Has your helmet saved your life poll

[MontyVeda]

I've banged my head more times whilst on foot than I have coming off my bike... in fact I've banged my head more times on foot, indoors than I have on foot, outdoors. In fact, I haven't banged my head coming off my bike since 1986.

And in 1986, i figured I'd be a lot safer in future if I didn't have a carrier bag dangling over the handlebars... because it might get stuck between my forks and spokes and send me flying.

Just anecdotes i know.... but they still count as evidence don't they?

 

[Sharky]

I've had a few spills, broken collar bones etc, - don't know if my helmet made a difference, but twice the helmet was cracked and had to be replaced.

But after many years of riding without one and enjoying the freedom of the wind blowing through my hair etc, I was riding home after work without a helmet. It was twilight, but a quiet road going through a little village down here (Offham). There was a stretch of road without a pavement and I was riding close to a garden wall. Over which was some sprawling creeper like foliage. Some of the foliage had formed a loop and as I rode past, it looped my handle bars and in an instant, turned my front wheel 90 degrees and I went over the top, landing on my back and my head took a blow which dazed me for a couple of minutes.

I recovered and rode home.

Since then I have always worn a helmet. I used to think that I had sufficient skills that I would not fall off, but if you can be attacked by a plant and come off, I now know that the unexpected is never expected! Since this spill, I had those slightly more serious falls, so you could say not wearing a helmet saved my life as it made me wear one ever since.

Safe riding

Keith

 

[theclaud]

don't know if my helmet made a difference [...]

my head took a blow which dazed me for a couple of minutes.[...]

I recovered and rode home. [...]

Since then I have always worn a helmet. [...]

so you could say not wearing a helmet saved my life as it made me wear one ever since.

I don't do this often, but....

 

[Edwardoka]

No-one responded to my lovingly crafted image which illustrated a scenario in which wearing a helmet would be more injurious than not wearing one.

It's all conjectural, no-one can prove anything about efficacy because it is impossible to replicate the exact conditions of a bicycle crash and the slightest change of input will drastically alter the result.

If you want to wear a helmet go ahead, but don't expect it to magically protect you from a tonne of high-velocity metal.

 

[snorri]

Should you be interested, the article you alluded to in paragraph 6 is here...with some interesting counter arguments afterwards.

As you say, arguments and counter arguments but nothing conclusive either way.
I see the name Rivara included in authorship of the pro helmet argument.

 

[ianrauk]

most riders rely on the safety device called
"It won't happen to me - because I'm special"

I suppose it comes down to "Do you feel lucky , Punk!"

I don't think that at all. Certainly not because I think it won't happen to me or because I am special.
In fact I don't know any non helmet wearers who think along those lines.
My reason for not wearing a helmet is that they look shoot and unless you are competing, racing, Downhilling, MTB'ing etc then they are not needed for everyday cycling, simple as that.

 

[Big Nick]

If you want to wear a helmet go ahead, but don't expect it to magically protect you from a tonne of high-velocity metal.

Personally I don't but in the several crashes I've been in both motorcycle and bicycle I've broke other parts of my body but not my head and seeing the state of the helmets afterwards makes me glad they were there.

I've worn one for many activities where I can reach speeds of over 40mph and don't have a tin box all around me including sledging, quad biking, motorcycling, motorised karting although in a lot of cases I didn't have to legally

Fair play to those who don't want to wear one, its freedom of choice and should stay that way

 

[ufkacbln]

Elsewhere a guy in the local cycle club who is 'old school' and never wears a cycle helmet just a cap crashed a month ago and fractured his skull and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Whilst he may still of been if he'd been wearing a helmet surely the added head protection would have lessened the chances of serious injury?

As it would in the far more common head injuries?

This is an excellent suportive argument for pedestrian helmets!



Elsewhere there is a guy who has never worn a pedestrian helmet just a cap - he fell over a month ago and fractured his skull and was in a coma for 2 weeks. Whilst he may still have suffred an injury if he'd been wearing a helmet surely the added head protection would have lessened the chances of serious injury?

Absolute incontrivertible proof of the need for pedestrians to wear helmets!

 

[ufkacbln]

That article doesn't support the conclusion it draws. It purports to compare pre-MHL and post-MHL but has no pre-MHL data at all. Yet it plots a graph including 1990 (pre-MHL). The graph it plots marks 1991 as the critical point at which helmet-wearing started, but the text refers to 1992 as the critical point. The graph suggests that 1991 was a low blip rather than a change.

And I'm not even a particularly well-trained statistician.

THe other factors are:

1. There was a whole spectrumm of road improvements at this time with a clampdown on speeding, dangerous driving, tailgating, drunk driving, and vehicle standards. NOne of these were considerd annd any of them could have explained a decrease in cyclits injuries including head injuries

2. The data neds to be corrected for the number of cyclists. One of the most common errors with the Australian research is the failure to do this.
Yes - the number of head injuries decreased
However the number of cyclists had also decreased
When you factor this in, the number of head injuries was GREATER per cyclist / journey / mile after helmet introduction!

Whatthe Australian data really provess is that a compulsory helmet law INCREASES the hazard

 

[jonny jeez]

So.

From just over 230 votes, around 40% of us are convinced that a helmet has saved our lives and around a further 40% feel that their lids have remained untested. The rest seem to share a common percentage of the remaining views.

Reading through this thread, which has inevitably been hijacked a little, one message repeats itself that concerns me.

Some of us seem to refute an opinion if it has been formed without relying solely upon empirical evidence.

Many of our choices in life are based upon intuitive learning and i don't see why we need to INSIST upon recorded data to make up our minds.

If you feel its safer to wear a lid, then do so, if you don't, then don't. But don't tell others that they are wrong for forming an opinion based on intuitive learning.

If we base decisions upon pure empirical evidence then we would have trouble just getting out of bed in the morning, we would deny any number of forces (gravity and religion being two that spring to mind) as they simply cannot be defined with data or even.

Ask a physicist what gravity actually is and you will eventually (after some discussion) be referred to a theory...trust me, I've tried this one.

 

[benb]

If helmets were effective at reducing serious head injuries we would be able to detect that effect in the statistics, it's that simple.

The fact that we can detect no such protective effect means one of:

• Helmets have no effect on reducing serious head injuries
• Helmets do protect to an extent against serious head injuries but that effect is so small as to be statistically insignificant
• Helmets do protect to an extent against serious head injuries but that effect is offset by some other factor (eg helmeted riders taking more risks)

What we can be sure of is that any measure that reduces people cycling is a massive public health own goal. Even if helmets were 100% effective, if helmets are made mandatory more people will die from lack of exercise through being put off cycling than could possibly be saved. The Australian mandatory helmet law is costing lives, regardless of how effective helmets are.

 

[Profpointy]

I agree it's fair enough to go by instinct on what's safer - after all we've evolved to make such judgements - and instinctively a helmet is "bound to help innit" - which used to be my own (instinctive) view. However what is frankly rude as well as ignorant is to call people stupid for changing their view based on evidence of the various statistical surveys.

 

[Big Nick]

Ok, I'm doing a test as scientifically as my comprehensive school education can formulate

I will wear a cycle helmet whilst being struck moderately hard on the head by a blunt object, I'm just wondering if there's anyone one here who'll volunteer to be my 'control' sample and receive the same blow to the head without said helmet.......??

We will then compare headaches.........

 

[Markymark]

Can we do another test where I swing a blunt object 1cm from your skull without a helmet thus missing you and then once with a helmet thus making contact with the helmet. Then compare headaches after that?

 

[Big Nick]

Both tests would be relevant but whatever people say there's a risk of banging your head if you crash

There's always the pedestrian argument about also banging your head simply walking along but I don't know many people who can walk at 30-45mph

That's my personal, in some peoples eyes flawed, justification for why I wear one and will continue to do so