The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

So in this particular case nobody is saying it didn't save his life, but there is also no way that it could be proven either way?

 

[martint235]

So in this particular case nobody is saying it didn't save his life, but there is also no way that it could be proven either way?

It can't be proven either way. But that's not a reason to wear a helmet in the same way that no one is going around telling people they see mad for not carrying a cigarette case in case they get shot.

People rarely get shot. If you are unlucky enough to be shot but are carrying a cigarette case/medal you may get incredibly lucky and it will save your life. There is no reliable evidence to support this though. Better to alter your behaviour to reduce the chances of being shot

People rarely fall off their bikes. If you are unlucky enough to part company with your bike but are wearing a helmet/ginger cake/colander you may get incredibly lucky and it may save your life. There is no reliable evidence to support this though. Better to learn to ride in such a way that reduces the chances of you parting company with your bike.

 

[benb]

So in this particular case nobody is saying it didn't save his life, but there is also no way that it could be proven either way?

It's not 50/50. The impact speed was so far outside of any helmet's design parameters that the chances of it having done anything is remote in the extreme.

 

[ufkacbln]

Then we have Headway's "Numbers"

When challenged about their claim that there were 90,000 off road and 100,000 on road cyclist head injuries per year, they claimed they were derived from a paper published by the British Dental Association:

The statistic relating to the 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road
accidents comes from the following reference: Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does
the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR,
Curran ALM. BritishDental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.

EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEAD INJURY AFTER BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
Across all ages in the UK it is estimated that there are 90,000 road-
related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents per year. Of these
accidents, 100,000 (53%) involved children under 16, suggesting
that children are at greater risk of injury during cycling than adults.
In the UK, there were between 127 and 203 cycling fatalities
per year between 1996 and 2002, of which 70–80% were
caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).The most recent Gov-
ernment death and serious injury figures2 are summarised in
Table 1. In children under 16, two-thirds of cycle-related deaths
occur in road traffic accidents (RTAs) with the remaining third
occurring whilst the child is cycling off road. The majority of
injuries, however, occur when children are cycling off road3–6
and, of these, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most likely to
have long-term consequences.

Same dirty tricks as BHIT - Whilst the paper quoted "cycling accidents" Headway bolsters its stance by implying these numbers as being head injuries. In reality it is in the low hundreds

 

[newfhouse]

So in this particular case nobody is saying it didn't save his life, but there is also no way that it could be proven either way?

It depends on what you mean by proof. It is possible to say that it was unlikely, given the pictured helmet damage that shows fracturing rather than compression. As others have said though, the burden of proof lies with those making the claims of life saving.

 

[ufkacbln]

The big question was what a cyclist was doing with a "ginger cake" in the first place

A real cyclist would have been carrying a buttered malt loaf

 

[Justinslow]

It can't be proven either way. But that's not a reason to wear a helmet in the same way that no one is going around telling people they see mad for not carrying a cigarette case in case they get shot.

People rarely get shot. If you are unlucky enough to be shot but are carrying a cigarette case/medal you may get incredibly lucky and it will save your life. There is no reliable evidence to support this though. Better to alter your behaviour to reduce the chances of being shot

People rarely fall off their bikes. If you are unlucky enough to part company with your bike but are wearing a helmet/ginger cake/colander you may get incredibly lucky and it may save your life. There is no reliable evidence to support this though. Better to learn to ride in such a way that reduces the chances of you parting company with your bike.

Ok but this guy got rear ended he didn't particularly do anything wrong (riding) as far as we know.

 

[martint235]

Ok but this guy got rear ended he didn't particularly do anything wrong (riding) as far as we know.

I never said he did anything wrong. And the vast majority of the small number of cyclists in accidents aren't doing anything wrong. But you can do things differently that alter the result and I'm not talking silly things like not cycling.

I don't know the full details of the collision so can't say whether I would have done things differently. There are occasions where it doesn't really matter what you do, you won't affect the outcome. If the helmet was of use when you're rear ended I think it's safe to say that luck played a major role

 

[newfhouse]

The big question was what a cyclist was doing with a "ginger cake" in the first place

A real cyclist would have been carrying a buttered malt loaf

Have I qualified as a real cyclist? Should I be happy about it?

I'm just off to the coast with an Aldi malt loaf in my jersey pocket.

 

[ufkacbln]

Have I qualified as a real cyclist? Should I be happy about it?

Sorry...
Aldi is the BSO of Malt loafs, whilst Soreen is the refined tourer

 

[david k]

Cycling is safe.

People die cycling so hard pushed to say it's safe full stop, you need to add context

Cycling slowly on a cycle path is more likely to be safe then hurtling down a mountain at high speed

All about context, not always 'safe' as most would understand it

 

[Justinslow]

People die cycling so hard pushed to say it's safe full stop, you need to add context

Cycling slowly on a cycle path is more likely to be safe then hurtling down a mountain at high speed

All about context, not always 'safe' as most would understand it

I've just got back from a club chain gang training ride , not particularly safe, although I do understand my helmet will give me "limited" protection at these speeds should the worst happen.

 

[srw]

I've just got back from a club chain gang training ride .

That does explain an awful lot....

 

[2IT]

In Georgia where I live, parents can be ticketed if their child up to the age of 16 rides without a helmet. Ridiculous IMO.

 

[growingvegetables]

People die cycling so hard pushed to say it's safe full stop, you need to add context.

And people die gardening, walking the pavement, doing DIY, whatever. Even climbing/descending stairs.

In fact, if you're daft enough (OK, I was!), google "rospa fatal accidents home"; first link, first two bullet points -

• More accidents happen at home than anywhere else
  
• Every year there are approximately 6,000 deaths as the result of a home accident

So I'll stick with my "cycling is safe", thank you very much. I certainly don't intend donning a helmet and hi-vis every time I go up and down stairs!

Granted - people can choose to cycle in more challenging ways. Fine. Their choice, their call on helmet or not.