The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[martint235]

@Mugshot @martint235 @User13710 @mjray @Profpointy You'll be pleased to know that I haven't got anything further to add to the debate, you know my views, as I know yours, you are adding nothing further to the debate either by the way.

Is now a good time to mention this from 2 days ago?

 

[simongt]

I still tend to believe that bash hats should be a personal choice; I always use one. My wife has come off her bike three times in the last twenty years; twice hit by a car and once when she caught her wheel in a drain cover whilst negotiating a roundabout. It was this last one that trashed her bash hat and she ended up with a bruise on her temple. So, statistically what does that tell us - ?

 

[martint235]

That her helmet failed badly and perhaps bruised her temple?

Other than that it tells us bugger all

 

[mjr]

Before I go to the trouble of checking the references, have you?

Not yet. I can't be bothered with them on a Saturday evening. Ask again next week

I'm particularly looking forward to the Cochrane Database one as I've used them before. They are world recognised experts. In health care and evidence based treatment of illness and injury. Recognise something in there?

If the Cochrane Database mainly contains data collected for case-control studies, a Cochrane review could be impacted by the flaw in those studies reported by the European Cyclists Federation at https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/helmet-effectiveness-research-forced-go-back-drawing-board

I don't know about that I think I look quite dapper in mine.

I don't think your avatar is accurate

 

[glenn forger]

I still tend to believe that bash hats should be a personal choice; I always use one. My wife has come off her bike three times in the last twenty years; twice hit by a car and once when she caught her wheel in a drain cover whilst negotiating a roundabout. It was this last one that trashed her bash hat and she ended up with a bruise on her temple. So, statistically what does that tell us - ?

Your wife's road positioning is highly dodgy.

 

[mjr]

Your wife's road positioning is highly dodgy.

More likely: the local council is shoot and has put/allowed a drain cover where it can trap unsuspecting two-wheeled road users

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Sometimes Australia surprises me:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...-road-safety-plan/7168288?WT.ac=statenews_act

Of course, it's only under consideration, so may never eventuate.

 

[srw]

It didn't work too well in my case. I was hit by a car last spring, unfortunately my head took the full impact to the kerb when I landed and suffered a severe head injury and brain trauma (rest of my body was unscathed). I had an induced coma and the neurosurgeons removed part of my skull to give my brain room to expand (otherwise it would likely be goodbye world). When they initially failed to get me out of the coma they gave me little hope, as the scans revealed major rotational injury where the left and right side of the brain had become disconnected, as though they had been sheared apart. They called my family in to a meeting telling them that if I didn't come round in two days then it was switch off time. By a massive fluke I started to show signs of life the following day, then shortly after regained consciousness.

I wasn't wearing a helmet at the time of the collision however a couple of neurologists state in their opinion that in this case a helmet would have made virtually no difference to the severity of my injuries. The one I saw yesterday afternoon said the most likely effect of a helmet would have been the surgeons would have had to remove pieces of broken helmet from my head. I wear a helmet now, not because I believe it will do much in the event of a similar incident, but more to give my family some piece of mind. Sometimes, thinking of the feelings of your loved ones, even if they may be misguided, is more important than taking a Mr Spock like attitude.

I'm very glad you're well, and despite the negative reactions of some I think that in this circumstance you're using the right approach to decision-making. The thoughts and feelings of loved ones are very important.

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm very glad you're well, and despite the negative reactions of some I think that in this circumstance you're using the right approach to decision-making. The thoughts and feelings of loved ones are very important.

As previously, what happens when that loved one thinks cycling is unnecessary and dangerous... Especially when there is a car in the garage

Should they give up cycling?

 

[Poacher]

Sometimes Australia surprises me:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-...-road-safety-plan/7168288?WT.ac=statenews_act

Of course, it's only under consideration, so may never eventuate.

It surprises me too.

"An expert would be engaged to assess the situational risk of helmet-free riding in "parks, town centres and other low-speed environments such as shared zones and university precincts".

So they're considering allowing helmet-free riding at speeds where a helmet is designed and tested to work, but keeping mandatory helmet use on roads where most collisions will be outside a helmet's protection parameters. Sheer genius! Has nothing been learned in the years since the ill-advised legislation was passed?

 

[srw]

As previously, what happens when that loved one thinks cycling is unnecessary and dangerous... Especially when there is a car in the garage

Should they give up cycling?

Of course not. But that's not what is being suggested.

Sometimes looking at an extreme worst-case scenario just makes you look like an arse.

 

[Justinslow]

As previously, what happens when that loved one thinks cycling is unnecessary and dangerous... Especially when there is a car in the garage

Should they give up cycling?

I guy I know from the club came off Saturday night, I don't know the circumstances. He's had an operation for "quite severe facial injuries" again don't know the details. He wears a helmet but whether it did any good or not I have no idea.
Whether you view cycling as dangerous or not probably is determined by the riding you do and the people you know and the experiences they have and what they all talk about.
In the last couple of years I know of at least 7 riders coming off out of the small group I'm associated with. Pretty much every accident not involving any other vehicle.
So riding at speed and in close proximity to others is dangerous, which is why I view cycling as dangerous I guess.

 

[srw]

Justin, you have it wrong again. You think it is dangerous. I ride in groups several times a week and I can't remember the last time someone fell off. I don't think it is dangerous. I feel a bit sorry for you though.

Either he thinks it's dangerous or he does the kind of cycling - too fast for the conditions, too fast for his skill, with people who have poor bike-handling skills and poor decision-making - which makes it dangerous. Because of where I am I'm irresistibly reminded of the novice skier who thinks he (and it's almost always a he) can tackle an off-piste black run after a week of lessons.

 

[martint235]

I guy I know from the club came off Saturday night, I don't know the circumstances. He's had an operation for "quite severe facial injuries" again don't know the details. He wears a helmet but whether it did any good or not I have no idea.
Whether you view cycling as dangerous or not probably is determined by the riding you do and the people you know and the experiences they have and what they all talk about.
In the last couple of years I know of at least 7 riders coming off out of the small group I'm associated with. Pretty much every accident not involving any other vehicle.
So riding at speed and in close proximity to others is dangerous, which is why I view cycling as dangerous I guess.

And this is all the more reason why there should be publicly evidence as to what a cycling helmet can reasonably be expected to do.

It is pointless asking people to perform the risk assessments that we all do, day in day out, without any kind of information. For example, today is quite cold. There may be ice about. That increases my chances of coming off the bike (I've never come off on ice yet but recognise the increase in risk it brings) but I have absolutely no idea whether or not a cycling helmet would help. Because no manufacturer has advertised their product as being tested against this kind of thing, I have to follow the idea that no advertising means no the helmet won't help otherwise a manufacturer would be all over the market to gain an advantage.

Close riding is another aspect that raises risk. I could say that close riding in proximity to others who are not particularly good at close riding but then you could look at the pro peloton to see experienced pro riders coming off. However, again there is no evidence as to how a helmet changes or mitigates the risk involved. In fact, if you look at the peloton, it's rarely head/helmet damage that is sustained. It tends to be road rash on hips or broken collar bones at the more serious end.

This is what I've been pushing all through this debate. The more anecdotal evidence of "my friend crashed but he was wearing a helmet so didn't die" is pushed forward the more people will feel that a. cycling is dangerous and b. that a cycling helmet will mitigate that "because everyone wears one innit". The more people wear, and more importantly buy, helmets without fully understanding what they are tested against, the lower the inclination of manufacturers to bother putting in the time testing and evidencing the efficacy. After all, why bother if people are going to buy them anyway? It follows therefore that if people want a helmet to be truly helpful in various real world scenarios, the easiest and fastest way to make that happen is to stop buying the plastic hats currently being peddled by manufacturers and instead to start asking those same manufacturers "Just what is this protecting me against and can you prove it?"

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course not. But that's not what is being suggested.

What is being suggested is that a decision is made to satisfy a "loved one" as opposed to a logical and evidence based one, yet it seems that it is only the case of it suits the pro-helmet agenda

So let's apply the Spock like logic?

Why is it the right approach to decision-making, as thoughts and feelings of loved ones are very important, but only when it comes to helmets

Hypocritically when it doesn't suit the same process and logic becomes very silly?