The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[fossyant]

Crash injuries vary - I've had enough of them to give you a good idea. I do wear a helmet as I was a bread and butter roadie that raced where it was compulsory. I tend to use the helmet as a good method of heat control with a scull cap - I buy well vented ones.

MTB - you are most likely to whack your lid on a low branch - spinal and hip injuries should be your biggest concern if doing DH.

Road crashes, most I've had have involved injury to hands, shoulders, buttocks etc. I've had two where the helmet saved gravel rash, one where it saved me a serious head injury, and a very serious accident, where my helmet went no-where near the road, despite some spectacular spinning in the air minus a bike.

2008 I was hit hard side on by a car and the lid stopped gravel rash only as I was flung sideways - mangled shoulder.

2014, hit from the behind/side, went over bars head first into the road, helmet broken, but broke my ribs (again). Head OK - glad for lid.

2015, right turning car, hit side on - back snapped mid air (it hurt) got some air and remember thinking this is some height to fall, bosh. Two snapped vertebrae and 4 broken ribs. No marks on helmet. Head and neck OK, but back pain was something else.

As for the physics post by simongt, sorry, the body has more weight than the head.

 

[mjr]

The laws of physics dictate that one's head, being the highest & heaviest - for its size - part of the body, then coming off a bike involuntarily will likely involve a head / ground / vehicle contact. There are those of us I'm sure, who will be quick thinking enough to tuck the head out of the way in all circumstances thus avoiding nasty injury to same. However, as most of us are ordinary humans, then the head gets it most of the time - !

As I understand it, the usual claim is that ordinary humans instinctively protect their heads with little thinking required, but this is impaired in many situations if the head is artificially enlarged and weighted - for example, by wearing a helmet!

I agree with others: head strikes are fairly rare when regular, unhelmeted cyclists crash. If a helmet-wearer feels otherwise, that's rather damning.

 

[Justinslow]

Crash injuries vary - I've had enough of them to give you a good idea. I do wear a helmet as I was a bread and butter roadie that raced where it was compulsory. I tend to use the helmet as a good method of heat control with a scull cap - I buy well vented ones.

MTB - you are most likely to whack your lid on a low branch - spinal and hip injuries should be your biggest concern if doing DH.

Road crashes, most I've had have involved injury to hands, shoulders, buttocks etc. I've had two where the helmet saved gravel rash, one where it saved me a serious head injury, and a very serious accident, where my helmet went no-where near the road, despite some spectacular spinning in the air minus a bike.

2008 I was hit hard side on by a car and the lid stopped gravel rash only as I was flung sideways - mangled shoulder.

2014, hit from the behind/side, went over bars head first into the road, helmet broken, but broke my ribs (again). Head OK - glad for lid.

2015, right turning car, hit side on - back snapped mid air (it hurt) got some air and remember thinking this is some height to fall, bosh. Two snapped vertebrae and 4 broken ribs. No marks on helmet. Head and neck OK, but back pain was something else.

As for the physics post by simongt, sorry, the body has more weight than the head.

This post tells me everything I need to know about helmets, and why I'll continue to wear one, thanks, better to be safer than sorry..........

 

[ufkacbln]

The laws of physics dictate that one's head, being the highest & heaviest - for its size - part of the body, then coming off a bike involuntarily will likely involve a head / ground / vehicle contact. There are those of us I'm sure, who will be quick thinking enough to tuck the head out of the way in all circumstances thus avoiding nasty injury to same. However, as most of us are ordinary humans, then the head gets it most of the time - !

.......the. Laws of Physics will I presume apply to pedestrians?

 

[Profpointy]

This post tells me everything I need to know about helmets, and why I'll continue to wear one, thanks, better to be safer than sorry..........

justin, you're still missing a key point illustrated perfectly by the Australian experience. On balance / on average they don't help. Thus good and bad effects balance out. If makes just as much sense to NOT wear one because "better safe than sorry" as you might be in the bad half of the stats

 

[Justinslow]

justin, you're still missing a key point illustrated perfectly by the Australian experience. On balance / on average they don't help. Thus good and bad effects balance out. If makes just as much sense to NOT wear one because "better safe than sorry" as you might be in the bad half of the stats

Which is why I wrote "safer" than sorry, @fossyant has clearly described some incidents where helmets have been beneficial, and some were they haven't. Had a helmet not been worn some of those incidents would have been worse.

 

[Profpointy]

Which is why I wrote "safer" than sorry, @fossyant has clearly described some incidents where helmets have been beneficial, and some were they haven't. Had a helmet not been worn some of those incidents would have been worse.

you've still missed the point. In Australia, where ysage is now close to 100% post compulsion there has been no safety improvement. Helmets (presumably) help sometimes but must make things worse other times - otherwise we'd see a net benefit - which we don't. Wearing one "to be on the safe side" isn't logical here.

This isn't something which does nothing sometimes but works a little bit orher times - this is the scenario where you do it to be on the saf side

 

[Justinslow]

No Justin, Fossyant has described some incidents where helmets MIGHT HAVE been beneficial, and had a helmet not been worn, some of those incident COULD have been worse. There is no way of knowing.

In @fossyant opinion a helmet was beneficial, anecdotal maybe, but it backs up what I and others have said regarding helmet use by us or our friends people we know, regarding accidents and the effectiveness of helmets in some cases.

 

[martint235]

In @fossyant opinion a helmet was beneficial, anecdotal maybe, but it backs up what I and others have said regarding helmet use by us or our friends people we know, regarding accidents and the effectiveness of helmets in some cases.

But we've been around this buoy so many times now, do we really have to go around it again?

There is a perception, fed by peer pressure/advertising/cycling on TV, that helmets work. It's not driven by anything other than a desire to sell helmets and a lack of understanding of what they have been tested against.

If I said that wearing Brut aftershave protected you against tiger attack, would you buy it? I could say it's got a certificate to say it makes you smell nice. I could get your colleagues to say "Are you mad? You went out without Brut aftershave on, you could get attacked by a tiger". Now you could say I've got no evidence of its effectiveness but I would answer "I've got 50% of people in Croydon wearing it now and not ONE person has been attacked by a tiger. It is therefore 100% effective against tigers". Would you not at some point respond with "Ah, but can you show me some footage of a guy wearing Brut and standing in a tiger cage so I can see what happens?"

 

[Tin Pot]

But we've been around this buoy so many times now, do we really have to go around it again?

There is a perception, fed by peer pressure/advertising/cycling on TV, that helmets work. It's not driven by anything other than a desire to sell helmets and a lack of understanding of what they have been tested against.

If I said that wearing Brut aftershave protected you against tiger attack, would you buy it? I could say it's got a certificate to say it makes you smell nice. I could get your colleagues to say "Are you mad? You went out without Brut aftershave on, you could get attacked by a tiger". Now you could say I've got no evidence of its effectiveness but I would answer "I've got 50% of people in Croydon wearing it now and not ONE person has been attacked by a tiger. It is therefore 100% effective against tigers". Would you not at some point respond with "Ah, but can you show me some footage of a guy wearing Brut and standing in a tiger cage so I can see what happens?"

There is literally no point in explaining to Justinslow. He can't hear you.

Just trying to save you the brainache!

 

[martint235]

There is literally no point in explaining to Justinslow. He can't hear you.

Just trying to save you the brainache!

I know but I felt it was time to try a different tack.

 

[Justinslow]

I know but I felt it was time to try a different tack.

Why is it so wrong to have the opinion that I or @fossyant or others have on here?

 

[Mugshot]

No Justin, Fossyant has described some incidents where helmets MIGHT HAVE been beneficial, and had a helmet not been worn, some of those incident COULD have been worse. There is no way of knowing.

Now come on, Justin hasn't posted on this thread for nearly a fortnight as he'd run out of straws. He's just been flung one and he fully intends to cling on to it a while, don't spoil his fun.

 

[martint235]

Why is it so wrong to have the opinion that I or @fossyant or others have on here?

It's not. I'd just really prefer it to be an informed opinion as has been pointed out previously, the more people wearing helmets without an informed opinion the more times I have to answer the "What? You don't wear Brut? There's tigers" questions.

Either that or I want to get into helmet business before they introduce rigorous testing.

 

[Tin Pot]

We've been through this so many times already that it seems you are just trolling really. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion. Just don't state it as a fact. It's not a fact, it's just an opinion.

And because choosing opinion over fact is an abomination.