The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Is there any evidence for this, I mean in terms of causal evidence, to indicate how, wearing a helmet, could cause on to hit one's head more? If it's merely statistical evidence, it would merely show a correlation between helmet wearing, and accidents. (Apologies if this has been covered 50 times already, but I'm keen to know if I'm endangering my cranial health in wearing a helmet when not compelled to).

Lots of ways.....

Given that it increases the size and weight of the head, a close call becomes a strike. Secondly the added weight will cause the head to travel further with greater acceleration, increasing the impact

Then we have the problem of modern design where the vents and sharp edged can catch on obstacles or rough ground. Instead of sliding, the motion is arrested and imparted to the brain, and secondly this can cause rotation which in turn results in neck injuries as well as rotational injuries to the brain

 

[bozmandb9]

The same helmets will be equally effective in low level impacts for pedestrians, but the majority of the pro-helmet lobby refuse to recognise this

The hit your head test also proves that all cyclists should wear melons (or other hard shell fruit) as these also reduce injury.

Not really. Melons would be impractical, difficult to fit, would decompose over time, and probably drip.

Is it really a 'them and us' a 'pro-helmet lobby'? To me, we're all cyclists, and probably share the same overriding concern, which is to preserve our life and health, whilst enjoying cycling.

Whilst I may be being a little too lighthearted on the subject, at the same time, I am open to the possibility that helmets may not be necessary or beneficial, but I am sceptical. If somebody has made a compelling but succinct case for this assertion, I would love to see it. I would suggest that such a post, if compelling, should be made a sticky, to enable all forum users to benefit from the safety benefit conferred.

Otherwise, I'll go with my gut feeling and the consensus, and keep the helmet on.

 

[RedRider]

Is there any evidence for this, I mean in terms of causal evidence, to indicate how, wearing a helmet, could cause on to hit one's head more? If it's merely statistical evidence, it would merely show a correlation between helmet wearing, and accidents. (Apologies if this has been covered 50 times already, but I'm keen to know if I'm endangering my cranial health in wearing a helmet when not compelled to).

From the standpoint of promoting helmets as a means of reducing the rate of brain injuries or death in the cycling population one would indeed be wise to avoid statistical evidence.
I'm not aware of any causal evidence as such and it's beyond my wit to design a study to gather it in real-life cycling or by ethical experiment.
However, I think it would be relatively easy to design a study to find out whether strapping bulky objects to a person makes it more or less easy for them to travel through their environment without banging into stuff.
Anecdotally, I remember undergoing a rapid growth spurt as a teenager and I was always tripping over things and cracking my head until I became aware of my new dimensions.
Again, anecdotally there's plenty of helmet wearers contributing to threads like this who claim they've whacked their heads on the road but not so many of the non-helmeteers whose skulls seem relatively untouched by tarmac.

To me, we're all cyclists, and probably share the same overriding concern, which is to preserve our life and health, whilst enjoying cycling

My overiding concern is enjoying the journey. It's a healthy thing in itself (bonus!) but presenting it as a particularly dangerous activity requiring body armour is likely to deter others from partaking thus making roads slightly less safe for you and me.
You're probably aware of the statistical evidence which suggests this but if not, it's been referenced earlier in the thread.
It's another reason I choose not to wear a helmet.

 

[anothersam]

...I'll go with my gut feeling and the consensus, and keep the helmet on.

As good (or bad) a reason as any; wear it in good health.

There's a series of "all helmet discussion relegated to this one" threads just like this one over on an American site which has been going on for over a decade and numbers tens of thousands of posts. It's kept going by newcomers asking the same questions, and old-timers locked in what may be enjoyable disagreement. It is the internet version of a perpetual motion machine.

It has all been said before and it will all be said again, in slightly different ways. Even my post, of course.

 

[snorri]

Otherwise, I'll go with my gut feeling and the consensus, and keep the helmet on.

No one should try to change your mind if you wish to go by gut feeling and continue to wear a helmet, but there is no consensus, as in general agreement, regarding the benefit or otherwise of cycle helmet wearing.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not really. Melons would be impractical, difficult to fit, would decompose over time, and probably drip.

Is it really a 'them and us' a 'pro-helmet lobby'? To me, we're all cyclists, and probably share the same overriding concern, which is to preserve our life and health, whilst enjoying cycling.

Whilst I may be being a little too lighthearted on the subject, at the same time, I am open to the possibility that helmets may not be necessary or beneficial, but I am sceptical. If somebody has made a compelling but succinct case for this assertion, I would love to see it. I would suggest that such a post, if compelling, should be made a sticky, to enable all forum users to benefit from the safety benefit conferred.

Otherwise, I'll go with my gut feeling and the consensus, and keep the helmet on.

An equally "valid" statement?

To me, we're all pedestrians, and probably share the same overriding concern, which is to preserve our life and health, whilst enjoying walking.

 

[EnPassant]

If you would love to see it, read the thread. Some people have even changed their perspective as a result, and have been happy to say as much.

 

[bozmandb9]

So there's a great, succinct, compelling argument as to why wearing helmets is less safe than not wearing them. But I, and any new members of cyclechat forum, or anybody else who wishes to know, will have to read two hundred and fifty six pages of thread to discover it.

Right... No wonder so many cyclists wear helmets, it's like a secret society, the keepers of the secret of the danger of the helmet.

 

[bozmandb9]

No, so many cyclists wear helmets because they have been taken in by marketing blather and have come to believe a helmet is part of the uniform one needs in order to be a proper cyclist.

Sure. So make sure you support the conspiracy by refusing by keeping the secret!

 

[Mugshot]

Sure. So make sure you support the conspiracy by refusing by keeping the secret!

Are you talking about the 250 pages of secrets right here free for all to read on a public forum?

 

[Mugshot]

@bozmandb9 HERE's a website full of cycle helmet secrets for you if you're interested.

 

[bozmandb9]

Never mind. I just did my own research, and am indeed now re-considering my views on helmet use. Just a shame nobody could be arsed to provide any positive input, rather preferring to condescend, and direct me to read 256 pages of thread.

If anybody asks in future, it would be very easy to refer them to :

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

or :
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jun/15/healthandwellbeing.health1

Or not. Depends on whether your motivation is to effect change and promote what you believe, or just be a keyboard warrior.

 

[bozmandb9]

@bozmandb9 HERE's a website full of cycle helmet secrets for you if you're interested.

Thank you, at last (though as it happens as you posted it I had just found it for myself).

 

[EnPassant]

It's complicated and the answer (for me) is not so much a secret, as perhaps difficult to discern through the clouds of hyperbole, emotively stated intuition and marketing. And even when you reach it, it's not black and white.

The people who have revealed this 'secret' have done so ad-nauseam because the intuitive default position is "They have to do some good surely?" I held this as self evident myself on starting, so it's not stupid - just not completely informed or backed up by any empirical evidence.

This is a discussion board not an answers site and as such everyone new who has anything to say about helmets ends up on this thread as the subject is so historically contentious it is allowed on no other. Thus this one is of such length.

FWIW I took several days to work my way through it and on occasion it was more interesting than I had imagined it might be, but yes a good deal is repetitive, just as discussions sometimes are, it can be no other way when the question is always the same.

 

[bozmandb9]

It's complicated and the answer (for me) is not so much a secret, as perhaps difficult to discern through the clouds of hyperbole, emotively stated intuition and marketing. And even when you reach it, it's not black and white.

The people who have revealed this 'secret' have done so ad-nauseam because the intuitive default position is "They have to do some good surely?" I held this as self evident myself on starting, so it's not stupid - just not completely informed or backed up by any empirical evidence.

This is a discussion board not an answers site and as such everyone new who has anything to say about helmets ends up on this thread as the subject is so historically contentious it is allowed on no other. Thus this one is of such length.

FWIW I took several days to work my way through it and on occasion it was more interesting than I had imagined it might be, but yes a good deal is repetitive, just as discussions sometimes are, it can be no other way when the question is always the same.

Yes, it certainly is interesting when you open your eyes. It's actually really quite difficult to look at it objectively, due to, as you say, the hyperbole, marketing etc, which I guess really does have the effect of brainwashing.

Certainly wearing a helmet seems to give a reassurance, or comfort factor, and I can buy into the idea that this, in itself is a danger (as a comparison I believe it's been proven that people drive more cautiously when not wearing seat belts).

I think my position has changed to accepting that helmet use may well be unnecessary. So far though, I'm not sure I can buy the jump to believing that it can be actively counter productive, at least in terms of safety. I'm not really convinced that it affects people perception of danger in terms of whether or not they would ride either. I may be wrong of course, it just feels to me, like we tend to believe that the roads are more dangerous than they are. For myself, I looked at the statistics, and compared them with when I was a kid, and certainly deaths overall on the road, had fallen by 75%. I did not find statistics which related specifically to cyclists.