How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Little yellow Brompton]

So, to get to the nub of the matter, is it safer to wear a helmet or not to wear a helmet?

Yes /no/maybe, depending on type of riding, style, type of helmet, age, gender, country and a host of other things.

 

[PK99]

all your anecdotal evidence suggests, is that pedestrians should use helmets or bump caps and adds to the (widely accepted) statistics that more injuries happen in the home than cycling.

A completely fatuous fact oft trotted out in such "debates" - 100% of the population spend a larger proportion of their time at home, a small proportion of the population spend time cycling = of course more accidents happen in the home

 

[david k]

A completely fatuous fact oft trotted out in such "debates" - 100% of the population spend a larger proportion of their time at home, a small proportion of the population spend time cycling = of course more accidents happen in the home

please dont apply common sence, it has no place here

 

[ufkacbln]

No, you would just need to put some of the papers in front of the Court with expert testimony to that effect that was more persuasive than the insurance companies. Not difficult to do.

I guessing there would have to be a legal ruling that helmets are dangerous before you could do that.

Actually something very similar was done in Australia in September last year.

A woman was stopped by Police for not wearing a helmet. She argued thatthe helmet was of little benefit and could cause injury, in particular Diffuse injuries. The judge was shown the papers she provided in her defence.

Not only did he overturn her "arrest" but effectively decided that:

'Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your (Abbott's) side of the ledger. ... I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''

""She holds an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists". "It is clear that there is a significant argument taking place in certain scientific circles regarding the efficacy of helmets, in terms of their ability to protect. On one view, they appear to pose as much danger when worn as the danger of not wearing them. Unfortunately, that issue is an issue for Parliament in terms of whether they should rescind the mandatory requirement for helmets to be worn by cyclists"

Bssically this has put the discussion of repealing the helmet laws back on the agenda

 

[Mark_Robson]

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

Really? is that why the "pro choice" people post statements like this

There is no evidence that helmets reduce or prevent injuries. That's no evidence. None. In spite of what 'common sense' tells us.

Would you agree that this statement is correct and that it helps your argument?

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes /no/maybe, depending on type of riding, style, type of helmet, age, gender, country and a host of other things.

But that is called assessing the risk and making an informed choice..... these are very naughty and seditious thoughts.

You are allowed to decide not to wear a helmet as a pedestrian because you feel the risk to be low, but no allowed that type of silly and unacceptable choice when on a bike.

 

[mickle]

Really? is that why the "pro choice" people post statements like this


Would you agree that this statement is correct and that it helps your argument?

If you disagree so strongly with my statement why not simply prove me wrong by producing some evidence. It should be easy shouldn't it?

 

[mickle]

And, for the record, I am not 'pro choice' but anti helmet.

 

[david k]

1. I say "I believe helmets are of value"
2. You say "You can believe what you want to believe, just dont force your opinion on others"
3. I say "I am not forcing you to share my view but I still believe helmets are of value"
4. You say" how can you were is the evidence, you must provide evidence to support wearing of helmet"
5. I say, "I dont need evidence to have an opinion"
6. You say "you do need evidence to enforce compulsion or your views on others"
7. Return to point 3

 

[mickle]

There is no evidence that cycling helmets reduce injury or death in cyclists.

I believe that the widespread wearing of cycle helmets has a profound effect on the general public's perception of cycling as a dangerous activity. Fewer people ride bikes as a result.

I worked in cycle helmet retail for 23 years and worked on public and school cycling roadshows for three years. I have fitted thousands of helmets and sold many hundreds of them.

I mention these things because my experience at the sharp end of helmet installation has informed my opinion. people are scared of bikes - I have seen the fear. I have seen grown-ups refuse to ride a bicycle without a helmet. On a closed circuit. On grass! Only to plonk a helmet on the back of their head. I've seen teacher after teacher freak out because I let children ride around with out a helmet.

Cycling is dangerous in the eyes of a significant percentage of the population. And I hold helmets to blame.

 

[Mark_Robson]

If you disagree so strongly with my statement why not simply prove me wrong by producing some evidence. It should be easy shouldn't it?

My experience with the garage door proved you wrong. Why do you choose to ignore that fact?

[quote name = Mickle]Cycling is dangerous in the eyes of a significant percentage of the population. And I hold helmets to blame.[/quote]
I believe that it's far more complicated than that. Car drivers behaviour and stories of cyclists getting mown down may have something to do with it.

 

[Red Light]

My experience with the garage door proved you wrong.

It doesn't actually. At the single incident level you would have to repeat the incident again exactly the same except wearing a helmet. Who knows, the door edge might have dug into the helmet and wrenched your neck instead of the scalp wound you got. Without the control case (and not something that was vaguely similar but exactly the same) you can't say whether your injury, even though it might be a different type, would have been less, the same or more.

And then there is the problem that if you wore a helmet you would hit your head more often because you would need more clearance to avoid the garage door hitting your helmeted head and your natural instincts are conditioned around sufficient clearance for your unhelmeted head, not the bigger helmeted one. Over a period of time that larger number of hits might mean you have more injuries wearing a helmet when helmetless there would have been no incident at all. I have hit my helmeted head on door frames a number of times in moments of distraction due to my only just clearing them without one. It can be very painful, especially on the neck.

Although you are probably right, probably isn't proof.

 

[twobiker]

It doesn't actually. At the single incident level you would have to repeat the incident again exactly the same except wearing a helmet. Who knows, the door edge might have dug into the helmet and wrenched your neck instead of the scalp wound you got. Without the control case (and not something that was vaguely similar but exactly the same) you can't say whether your injury, even though it might be a different type, would have been less, the same or more.

And then there is the problem that if you wore a helmet you would hit your head more often because you would need more clearance to avoid the garage door hitting your helmeted head and your natural instincts are conditioned around sufficient clearance for your unhelmeted head, not the bigger helmeted one. Over a period of time that larger number of hits might mean you have more injuries wearing a helmet when helmetless there would have been no incident at all. I have hit my helmeted head on door frames a number of times in moments of distraction due to my only just clearing them without one. It can be very painful, especially on the neck.

Although you are probably right, probably isn't proof.

I gave my father-in-law a baseball cap type safety hat as he was always hitting his head when working in his garage, he is 80, and he told me he still hits his head as he doesn't allow for the extra height of the hat , but now it doesn't hurt.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I gave my father-in-law a baseball cap type safety hat as he was always hitting his head when working in his garage, he is 80, and he told me he still hits his head as he doesn't allow for the extra height of the hat , but now it doesn't hurt.

Unless forests have been cut down to provide enough paper for research to be printed on then no evidence is good enough. Even then it is only good enough if it is accepted by those who will go on to quote it.

 

[twobiker]

Unless forests have been cut down to provide enough paper for research to be printed on then no evidence is good enough. Even then it is only good enough if it is accepted by those who will go on to quote it.

i put up a link to some more info,http://daviswiki.org/Bicycle_Helmets. and then click NHTSA fact sheet, probably deemed not scientific enough though.