear that this is an inevitable consequence of the helmet effectiveness argument being won in favour of the pro's, when in fact I reckon most pro's want personal choice in the matter. Of course this is just conjecture, but is informed by online debates such as this.


----------



## snorri (29 Oct 2008)

I think helmet debates should be restricted to one page and only permitted when there is an h in the month.


----------



## Chris James (29 Oct 2008)

alfablue said:


> I see very few proposing compulsion, are there examples on this forum that I have missed?



Yes, there have been. Also on C+ before here.

Perhaps not in this thread (to be honest, I skipped the first umpteen pages as we have all read it before)

Edit - a good example is Spin City on the 42 page epic 'No Helmet' thread.


----------



## Niall Estick (29 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Additionally children also have a less develeloped cranium. The arguments for adults and children are totally different in this aspect and cannot / should not be interposed.
> 
> Having said that.............
> 
> ...




They shouldn't be in the cart in the first place. Tesco's tell you off if you have your kid in the cart. They should be strapped in the chair on the cart. 

You argument is fatuous.


----------



## thomas (9 Nov 2008)

I always choose to wear a helmet. It does give you a false confidence but I do believe that it would slightly cushion any fall. Anything is better than nothing.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Nov 2008)

Which is perfectly true for playing children....


----------



## mumbo jumbo (22 Nov 2008)

I posted my views / experience on helmets in another thread:


mumbo jumbo said:


> Best comment yet
> 
> I had a nasty accident a couple of years ago and during the weeks I had to have off work I had plenty of time to ponder what had happened and look into what new helmet to get. I scoured the forums, looked at loads of info on helmet safety generally, checked out Snell's site, emailed various people, talked to Mrs MJ and my consultant and ended up concluding that I really couldn't be sure if my helmet had saved me from much worse injury or actually caused the neck injury which (among others) was keeping me out of the office!
> 
> ...



I was wondering if there's any evidence (anecdoatal or otherwise) about helmet cams causing rotational injury which would not otherwise have happened as it seems that several posters wear their helmet purely to put a camera on it! (I have a (currently mothballed) helmet cam BTW).

mj


----------



## jax67 (30 Nov 2008)

I used to ware one - but it always aggrivated my eczema and i'd end up with a rash that weeped. It also aggrivated the arthritis in my neck by adding instability as I looked over my shoulder, and it also caused pain due to this, and pain when waring my glasses as the helmet interfered with the rim of my glasses on my nose. in the end I gave up waring one.
Every bike accident Ive ever had has never injured my head, but has broken ribs, injured my back, injured my pelvis and injured my legs.. a broken rib can easily kill as it can puncture the heart or aorta..Most other cyclists i have spoken to have also mainly had rib, back or leg injuries - But they don't try to enforce us to ware padded clothing - as we would over heat and die of heat stroke then!.
personally i think helmets should be voluntary and upto personal choice


----------



## jax67 (30 Nov 2008)

*helmets*

Yes - a helmet can affect rotation. if you Have cervical spondalosis (osteoarthritis of the neck) your neck rotation is affected - as is your vision, and you get headaches if any pressure is put on the neck or the head. Ive found helmets cause a clamping sensation on the skull due to the nerve compression in the neck vertabrai and the added compression of the helmet and straps causes immense pain in the back of the head and in the neck and shoulders, causes numbness and tingling down the arms and into the hands, and also round into the jaw - dangerous in other words as it then affects balance and vision and concentration -


----------



## Dave5N (1 Dec 2008)

yenrod said:


> >The Great Helmet Debate
> 
> I like a good helmet debate most fridays and some nights in the week with the girlfriend...



So you debate on your own most Fridays.

Some nights in the week with the girlfriend...

Do you ever find any time to have a mass debate?


----------



## Tony (1 Dec 2008)

Dave5N said:


> So you debate on your own most Fridays.
> 
> Some nights in the week with the girlfriend...
> 
> Do you ever find any time to have a mass debate?


----------

