How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Norm]

In 20 years of competing in motorsport the worst injury I had was caused by a helmet! :-(

We hit a particularrly large yump on the Scottish International Rally and my helmet got jammed between the roll cage and the seat head rest, wrenching my neck as i came back down and my helmet/head didn't!

Oooo, ya bugger! (Although I feel obliged to ask how bad the "going up" injury would have been without the helmet )

The Scottish International is quite a big one, isn't it. Most of my competing was only in Land Rovers (with 5.7l V8 engines but still Land Rovers) in safari events, but we wore lids all the time, even when practising on our own farm land.

 

[totallyfixed]

To reply to the question, perhaps we should be asking the citizens of Copenhagen.
http://www.google.co...1t:429,r:4,s:66

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Oooo, ya bugger! (Although I feel obliged to ask how bad the "going up" injury would have been without the helmet )

The Scottish International is quite a big one, isn't it. Most of my competing was only in Land Rovers (with 5.7l V8 engines but still Land Rovers) in safari events, but we wore lids all the time, even when practising on our own farm land.

The going up was ok I didn't hit anything then, but as with all these things nothing was in a straight line so I went up and over a bit and got wedged between the side of the seat and the cage.

It was quite a big event but we were in the tiddler 1300 class.

The scariest incident I ever saw was at a 4x4 trial. The organisers had created a "coffin" about 15 ft deep and about 9 ft wide and every other YEAHAHHHH competitor before us sent in and then tried to climb out. I noticed how far the flags were away from the edge at the top and my driver and I just went around!! Cue lots fo protests about cheating until the organisers said it was allowed , then olthers tried it, until one slipped in upside down. The RR coudn't be got out, the doors coudn't be opened ( too narrow a slot) and the crew's heads were under water! The only "safety " the organisers had arranged was a St John Ambulance man with a satchel! I walked away from 4x4 trials after that . I did do the Welsh Hill Rally in a V8 LR driven by Nick Ashley I was drafted in because he HAD TO finish the event to get an internatioanl licence in time to do the Paris Dakar.

 

[Red Light]

May I sugest that it is to do with the speeds that these cars travel at and also the minimum distance between the cars.

So just like the difference between professional cycle racing and normal road cycling then?

 

[Kleban]

Two reasons. Sponsorship money and UCI rules require helmets to be worn since 2003. On organised club events its usually the insurers who insist on it.

When the UCI first tried to introduce the rule in 1991 the riders went on strike against it and it was dropped. It was then introduced in stages 12 years later. Since the helmet rule was introduced deaths of professional cyclists per annum has trebled.

But perhaps I could ask you a question. Formula 1, Indy Car down to club racing events all have helmets as mandatory. If they are of such value why don't car drivers wear them?

This is just an opinion, however the only reasons I can think of are;

1. The family saloon car - the occupants are in a protected environment.

2. Open wheel cars - i.e. F1's, Indy Cars etc - the drivers are exposed.

3. The speeds at which the vehicles are travelling - daily commuters versus racing.

 

[Red Light]

This is just an opinion, however the only reasons I can think of are;

1. The family saloon car - the occupants are in a protected environment.

2. Open wheel cars - i.e. F1's, Indy Cars etc - the drivers are exposed.

3. The speeds at which the vehicles are travelling - daily commuters versus racing.

1. Nothing like the protected environment of an F1 car for example. People die in saloon cars at 30-40mph; F1 and Indy cars crash at 200mph and the drivers walk away

2. There are plenty of enclosed racing cars - Le Mans, rallying and saloon car racing for example.

3. Tour de France and Olympic riders travel at much faster than daily commuters

So overall it seems we are agreed that what happens in cycle racing is as relevant to daily cycle commuting as car racing is to daily car commuting

 

[Mark_Robson]

I said there is no evidence that cycle helmets prevent head injuries. Prove me wrong.

My experience with the garage door proved you wrong. Just because there hasn't been a paper written on it doesn't make it any less valid.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

My experience with the garage door proved you wrong. Just because there hasn't been a paper written on it doesn't make it any less valid.

It makes if far less valid, publish a paper, showing your methodology and your peers get a chance to examine your results and how you obtained them. At the moment you have an anecdote , anecdotes are not valid research/evidence.

 

[lukesdad]

It makes if far less valid, publish a paper, showing your methodology and your peers get a chance to examine your results and how you obtained them. At the moment you have an anecdote , anecdotes are not valid research/evidence.

No it does not make it less valid. Reading literature by faceless researchers producing skewed information depending on their agenda,whether future funding or comissions by pressure groups, or improving their reputation amongst their peers may be the driving force. May well be far less valid.

Are you really that naive.

 

[Mark_Robson]

It makes if far less valid, publish a paper, showing your methodology and your peers get a chance to examine your results and how you obtained them. At the moment you have an anecdote , anecdotes are not valid research/evidence.

Mickle asked me to prove you wrong and I already had.

Can't you inderstand why I have a problem with the statement that there is no evidence to suggest that helmets offer no protection in an accident that that there is no no evidence to suggest that they can and do prevent injury? To me it smacks of desperation and IMO totally undermines the pro choice argument.

If you were to state that helmets don't offer the level of protection that some cyclists would expect and that in some circumstances they can actually contribute to injury then I would listen to you.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I think you may have mixed me up withsomone else. My statement simply concerns the validity of your anecdote compared with research using a published methodology.

 

[dellzeqq]

AFS, would you prefer to have that helmet on or off if something was dropped on your head?

and the chances of something dropping on your head are..........

 

[dellzeqq]

Mickle asked me to prove you wrong and I already had.

Can't you inderstand why I have a problem with the statement that there is no evidence to suggest that helmets offer no protection in an accident that that there is no no evidence to suggest that they can and do prevent injury? To me it smacks of desperation and IMO totally undermines the pro choice argument.

If you were to state that helmets don't offer the level of protection that some cyclists would expect and that in some circumstances they can actually contribute to injury then I would listen to you.

it doesn't. The pro choice argument is that people can make up their own minds.

 

[dellzeqq]

Let me say, once again, that I am new to cycling and this forum. I do believe that the wearing of a cycle helmet will afford some protection against sustaining serious head injury in the event of an accident. However, that is my opinion, and I'm in no way forcing my belief on others. If another cyclist chooses to wear a cycle helmet, or not, that is their decision.

But please, answer this question. If the cycle helmet is of no value, then why do they still manufacture them? Why do cyclists partaking in the many sporting events; Tour de France, Olympics, Organised Club events etc, wear a helmet?

I can only relate this little story. I organise a charity ride. The charity's insurers insisted on everybody wearing a helmet. I insisted that there would be no ride if this was the case. The insurers then changed tack and insisted that everybody be strongly advised to wear a helmet. The broker was candid about the reason behind this - he wanted to reduce liability. He had no opinion on risk.

 

[Red Light]

I can only relate this little story. I organise a charity ride. The charity's insurers insisted on everybody wearing a helmet. I insisted that there would be no ride if this was the case. The insurers then changed tack and insisted that everybody be strongly advised to wear a helmet. The broker was candid about the reason behind this - he wanted to reduce liability. He had no opinion on risk.

It would be interesting to send him the paper by Rodgers - the biggest study every carried out - finding an increased risk and suggest he might be subject to a greater claim if someone is injured for forcing them to wear a harmful helmet and see how he reacts.