# Research into helmet compulsion



## magnatom (28 Apr 2009)

There is some new research on helmet compulsion which I thought some might find interesting. It seems that compulsion would result in greater health care costs....


----------



## MickL (28 Apr 2009)

Think he makes a fair point.
""idiots who will not wear helmets."

What about the "idiots" who drive several tons of metal around at high speed???

Before I left the UK I used to cycle to and from work, and the bad attitude that drivers have to cyclists is both disgusting and extremely dangerous. The worst thing is that when drivers pull out infront of cyclists they often beep the horn like you shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. I was once followed up the road by someone who hung out the window cursing at me because he thought I shouldn't be in the middle lane on a bike (you had to be in the middle lane at that junction unless you were turning left).

Here in Holland no one bothers with helmets, because you don't need them for normal cycling. If someone hits a cyclist with their car here they are absolutely crucified, whereas in the UK it is just considered an unfortunate accident. If they took a harder line with careless motorists who hit cyclists it would do far more to reduce head injuries than forcing people to wear helmets, with the added bonus that MORE people would get out there and start cycling."


----------



## garrilla (28 Apr 2009)

I've never been convinced by the helmet safety issue allthough I do wear one, partly to assuage mrsGarrilla as she worries that a lorry will run over my head (when a helmet with do sweet FA) and to add to visibility.

I read a lot of material from the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and essentially the academic research on the matter is unclear and there is little significant eveidence for use one way or another.

On this basis I think compulsion is unhelpful and people should make up their own minds whether they do so from ignorance or from a well researched position.


----------



## Alembicbassman (28 Apr 2009)

Even a low speed head injury can be fatal, e.g. Natasha Richardson's skiing accident. A British Standard helmet is less than £20 (I got a Bell Venture from Amazon for £18.47) Granted, it will not protect in all accidents, but head injuries are very complex. I'd rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (28 Apr 2009)

Should be a personal choice, made on how & where you ride i.e. assessing the risks.

My personal choice is to utilise the lid.

[I also now wear elbow pads, as the last & only knock I had resulted in a poorly arm!]


----------



## HJ (28 Apr 2009)

magnatom said:


> There is some new research on helmet compulsion which I thought some might find interesting. It seems that compulsion would result in greater health care costs....



Do pay attention Mag, I post that piece of research on a helmet thread a couple of weeks ago  Nice to see that New Scientist has final caught up as well...


----------



## HJ (28 Apr 2009)

Alembicbassman said:


> Even a low speed head injury can be fatal, e.g. Natasha Richardson's skiing accident. A British Standard helmet is less than £20 (I got a Bell Venture from Amazon for £18.47) Granted, it will not protect in all accidents, but head injuries are very complex. I'd rather be safe than sorry.



But there is no evidence that if she had been wearing a helmet it would have made any difference. Donald Dewar tripped and banged his head while walking, but one goes around saying he wouldn't have died if had being wearing a helmet... 

It is just irrational, to suggest that everyone who has suffered a head injury should have been wearing a helmet...


----------



## Alembicbassman (28 Apr 2009)

From a legal standpoint not wearing a helmet would be considered as contributory negligence in a personal injury claim against a driver who caused you a head injury unles you could produce compelling medical evidence to the suggest a helmet would have made no difference, such expert witnesses would be very expensive.


----------



## HJ (28 Apr 2009)

Alembicbassman said:


> From a legal standpoint not wearing a helmet *would* be considered as contributory negligence in a personal injury claim against a driver who caused you a head injury unles you could produce compelling medical evidence to the suggest a helmet would have made no difference, such expert witnesses would be very expensive.



Can you actually point to a single case where this _has_ happened? Car insurance company lawyers have tried it on a few times but it has never been proved in court...


----------



## Greenbank (28 Apr 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> Can you actually point to a single case where this _has_ happened? Car insurance company lawyers have tried it on a few times but it has never been proved in court...



It hasn't. It's scaremongering and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) which is one of the main reasons people decide to wear a helmet. That and the belief that it must only help prevent injuries and couldn't possibly make otherwise innocuous injuries worse (google: cycle helmet torsional neck injury).

Don't get me wrong, I'll never criticise someone for wearing a helmet. It's their choice and I'm pro-choice. Under most circumstances I'll chose not to, sometimes I do. I just hate (yes hate) people who blather on about someone being "stupid" for not wearing one.


----------



## Crankarm (29 Apr 2009)

MickL said:


> Here in Holland no one bothers with helmets, because you don't need them for normal cycling. If someone hits a cyclist with their car here they are absolutely crucified, whereas in the UK it is just considered an unfortunate accident.



Badge of honour more like it .



MickL said:


> If they took a harder line with careless motorists who hit cyclists it would do far more to reduce head injuries than forcing people to wear helmets, with the added bonus that MORE people would get out there and start cycling."



Yep 100% agree. It is my belief, correct me if I'm wrong, congraulate me if I'm not , that in Holland when a car is incollision with a cyclist the presumption is that the driver was at fault/negligent and they have to prove they were not. Where as here in the UK the claimant, more often the cyclist, has to show that the driver was at fault/negligent. The driver doesn't have to establish anything merely rebutt what is put to him/her.

If there were a massive attitudinal change in UK to match the Dutch model then we could all cycle without helmets, without clothes even ; but that is never going to happen . So in the meantime move to Holland .


----------



## Alembicbassman (29 Apr 2009)

Since most PI claims are settled out of court it's unlikely there'll be a imminent ruling on contributory neglignece regarding the wearing of helmets.

However, the Highway Code states you should wear a helmet and the Highway Code _is_ used as persuasive evidence in many driving related court cases, although it in itself is not actually statute Law.

Rule 45:

You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations 
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights 
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light 
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark

This excerpt is taken from the CDF website:

"If running the contributory negligence argument as a Defendant, support may be taken from Royal Mail who since October 2003 have required their 37,000 cycling postmen and women to wear helmets. This move was called for following the deaths of 5 cycling post workers in the 3 years up to 2001."

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-law

The amount of potential reduction for contributory negligence will be more than the cost of a £20 helmet.

Insurance firms employ expert legal personnel in this field, you would face an uphill battle arguing for 100% damages. If you lost you'd be liable for costs. Hence most PI claims are settled out of court.


----------



## 4F (29 Apr 2009)

*SHOULD *does not mean *MUST*. A bit like where the HC which says cyclists *SHOULD* use cycle lanes. Also shame you missed this bit out of that cut and paste job from the CTC site.

The problems arise because so few cyclists have insurance and so have limited access to legal advice. Many of the claims are relatively low in overall value. The pressure is therefore on to achieve a swift settlement at a low cost – the only chance of keeping the litigation cost effective. Such constraints inevitably lead to a measure of rough justice. A reduction in liability to reflect litigation risk and failure to wear a cycle helmet must often be taken to prevent the lengthy costly research required or the instruction of experts. The views of the experts are polarised. Studies support and condemn cycle helmets. Such conflicts lead to lengthy and expensive litigation. Each settlement reached in a low level case is then fed into the insurance industry statistics and over time an “industry standard” reduction arises. It is only in the very largest cases that a challenge to this standard can be raised. Yet it is these very cases when the argument in favour of wearing a cycle helmet is likely to be weakest.


----------



## Greenbank (29 Apr 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> *SHOULD *does not mean *MUST*. A bit like where the HC which says cyclists *SHOULD* use cycle lanes. Also shame you missed this bit out of that cut and paste job from the CTC site.



Yes, but that's not the point he was making.

From the HWC http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

"
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
"


----------



## Davidc (29 Apr 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Badge of honour more like it .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was told that a few years ago when I hired bikes there, and also when I hired a car there. I was also told that there are a few exceptions - you are responsible for keeping out of the way of trams for example.

I've cycled around The Hague/ Delft/ Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and a few smaller places, and it's much more pleasant than here with a culture which sees cycling as a normal means of transport and cyclists as being superior beings to motorists! You even get motorists hooting and gesticulating at peds for walking in cycle lanes (which is also illegal I believe)

Don't think much of tram lines or speed bumps on cycle roads though.

Like the author of the report in the OP I didn't wear a helmet in the Netherlands but do in the UK


----------



## summerdays (29 Apr 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> But there is no evidence that if she had been wearing a helmet it would have made any difference. Donald Dewar tripped and banged his head while walking, but one goes around saying he wouldn't have died if had being wearing a helmet...
> 
> It is just irrational, to suggest that everyone who has suffered a head injury should have been wearing a helmet...



I should of made my 8 yo keep his on when after he came back from school yesterday... he did fell over a wall and landed head first on tarmac whilst playing. Hopefully he will have learnt to show the wall a bit more respect. 

I was a bit worried this morning when he chose to sleep in by 20 mins which he never ever does. 

I do think that a change in the law would be of more benifit than helmets in protecting cyclists and other road users too (I presume the law in Holland applies to pedestrians too?).


----------



## semislickstick (29 Apr 2009)

Davidc said:


> I've cycled around The Hague/ Delft/ Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and a few smaller places, and it's much more pleasant than here with a culture which sees cycling as a normal means of transport and cyclists as being superior beings to motorists! You even get motorists hooting and gesticulating at peds for walking in cycle lanes (which is also illegal I believe)



Yes, late at night after a concert in Amsterdam I walked in a cycle path to avoid building work on the path and got very grumpy cyclists telling me off for something, I assumed it was being in their lane....but it was in Dutch, they weren't happy but they could have been saying anything! I haven't done it since! (plus you have to watch for Scooters using them)
It's good that they stand up and make a point of protecting the lane's use.


----------



## MartinC (29 Apr 2009)

Alembicbassman said:


> Since most PI claims are settled out of court it's unlikely there'll be a imminent ruling on contributory neglignece regarding the wearing of helmets.



In all the cases where this issue has been contested in court no-one has yet won a reduction damages for contributory negligence by not wearing a helmet.

In a recent case (google for it) a Judge ruled that it could be contibutory negligence if the defendant could show that the helmet would've made a difference. He rejected the contributory negligence claim in the case before him. An expert witness would struggle to show that a helmet could've made a difference anyway. More specifically it's also generally accepted that cycle helmets can't protect you in a collision with a motor vehicle or when travelling at more than 12mph - in effect this means that the Judge has more or less precluded the contributory negligence argument in any motor vehicle accident.

The idea that damages will be reduced, or that these cases have never or never will go to court is untrue and is just baseless scaremongering.


----------



## MartinC (29 Apr 2009)

Alembicbassman said:


> "If running the contributory negligence argument as a Defendant, support may be taken from Royal Mail who since October 2003 have required their 37,000 cycling postmen and women to wear helmets. This move was called for following the deaths of 5 cycling post workers in the 3 years up to 2001."



The Royal Mail rescinded this requirement shortly afterwards. It's no longer in place. Not a helpful precedent if you want to argue contributory negligence.


----------



## Bollo (29 Apr 2009)

Remember that insurers will use helmet arguments and contributory negligence as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the injured party. Its about horse trading, not the law.

When I was hit in 2007, the driver's insurers tried the helmet argument despite me suffering no head injuries. They also tried to reduce the claim based on the fact that I wasn't wearing Hi-Viz (remember that hi-viz is another HC 'should') even though it was a bright sunny day, I was wearing a light top and I was clearly visible to the driver - he just failed to look. I instructed my solicitor that I would fight any argument based on contributrary negligence. His insurers accepted that their gambit wasn't going to change anything and caved for the full amount.

While a claim is being settled out of court, its a free for all and insurers on both sides will try it on using arguments both fair and foul. Ultimately they're interested in minimising their exposure. Morality, fairness and legal precident have nothing to do with it until the case hits a court where, up until now at least, helmet cases have been thrown out.


----------



## very-near (29 Apr 2009)

I have emailed http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/ this morning as they test and rate motorcycle helmets asking whether they have plans to test cycle hats to offer a rating on them also. Whether I get a favourable response is anyone's guess though..


----------



## Alembicbassman (29 Apr 2009)

MartinC said:


> In a recent case (google for it) a Judge ruled that it could be contibutory negligence if the defendant could show that the helmet would've made a difference. He rejected the contributory negligence claim in the case before him.



Granted, if you broke a leg a helmet would not have helped, or if the car ran over your skull.

The wearing of a helmet is to mitigate head injuries, so the case has to be one involving a head injury where 'on the balance of probabilities' a helmet would have had an effect on the outcome.

If the insurers persuade the court 51% to 49% that a helmet would have reduced the injury then you lose.

Each case turns on its own merits, that's why legal teams have a right of rebuttal when a previous judgment is used as a precedent in any case brought.


----------



## HJ (30 Apr 2009)

That is just more scaremongering... it would be very hard to show that 'on the balance of probabilities' a helmet would have had an effect on the outcome give the body of evidence out there that cycle helmets proved little protection in the first place...

The real problem is the laws in this country make cyclist second class citizens. Traffic regulations and laws are very different in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany compared to the UK. Motorists are generally required to anticipate the movements of cyclists and avoid potentially dangerous situations. Further, unless it can be proved that a cyclist deliberately caused a crash, motorists are held legally responsible for most collisions. Traffic regulations covering all road users are in general more rigorously enforced than in the UK ensuring greater compliance among both cyclists and motorists. It is likely that this approach to traffic regulations helps to increase the real and perceived safety of cycling, thus addressing one of the most frequently stated barriers to cycling...


----------



## Tynan (30 Apr 2009)

same tired old nonsense

the helemt protects up to 12mph or whatever and then suddenlt offers no protection? yeah ok

and falling/coming off a bike is not the same level of risk as falling over while walking or scootering, you;re far more liable to go down hard, that bike will trip you up and stop you recovering as you fall

why bother with these threads, it's so bloody old by now surely?


----------



## Dan B (30 Apr 2009)

Kinetic energy in a collision doubles between 12mph and 17mph, so while I doubt that it "suddenly" offers no protection, the protective ability does trail off pretty rapidly ...

Coming off a bike is not the same level of risk as falling over while walking, but for ordinary utility cycling the two are both unlikely enough that the need for a helmet in either case is pretty debatable.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Apr 2009)

Alembicbassman said:


> Even a low speed head injury can be fatal, e.g. Natasha Richardson's skiing accident. A British Standard helmet is less than £20 (I got a Bell Venture from Amazon for £18.47) Granted, it will not protect in all accidents, but head injuries are very complex. I'd rather be safe than sorry.



Once again - that is the reason why the group that suffers the most head injuries should wear them...............Pedestrians.


----------



## 4F (30 Apr 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> Once again - that is the reason why the group that suffers the most head injuries should wear them...............Pedestrians.



Cunobelin, welcome to the thread


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> I have emailed http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/ this morning as they test and rate motorcycle helmets asking whether they have plans to test cycle hats to offer a rating on them also. Whether I get a favourable response is anyone's guess though..



There is no interest....

Helmets have become less and less eficient over the last ten years, and the standards "dumbed down" to suit fashion.

As you increase the number of vents you decrease tha amount of material available to absorb energy and aslo have to "stiffen" the remainder. his increased density further compromises theit effectiveness.

The "Gold Standard" of (both cycle and motorcycle helmets) - Snell Foundation testing used to be the B95, and there are now NO helmets on the UK market that can pass this test and a few which will pass the lower B90

THe much inferior EN1078 allows these inefficient helmets to be marketed with an illusion of safety that many people simply accept.


----------



## Bollo (30 Apr 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> There is no interest....
> 
> Helmets have become less and less eficient over the last ten years, and the standards "dumbed down" to suit fashion.



I've nothing other than anecdote to support this, but I'd heard that the helmet manufacturers lobbied hard when a European standard was proposed to water it down in order to keep production and testing costs low and margins high.


----------



## Baggy (30 Apr 2009)

Greenbank said:


> It hasn't. It's scaremongering and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) which is one of the main reasons people decide to wear a helmet. That and the belief that it must only help prevent injuries and couldn't possibly make otherwise innocuous injuries worse (google: cycle helmet torsional neck injury).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'll never criticise someone for wearing a helmet. It's their choice and I'm pro-choice. Under most circumstances I'll chose not to, sometimes I do. I just hate (yes hate) people who blather on about someone being "stupid" for not wearing one.



Greenbank, thank you for expressing this so well. 

I'm sick to death of being told that I "really should wear a helmet", particularly when it comes from someone who last went near a bike when they sneaked behind the shed for a ciggie inbetween lessons...


----------



## Crankarm (30 Apr 2009)

I think the helmet detractors are in denial. When you are dead or brain damaged and your family is grieving or reflecting on your vegatative state they will be saying....... if only he/she had been wearing a helmet. Whether they are BS or Tuv approved or have a CE mark I don't care ffs. If you don't wear one fine but don't start trying to justify why you don't to those who do. Justify why you don't wear one to your partners and families. Those who wear one do so because whatever protection they do offer has got to be a whole lot better than the protection offered by not wearing one. Wearing one might just save my life or reduce the likelihood of brain injury. If you don't wear a helmet great but you've got no right telling those who chose to they shouldn't or they are misguided. The first thing you will be asked if you're knocked down and you’re still conscious and hopefully you will be is "Have you hit your head?" The emergency services ask this as the brain is the most important muscle in your body and any impact to it can be potentially serious. That's what they asked me when I was knocked downin 1999. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. They still did checks on my head to see if I was concussed having hit the road. Once satisfied I was not they attended to my other injuries. I was wearing a helmet. I have had 4 helmets since then and each being slightly better than the previous one. I would not cycle without a helmet. Unfortunately those cyclists who are in collisions with vehicles where wearing a helmet may have prevented their death can never enter the helmet debate as they are dead .


----------



## Greenbank (30 Apr 2009)

The plural of anecdote is not data.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Apr 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I think the helmet detractors are in denial. When you are dead or brain damaged and your family is grieving or reflecting on your vegatative state they will be saying....... if only he/she had been wearing a helmet. Whether they are BS or Tuv approved or have a CE mark I don't care ffs. If you don't wear one fine but don't start trying to justify why you don't to those who do. Justify why you don't wear one to your partners and families. Those who wear one do so because whatever protection they do offer has got to be a whole lot better than the protection offered by not wearing one. Wearing one might just save my life or reduce the likelihood of brain injury. If you don't wear a helmet great but you've got no right telling those who chose to they shouldn't or they are misguided. The first thing you will be asked if you're knocked down and you’re still conscious and hopefully you will be is "Have you hit your head?" The emergency services ask this as the brain is the most important muscle in your body and any impact to it can be potentially serious. That's what they asked me when I was knocked downin 1999. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. They still did checks on my head to see if I was concussed having hit the road. Once satisfied I was not they attended to my other injuries. I was wearing a helmet. I have had 4 helmets since then and each being slightly better than the previous one. I would not cycle without a helmet. Unfortunately those cyclists who are in collisions with vehicles where wearing a helmet may have prevented their death can never enter the helmet debate as they are dead .



Now do you apply all that to pedestrians?

If not why not?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Apr 2009)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Cunobelin, welcome to the thread



Didn't want to disappont my public!


----------



## Bollo (30 Apr 2009)

Crank,

You've got yourself all worked up. Pedestrians suffer more head injuries than cyclists. Should we all wear a helmet when walking? Head injuries are a cause of death in a significant proportion of car accidents. Should we all wear helmets in cars?

There are two separate points here - the first is that cycling is safe. The second is that the case for helmets making cycling safer is debatable. How you feel and how strongly you feel it makes absolutely no difference.

Much of the problem with the helmet debate is that it's become so polarised. A lot of the research, both pro and anti, has shown to be flawed or partisan which makes it difficult for anyone to make an objective decision. Even the sound research can be manipulated to score points either way. But the decision about whether to wear a helmet should be objective and not based on emotional blackmail.


----------



## Bollo (30 Apr 2009)

I'll chuck another observation into the mix. Pick up a cycling magazine and look at the helmet adverts. What are they selling? More comfortable, more vents, more stylish, more professional, more colourful - these are the things that the adverts sell. Any mention of safety? Any claim that one particular brand of helmet is safer than the others? Any claims at all for safety? Remind me what helmets are for again?


----------



## Dan B (30 Apr 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I think the helmet detractors are in denial


I think Crankarm is a bit excited?


----------



## Tynan (30 Apr 2009)

peds aren't likely to hit ther head as hard as cyclists and there's an awful lot more of them, cars have seat belts, crash cages, air bags, and there's an awful lot more of them

dismissing 'anecdotes' is well, dismissive, they're still facts

when products all all the same in function, ie to a standard, they have to compete on other factors like colour and style, look at car adverts,


----------



## very-near (30 Apr 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> There is no interest....
> 
> Helmets have become less and less eficient over the last ten years, and the standards "dumbed down" to suit fashion.
> 
> ...



Whilst in the absence of real numbers, my last HJC carbon fibre m/cycle lid saved my friends life a few weeks ago. It received a 5 star rating from SHARP and he stated that took entirely the initial impact of a 12 stone man hitting the road head first at between 50 and 60 mph.
He had no spinal, no neck and no head injuries despite receiving a broken femur, hip, and 3 break each in his radius and ulna in the force of the impact as the car drove across his path, so you will appreciate he took one huge knock on unprotected areas.

The lid was obviously junk afterwards, but its performance in real life convinced me to replace it with another very similar carbon fibre lid from the same manufacturer.

SHARP state there is a 70% difference between the best and worst performing m/cycle lids they have tested to date. Some of the cheaper chinese £70 lids performed better in the tests than the £600 Arais on offer so I'd always welcome this info to make a better informed choice when getting the cheque book out.

I've got a MET cycle hat and would be keen to know how it would rate (bit pointless wearing one otherwise)

At the end of the day though, the best quality lid is the world is useless if it doesn't fit the rider properly.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> At the end of the day though, the best quality lid in the world is useless if it doesn't fit the rider properly.



There has not been a wiser piece of advice written in the whole of this thread .


----------



## Bollo (30 Apr 2009)

Tynan said:


> peds aren't likely to hit ther head as hard as cyclists and there's an awful lot more of them, cars have seat belts, crash cages, air bags, and there's an awful lot more of them
> 
> dismissing 'anecdotes' is well, dismissive, they're still facts
> 
> when products all all the same in function, ie to a standard, they have to compete on other factors like colour and style, look at car adverts,



If peds don't hit their heads so hard, why are there so many head injuries? If airbags and roll cages work so well, why are drivers and passengers still dying of head injuries. Isn't the point that we could reduce head injuries by wearing helmets all the time, whether walking, cycling or driving? Why pick on cycling?

Here's an anecdote from the lady who cuts my hair - her brother is a lunatic driver. Recently he rolled his car but, as he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, he was thrown from the driver's seat across to the passenger's side. Good job, because the driver's side of the car was crushed. If he'd have been wearing a seatbelt, he'd have been held in the driver's seat and crushed to death. So - SEATBELTS KILL! Although its an anecdote, its also true.

Like C said, the EN standard for helmets is minimal, but there's no law that stops a manufacturer making a better helmet. Wouldn't a manufacturer wishing to gain competitive advantage develop a helmet that exceeds the minimum standard by X amount? Look at the car manufacturers that regularly advertise their ENCAP rating - Volvo's entire brand is based on safety. It's perfectly legal to buy a car with a one star rating, but why would you want to? So, the question is still valid. Why has no helmet maker ever tried to gain competitive advantage based on the helmet's only meaningful purpose?


----------



## Bollo (30 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Whilst in the absence of real numbers, my last HJC carbon fibre m/cycle lid saved my friends life a few weeks ago. It received a 5 star rating from SHARP and he stated that took entirely the initial impact of a 12 stone man hitting the road head first at between 50 and 60 mph.
> He had no spinal, no neck and no head injuries despite receiving a broken femur, hip, and 3 break each in his radius and ulna in the force of the impact as the car drove across his path, so you will appreciate he took one huge knock on unprotected areas.
> 
> The lid was obviously junk afterwards, but its performance in real life convinced me to replace it with another very similar carbon fibre lid from the same manufacturer.
> ...



That's a lot of the problem - people see the word helmet and imagine that a cycle helmet and a motorcycle or motorsport helmet are roughly the same thing. They're not - the protection offered by a motorcycle helmet is orders of magnitude higher than that for a cycle helmet. If you called cycle helmets something like "polystyrene hats", do you think people would have the same belief in their abilities to protect? But that's all they are.

For all my bids in this pissing contest, I still wear a helmet when I'm out on my road bike, because I think it can offer some limited protection if I slide off on a corner or have a clipless moment. When I'm commuting, I don't bother.


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Apr 2009)

A motorcycle helmet is also a polystyrene hat ...


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> That's a lot of the problem - people see the word helmet and imagine that a cycle helmet and a motorcycle or motorsport helmet are roughly the same thing. They're not - the protection offered by a motorcycle helmet is orders of magnitude higher than that for a cycle helmet. If you called cycle helmets something like "polystyrene hats", do you think people would have the same belief in their abilities to protect? But that's all they are.
> 
> For all my bids in this pissing contest, I still wear a helmet when I'm out on my road bike, because I think it can offer some limited protection if I slide off on a corner or have a clipless moment. When I'm commuting, I don't bother.



A consideration is this. The initial impact is going to be the greatest one.

The lid my friend was wearing has visual deformation on the shell where it appears to have bent and popped back into place again as the painted design has peeled off and there is a massive graze just above the ear

Now if my mates head was against this shell with no styrene liner, his skull would have been crushed. If the energy was transfered directly to his brain, he would be eating his dinner through a tube now (or dead)

Whilst a cycle hat has a very thin plastic shell on it, it is the styrene in it which is doing all the work, and it matter not one bit if the shell does split as long as the lid doesn't break up in impact.

The loads are obviously lower for a cycling hat but the fundamental way in which they work are one an the same - the liner soaks up the energy not the shell.

I chose carbon fibre as it is just as strong but lighter and so would offer less mass to snap my head off with in the event I have to test it out.


----------



## HJ (1 May 2009)

Tynan said:


> peds aren't likely to hit ther head as hard as cyclists



Why??


----------



## byegad (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> A motorcycle helmet is also a polystyrene hat ...



But built to a much higher specifications and a lot heavier. I wouldn't pedal in a motorcycle helmet for any amount of money.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Nor me, but the 'polystyrene hat' label seems to me to be used in a dismissive way. The reality is that polystyrene is an excellent material for protecting your brain, because it crushes progressively and thus slows your brain gently.

Polystyrene is one of the best materials in the world for preventing or lessening brain injury, which is why it is used in motorcycle helmets and F1 helmets.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

Alembicbassman said:


> Granted, if you broke a leg a helmet would not have helped, or if the car ran over your skull.
> 
> The wearing of a helmet is to mitigate head injuries, so the case has to be one involving a head injury where 'on the balance of probabilities' a helmet would have had an effect on the outcome.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about Smith vs. Finch (2009) where the cyclist suffered serious head injuries. The judge ruled that because the victim had hit the ground at more than 12mph no helmet could've prevented or mitigated the injury.

Yes, insurance companies will always try it on. They haven't won a case yet. If they want to they need to find credible expert witnesses who can make a sound case that a cycling helmet could've mitigated the injury. Despite having the financial motivation and resources to find these (if they exist) they haven't been able to. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Which is a bizarre basis for the ruling. Helmets are not 100% effective at 12.00mph and 0% effective at 12.01mph - they become progressively less effective the higher the impact speed.

At typical cycling speeds, you will almost always be better off with a helmet than without one (and yes, I'm aware of the torsional neck injury argument, but in most cases a helmet skin is slippier than a skull, so torsional injuries will occur with or without a helmet and logic would suggest they are more common without).


----------



## Dan B (1 May 2009)

FWIW, 13mph is the speed at which you'd hit the ground in a fall from 2 metres. Obviously this assumes you'd fall straight over and not use an outstretched limb or twist to break your fall (quite hard to do, usually), and there's a whole discussion we're not having about the difference between the speed you're moving at before the accident and the actual speed of contact with the ground, but this does indicate that pedestrians may well "use" a cycle helmet at up to its design limit.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> I'm talking about Smith vs. Finch (2009) where the cyclist suffered serious head injuries. The judge ruled that because the victim had hit the ground at more than 12mph no helmet could've prevented or mitigated the injury.
> 
> Yes, insurance companies will always try it on. They haven't won a case yet. If they want to they need to find credible expert witnesses who can make a sound case that a cycling helmet could've mitigated the injury. Despite having the financial motivation and resources to find these (if they exist) they haven't been able to. Draw your own conclusions.



I can show you the lid, and you can meet the wearer (he lives in Leckhampton) for first hand testimony if you have any doubt as to the effectiveness of crash helmets in an impact which was considerably higher than 12mph.

I would be interested to know if styrene thickness on a cycle hat is a great deal thinner or less dense/more dense than that used in m/cycling hats. 

What I don't really like about cycle hats is the leaning in design aesthetics towards swoopy lumps and bumps on them.

They have managed to make m/cycle crash helmets look good without resorting to useless styling features so why not for cycling hats ?


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

My biggest accident was downhill at 25-30mph.

I was young and foolish, and thought it a good idea to bomb between two lanes of slow-moving traffic. The inevitable happened and someone changed lanes in front of me. I hit their front wing, completely cleared their bonnet and head-butted the road. The impact speed was certainly well above 12mph.

The helmet did its job of absorbing impact by crushing. It ended up with barely more than the thickness of the shell. I had a slight concussion.

I would not have liked to have attempted those aerobatics without a helmet.

So yes, highly effective up to 12mph and progressively less effective at higher speeds, but far from useless.


----------



## HJ (1 May 2009)

Time to bring in an expert witness...



> When considering the gain to be achieved through the wearing of cycle helmets, real-world evidence of performance is a key factor. But it is also important to keep head injury when cycling in perspective.
> 
> Road cyclists account for less than 1% of the people admitted to British hospitals with head injuries. Other road users suffer many more head injuries than cyclists, and still more occur in the home and at work.
> 
> ...



From Cycle Helmet Performance in the Real World. John Franklin,
Consultant in Cycling Skills and Safety, Cheltenham. A presentation to the Gloucestershire Accident Action Group, 24th June 2002.


----------



## Greenbank (1 May 2009)

Many problems in helmet debates are caused by one of several assumptions (i'll start with just two):-

a) Just because someone wearing a helmet survived an accident does not mean that they would have died if they were not wearing one. No matter how much damage was done to the helmet you simply don't know what would have happened.

 Just because someone died not wearing a helmet does not mean that they would have survived if they were wearing one.

I stop reading when someone starts with the "He would have definitely died had he not been wearing one" line. It's not debate, it's opinion stated as fact.

Again, I'm pro-choice. I'm not anti-helmet.


----------



## gdean (1 May 2009)

Nice video here:


View: http://vimeo.com/4381805


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

I think I am not that average cyclist, as I've managed to headbutt the road three times in 41 years. :-)

But I agree with the broader point. While I personally think helmets make sense (and modern ones are light enough and cool enough that I see no downside), cycling remains a very safe activity. I also fully support freedom of choice on helmets.


----------



## Greenbank (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Which is a bizarre basis for the ruling. Helmets are not 100% effective at 12.00mph and 0% effective at 12.01mph - they become progressively less effective the higher the impact speed.



Exactly, but it goes to show that there are uninformed/stupid people on both sides of the debate.


----------



## bonj2 (1 May 2009)

What i can't get my head round with this 12mph thing, is does that refer to the speed you are travelling along at when you crash, or the speed with which your head hits the ground?
Because the two could be very different.
Or is it assumed that they are not? And if so is this a valid assumption?


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Indeed. It is unfortunately one of those debates that tends to polarise people, and I really should know better by now than to engage in one. :-)

Where I think the vast majority of us on both sides of the debate can agree is that the choice should be down to the individual.

Ben, pro-choice helmet-wearer


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Which is a bizarre basis for the ruling. Helmets are not 100% effective at 12.00mph and 0% effective at 12.01mph - they become progressively less effective the higher the impact speed.
> 
> At typical cycling speeds, you will almost always be better off with a helmet than without one (and yes, I'm aware of the torsional neck injury argument, but in most cases a helmet skin is slippier than a skull, so torsional injuries will occur with or without a helmet and logic would suggest they are more common without).



These are both assumptions. In court you'd have to justify them.

Bear in mind that the effectiveness (I assume you're defining it as energy absorption) doesn't vary linearly. If you subject the helmet to enough force it will break up. In these circumstances the amount of energy it absorped before it broke is a total unknown and could even be close to zero. So at some impact speed the helmet performance may drop off markedly creating the "bizarre" circumstance you describe.

Your second point is an assertion presumably based, I guess, on intuition and common sense. A typical cycling speed is probably between 8mph and 30mph. This quite challenging for helmet engineering. You also need to define what you mean by better off (less dead? no grazes?). In the court scenario this would have to be quantifiable and substantive

The potential effect of a helmet on torsional injuries is derived much more from the effective increase (and thus increase in torque applied by a glancing blow) in head diameter than in differences in friction.

There's also a big Catch 22 in all of this. The vast majority of cases that come to court will be off the back of traffic accidents where a motor vehicle was involved. Since it's generally accepted that helmets can't be effective in accidents involving other vehicles it seems unlikely that anyone would ever make the case for contributory negligence.


----------



## semislickstick (1 May 2009)

I think the 12mph drop kerb test is the European standard. (minimum) Some helmet's are tested beyond this, some a lot better than others, the old ANSI standard is a higher rated standard isn't it? 
The testing could do with an update I reckon!
Just cos one years make and model saved you at 20-25mph doesn't mean they all will or even the next years slightly changed model will.
I don't think they test for how badly the extra width on your head will be damaging to your neck on impact or the pointy, slightly aero design do they? I've been wondering whether the skate style helmets(that meet the cycle standard) are better....with a chin guard!


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Actually, the relationship between the degree of crushing and the amount of force absorbed is measurable, so we could indeed tell how much force was absorbed prior to a helmet breaking.

Better off = sufficient force absorbed to achieve any of the following:
- turning a fatal impact into a surviveable one
- turning a severe brain injury into a lesser one
- turning a minor brain injury into no brain injury

A helmet does increase the diamete of the head, but helmet skins are required to be slippery precisely to increase the chances of the head sliding rather than grabbing and rotating. Scalps are not slippery.

Helmets will be ineffective in *some* accidents involving motor vehicles, and effective in others. Just as in accidents not involving motor vehicles.


----------



## Dan B (1 May 2009)

semislickstick said:


> I've been wondering whether the skate style helmets(that meet the cycle standard) are better....with a chin guard!


Not at 12mph, no. Your head will overheat

Speedskaters almost invariably wear cycle helmets instead, for exactly that reason


----------



## summerdays (1 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> The first thing you will be asked if you're knocked down and you’re still conscious and hopefully you will be is "Have you hit your head?" The emergency services ask this as the brain is the most important muscle in your body and any impact to it can be potentially serious. That's what they asked me when I was knocked downin 1999. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. They still did checks on my head to see if I was concussed having hit the road. Once satisfied I was not they attended to my other injuries.



In my last accident they asked the same question which seemed a bit pointless as that was all they did. Other than asking if anywhere other than my arm hurt at no point did they appear to check head. As it was I hadn't hurt it - but there was no point asking the question other than finding out that I had been wearing one.


----------



## col (1 May 2009)

For those times when an impact is on the helmet, it will save some, even if its a minority of all the types of impacts out there.


----------



## Dan B (1 May 2009)

I was asked that question on Wednesday night too, after a fall from (I estimate) about 15mph. Answer "yes", but knees and elbows absorbed most of the force first


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

gdean said:


> Nice video here:
> 
> View: http://vimeo.com/4381805




Excellent stuff. Have cycled a few times in Amsterdam, and always enjoyed it. It's a bit of a slower pace than London, but very pleasant.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Actually, the relationship between the degree of crushing and the amount of force absorbed is measurable, so we could indeed tell how much force was absorbed prior to a helmet breaking.
> 
> Better off = sufficient force absorbed to achieve any of the following:
> - turning a fatal impact into a surviveable one
> ...



A sensible summary.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Actually, the relationship between the degree of crushing and the amount of force absorbed is measurable, so we could indeed tell how much force was absorbed prior to a helmet breaking.
> 
> Better off = sufficient force absorbed to achieve any of the following:
> - turning a fatal impact into a surviveable one
> ...



OK. Not trying to be confrontational but just trying to apply som rigour to the arguments.

If you were in the Smith vs. Finch case appearing as an expert witness for the insurance company and presented the above the questions you would get are:

You've measured the amount of energy the helmet absorped. Can you tell us the energy required to produce the head injury in question and is the amount saved relevant?

In the "better off" scenarios you describe can you tell us the amount of force reduction required to achieve each of these - either generically or for this particular set of circumstances.

Helmets don't increase the size of the head but the laws of physics show that they allow a force to be applied to the head with a larger moment. Yes or no?

So you believe that helmets can be effective in some accidents with motor vehicles. Tell us what the differentiating factors are are how they apply to this accident.

Without the answers it's speculation.


----------



## Greenbank (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> A helmet does increase the diamete of the head, but helmet skins are required to be slippery precisely to increase the chances of the head sliding rather than grabbing and rotating. Scalps are not slippery.



As MartinC above says, it's not just the friction. The increased diameter increases the chance of an impact, it also increases the chance of the head grabbing and rotating.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

None of us are in a position to 'apply rigour' to the facts of that particular case, because we're not privy to them.

What we can do is look at the general factors. 

So far as I can see, nobody disputes that helmets sometimes help and sometimes don't. The arguments relate to the proportion of each case, and we're all speculating there.


----------



## col (1 May 2009)

Greenbank said:


> As MartinC above says, it's not just the friction. The increased diameter increases the chance of an impact, it also increases the chance of the head grabbing and rotating.



But isnt the head with its skin or hair more grippy than smooth plastic? And the number of times the extra two inches of diameter the helmet actually gives contributes to injury, is less or more than not wearing it at all?


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> OK. Not trying to be confrontational but just trying to apply som rigour to the arguments.
> 
> If you were in the Smith vs. Finch case appearing as an expert witness for the insurance company and presented the above the questions you would get are:
> 
> ...



Can you describe this 'larger moment' in more detail in relation to a helmeted head and an unhelmeted head ?

Given that some people have a pre-disposition to a minor knock giving a fatal brain injury (Natasha Richardson), then this is not out of the question that a helmet would help them irrespective of however fast or slow they travel.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

very-near said:


> Can you describe this 'larger moment' in more detail in relation to a helmeted head and an unhelmeted head ?
> 
> Given that some people have a pre-disposition to a minorknock giving a fatal brain injury (Natasha Richardson), then this is not out of the question.



Leverage. Instead of the force being applied at distance x from the pivot it's applied at x + y where x is the radius of the head and y the thickness of the helmet.


----------



## col (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Leverage. Instead of the force being applied at distance x from the pivot it's applied at x + y where x is the radius of the head and y the thickness of the helmet.




Ah, thats all clear to me now.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Leverage. Instead of the force being applied at distance x from the pivot it's applied at x + y where x is the radius of the head and y the thickness of the helmet.



So what you are saying is that a baby has less chance of getting brain damage than an adult if they fell onto a hard surface fro the same distance because it has a smaller head ?

A helmeted head has a much slower deceleration curve in an impact than an unhelmeted head. 

The distances involved in the thickness of a styrene lid is not going to make that much difference when your head hits tarmac at 4 metres a second.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> None of us are in a position to 'apply rigour' to the facts of that particular case, because we're not privy to them.
> 
> What we can do is look at the general factors.
> 
> So far as I can see, nobody disputes that helmets sometimes help and sometimes don't. The arguments relate to the proportion of each case, and we're all speculating there.



Absolutely agree. Nobody knows if, when or how much they help. Nobody will be able to know this in any particular case either.

This why I don't think the contributory negligence thing is going anywhere.

All we do know is that large population studies show no benefit from wearing cycle helmets but many people continue to tell us that we should wear them.

This thread started with a post about of the model that had been produced to calculate the cost to a population of introducing compulsory cycle helmets.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

very-near said:


> So what you are saying is that a baby has less chance of getting brain damage than an adult if they fell onto a hard surface fro the same distance because it has a smaller head ?
> 
> A helmeted head has a much slower deceleration curve in an impact than an unhelmeted head.
> 
> The distances involved in the thickness of a styrene lid is not going to make that much difference when your head hits tarmac at 4 metres a second.



You misunderstand.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

The argument about torsional injuries is that the larger effective diameter of the helmeted head generates greater rotational forces.

However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the friction from the scalp is much, much greater than the low-friction surface of a slippery helmet shell.

Taking both into account, I'd expect the rotational forces to be substantially higher without the helmet.


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Absolutely agree. Nobody knows if, when or how much they help.



That's not quite accurate. There is no 'if' - in some proportion of cases, a helmet definitely helps. 'How much' is also measurable after the event, though not predictable beforehand. 'When' is, of course, totally unknown: in some events, it will help, in others it won't, and we can't predict which will be which.



> This why I don't think the contributory negligence thing is going anywhere.



I think that depends on the sums of money involved. Given an accident leaving someone needing 24/7 care for life, it would be worth an insurer spending the cash to do the measurements and hire the relevant experts.

But I'd agree that won't be worthwhile in most cases.



> All we do know is that large population studies show no benefit from wearing cycle helmets



As you know, there are conflicting conclusions from different studies.



> but many people continue to tell us that we should wear them.



Not me. I'll tell anyone why _I_ wear one, and I'll chip in when I see a one-sided argument, but I believe totally in personal choice.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> The argument about torsional injuries is that the larger effective diameter of the helmeted head generates greater rotational forces.
> 
> However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the friction from the scalp is much, much greater than the low-friction surface of a slippery helmet shell.
> 
> Taking both into account, I'd expect the rotational forces to be substantially higher without the helmet.



All speculation. I don't know what the co-efficients of friction are for the surfaces involved. There is a theory that evolution has kept hair on our heads (well some of us anyway) because it's low friction and there's an advantage in avoiding head injuries.

It's complicated further by snagging points - vents, broken helmets etc. If these create the possibility that something may catch on the surface that's struck friction is the least of your problems.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> You misunderstand.



I understand that rotational forces cause spinal injuries, but most impacts are either direct or glancing blows, and are compression impacts not torsional ones. 

It is the bit where the brain marches forward in the skull and gets squashed at one end (ripping the blood vessels) which causes the most damage as I understand it, and these are caused by fast decelerations where the brain can't keep up.


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

very-near said:


> I understand that rotational forces cause spinal injuries, but most impacts are either direct or glancing blows, and are compression impacts not torsional ones.
> 
> It is the bit where the brain marches forward in the skull and gets squashed at one end (ripping the blood vessels) which causes the most damage as I understand it, and these are caused by fast decelerations where the brain can't keep up.



You're right it's the severing of blood vessels and nerve connections that causes brain damage. It's rotational blows that cause a disproportionate amount of this because they create shear forces between parts rotating with different accelerations. Direct blows are more benign - the brain compresses and then recovers with less chance of damaging connections.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> You're right it's the severing of blood vessels and nerve connections that causes brain damage. It's rotational blows that cause a disproportionate amount of this because they create shear forces between parts rotating with different accelerations. Direct blows are more benign - the brain compresses and then recovers with less chance of damaging connections.



Hey Ho, this makes sense. I still think my cycle hat has a lower friction coefficient than my scalp or the underlying bone.

We need a phrenologist on here now to offer a bit more info on this area.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> You're right it's the severing of blood vessels and nerve connections that causes brain damage. It's rotational blows that cause a disproportionate amount of this because they create shear forces between parts rotating with different accelerations. Direct blows are more benign - the brain compresses and then recovers with less chance of damaging connections.




I can confirm that this is true. Rotational head injuries are more serious that direct blows to the head.


----------



## magnatom (1 May 2009)

very-near said:


> Hey Ho, this makes sense. I still think my cycle hat has a lower friction coefficient than my scalp or the underlying bone.
> 
> We need a phrenologist on here now to offer a bit more info on this area.




I think this is what the pro-choicers (myself included) are getting at. It isn't clear cut at all, and although 'common sense' might suggest that a helmet prevents head injuries, the reality is not as simple.

I wear a lid, by the way.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

magnatom said:


> I can confirm that this is true. Rotational head injuries are more serious that direct blows to the head.




I watched a program on the development of the HANS device a few years ago for racing drivers. It has saved a lot of lives as it protects the wearer from Basilar skull injuies


----------



## Dan B (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> All speculation. I don't know what the co-efficients of friction are for the surfaces involved. There is a theory that evolution has kept hair on our heads (well some of us anyway) because it's low friction and there's an advantage in avoiding head injuries.


This should be fairly simple to measure, though, and without vegetablising the test subjects.


----------



## Greenbank (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> The argument about torsional injuries is that the larger effective diameter of the helmeted head generates greater rotational forces.



The increased effective diameter can have a much more profound and direct effect. Obviously an exaggeration but I hope it will illustrate my point; Compare (in your mind, don't try this at home kids) doing a forward roll with nothing on your head to doing a forward roll with a traffic cone firmly attached to your head.

Or, tilt your head as far forward as you can go, right on the limit of it being painful. Now imagine it being pushed a further 1" forward. Repeat for head tilted back or to the side (sounds like the scene from JFK...back and to the side....back and to the side).


----------



## MartinC (1 May 2009)

A lot of the knowledge has come from medical studies of boxing injuries. I believ they modified head guards and re-emphasised the importance of gum shields on the back of it. It's why rugby players wear gum shield now - they use more of the neck and jaw muscles to stop the head rotating on impact. Maybe cyclists should wear them.


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> A lot of the knowledge has come from medical studies of boxing injuries. I believ they modified head guards and re-emphasised the importance of gum shields on the back of it. It's why rugby players wear gum shield now - they use more of the neck and jaw muscles to stop the head rotating on impact. Maybe cyclists should wear them.




Make them out of wine gums and you have yourself a new business


----------



## Dan B (1 May 2009)

Nah, Wiggle will undercut your prices on anything involving wine gums


----------



## very-near (1 May 2009)

coruskate said:


> Nah, Wiggle will undercut your prices on anything involving wine gums



I was too impatient to wait for Wiggle so I opted for my LBS instead. The Techies know their stuff but the sales staff are a bit hit and miss.

They would be rock hard by the time wiggle sent them out.


----------



## Greenbank (1 May 2009)

http://www.lobv.org/15reasons.html is an interesting read. It obviously has an anti-MHL bias and a mild underlying anti-helmet bias which spoils (in my mind) its pro-choice position.

I'll definitely agree with its point about "The only statistically significant trend associated with Mandatory Helmet Laws is a general decrease in bicycling." and the one about being fitted properly ("According to one study, individuals whose helmets were reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold increased risk of head injury compared with those whose helmets fit well." see article for reference to the source paper).

I do like the "helmets reduce the incidence of leg injuries by as much as 72%" claim that can be gleaned from the Seattle ER data though


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Some rather bizarre arguments in there (like a 'properly fitting helmet' being less comfortable than a badly fitting one!), but it does make the point (which I suspect applies to most or all of the studies) that the studies aren't big enough to prove anything one way or the other.

I would also agree completely with the assertion that making helmet use mandatory pretty much guarantees that your data is junk: anyone wearing a helmet just to be legal isn't going to take the trouble to buy and adjust a properly-fitting one.


----------



## HJ (1 May 2009)

There is some interesting theory here, but back in the real world I would like to state for the record that I am also Pro choice. Wear a helmet if you want to, but don't pretend that it is anything more than a fashion statement. If cycle helmets are such a serious aid to road safety how come there data from around the world the show the greater the frequency of cycle helmet wearing, the frequency of cycle fatality?

The following is from the British Medical Journal 



> Do helmets protect the head?
> 
> Experience shows helmets give only limited head protection. Studies in Australia show some prevention of superficial injuries (such as scalp lacerations) but only marginal prevention of “mild” head injuries and no effect on severe head injuries or death. When helmets were made compulsory in Australia, admissions from head injury fell by 15-20%, but the level of cycling fell by 35%. Ten years later, cycling levels in western Australia are still 5-20% below the level they were before the introduction of the law yet head injuries are only 11% lower than would be expected without helmets. Incidentally, 17 times more motorists than cyclists died of head injuries in Australia during 1988.
> 
> ...



My real objection to cycle helmets is the fear mongering used to sell them, road cycling is, for a properly trained cyclist, no more dangerous than walking and yet many people are put off cycling because the think it is dangerous. The perception is that cycling must be dangerous because to have to wear a helmet to ride a bike...


----------



## HJ (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Some rather bizarre arguments in there (like a 'properly fitting helmet' being less comfortable than a badly fitting one!), but it does make the point (which I suspect applies to most or all of the studies) that the studies aren't big enough to prove anything one way or the other.
> 
> I would also agree completely with the assertion that making helmet use mandatory pretty much guarantees that your data is junk: anyone wearing a helmet just to be legal isn't going to take the trouble to buy and adjust a properly-fitting one.



To fit properly a helmet has to be tight, a loose fitting helmet is more comfortable, which is which most cyclist on the road are wearing badly fitting ones. Why you say that "making helmet use mandatory pretty much guarantees that your data is junk", the data is not effected by the law...


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

A properly-fitting helmet needs to be snug, it does not need to be uncomfortably tight. Decent modern helmets have things like thumbwheel systems to ensure the helmet cannot slip but is still comfortable.

The data is indeed affected by the law. Those who _choose_ to wear a helmet will take the trouble to buy a decent one, and properly adjust it. Those who are wearing one only because they are forced to do so by the law will do neither.


----------



## ferret fur (1 May 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> My real objection to cycle helmets is the fear mongering used to sell them, road cycling is, for a properly trained cyclist, no more dangerous than walking and yet many people are put off cycling because the think it is dangerous. The perception is that cycling must be dangerous because to have to wear a helmet to ride a bike...



This is a classic case of inverse logic that keeps getting repeated. People don't think cycling is unsafe because they wear helmets: They wear helmets because they feel unsafe when they are cycling. Perhaps you might like to take a look at these threads:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33164
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33162
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33169
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33139
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33104

All of which feature in this section of the forum and are in the last 15 posts.
Now you can argue about the effectiveness of helmets, but what you can't argue is that if you ride regularly you don't suffer from the dangerous behaviour of other road users. I walk about quite a lot. I have never had this sort of stuff happen to me when I am a pedestrian: It happens all the time when I cycle. That's why I wear a helmet & that is why other people are unwilling to take the perceived risk of cycling.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> A motorcycle helmet is also a polystyrene hat ...



One that is sytructurally sound, has a considerably greater volume of absorbent material, and is not compromised or weakened by vents!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> A helmet does increase the diamete of the head, but helmet skins are required to be slippery precisely to increase the chances of the head sliding rather than grabbing and rotating. Scalps are not slippery.



UNlss like most modern helmets it has squared vents and "snag points" which can arrest this motion and change the energy often causing rotational and torsional stresses that in turn cause a whole new series of brain damage


----------



## ufkacbln (1 May 2009)

According to the "Childrens Hospital" in California, Children whose helmets fit poorly are twice as likely to sustain a head injury in a bicycle crash than children whose helmets fit properly......


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> One that is sytructurally sound, has a considerably greater volume of absorbent material, and is not compromised or weakened by vents!



Motorcycle helmets have vents too.

No-one is arguing that cycle helmets are as strong as motorcycle helmets: the typical impacts they have to protect against are very different. All that is being argued is that cycle helmets afford worthwhile protection in some proportion of cycle accidents.


----------



## HJ (1 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Motorcycle helmets have vents too.
> 
> No-one is arguing that cycle helmets are as strong as motorcycle helmets: the typical impacts they have to protect against are very different. *All that is being argued is that cycle helmets afford worthwhile protection in some proportion of cycle accidents.*



And all the real world data suggest other wise, try looking at the real risk rather than the perceived risk. In stead of admiring the Emperor new clothes...


----------



## ufkacbln (1 May 2009)

> And what if their helmets fit well?



The comparison didn't state... it was outside their research


----------



## CopperBrompton (1 May 2009)

Hairy Jock said:


> try looking at the real risk rather than the perceived risk



I've done that rather directly, thanks  See earlier in the thread.


----------



## col (1 May 2009)

The risk is real, how many building site helmets are worn to how many actually get clobbered? How many seat belts are worn to the number of head ons where it would help, cycling helmets are there for the rare occasion they would help.


----------



## Bollo (1 May 2009)

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on this, so I'm not going to get all het up.

However, an open question without any point-scoring - has anyone seen or got a copy of the EN1078 standard? I've seen plenty of reviews of the standard, but these nearly always have an agenda. The document itself costs £84.00 from BSI Standards Online!!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 May 2009)

In depth and full comparison of standards at BHSI


----------



## Greenbank (1 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on this, so I'm not going to get all het up.
> 
> However, an open question without any point-scoring - has anyone seen or got a copy of the EN1078 standard? I've seen plenty of reviews of the standard, but these nearly always have an agenda. The document itself costs £84.00 from BSI Standards Online!!



I can get copies of the standards thanks to the OU (I'm doing a degree part time) but I don't think I'm allowed to send them on to anyone else.


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2009)

Greenbank said:


> Exactly, but it goes to show that there are uninformed/stupid people on both sides of the debate.



Indeed Greenbank indeed.

Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you cycle toward me at 20mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 20mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet .


----------



## ufkacbln (2 May 2009)

A wonderful and accurate test, now let's apply the same proof for pedestrians......

Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you run toward me at 8 mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 15mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet 


I have therefore proved just howpedestrians are unwise for not wearing helmets, have I convinced you to wear one next time you are walking, if not then surely we have proved the test is invalid?

Especially as the collision is closer to the performance desighn of helmets and hence more protection offered

Lets have a serious answer rather than simply refuse to discuss pedestrians.


----------



## Crankarm (2 May 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> A wonderful and accurate test, now let's apply the same proof for pedestrians......
> 
> Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you run toward me at 8 mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 15mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet
> 
> ...



You wanna be a pedestrian.........be my guest. Just have to scrape the blood and brain of the cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet from the windscreen before we set the test up again for you.

Ask a serious question then you might get a serious answer .


----------



## Greenbank (2 May 2009)

No thanks. 20mph bike hitting 20mph car is roughly equivalent to a car hitting a stationary person (cyclist or not) at 30mph.

That's about an 80% chance of surviving (remember the "Hit me at 30 and there's an 80% chance I'll live" advert) I don't fancy those odds.

Turing it around, would you be prepared to undertake the first part of the test (i.e. wearing a helmet and being hit at 20mph) if you didn't have to do the second part of the test? Thought not, and I wouldn't blame you.


----------



## Bollo (2 May 2009)

Thanks for the comparison C. Greeners, I think you're probably right about passing on copies of the standards. I had a little helmet debate with my LBS manager about a year ago and one thing we agreed on was that the standard should be freely available.

This debate's probably heading for 101, isn't it?


----------



## CopperBrompton (2 May 2009)

Already reached there, I think. I'm gone.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> You wanna be a pedestrian.........be my guest. Just have to scrape the blood and brain of the cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet from the windscreen before we set the test up again for you.
> 
> Ask a serious question then you might get a serious answer .




Perfectly serious question........ 

Test 1 "proves" that cyclists benefit from helmets, and cyclists should wear them

Test 2 "Proves" (by the same criteria" that pedestrians would benefit from helmets and should wear them.

Do you feel that the pedestrian does not deserve such protection.. does it somehow hurt less, is it less traumatic?

Or is it simply inconvenient for your agenda to recognise that Your test has "proven" the case for pedestrian helmets to the same extent as you have claimed it does for cyclists.

Please feel free to avoid if you are unable to answer.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Thanks for the comparison C. Greeners, I think you're probably right about passing on copies of the standards. I had a little helmet debate with my LBS manager about a year ago and one thing we agreed on was that the standard should be freely available.
> 
> This debate's probably heading for 101, isn't it?



We had a similar debate at a Bike Week event a few years ago. There was a Nurse who had never ridden a bicycle handing out vouchers for a "generic" helmet to children and berating anyone who wasn't interested.

When asked how she knew they woulkd actually fit the child, whether they would be adjustable to suitthe wide range she was targetting, or which standards they met...............................she had absolutely no idea, and asked upon what evidence she was basing her practice she was unable to provide any!

Given that a badly fitting helmet will discourage those who would wear them, and badly fitting, badly adjusted helmets can at best be ineffective and actually cause injuries... this is the worst type of helmet evangelism.


----------



## CopperBrompton (2 May 2009)

It does indeed sound rather incompetent


----------



## MartinC (4 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Indeed Greenbank indeed.
> 
> Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you cycle toward me at 20mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 20mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first *as this will mean you survive *to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet .



How do you know this?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 May 2009)

Because helmets are a wonderful panacea for all ills!

Note how the helmet has also saved the guinea pig fromthe common injuries of fractured lower limbs, spinal injuries and all the other problems that usually occur with such an experience.

Ofcourse the experiment also raises the question about the vehicle...... There is an EnCap rataining for pedestrian (and cylist) safety in which some vehicles are allowed on the road with absolutely no pedestrian safety built in at all - the Jeep Cherokee failed every single test!

What EnCAp rating was the vehicle used in this test - as this would dictate the extent and severity of the injuries.


----------



## MartinC (5 May 2009)

Yes, I thiught the idea that a cycling helmet could save you from all injury in a collision with a motor vehicle at a closing speed between 20 and 40mph was a bit optimistic.

If these helmets existed I would love to have one, I guess they must be Snell B950000000.


----------



## col (5 May 2009)

The way a helmet could save you is minimal in comparison to all the other injuries you could get, but those minimal ones are enough. Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky? well? do yah? punk?


----------



## yello (5 May 2009)

col said:


> Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky?



Agree 100%. I guess that's where the choice element comes in. Individuals can choose to take that risk (or not) along with all the others they may face.


----------



## MartinC (5 May 2009)

This is one of the fault lines in the argument. That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact. Everyone is allowed to make their own assumptions if they want but they shouldn't expect others to share them.


----------



## col (5 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> This is one of the fault lines in the argument. That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact. Everyone is allowed to make their own assumptions if they want but they shouldn't expect others to share them.




The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption? 
In the same vein a head on collision in a car is going to see the driver hurt without a seat belt, but with a seat belt the injuries would be less. Assumptions again? I dont think so? What gives you the opinion these are assumptions?


----------



## Greenbank (5 May 2009)

col said:


> The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?



You're assuming that there are no negatives to wearing the safety equipment. There are various examples that have been mentioned in the thread already.

Imagine your head gets to within 1mm of the ground. No helmet = no impact. With the increased diameter of helmet means you get an impact. As many people have pointed out above in the thread, an impact doesn't have to do any damage to the skull in order to have significant effect on the brain.

Put it another way. Stand just far enough away that the boxer Ricky Hatton throwing a punch comes to within 1mm of the side of your head.

Now move an inch closer.

I've no doubt that in many situations a helmet *may* reduce the severity of the injury involved, but it's foolish to assume that it will reduce the severity of *every* situation, and also foolish to assume that it's not impossible for the helmet to make the injuries more severe.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 May 2009)

col said:


> The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?
> In the same vein a head on collision in a car is going to see the driver hurt without a seat belt, but with a seat belt the injuries would be less. Assumptions again? I dont think so? What gives you the opinion these are assumptions?



All of which again applies totally to pedestrians.

The other problem is the assumptions about head injuries. In factthe head injuries are often not the cause of death. It is often the multiple other injuries that cause the death, but because the head injury is recorded it is seen as the "Cause"

Very few serious head injuries are isolated.


----------



## col (5 May 2009)

Greenbank said:


> You're assuming that there are no negatives to wearing the safety equipment. There are various examples that have been mentioned in the thread already.
> 
> Imagine your head gets to within 1mm of the ground. No helmet = no impact. With the increased diameter of helmet means you get an impact. As many people have pointed out above in the thread, an impact doesn't have to do any damage to the skull in order to have significant effect on the brain.
> 
> ...



Iv never assumed that, like I said in my post.

The way a helmet could save you is minimal in comparison to all the other injuries you could get, but those minimal ones are enough. Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky? well? do yah? punk? 

Take note of the first sentence, I dont think its foolish?


----------



## Bollo (5 May 2009)

col said:


> Iv never assumed that, like I said in my post.
> 
> The way a helmet could save you is minimal in comparison to all the other injuries you could get, but those minimal ones are enough. Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky? well? do yah? punk?
> 
> Take note of the first sentence, I dont think its foolish?



Aaargh! I can't stay put.

So if a minimal improvement to safety "is enough", then you should also wear a helmet while driving, walking, climbing stairs, performing DIY.................all activities where head injuries occur and where a helmet might make a minimal difference.

Repeating Cunobelin's question, why is cycling _uniquely _dangerous that it requires a helmet where it would be unthinkable for other activities with comparable KSI rates?

BTW, how's the ankle col?


----------



## col (5 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Aaargh! I can't stay put.
> 
> So if a minimal improvement to safety "is enough", then you should also wear a helmet while driving, walking, climbing stairs, performing DIY.................all activities where head injuries occur and where a helmet might make a minimal difference.
> 
> ...




I meant the minimal chances are enough to warrant a helmet if you want to use one, but thats why I said its unlucky if these minimal chances occur, and do you feel lucky. In essence its a choice we all make. As far as walkers driving ect, I thinks its because cyclists are more vulnerable and the risks are higher, if not that high anyway, to head injury?
Its loads better thanks


----------



## MartinC (6 May 2009)

col said:


> The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?
> In the same vein a head on collision in a car is going to see the driver hurt without a seat belt, but with a seat belt the injuries would be less. Assumptions again? I dont think so? What gives you the opinion these are assumptions?



Col, sorry this is just more of the same - more assumptions. 

Many safety devices are backed up by swathes of research and empirical evidence e.g. seat belts. Cycle helmets are not.

That a head head hitting a curb will hurt is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one. That hitting it whilst wearing a cycle helmet won't hurt as much is, again, an assumption and far more open to debate than the original one. It also begs many questions of degree - will it hurt less than if you were wearing a woollen beanie or a motor cycle helmet. If you want to promote the second assumption there's an implicit need (if you intend being reasonable) to show that the difference is significant.

Things are assumptions when they're not backed by evidence.


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Col, sorry this is just more of the same - more assumptions.
> 
> Many safety devices are backed up by swathes of research and empirical evidence e.g. seat belts. Cycle helmets are not.
> 
> ...




I suppose the only real evidence you will believe is if you go and bang your head on a kerb, then put a helmet on and do it again. I dont really see how you can say that that is assumption? And we are talking about cycle helmets are we not? not woollen beanies. I think what Im saying is reasonable. Your opinion that banging your head and it hurting is only an assumption seems unreasonable to me. What evidence is needed, or indepth investigations to show that banging your head will hurt, then having a helmet on will lessen the pain? Im at a loss how you can say this is just assumption?


----------



## MartinC (6 May 2009)

Col, I posted - "That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact" and you took issue with this. 

If you want to refute this then refer to some evidence, I'm struggling to find anything relevant in your last post.


----------



## Crankarm (6 May 2009)

col said:


> I suppose the only real evidence you will believe is if you go and bang your head on a kerb, then put a helmet on and do it again. I dont really see how you can say that that is assumption? And we are talking about cycle helmets are we not? not woollen beanies. I think what Im saying is reasonable. Your opinion that banging your head and it hurting is only an assumption seems unreasonable to me. What evidence is needed, or indepth investigations to show that banging your head will hurt, then having a helmet on will lessen the pain? Im at a loss how you can say this is just assumption?



+1 .



MartinC said:


> Col, I posted - "That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact" and you took issue with this.
> 
> If you want to refute this then refer to some evidence, I'm struggling to find anything relevant in your last post.



There's none more stupid than those without common sense . Go bang your head on the kerb sans head gear then go do the same again wearing a cycling helmet. If you don't realise the helmet is protecting your head remove helmet and bang your head harder ....


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Col, I posted - "That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact" and you took issue with this.
> 
> If you want to refute this then refer to some evidence, I'm struggling to find anything relevant in your last post.




Im not taking issue, I cant understand how you say its assumption, when its obvious really. I dont have evidence for this, its just a belief.


----------



## MartinC (6 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> +1 .
> 
> 
> 
> There's none more stupid than those without common sense . Go bang your head on the kerb sans head gear then go do the same again wearing a cycling helmet. If you don't realise the helmet is protecting your head remove helmet and bang your head harder ....



Firstly, there's no need for insults. Get a grip of yourself.

Secondly, just because common sense tells you that a cycle helmet can prevent some level of discomfort in some impacts it's still dangerously optimistic to believe this means it can offer you a meaningful level of protection against head injury.

If you've got a reasoned case why this is so then share it with us. If not then just accept that everyone doesn't need to share your faith.


----------



## MartinC (6 May 2009)

col said:


> Im not taking issue, I cant understand how you say its assumption, when its obvious really. I dont have evidence for this, its just a belief.



If it's obvious that cycle helmets can prevent significant injury then it should be easy for you to articulate how.

As you say it's just a belief. No-one's obliged to share your beliefs.


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> If it's obvious that cycle helmets can prevent significant injury then it should be easy for you to articulate how.
> 
> As you say it's just a belief. No-one's obliged to share your beliefs.



Im not asking anyone to. Its something that I think is obvious, but now you have added the significant injury bit in, it does open the debate more. Im talking of a simple head bang, it would obviously be less painful with a helmet in my opinion. you seem to dissagree which is fine.


----------



## Dan B (6 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> There's none more stupid than those without common sense . Go bang your head on the kerb sans head gear then go do the same again wearing a cycling helmet. If you don't realise the helmet is protecting your head remove helmet and bang your head harder ....


I have done both. Although on different occasions, so the circumstances weren't absolutely identical, I can report that the helmet appeared to make no significant difference. I was travelling in excess of 12mph both times.

"Common sense" is very poor at physics and likewise crap at statistics. I see no immediately compelling reason to suppose it any more reliable in the field of cranial medicine


----------



## 515mm (6 May 2009)

I would not vote for compulsory helmet wearing as I think it can give one an increased sense of one's own safety. However - I normally wear a helmet during cycling.

I came off my bike last weekend at about 20mph. It hurt. I injured my legs, shoulder and forearm. On the mend now, but as I was cleaning the dirt off my helmet (no sniggering please!) I noticed that it had been stoved in at the back. I have no head injury and didn't black out at any time, though I do recall rolling onto my head at one point during the crash. 

Will I continue wearing a (new) helmet? Yes.

Would I have taken the risk that caused my crash(it was my fault btw) if I hadn't been wearing a helmet? Hmmm.... tricky one that.


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

coruskate said:


> I have done both. Although on different occasions, so the circumstances weren't absolutely identical, I can report that the helmet appeared to make no significant difference. I was travelling in excess of 12mph both times.
> 
> "Common sense" is very poor at physics and likewise crap at statistics. I see no immediately compelling reason to suppose it any more reliable in the field of cranial medicine



I think the point is being missed here? If you head butt a wall without a helmet, lets say just above the forhead, it will hurt wont it? Now lets do that again with an inch or two of polystyrene between the head and the wall. do you think that will hurt as much?
The point being that in SOME circumstances it will help maybe do you think?
Im not talking of all the other impacts which probably are most of what could happen, but the odd chance ones that probably wont happen anyway, but the risk is still there no matter how small?


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

515mm said:


> I would not vote for compulsory helmet wearing as I think it can give one an increased sense of one's own safety. However - I normally wear a helmet during cycling.
> 
> I came off my bike last weekend at about 20mph. It hurt. I injured my legs, shoulder and forearm. On the mend now, but as I was cleaning the dirt off my helmet (no sniggering please!) I noticed that it had been stoved in at the back. I have no head injury and didn't black out at any time, though I do recall rolling onto my head at one point during the crash.
> 
> ...



Your going to get the ones that will say the extra width added to your head made the impact happen, it might not have if the helmet wasnt there, which in rare circumstances might be the case. But I believe if your head was moving floorwards at enough speed to cause the damage to the back of the helmet, then yes it probably stopped you getting a head injury of somesort, as your head was going to impact the ground anyway.
This could be one of those rare times when a helmet did actually save you from more injury.


----------



## Greenbank (6 May 2009)

col said:


> I think the point is being missed here? If you head butt a wall without a helmet, lets say just above the forhead, it will hurt wont it?



Just done it. It hurts a bit, but I have no injury.



col said:


> Now lets do that again with an inch or two of polystyrene between the head and the wall. do you think that will hurt as much?



Yup, just done it. It hurt less. Still no injury.

What exactly does this prove?

I repeated the same test with a thick wooly jumper tied around my head and it didn't hurt at all and still no injury. Does this prove that a jumper tied around the head is better than a helmet? Or was this whole test meaningless?


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

Greenbank said:


> Just done it. It hurts a bit, but I have no injury.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nope, it proves it hurts less. Well done, if you have a vid post it, purely for scientific reasons you understand


----------



## Greenbank (6 May 2009)

col said:


> Nope, it proves it hurts less. Well done, if you have a vid post it, purely for scientific reasons you understand



So, we've proven that in impacts that lead to no injuries at all, helmets successfully slightly lessen the temporary and very mild pain, and do not contribute to more injuries. Also note that in such a test a thick wooly jumper performs best.

Unless you're expecting to wildly extrapolate from this data and claim that helmets will always reduce the severity of injuries in every type of accident. In which case one can also extrapolate the wooly jumper data point and claim that this will perform even better than a helmet in reducing both the number and severity of injuries.

Of course, this experiment suffers from the same problems as the experiment suggested by Crankarm before. In order to test whether the helmet does indeed prevent or reduce minor (or even major) injuries, one has to be willing to subject oneself to those injuries. I'm guessing there'll be no takers for that.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 May 2009)

Greenbank said:


> Just done it. It hurts a bit, but I have no injury.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As you were in pedestrian mode when you performed this test - it is valid for pedestrians, how do we translate this "test" to cyclists?


----------



## Crankarm (6 May 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> As you were in pedestrian mode when you performed this test - it is valid for pedestrians, how do we translate this "test" to cyclists?



Well you're one of the nay sayers so perhaps you could offer yourself for my test for which I requested volunteers last weekend which Greenbank has kindly referred to above. Saturday this coming weekend is currently free if you like? If helmets are indeed of benefit in low impact collisions which common sense would suggest then you have nothing to worry about however if they are as you maintain purely a cosmetic item then you should be concerned...........


----------



## MartinC (6 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Well you're one of the nay sayers so perhaps you could offer yourself for my test for which I requested volunteers last weekend which Greenbank has kindly referred to above. Saturday this coming weekend is currently free if you like? If helmets are indeed of benefit in low impact collisions which common sense would suggest then you have nothing to worry about however if they are as you maintain purely a cosmetic item then you should be concerned...........



This test is a very flawed idea. Anyone who did it would be nuts.

Firstly it's of no value. It's not repeatable and there are too many uncontrolled variables for it to prove anything.

Secondly there's a highly optimistic presumption that in a cyclist/car collision with a closing speed of 20-40mph the only life or health threatening outcome to worry about is a head injury.

Thirdly the scenario is outside the generally accepted parameters of helmet effectiveness. Taking part in a test where neither the standards bodies or the manufacturers predict any benefit is a bizarre idea.

I'm not sure why you've directed this post at Cunobelin - presumably because he doesn't say the right things. His point is consistly that if helmets are effective then pedestrians would get a similar benefit - how does this make him a naysayer - whatever that is.

Fortunately there are people who can make a reasoned case for cycle helmets - why don't you have a go?


----------



## ufkacbln (6 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Well you're one of the nay sayers so perhaps you could offer yourself for my test for which I requested volunteers last weekend which Greenbank has kindly referred to above. Saturday this coming weekend is currently free if you like? If helmets are indeed of benefit in low impact collisions which common sense would suggest then you have nothing to worry about however if they are as you maintain purely a cosmetic item then you should be concerned...........





How do you correlate this assumption with my posts - such as....



Cunobelin said:


> In depth and full comparison of standards at BHSI





I would also be interseted on how you gained the assumption that I think they are "cosmetic only" - I have argued that they could and should be more protective, but then again it depends on whether you are interested in cyclists wearing helmets or people actually preventing head injuries - the two are not neccesarily the same thing.

Mind you the question still exists..... do you want me to volunteer as a pedestrian where the low impactcollisions tend to occur and prove that pedestrians need to wear helmets, or as a cyclist?


----------



## col (6 May 2009)

Greenbank said:


> So, we've proven that in impacts that lead to no injuries at all, helmets successfully slightly lessen the temporary and very mild pain, and do not contribute to more injuries. Also note that in such a test a thick wooly jumper performs best.
> 
> Unless you're expecting to wildly extrapolate from this data and claim that helmets will always reduce the severity of injuries in every type of accident. In which case one can also extrapolate the wooly jumper data point and claim that this will perform even better than a helmet in reducing both the number and severity of injuries.
> 
> Of course, this experiment suffers from the same problems as the experiment suggested by Crankarm before. In order to test whether the helmet does indeed prevent or reduce minor (or even major) injuries, one has to be willing to subject oneself to those injuries. I'm guessing there'll be no takers for that.




I think when there is an impact no matter what the speed, it will be lessened even slightly with a cushion of something. Like Iv said before, only some or even a minority of impacts, but you seem to insist on including every type of accident, which isnt what I am talking about.
So do the test until some injury occurs without any protection, if you want?
Personally I dont need to try that as Im pretty sure of the outcome.


----------



## Crankarm (6 May 2009)

As a cyclist. I'm not really interested in pedestrian safety althought it has it's place I feel it is simply an irrelevance in the cycle helmet debate. You ride a bike toward me at 15-20mph and I drive toward you at 25-30 mph. Or we do the same at 90 degs converging so you hit the front near side wing/bonnet to simulate either of us pulling out of a junction prematurely.


----------



## Bollo (6 May 2009)

Last word from me on this, I promise.

What grips my sheet about the helmet argument is that its used as a moral lever. How often have you read a report of a cyclist down in a paper where, somewhere in the text, the phrase -"The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" appears. I might be over-sensitive, but the subtext reads "No helmet! He/she f***** well deserved to be offed by the drunken, disqualified, uninsured texting driver."

As previous posters have said, there's no legal basis for contributory negligence for cyclists injured while riding without a helmet. I also have a big problem with arguments based on moral or emotional arguments - that you somehow deserve your injuries because you're not lidded. Helmet use is not a question of morality, and the helmet debate distracts from the real issues that determine whether cycling is safe and can be made safer.

I get particularly tetchy when helmets are used to judge the abilities of a cyclist to ride safely and considerately. The cyclist who RLJed and hit me last month while I was crossing on foot was wearing a helmet. Was he a good, safe cyclist? When I was hit in 2007, the ambo driver's only question to me was "why don't you wear a helmet?". Not "what happened?" or "where does it hurt?". The lack of helmet gave him a nice neat pidgeon hole in which to place my abilities as a cyclist. No further thought or understanding required.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> As a cyclist. I'm not really interested in pedestrian safety althought it has it's place I feel it is simply an irrelevance in the cycle helmet debate. You ride a bike toward me at 15-20mph and I drive toward you at 25-30 mph. Or we do the same at 90 degs converging so you hit the front near side wing/bonnet to simulate either of us pulling out of a junction prematurely.



Why is it an irrelavance - if you are really intersted in preventing head injuries, why not learn from the lessons?

It is inconvenient that all the "tests" have proved both groups would benefit, but dismissing pedestrians is far easier than discussing the issues.

As for the tests.... we are again in a realm where you are proving nothing - again what is the EnCap rating of the car you are using?

We can prove that I would be safer and have less injuries to my limbs, pelvis abdomen and head if you were driving a Citroen C4 (5* adult safety rating, 4* child) than if you drive a Jeep Cherokee ( ADult 0*, Child 0*).

So utilising your "test" we actually have proof that removing certain cars from the road would be a fair assessment of the results, and a benefit to cyclist and pedestrian safety.......


----------



## ufkacbln (6 May 2009)

Yehuda Moon!


----------



## MacB (6 May 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> My biggest accident was downhill at 25-30mph.
> 
> I was young and foolish, and thought it a good idea to bomb between two lanes of slow-moving traffic. The inevitable happened and someone changed lanes in front of me. I hit their front wing, completely cleared their bonnet and head-butted the road. The impact speed was certainly well above 12mph.
> 
> ...



Surely the best safety measure that could be taken here, would be not to cycle in that manner? I'm not hearing a pro helmet arguement I'm hearing a 'learn to cycle properly' one.

Cranky, you are trying to suggest setting up a deliberate crash using another cyclist as a volunteer. You'd obviously like to utilise one of the helmet naysayers for this experiment. I'm getting a sense of a desire to punish those that don't agree with you. While I can understand this I do feel ramming them with a car is a bit excessive.

All they're really saying is that cycling carries no more dangers than many other activities. The logic you're following is of the 'better safe than sorry' variety. It also ignores, or dimisses, the possibility of injury being caused, or exacerbated, by the safety wear. If I go along with your logic chain then there's a long list of activities I'd have to kit myself out differently for. Gardening, diy, any form of exercise, cooking, ironing, driving, in fact almost everything I do.


----------



## Crankarm (7 May 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Surely the best safety measure that could be taken here, would be not to cycle in that manner? I'm not hearing a pro helmet arguement I'm hearing a 'learn to cycle properly' one.



Yes but also Ben Lovejoy is commenting on how his helmet protected/reduced inury to his head irrespective of the merits of his cycling manoevres that brought about his unscheduled disembarkation.



MacBludgeon said:


> Cranky,.....


Please don't call me Cranky. I wouldn't want you getting too familiar . We share the same forum that is all. 



MacBludgeon said:


> ......you are trying to suggest setting up a deliberate crash using another cyclist as a volunteer. You'd obviously like to utilise one of the helmet naysayers for this experiment. I'm getting a sense of a desire to punish those that don't agree with you. While I can understand this I do feel ramming them with a car is a bit excessive.


I'm suggesting that given the naysayers support the view that helmets are of no benefit and that those who wear or advocate them are misinformed then we can carry out some experiements to try to provide some definitive evidence to try to disprove their hypothesis. I have no intention of indiscriminately ramming any cyclist not least those partaking in the test. They could also avail themselves of other body armour if they wish since it is the head and helmet protection we are putting to the test. After all it would be ungenerous to afford some one any protection they felt suitable that had no bearing on the parameters being measured.



MacBludgeon said:


> All they're really saying is that cycling carries no more dangers than many other activities.



Activities such as?




MacBludgeon said:


> The logic you're following is of the 'better safe than sorry' variety.


Yep that's about it. Common sense tells me to put something on my head such as a helmet with a layer of polystyrene and plastic to protect it when I go out on my bike.



MacBludgeon said:


> It also ignores, or dimisses, the possibility of injury being caused, or exacerbated, by the safety wear.


None of the helmets I have purchased have ever caused me harm or injury. I suppose if I left it on the stairs then decided to indulge myself in a midnight feast and negotiated the stairs in the dark I might have something to report to you . Didn't those campaigning against seatbelts come up with this sort of logic that seatbelts themselves would lead to an increase in injuries and fatalities?



MacBludgeon said:


> If I go along with your logic chain then there's a long list of activities I'd have to kit myself out differently for. Gardening, diy, any form of exercise, cooking, ironing, driving, in fact almost everything I do.



I know...... the modern world is such a death trap:- electric mowers, hedge trimmers, drills, power saws, skiing, rugby, football, running, not forgetting cycling, knives, stoves, hot oil in pans, stability of ironing boards, irons over heating, (not that I iron anything anyway ), driving whoah now we're getting positively life threatening, air bags, full face crash helmet, fire retardant suit and gloves, 4 point harness. It takes me an age to do anything getting dressed up to tackle any hazard I might encounter. Do you find you have the same difficulties? I would ban Bank Holidays as most injuries occur following a visit to Homebase, B&Q or Wickes. Do you even put on PPE when sleeping as you say almost everything you do requires protective wear  ? How about taking a bath, that's very risky? I haven't had one in 25 years as the risk is too great.

MacBludgeon, I reassuringly look to your posts as they are based on consideration, deliberation, informed decision making and common sense, navigating the reader through the choppy seas of fiction, fact, fantasy, reality, propaganda, truth, lies and serious peril.


----------



## MartinC (7 May 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Ben Lovejoy is commenting on how his helmet protected/reduced inury to his head



False conclusion. Neither Ben nor anyone else knows this. Many people have similar accidents without wearing a helmet and sustain no head injury.



Crankarm said:


> given the naysayers support the view that helmets are of no benefit



False dichotomy. I've heard no-one on this thread saying this. There are varying degrees of scepticism about their benefit. Labelling everyone who doesn't enthusiastically except your unsubstantiated and optimistic view of helmet capability as a naysayer is incorrect.




Crankarm said:


> we can carry out some experiements to try to provide some definitive evidence to try to disprove their hypothesis



Let me try and deal with this again a different way. I had an acquaintance who was unfortunately killed in a cycle accident. He was turning left out of his road from a dead stop, it was rainy, his wheel slipped, he fell (at about 2-3 mph), struck his head on the kerb and was killed. He was wearing a helmet. I don't think this tells us anything about helmet performance. I do think it illustrates the potential for harm in what seem like trivial accidents. The "experiment" you suggest is valueless and irresponsible and is just a piece of showboating that illustrates how little you know about the subject.



Crankarm said:


> Activities such as?



Being a pedestrian. The available statistics show that the risks in cycling are broadly similar to those in being a pedestrian. Cunobelin's question needs an answer for you to have credible argument in favour of cycling helmets. 




Crankarm said:


> Common sense tells me to put something on my head such as a helmet with a layer of polystyrene and plastic to protect it when I go out on my bike



What does common sense tell you about the potential for preventing serious head injury of 300gms of polystyrene and ventilation holes?

What does common sense tell you about making the effective mass and size of you head larger in an accident scenario?




Crankarm said:


> None of the helmets I have purchased have ever caused me harm or injury. I suppose if I left it on the stairs then decided to indulge myself in a midnight feast and negotiated the stairs in the dark I might have something to report to you . Didn't those campaigning against seatbelts come up with this sort of logic that seatbelts themselves would lead to an increase in injuries and fatalities?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Irrelevant hyperbole.


----------



## swee'pea99 (7 May 2009)

Bollo said:


> Last word from me on this, I promise.
> 
> What grips my sheet about the helmet argument is that its used as a moral lever. How often have you read a report of a cyclist down in a paper where, somewhere in the text, the phrase -"The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" appears. I might be over-sensitive, but the subtext reads "No helmet! He/she f***** well deserved to be offed by the drunken, disqualified, uninsured texting driver."
> 
> ...


Well said. 

The only thing I'd add - given that this thread purports to be about compulsion - is that I think it's important not to forget that whatever the (arguable) pros & cons of _helmets_ vis a vis individual riders, the overall societal health impact of _compulsion_ has (unarguably) invariably proved negative.


----------



## Crankarm (7 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> .....dichotomy......



Had to look in my dictionary for that word......... 



MartinC said:


> .....Being a pedestrian. The available statistics show that the risks in cycling are broadly similar to those in being a pedestrian.



Nope I don't think so. Cycling is inherently more risky given that cyclists are a much smaller group so any injury or fataility has a much greater influence on risk to the group as a whole. Why don't you check out RoSPA's site? Quite apart from the fact that there are many more people who walk but don't cycle.



MartinC said:


> .....Irrelevant hyperbole.



Glad you enoyed it. I try to please. Even more of a result as it wasn't aimed at you  .


----------



## Crankarm (7 May 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']........the overall societal health impact of _compulsion_ has (unarguably) invariably proved negative.[/quote]

Compulsion to do what???? I'm confused . Have I missed something? If so it was probably not compulsory.


----------



## MartinC (7 May 2009)

Yes, I think you've missed quite a lot.

Thread title is "Research into helmet compulsion".

A quick skim of the RoSPA site didn't come up with any analysis of comparitive stats for pedestrians and cyclists. Please let me know if I've missed it - your reference wasn't very specific.

Helpfully M J Wardlaw, a contributor to the BMJ, published a paper in 2003 "Assessing the Actual Risks Faced by Cyclists" it contains amongst other things an analysis of the government stats (1999-2001) and shows:

Annual distance walked/capita: . . . . . . . . . .190 miles
Annual distance cycled/capita: . . . . . . . . . . .43 miles
Pedestrian deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . ..850 annually
Cyclist deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 annually

This clearly supports the idea that the risks both groups face are broadly similar.


----------



## ferret fur (7 May 2009)

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

Interesting reading


----------



## boydj (7 May 2009)

I found an effective new use for my helmet today. The sun was shining, for a change, on the way home, so the helmet was strapped to the side of the right pannier. Not a single close pass in 9 miles - was it the extra width or the apparent greater vulnerability?


----------



## ufkacbln (7 May 2009)

Cyclists kill more people than white van man!


This is the problem where you start to move away from the measurable (number of head injuries admitted to hospital) to the immeasurable (risk)

The claim that cyclists are "more at risk" is intersting.

If you express the number of pedestrian deaths on pavements caused by cyclists in terms of total miles travelled and then the number of deaths caused by "white vans" with miles traveled you will find that pedestrians are more at risk from cyclists!

Be careful how you read statistics!

THe sad fact is that 5 times more pedestrians are admitted withhead injuries than cyclists. If all of these casualties wore helmets (and we asume the helmets worked as claimed) then the helmets would have a more beneficial effect if worn by pedestrians than cyclists.

As I said before - pedestrians may make the arguments inconvenient, but are we interested in reducing head injuries or not?


----------



## Dan B (7 May 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> If you express the number of pedestrian deaths on pavements caused by cyclists in terms of total miles travelled and then the number of deaths caused by "white vans" with miles traveled you will find that pedestrians are more at risk from cyclists!



As a pedestrian who needs to know whether I should exercise greater caution around cyclists or around motorists, it doesn't matter worth diddly who has ridden further to get to me. The reason for considering "miles travelled", as far as I can see, is to account for cycling being less popular than driving: that is, to attempt to answer the question of which is more dangerous if equal numbers of people practiced both. 

But there are a couple of problems with trying to scale the figures this way. First and most obvious is that even if equal numbers of people were driving as cycling, they would not in all probability be cycling the same distances anyway: bikes are typically used for shorter trips. Second is that the "miles travelled" numbers is for the entire road network including motorways (which account for a goodly number of them) and as a pedestrian I'm not allowed to walk on those anyway



Cunobelin said:


> Be careful how you read statistics!


Indeed :-)


----------



## ufkacbln (7 May 2009)

coruskate said:


> As a pedestrian who needs to know whether I should exercise greater caution around cyclists or around motorists, it doesn't matter worth diddly who has ridden further to get to me. The reason for considering "miles travelled", as far as I can see, is to account for cycling being less popular than driving: that is, to attempt to answer the question of which is more dangerous if equal numbers of people practiced both.
> 
> But there are a couple of problems with trying to scale the figures this way. First and most obvious is that even if equal numbers of people were driving as cycling, they would not in all probability be cycling the same distances anyway: bikes are typically used for shorter trips. Second is that the "miles travelled" numbers is for the entire road network including motorways (which account for a goodly number of them) and as a pedestrian I'm not allowed to walk on those anyway
> 
> ...




The exact point......... dismissing pedestrians on these grounds is equaly flawed.

The far more reliable questions (and answers) are how many go through the Hospital doors, and how many of those would have benefitted from helmets....


----------



## MartinC (8 May 2009)

ferret fur said:


> http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
> 
> Interesting reading



Yes, it is interesting. It's a well managed selection of papers that support their view but omits significant ones that don't (e.g. the full post compulsion picture in Australia). At item 19 they've quoted research from Mayer Hillman that actually contains the reasons why many of the surveys they use are flawed - small and self selecting samples. The reports with less favourable (for the helmet proposition) conclusions or where there are criticisms of the methodology used are to be found towards the end of the selection


----------



## MacB (8 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Yes, it is interesting. It's a well managed selection of papers that support their view but omits significant ones that don't (e.g. the full post compulsion picture in Australia). At item 19 they've quoted research from Mayer Hillman that actually contains the reasons why many of the surveys they use are flawed - small and self selecting samples. The reports with less favourable (for the helmet proposition) conclusions or where there are criticisms of the methodology used are to be found towards the end of the selection



I especially enjoyed the rebuttal of the fact that observed cycling No's had dropped. This was due to the observations being made at different times in different places. Kind of lacks in the scientific method bit that


----------



## ferret fur (8 May 2009)

MartinC said:


> Yes, it is interesting. It's a well managed selection of papers that support their view but omits significant ones that don't (e.g. the full post compulsion picture in Australia). At item 19 they've quoted research from Mayer Hillman that actually contains the reasons why many of the surveys they use are flawed - small and self selecting samples. The reports with less favourable (for the helmet proposition) conclusions or where there are criticisms of the methodology used are to be found towards the end of the selection



You mean the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has an agenda?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 May 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> I especially enjoyed the rebuttal of the fact that observed cycling No's had dropped. This was due to the observations being made at different times in different places. Kind of lacks in the scientific method bit that



It also failed to account for the fact that there was a whole bundle of road safety measures such as clamping down on drink driving, speeding, poor driving standards, untaxed and uninsured vehicles. The resulting safer roads could also explain the decrease in head injuries rather than helmets.


----------

