The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[martint235]

Agreed but until evidence is provided I have no way of knowing if a helmet will assist me at those higher speeds.

And again you're confusing me with other people. I've never compared cycling with walking.

This all, again in breach of post 1, comes down to the unwillingness of manufacturers and the pro helmet brigade to answer the "E" question. Equestrian and motorcycle helmet manufacturers don't shy away from the question, indeed they positively embrace it. My only conclusion has to be that it is impossible to answer for cycle helmets because the evidence can't exist. If it did, it would be shouted from the rooftops

 

[Justinslow]

Do you not think that if a manufacturer's product exceeded the current testing levels they would say so? No helmets are marketed as being a piece of safety equipment - they're sold as aero, fashionable, light, comfortable, etc etc.

Are you in the trade then?

 

[Mugshot]

Try for me, we've already had "quad bikers" as the streets are clearly awash with quad bikes! Day to day activities was the phrase I believe.

The people that ride quad bikes probably use them day to day and the streets near me certainly aren't awash with cyclists. You were given a perfectly reasonable example, you seem determined to dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your rather narrow set of parameters.

 

[martint235]

Are you in the trade then?

No but if I had a test where I could evidence beyond doubt that if you wore X helmet your likelihood of injury at 20 miles an hour coming off a bike would be reduced by 50% I'd make sure the world knew about it. Hell I'd do it for 5%.

Therefore the absence of such information suggests to me that helmet manufacturers recognise they are making money for nothing

 

[MontyVeda]

Do you not think that if a manufacturer's product exceeded the current testing levels they would say so? No helmets are marketed as being a piece of safety equipment - they're sold as aero, fashionable, light, comfortable, etc etc.

Glad you raised that... because I've been wondering about the VAT stance on cycle helmets. According to .gov, safety equipment including cycle helmets is VAT free, but looking at Wiggle and Halfords and other websites, it doesn't mention the VAT. Are they all VAT free, none of them, or just some of them?

 

[Justinslow]

How is that relevant? Go and look at helmet marketing.

Yes but motorcycle helmets adverts don't go on about their safety tests either?

 

[Justinslow]

The people that ride quad bikes probably use them day to day and the streets near me certainly aren't awash with cyclists. You were given a perfectly reasonable example, you seem determined to dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your rather narrow set of parameters.

I would wager there are rather more cyclists around than "quad bikers", and I would suggest, based on my eyes, most wear motocross motorcycle helmets.

 

[martint235]

Yes but motorcycle helmets adverts don't go on about their safety tests either?

True. But for the opposite reason. All the data for motorcycle helmets is public domain and so there is at once a level playing field and also no advantage to be gained.

Now if you were a cycle helmet manufacturer and had evidence that your product worked you'd kill the market in the short term until your competitors caught up. Therefore the absence of such data, unlike in motorcycle helmets, suggests there is no supporting evidence

 

[Mugshot]

I would wager there are rather more cyclists around than "quad bikers", and I would suggest, based on my eyes, most wear motocross motorcycle helmets.

This is what you said;

what other day to day stuff are you travelling at up to 30 mph or even higher with no protective equipment at all?

You didn't actually specify how many participants the example needed and from what you've said you've evidently seen a few, some of whom are not wearing any protective equipment.

 

[Profpointy]

I just dont know anyone who has seriously injured their head whilst drinking or seriously injured their head whilst in the kitchen against an open cupboard door. However I do know people who've come off their bike where like it or not they and others believe their helmet helped prevent more serious injuries. If it did prevent serious injuries is open to question I guess and something some people will never believe it seems.
I just see cycling in a light which opens up the possibilities for accidents - busy roads, idiot drivers, mechanical mishaps (punctures, brakes, drive train etc) slippery conditions, animals running out, children running out, car drivers opening their doors in your path, manhole covers, pot holes etc etc all exacerbated by speed. Most of which will happen when cycling but not whilst walking on the pavement or in the hills or drinking beer, I just don't buy the comparisons.
Another point, I'm self employed, I don't have a safety net of "getting paid time off sick" like some employed people, I wonder if this shapes my view on risk and doing what I can to limit my chances of a head injury?

yebbutt .. that's all perfectly sensible sounding and is a arguably a good starting point for all sorts of risky activities. However given we know they haven't worked on Australia, surely we (you) should re-visit the "commonsense" starting point. The fact that you might travel moderately fast cycling or that you are self-employed and can't afford injury is by the by if, as it seems, helmets don't appear to help.

It may or may not be a telling point that lots pf people have had serious head injuries whilst wearing helmets - maybe they are hitting their heads a lot? Quite a serious point by the way - anecdote maybe but nearly all the people I know who've been injured were wearing helmets.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

motorcycle helmets have a hard plastic shell covering polystyrene with some "comfy" padding where the helmet touches the head at their most basic level, cycle helmets have the same! They are not "plastic hats" as you call them!

Would you wear a cycling helmet while riding a motorcycle? And if not, why not(legislation aside)?

GC

 

[mjr]

However I do know people who've come off their bike where like it or not they and others believe their helmet helped prevent more serious injuries. If it did prevent serious injuries is open to question I guess and something some people will never believe it seems.

That's a very big question and it's difficult to believe it when the number of people claiming it helped prevent serious injury far exceed serious injury rates in the non-helmet-wearing majority. There are all sorts of strange possible reasons that may happen, but the simplest explanation is that people are often simply incorrect in that assessment.

Another point, I'm self employed, I don't have a safety net of "getting paid time off sick" like some employed people, I wonder if this shapes my view on risk and doing what I can to limit my chances of a head injury?

I don't see how. I'm counted as self-employed for some purposes, yet my view of risk and doing what I can to limit my chances of ANY injury (not only head - if I crash and break an arm or leg, it'll cause hard problems) has led me to stop wearing a helmet. Why would being self-employed make you self-select into the minority who seem to crash more often?

Do you not think that if a manufacturer's product exceeded the current testing levels they would say so? No helmets are marketed as being a piece of safety equipment - they're sold as aero, fashionable, light, comfortable, etc etc.

POC come the closest I've seen, but even they don't seem to release test results and I agree with @martint235, @MontyVeda and others that if they were really pushing on safety, then they'd show us the numbers. I think the problem is that cycle crash helmets are seen as "common sense" and people are unwilling to explore the data that suggests that they don't reduce casualty rates, regardless of whether they offer some impact protection.

Here's a chart I plotted a while ago which helped inform my view. It shows pedal cycle serious-or-worse casualties vertically (from the government RAS releases) and the left chart also plots an estimate of helmet-wearing % (from TRL IIRC - sorry for not printing the exact source on the image) against time (showing that helmet-wearing has slowly increased but casualties have not kept falling) and the right chart ignores time and just plots casualty rates against wearing rates (showing again little correlation, which I'd expect if there might be a causal link).

Here's another illustrating the New Zealand helmet law:

Most of the good data pictures seem to be on the anti-helmet side. The pro-helmet pictures I see tend to be emotive single cases, playing on fears of head injuries, or appealing to a mistaken "common sense".

 

[ufkacbln]

Try for me, we've already had "quad bikers" as the streets are clearly awash with quad bikes! Day to day activities was the phrase I believe.

Absurdly I see more quad bikes than I do cyclists in excess of 30 mph

As long as you continue to fiddle the results by limiting your comparison between a high risk cycling activity of a minority with "normal" day to day activities there is no point in giving examples

 

[the snail]

motorcycle helmets have a hard plastic shell covering polystyrene with some "comfy" padding where the helmet touches the head at their most basic level, cycle helmets have the same! They are not "plastic hats" as you call them!
Listen to yourselves.

There's a huge difference between m/c and cycle helmets - the shell of a m/c helmet is much tougher, and if it breaks then the impact is probably not survivable. As far as I can tell the shell of a cycle helmet provides no protection in a crash, they shatter under even a minor impact - I think the shell is there to protect the polysyrene when you're carrying it around and gives something to attach the strap to.

 

[ufkacbln]

They are plastic hats by definition... They are hats and made of plastic