The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[srw]

Sorry again if it's been covered in the thread, but just wondering if there's any data for head trauma in pro racing since helmets became mandatory. That should give a useful insight.

I did ask that ....months ago.

You'd have thought that if there were evidence that helmets were helpful it would have come out by now. Oddly enough, it hasn't.

 

[srw]

That's a too small population (at least at top level, only about 600 riders a year) with too few incidents to infer much and completely atypical of everyday cycling. Even then, the pro helmet compulsion had to be pushed through on the back of a tragedy by emotional argument and not data.

On the contrary. It's a very large dataset - 600 people (actually I suspect it's closer to 1000 when you add in the minor teams and the non-male riders), who spend just about all day every day in the riskiest situations possible.

There is some extremely rich data in comparing (for instance) the last couple of TdF days - hairy descents on slippery roads - with the equivalent form the 1990s. Oddly enough no-one seems to want to do the analysis.

 

[mjr]

On the contrary. It's a very large dataset - 600 people (actually I suspect it's closer to 1000 when you add in the minor teams and the non-male riders), who spend just about all day every day in the riskiest situations possible.

Sure but head injuries are so rare even in that population that there are few incidents from 600-1000 riders. Maybe if all national federations published all licensees injuries it might be enough.

 

[ufkacbln]

The relevance to the average cyclist of what happens in the professional peloton or racing is extremely small

Its a bit like stating that the average car driver should be wearing a helmet and fireproof overalls because professional racing drivers do.

 

[srw]

Sure but head injuries are so rare even in that population that there are few incidents from 600-1000 riders. Maybe if all national federations published all licensees injuries it might be enough.

Which is part of my point.

The UCI is up shoot creek at the moment, given the amount of doping going on - and when an ITV4 commentator with a history of drug taking says "I wonder where he's got that energy tfrom" you'd hope that something would be done. Instead you get bland reassurances about drug-assisted riding, and nothing at all about physical protection for riders. If I were a pro at the moment I'd want under-shirt pads for wet days....

 

[Shut Up Legs]

257 pages, no thanks.

For me its not a debate, its common sense.

The problem is: too many people don't question where their "common sense" actually comes from.

 

[anothersam]

That's a shitty little bit of emotional blackmail, unevidenced claim and thoughtless misinformation. All in one article.

But it's no less than I'd expect from the rag that is the Telegraph these days (or even in 2013, when that bit of fiddle was published).

Oi! The Torygraph published a couple of articles of mine in that timeframe. (“I rest my case.”)

The BBC also went with the hair angle. Sometimes the media just can’t help themselves.

Fortunately I see the kid made it through the other end of his coma, even if he'll likely never recover fully.

For me its not a debate

Then you’re on the wrong thread…?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I was walking to my parents the other day and my mind drifted to thinking about helmets, and why there doesn't seem to be any calls for them to be used by people on mobility scooters.

Sods law, when I got to my dad's, he's a scar on the side of his face from falling off his mobility scooter the day before.

He's had his scooter a couple of years, since his health took a dip and he can't ride his bike. Him and my mother have always cycled, my mam still does. They're in their 80's now, and that's the first injury either of them have had and they've never worn helmets.

I don't know what that adds to the debate, but there it is.

 

[Wobblers]

What the hell, it's Saturday night.



It's your brain sloshing about inside the skull that's deadly and if your head hits the floor at 50mph a helmet will not prevent this. At 12 mph it might help a bit but at whatever speed you travel you're more likely to hit your head when wearing one.

You must have read/heard that before?

I choose not to wear one because I can imagine as many circumstances where a helmet is as likely to harm as protect and also because cycling is relatively safe.

Except when the calculations were done and compared with actual real world data on injury tolerance (Wayne State Tolerance Curve) the result showed that the imparted deceleration to the helmetted cyclist was in the "life threatening injury" zone, even when I made the most optimistic assumptions possible. In other words, in even the most benign crash it is unrealistic to expect a helmet to provide any meaningful protection. This conclusion from examining the physics is backed up by the evidence from whoile population studies which show there is no correlation between not wearing a helmet and mortality.

Which puts that Telegraph article posted into sharp relief. A month long coma certainly comes under "life threatening injury". Given that if a reasonbly tall person should trip up, they can hit their head on the ground at 12 mph, which exceeds any protective benefit of a helmet this calls into question the assertion (ironically unstated in that article!) that a helmet would have been beneficial.

 

[ufkacbln]

Also the classic "Paramedic"opinion




When you look at head injury admissions, or Casualty attendances you suddenly find whole cohorts of people who are seriously injured, in comas, yet manage to make their own way to A&E

Paramedics never seem to see pedestrians or drivers with head injuries, yet see thousands of cyclists

Another "professional" inappropriately making claims that neither evidence, his professional experience, or reality can verify

 

[ufkacbln]

If I'm on the bike then yes I do.

Yet when you look at reality this is not when most head injuries occur!

It would be nice if you could explain why you don't use the common sense approach and wear one when drinking alcohol (60% of head injuries) for instance

 

[glenn forger]

Wednesbury police on twitter demanded that cyclists wear helmets. They got the usual corrections and explanations, then declared "We see as much bad cycling as bad driving". Maybe the cops were actually this stupid before Twitter but nobody noticed? Either way i wouldnt trust the copper who wrote that to investigate a cycling collision fairly.

 

[anothersam]

...Given that if a reasonbly tall person should trip up, they can hit their head on the ground at 12 mph, which exceeds any protective benefit of a helmet this calls into question the assertion (ironically unstated in that article!) that a helmet would have been beneficial.

S.O.L.

 

[Mugshot]

So I've been having a little chat to Chain Reaction about their "Protect yourself before you wreck yourself" email, below is their latest reply;

Thank you for taking time to provide us with your feedback.


The majority of sports come with a risk of injury, and all of the sports that pose a risk to injury also have some form of protective equipment to help reduce the extent of the injury.


It is very much the case with cycling.


With the guarantee that you have mentioned, we are not going to guarantee that if you use the protection we sell, that you will not be injured. The protection is used to reduce the extent of the damage. A prime example is of my friend two weeks ago came off his bike whilst on a trail and hit his knee off a rock. He wore pads he bought from us and he split his knee open. If he had no pads on at all, he could have lost his knee cap entirely.


I am not going to define what me mean by wrecking yourself, it was an innocent play on words to advertise protective gear.

 

[Starchivore]

So I've been having a little chat to Chain Reaction about their "Protect yourself before you wreck yourself" email, below is their latest reply.......................

What a load of rubbish- that must have made you pretty angry.

"I am not going to define what me mean by wrecking yourself, it was an innocent play on words to advertise protective gear."