A legal perspective on cycle helmets

[w00hoo_kent]

I had an off January 2013, braking on black ice. The bystander who came across to me as I was crawling out of the road (it happened quite fast, the seat did quite a bit of muscle damage) seemed quite upset that my helmet didn't appear to be damaged in any way. I was less surprised as all of my falling had been on other bits, although the slight scrape on my chin guard (I commute in a Met Parachute) did suggest that at least a bit of it touched tarmac. I'm happy that I didn't need to have a helmet on to save myself from injury in that off, they're bloody expensive to replace.

 

[Mugshot]

Cool with that, as I say the only problem is that the numbers are for the big things and I'm not sure I'm argued about them saving lives. My feeling is (and we're pretty much only going on that) that the argument is often focussed on the big injury side of things and it's actually the smaller ones that they are doing some good on. Maybe I'm unusual in knowing people who are happy that their helmets have saved them from injuries that probably wouldn't have been life threatening but would have been very life inconveniencing.

As @User and @Profpointy have said, it's not unusual. My buddy wears one "just in case" and is very happy to cite the time he came off on a particular corner and his helmet saved him from worse injury than he would have had otherwise, the fact that I've been round the same corner at least 10x more often than he has and have not fallen off, which can only be attributed to my not wearing a helmet, is lost on him.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

And I presume his off isn't recorded anywhere. (Which is kind of the point I was trying to make)

I am a little confused though, probably the same as he is, as you seem to be suggesting that he should suffer for his poorer cycling ability/luck by having also been injured more.

 

[Mugshot]

And I presume his off isn't recorded anywhere. (Which is kind of the point I was trying to make)

I am a little confused though, probably the same as he is, as you seem to be suggesting that he should suffer for his poorer cycling ability/luck by having also been injured more.

I hope it didn't come across like that and I apologise if it did. We have no way of knowing if he would have been injured any more than he was, we also have no way of knowing if he would have hit his head had he not been wearing a helmet or even if he would have fallen off had he not been wearing a helmet.
It isn't officially recorded anywhere, however it is reported in the form of an anecdote, as far as he is concerned he wears a helmet, he hit his head, therefore a helmet saved him from worse injury, and he is utterly convinced of that. It is possible that it did, but it is equally possible that it didn't. His anecdote about falling off is no more worthy than my anecdote about not falling off, I, however do not feel the need to mention my anecdote quite so often, so with regards to less serious accidents where a helmet may have made a difference going unrecorded, in some respects they do, but they most certainly do not go unreported.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Cool with that. As I said at the beginning, I was reticent to get involved in the argument, it's too much like a religion for me (and I care about as much, I commute and 'train' with a helmet on, I leisure ride quite happily without one and I make the choice purely for myself either way). It just struck me that the talk of there being insufficient data about helmets doing good stands a good chance of being because people don't report the injuries they didn't get. Of course that opens up the can of worms of 'would the injury be there at all if...' and without a serious study involving parallel dimensions it all gets a bit tough to actually prove. And we're back to Faith.

 

[Mugshot]

Cool with that. As I said at the beginning, I was reticent to get involved in the argument, it's too much like a religion for me (and I care about as much, I commute and 'train' with a helmet on, I leisure ride quite happily without one and I make the choice purely for myself either way). It just struck me that the talk of there being insufficient data about helmets doing good stands a good chance of being because people don't report the injuries they didn't get. Of course that opens up the can of worms of 'would the injury be there at all if...' and without a serious study involving parallel dimensions it all gets a bit tough to actually prove. And we're back to Faith.

You're right about the religion bit and I was thinking about throwing it in but changed my mind, you've changed it back With God it's called Pascal's Wager, you believe in God just in case, you lose very little if you're wrong but gain plenty if you're right.
The issue with this though is the "just in case bit". As you've been saying there is surely a point where a helmet is effective against some types of injury, I often debate this with myself and wonder if I would be better off with one "just in case". What you have to weigh it up against are the other everyday activities which could result in some sort of head injury. My friend that fell off on the corner is a motor mechanic, he spends his days with his head under bonnets and standing under cars whilst they're on the ramp, but he would never consider that he maybe should wear a helmet just in case he bumps his head. Yet I'd be surprised if he hasn't bumped his head more often working than he has whilst cycling.
For a pretty accurate study when it comes to the overall effectiveness of helmets you need look no further than where they have been made compulsory. Australia for example. Here you have real world studies which have been carried out over time frames which give very accurate data. This can of course be looked at both before and after compulsion for some very real results.

 

[Profpointy]

the "just in case" argument is actually a bit flawed. Turn it round and ask about (possible) increased neck injuries or "rotational" injuries and unarguably more hits (your head is bigger so miss-by-an inch will be a hit) - and perhaps better not wear one "just in case"

Or for Pascal - he could have asserted it was best to be devil worshipper 'just in case"

 

[Mugshot]

You're right of course, but I find I get more thousand yard stares when I mention rotational injuries and larger head areas than I do if I try the "where else might you bump your head" conversation
As for the devil, well he does have the best tunes.

 

[Profpointy]

Eh?

I keep on reporting my identical accident on here - fell off on black ice, banged side of head on tarmac. Woolly hat saved my life.

And i came off landing on my shoulder - from simple geometry I would have hit my head had I been wearing a helmet

 

[benb]

I'd say that the situations where a helmet would make the difference between a hospital admission and not, are so vanishingly unlikely that they are lost in the noise.

I don't think anyone has said that a helmet cannot ever prevent a head injury, just that any effect is not statistically detectable.

If helmets really did mean the difference in more than a tiny number of cases between a serious head injury and not, then in countries where helmet laws were introduced and there was a big increase in the proportion of helmeted riders, we should see a corresponding decrease in the proportion of head injuries. We don't see that in the data.