The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[newfhouse]

Isn't that kind of the point - that many of us don't come off our bikes at great speed very often, and, when we do, we don't hit our heads very often?

Indeed. @srw has provided this link many times. Does nobody read the thread?

 

[Big Andy]

I think Adrian was responding to this...

Yes he was. Which i thought was clearl saying that he felt that judging by the facial injuries and damage to the helmet but lack of injury to the areas the helmet was supposed to protect that the helmet has prevented some injury.

 

[MontyVeda]

Both accidents were on cycle paths too, not the road!

what's that got to do with anything?

 

[benb]

in 1990, 24 cyclists died on the state's roads, following 34 the year before - more than triple the number of cyclists who were killed on Victorian roads last year (10)

Amazing. Who would have thought that if the number of cyclists is reduced, you would also see a reduction in head injuries.
Similarly, the number of shark attacks in Lichtenstein is very low.

What we need to look at is the rate of head injuries. And when we do that, we see no benefit to helmets post-compulsion.

Look, we know that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by at least 20:1
We know that compulsion has the effect of slashing the numbers of people cycling
We know that even helmet promotion discourages people from cycling.
The portrayal of cycling as a dangerous activity, when it isn't particularly, seems likely to put people off from cycling.

Therefore even if helmets are effective at reducing head injuries, which has not been proven, they still do more harm than good overall if they put more than 2-3% of people off from cycling.

 

[Poacher]

A quotation without attribution is meaningless. Where is it from?

It's from here.

The same site is a cornucopia of quotes for the liddites to regurgitate. To save them time, here are some of the corkers. Each paragraph is from a separate bulletin on that great long list of pro-helmet propaganda. Expect to see a great deal more of this stuff!

In a realistic 20km/h crash scenario, equivalent to a head drop of 1.5 metres, the probability of severe brain injury dropped from extremely likely (99.9%) with no helmet, to unlikely (9.3%) with a helmet.

Dutch road safety authorities are trying to get children to don helmets in a nation that has been notoriously soft-headed when it comes to acknowledging the injury prevention effect of helmets.

A new study of bike crashes in Sydney has shown that riders without a helmet have more than five times the risk of severe head injury than riders wearing a helmet. Dinh said that its has been estimated that each new case of severe brain injury costs Australia A$4.5 million. "Some 70% of such patients end up on a ventilator in intensive care units; many patients with severe head injuries are left with permanent brain damage", he said.

A recently unearthed study into the impact of helmet legislation in South Australia has further dented claims that helmet laws did not have a beneficial effect when introduced in Australia.

A key theory of anti-helmet campaigners—that helmets lead bike riders to take more risks while riding—has been thrown on its head by new research into bike crashes. It had been claimed that riders not wearing helmets were safer riders because they were more careful and that riders with helmets were less safe because they took more risks. But new research from the University of New South Wales, which studied nine years of data from bike-on-car crashes—debunks the argument. he study also overturned a belief widely held in anti-helmet circles, that helmets were not effective in impacts involving motor vehicles. All crashes in the study involved motor vehicles and helmets were shown to be very protective.

A recent Canadian study has re-confirmed that wearing a helmet significantly reduces reduces a bike rider's risk of death from head injury.

New research from the University of New South Wales confirms that helmets have lowered head injury rates in the years since mandatory helmet laws were introduced.

The study found that 45 per cent of helmets sustained damaged in a crash. The implications is that if the force of a crash is sufficient to damage a helmet, it would be sufficient to cause head injury if the rider was not wearing a helmet.

A major study into the introduction of helmets laws in NSW in 1991 has revealed that head injuries immediately dropped 29 per cent.

A major review of the benefits and disadvantages of bike helmets commissioned by the Queensland Government has concluded that helmets have more than halved the number of head injuries experienced by Queensland cyclists. And its finds that there is little evidence that helmets discourage bike riding, or that there is a large body of people who would take up cycling if the legislation was changed. "A review of the most scientifically rigorous research concluded that bicycle helmets that meet national standards protect against head, brain, and facial injuries," the policy paper says.

A bike rider who crashes without wearing a helmet is five times more likely to suffer serious head injury than a rider with a helmet, according to an analysis of crash victims by Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney. "Non-helmet wearers had five times higher odds of intracranial bleeding or skull fracture compared with helmet wearers," Dr Michael Dinh, the lead researcher, said. The results are in line with similar international studies into whether helmets reduce head and brain injuries.

The theory that helmet laws stop people riding bikes has been contradicted in a new study by Canadian health researchers. By studying the rate of helmet use in various provinces, some of which had no helmet laws, and some of which had introduced helmet laws in the study period, the researchers found that helmet legislation made no difference to the numbers of people riding bikes. The conclusion was a surprise to many international cycling advocates, who have long believed that helmet laws resulted in fewer people riding.

 

[mjr]

Which bit of the helmet do you think helped with the facial injury?

The bit that he had in front of his face, I guess - but don't point out that it probably obstructed his vision and contributed to the crash

Isn't that kind of the point - that many of us don't come off our bikes at great speed very often, and, when we do, we don't hit our heads very often?

Or at least, those of us not wearing helmets don't seem to hit our heads very often. It's almost like certain helmets are attracted to tarmac... or maybe the increase in size and weight matters more than helmet promoters like to admit?

TBH,I think this thread should be locked as both sides of the argument have been regurgitated over 350 pages(almost).

Ah, typical irrational helmet user, wanting to shut off debate and not allow their new wrong-headed claims to be discussed anywhere!

And the same people will put up the same arugments over and over........and over.

You can stop doing so any time you want...

 

[MontyVeda]

I see the mods have been editing the thread again. I think it would have been nice to keep @MarquisMatsugae's response to my 'alternative' head protection idea, the one which he responded with 'STFU, dickhead'... It says a lot when a 'valued member' isn't interested in avoiding accidents or incidents, clearly just putting a polystyrene hat on is all that's needed.

 

[Big Andy]

I see the mods have been editing the thread again. I think it would have been nice to keep @MarquisMatsugae's response to my 'alternative' head protection idea, the one which he responded with 'STFU, dickhead'... It says a lot when a 'valued member' isn't interested in avoiding accidents or incidents, clearly just putting a polystyrene hat on is all that's needed.

Do you really believe that there is anyone who has contributed to this thread that equates wearing a helmet to not having to take care and having no interest in avoiding accidents? Really?

Try to understand that there are individuals who have every interest in avoiding accidents ride carefully with consideration of the risks however they also accept that you cannot eliminate the risk of an "off" and also accept that while not all accidents lead to a head impact some do and some could lead to a head injury. Yes the risk is quite small, nobody thinks it is a massive risk, but it is there so they decide to take a step that is easily and relatively cheaply available that may help in some cases to reduce that risk even further.

I cannot recall anyone claiming that a helmet will prevent all head injuries, only that they may prevent some of them.

Until someone can show that wearing a helmet will offer no protection whatsoever to the individual it is hardly surprising that some individuals will choose to wear one.

 

[mjr]

Until someone can show that wearing a helmet will offer no protection whatsoever to the individual it is hardly surprising that some individuals will choose to wear one.

If that's their test, then some people will always use helmets... and they'll be daft to do so. A better test would be "someone shows that wearing a helmet offers drawbacks that may well outweigh the protection offered", wouldn't it?

 

[Big Andy]

I dont think you can say anyone who wears a helmet is daft to do so. Equally it would be wrong to say anyone who doesnt wear one is daft.

Perhaps offer proof that wearing a helmet offers drawbacks that definitely outweigh the benefits and you would have a point.

 

[Roxy641]

Do you really believe that there is anyone who has contributed to this thread that equates wearing a helmet to not having to take care and having no interest in avoiding accidents? Really?

Try to understand that there are individuals who have every interest in avoiding accidents ride carefully with consideration of the risks however they also accept that you cannot eliminate the risk of an "off" and also accept that while not all accidents lead to a head impact some do and some could lead to a head injury. Yes the risk is quite small, nobody thinks it is a massive risk, but it is there so they decide to take a step that is easily and relatively cheaply available that may help in some cases to reduce that risk even further.

I cannot recall anyone claiming that a helmet will prevent all head injuries, only that they may prevent some of them.

Until someone can show that wearing a helmet will offer no protection whatsoever to the individual it is hardly surprising that some individuals will choose to wear one.

But that works both ways. I wear a helmet, and have never denied that, under some conditions, a helmet will probably prevent "some injury" to the head. But the head is only one part of the human body. I know you haven't argued a case that says it should be compulsary to wear a helmet, but the natural thing would be politicians would (if they were convinced by your arguements) to make a law making it compulsary to wear a helmet. So I believe you if you say you aren't argueing that they should be made compulsary. But the fact is that is a consequence of people that argue that they can save cyclists for preventing head injury or death due to injuries to the head.

Besides that, the few times I've fallen off my bike, I have never once had any injury to my head, only arms and shoulders, but nothing serious that involves being in hospital because of it. You need to be careful that you don't make a "strawman arguement". Listen to what we have said instead of "presuming what we said". That is important for both sides of the arguement.

 

[Big Andy]

I think that implying that a particular outcome to some falls means there cannot be a different outcome adds nothing.
I came off and did bang my head, however there are many offs that do not lead to head impact too.

 

[Profpointy]

re "taking more care" Whilst there has been a fair bit of sillyness and hard to beleive but even name calling, there is a serious point that (anecdote alert) there seems to be a lot of accidents and even (serious) head injuries amongst helmet wearers of my acquantance. That said I guess more of my cycling pals wear helmets than not and one of the serial crashers is a reckless farkwit, but still..

 

[mjr]

I dont think you can say anyone who wears a helmet is daft to do so.

I can but I don't go quite so far as that: I say anyone who uses a helmet for typical cycling in an everyday environment is a bit daft, overreacting to a tiny risk and probably putting themselves at increased risk of crashing. The more technical MTBers and BMXers may have good reason to use helmets but MTBers should probably use a Snell helmet that's had the rock-like impact test.

Perhaps offer proof that wearing a helmet offers drawbacks that definitely outweigh the benefits and you would have a point.

That's an entirely tougher standard and the opposite of what's usually required for health interventions. Usually, they need to prove that they do no harm and prove that they offer significant real-world benefits - and helmets fail on both.

Also, I disagree that helmets are

a step that is easily and relatively cheaply available

On the first part, helmets are not easy at all: it's a fairly large object to lug around your destination, protecting from knocks and scratches - they're too big for most briefcases and haversacks, or a small rucksack if you have anything else in there. Can you imagine how much less popular motoring would be if drivers had to carry an F1 helmet around at their destination? Also, it's inconvenient to carry one for a whole trip just in case you might hire a cycle and I wouldn't trust a hired helmet that has probably been knocked about.

On the "relatively cheaply" part: most helmets cost more than vital parts of most bicycles (UN55 cartridge BBs are £20 at half odds) and some helmets cost more than some bicycles.

 

[Profpointy]

I can but I don't go quite so far as that: I say anyone who uses a helmet for typical cycling in an everyday environment is a bit daft, overreacting to a tiny risk and probably putting themselves at increased risk of crashing. The more technical MTBers and BMXers may have good reason to use helmets but MTBers should probably use a Snell helmet that's had the rock-like impact test.


That's an entirely tougher standard and the opposite of what's usually required for health interventions. Usually, they need to prove that they do no harm and prove that they offer significant real-world benefits - and helmets fail on both.

Also, I disagree that helmets are

On the first part, helmets are not easy at all: it's a fairly large object to lug around your destination, protecting from knocks and scratches - they're too big for most briefcases and haversacks, or a small rucksack if you have anything else in there. Can you imagine how much less popular motoring would be if drivers had to carry an F1 helmet around at their destination? Also, it's inconvenient to carry one for a whole trip just in case you might hire a cycle and I wouldn't trust a hired helmet that has probably been knocked about.

On the "relatively cheaply" part: most helmets cost more than vital parts of most bicycles (UN55 cartridge BBs are £20 at half odds) and some helmets cost more than some bicycles.

Yebbut, since helmets are equally beneficial, maybe more beneficial, for pedestrians, you'd keep it on your head rather than lug it around after all.