The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

Hardly trolling Justin, just trying to highlight what seem to me to be some inconsistencies.

You have used Steve as an example and suggested that what he is doing puts him at;

But you have also quite correctly said that

To the best of my knowledge he has been knocked off by the scooter which resulted in the broken ankle and he has been brought down by another cyclist, which resulted in the other cyclist suffering from a broken pelvis, I think.

But you also seem to suggest that a family outing down the canal path carries similar risks and as a result requires special protective gear in the same way that fast, close quarters group riding does.

So I don't quite understand what you mean when you say;

Are you saying that all cycling is high risk?

I guess it can be, yes, compared to walking for example, as it is usually carried out at a higher speed and carries greater risk. I'm saying it is irrelevant what cycling you are participating in and you could have an accident on the one day of the year you choose to cycle because a black cat ran out in front of you. If it's gonna happen it's gonna happen.

 

[martint235]

Yes accidents do happen and to risk being anecdotal here goes : over the last 25 years I've had 1 significant head injury that a helmet would have been unlikely to mitigate ; two sets of broken ribs; numerous deep tissue bruising to ribs, shoulder etc. Based on this, the thread should really be about whether or not cyclists should wear body armour but it isn't. In pro cycling the main injuries seem to be body, thigh, collar bone but no one ever suggests protecting those areas (although there are apparently shorts that help to prevent road rash now).

I refer to my point I made earlier : helmets are a successful con similar to snake oil, backed up by little evidence

 

[Mugshot]

I guess it can be, yes, compared to walking for example, as it is usually carried out at a higher speed and carries greater risk. I'm saying it is irrelevant what cycling you are participating in and you could have an accident on the one day of the year you choose to cycle because a black cat ran out in front of you. If it's gonna happen it's gonna happen.

Thank you.
As I said earlier, to me that is a black and white view of the world (particulalry when it comes to cats). Can you see though that if you extend the

If it's gonna happen it's gonna happen.

mantra then there are many many other things which you should be wearing protective clothing for which you quite likely do not currently?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

One of our club's riders had a bad crash back in the spring where on a "chain" ride the rider in front went down and he had nowhere to go and went over the top. He landed on his head and was knocked out for a time and spent some time in hospital after, all the other riders and those that stopped to help are adamant his helmet saved his life.

Well, if we're throwing in anecdotes:

When I used to wear a helmet on my commutes I had several minor offs, and two hefty collisions with motor vehicles (one a hit & run).
Since I have stopped wearing a helmet I have not had any crashes.

Other riders I've spoken to have had similar experiences and all are adamant that wearing a helmet makes crashing more likely.

GC

 

[Justinslow]

Thank you.
As I said earlier, to me that is a black and white view of the world (particulalry when it comes to cats). Can you see though that if you extend the
mantra then there are many many other things which you should be wearing protective clothing for which you quite likely do not currently?

Trouble is you seem to think that i said somewhere "you must wear a helmet when cycling", which I didn't. I quoted an anecdote regarding a crash, that's it. I believe having a helmet on your head may help in a crash, that's it. Do I always wear a helmet no, do I think they should be made compulsory, no. But I do think they can help in an accident - my opinion. Some of you don't even think they can help, well that's your prerogative, and I hope you never have to learn the hard way.

Here's a pic from Sunday's family ride where me and the wife were not wearing helmets, I was even looking round one handed taking a photo for gawds sake! (Off road).

 

[Justinslow]

Yes accidents do happen and to risk being anecdotal here goes : over the last 25 years I've had 1 significant head injury that a helmet would have been unlikely to mitigate ; two sets of broken ribs; numerous deep tissue bruising to ribs, shoulder etc. Based on this, the thread should really be about whether or not cyclists should wear body armour but it isn't. In pro cycling the main injuries seem to be body, thigh, collar bone but no one ever suggests protecting those areas (although there are apparently shorts that help to prevent road rash now).

I refer to my point I made earlier : helmets are a successful con similar to snake oil, backed up by little evidence

Yes but the human body does not carry its brain in the arms and legs !

 

[martint235]

Yes but the human body does not carry its brain in the arms and legs !

No it carries it in a protective shell that has evolved over thousands of years just for that function

 

[Justinslow]

No it carries it in a protective shell that has evolved over thousands of years just for that function

Yes not evolved enough though to withstand speedy impacts with Tarmac, concrete or moving vehicles though, as it's not your usual day to day occurrence......

 

[summerdays]

Yes not evolved enough though to withstand speedy impacts with Tarmac, concrete or moving vehicles though, as it's not your usual day to day occurrence......

But equally neither has the helmet? Why is the test stuck in the past? Why not develop one that reflects what people expect from a helmet? (to travel over 12 mph and possibly collide with something going far faster .... meaning the combined speed is far bigger than the 12 mph - physics isn't my strong point)

 

[Mugshot]

Trouble is you seem to think that i said somewhere "you must wear a helmet when cycling", which I didn't. I quoted an anecdote regarding a crash, that's it. I believe having a helmet on your head may help in a crash, that's it. Do I always wear a helmet no, do I think they should be made compulsory, no. But I do think they can help in an accident - my opinion. Some of you don't even think they can help, well that's your prerogative, and I hope you never have to learn the hard way.

Here's a pic from Sunday's family ride where me and the wife were not wearing helmets, I was even looking round one handed taking a photo for gawds sake! (Off road).
View attachment 105935

My apologies Justin, it would appear you offered me a stick and I may have grabbed the wrong end.

But I do think they can help in an accident - my opinion. Some of you don't even think they can help

This has been suggested before on this thread but when it was challenged the evidence wasn't forthcoming.

 

[martint235]

As mentioned above my skull works quite well. I banged it against the back of a tipper truck at approximately 25mph. Then bounced the back of it off the tarmac. I don't believe a helmet would have influenced the outcome in any way

 

[Justinslow]

As mentioned above my skull works quite well. I banged it against the back of a tipper truck at approximately 25mph. Then bounced the back of it off the tarmac. I don't believe a helmet would have influenced the outcome in any way

Why not?

 

[Profpointy]

Yes but the human body does not carry its brain in the arms and legs !

That's still assuming that they help safety - "begging the question" as it's called. Of course, few of us want to injure our brains, hey some people's ar virtually unused after all, but the first question is whether, on balance, helmets help.

Without evidence, a "common sense" view is that helmets will protect the head. However, the Australian experience suggests on average they make little difference, with any good counteracted by harm in other ways.

So wanting to protect one's brain is likely a shared goal, but seeing as at appears that helmets on balance, don't help, what are we to do.

It maybe that they have more benefit in some scenarios than others, and so a judgement could be taken - but even for "more risky" cycling we'd not know if they caused more harm than good in that type of cycling (neck injuries, rotation, bigger head = bigger target etc).

Even if they did help on balance - and it doesn't appear so - there'd still be the question on whether cycling is risky enough to bother - compared to, say, climbing stairs, or going out drinking beer.

EDIT - to put the "common sense" view in context, there are a (small) number of recorded fatalities of children strangled by their cycle helmet staps whilst climbing trees and the like. That's a solid example of a disbenefit of helmets for an activity which you'd think they'd be beneficial for. There may still be net benefit in this scenario - the point was to illustrate the unexpected additional risks of helmets in what might seem a clear cut situation

 

[Justinslow]

My apologies Justin, it would appear you offered me a stick and I may have grabbed the wrong end.
This has been suggested before on this thread but when it was challenged the evidence wasn't forthcoming.

But I don't need evidence if it's something I believe and makes me feel better and more confident, then I'm happy to wear one when I decide fit. If that confidence is mis placed then I guess that's my look out.

 

[Justinslow]

That's still assuming that they help safety - "begging the question" as it's called. Of course, few of us want to injure our brains, hey some people's ar virtually unused after all, but the first question is whether, on balance, helmets help.

Without evidence, a "common sense" view is that helmets will protect the head. However, the Australian experience suggests on average they make little difference, with any good counteracted by harm in other ways.

So wanting to protect one's brain is likely a shared goal, but seeing as at appears that helmets on balance, don't help, what are we to do.

It maybe that they have more benefit in some scenarios than others, and so a judgement could be taken - but even for "more risky" cycling we'd not know if they caused more harm than good in that type of cycling (neck injuries, rotation, bigger head = bigger target etc).

Even if they did help on balance - and it doesn't appear so - there'd still be the question on whether cycling is risky enough to bother - compared to, say, climbing stairs, or going out drinking beer.

EDIT - to put the "common sense" view in context, there are a (small) number of recorded fatalities of children strangled by their cycle helmet staps whilst climbing trees and the like. That's a solid example of a disbenefit of helmets for an activity which you'd think they'd be beneficial for. There may still be net benefit in this scenario - the point was to illustrate the unexpected additional risks of helmets in what might seem a clear cut situation

Overall a good post untill the bit about climbing the stairs or drinking beer, nether involve combining your own actions with those of other road users travelling in some cases into three figure speeds, whether a helmet would help in a collision at over a hundred miles an hour I doubt, but the comparisons with drinking beer.......really.