The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Has this been identified as a problem in the past?

Lots of helmets fail rather then function

(Think of all the ones that crack rather then deform)

Faults caused by mishandling could be an explanation?

 

[srw]

I don't know. Has anyone verified reasons for the lack of real-world cycle helmet benefit other than risk compensation?

@McWobble has some ideas from his area of expertise. As do I from mine - it's entirely plausible given the tiny numbers that any real-world benefit is so minute as to be statistically unmeasurable.

 

[jefmcg]

Lots of helmets fail rather then function

(Think of all the ones that crack rather then deform)

Faults caused by mishandling could be an explanation?

Is it ever even investigated?

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/flaw-in-steerer-tube-kills-cyclist.210884

Report from engineer and Trek on why the bicycle failed, but no mention of why the mandatory helmet was ineffective in preventing fatal head, neck and facial injuries.

 

[jefmcg]

If wearing a helmet was to become mandatory I don't think it would make much difference to peoples opinions.

You'd be wrong. Australians (decades of compulsion) almost universally believe that cycling without a helmet is extremely dangerous and cycling with one is safe. The attitude is completely different to the UK.

 

[david k]

I don't know. Has anyone verified reasons for the lack of real-world cycle helmet benefit other than risk compensation?

Thought you were talking about the issue of delivery and storage of a helmet before it got to the consumer and the potential for its integrity being compromised at that point.

Not the debated benefits for the consumer

 

[mjr]

but sometimes I find it incredibly hard to think of a reason not to wear one.

Really? Here, let me suggest some:

• balancing an extra quarter-kilo or so as far from your neck as possible doesn't seem like the greatest idea if you ride much, especially on our rough roads. How strong are your neck muscles?
• extra weight and also extra size making the head more likely to hit the ground in a crash
• Chris Boardman said "I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect."
• no real-world benefit in population studies
• no longer tested against falling onto a lump/stone shape - because there are no longer any stones near our roads, right?
• wind noise across helmet straps limits your hearing - would you wear headphones pumping out white noise all ride?
• too hot in summer, too cold in winter
• impractical luggage at the destination
• makes cycling look dangerous
• helps move us closer to compulsion
• motorists probably drive closer to helmetted riders
• "last night a helmet saved my life" stories are annoying
• discourages real road danger reduction
• gives into emotional blackmail from the likes of Cracknell
• and of course, helmets make you look like a dick and mess up your hair.

Any of those valid reasons to you? (Summarised from my personal reasons for no longer using)

If I was to slip on a trail and hit something with my head I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not, even though it's a cheap amalgamation of plastics.

Well, yes, but that's another variation on the "would you rather use a helmet or not if you hit your head with a hammer?" It's assuming that crashing is inevitable and using a helmet doesn't make you more likely to slip or more likely to hit your head, which seems incorrect. Personally, I've crashed far less and less seriously since giving up helmets.

Even if you don't ride any differently (which seems highly unlikely IMO - I caught myself doing it and I studied statistics for years so I'm meant to be aware of risk compensation), using a helmet makes it more likely that you'll hit something because it makes your head a bigger and heavier target.

 

[benb]

I don't know. Has anyone verified reasons for the lack of real-world cycle helmet benefit other than risk compensation?

My view is that the risk of falling off is already low, the risk of head injury is lower still, and the subset of those incidents that fall into the small envelope where a helmet might help is so vanishingly small that the effect is statistically undetectable.

 

[david k]

You'd be wrong. Australians (decades of compulsion) almost universally believe that cycling without a helmet is extremely dangerous and cycling with one is safe. The attitude is completely different to the UK.

Almost universally believe cycling with a helmet is safe?

How do you know what all those people in Australia think?

Seems like a very speculative claim to me, no need to bring up all the stuff about cycling in Australia, I've seen and read it before and don't believe anyone can really know what all those people think. And I don't believe anyone should claim they do

 

[david k]

My view is that the risk of falling off is already low, the risk of head injury is lower still, and the subset of those incidents that fall into the small envelope where a helmet might help is so vanishingly small that the effect is statistically undetectable.

I think that's a very reasonable and plausible process and outcome, you've considered you own risk assessment and come to your own conclusion.
The thing I have always found difficult to accept is when someone conducts their own risk assessment and decides they wish to wear a helmet they are given a hard time, if we are comfortable accepting people's own decisions then it should work both ways.

 

[mjr]

The thing I have always found difficult to accept is when someone conducts their own risk assessment and decides they wish to wear a helmet they are given a hard time, if we are comfortable accepting people's own decisions then it should work both ways.

I'd probably challenge it, but I have to accept it until wearing racing helmets for cycling on the public highways is as illegal as wearing racing helmets for driving or motorcycling. I don't agree with the nobbers who do their risk assessment and conclude it's acceptable to drive while using a touchscreen either, BTW.

 

[greekonabike]

You'd be wrong. Australians (decades of compulsion) almost universally believe that cycling without a helmet is extremely dangerous and cycling with one is safe. The attitude is completely different to the UK.

I stand corrected.

Any of those valid reasons to you? (Summarised from my personal reasons for no longer using)

I must admit that I hadn't thought of many of the reasons you suggested and your post has made me reconsider my stance on wearing a helmet...for some reason when I read my post it sounds sarcastic, it's not though. A lot of factors I never considered.

GOAB

 

[srw]

The thing I have always found difficult to accept is when someone conducts their own risk assessment and decides they wish to wear a helmet they are given a hard time, if we are comfortable accepting people's own decisions then it should work both ways.

If you take a dispassionate look at what people post (or, indeed, go on a bike ride with a cross-section of people), you'll discover that it does. It's when people post exaggerated claims or start proselytising without doing the risk assessment that they're given a hard time.

 

[MontyVeda]

You'd be wrong. Australians (decades of compulsion) almost universally believe that cycling without a helmet is extremely dangerous and cycling with one is safe. The attitude is completely different to the UK.

I'd challenge that... maybe it's more a case of them universally believing that cycling without a helmet will likely result in them getting pulled and fined.

 

[ufkacbln]

If you take a dispassionate look at what people post (or, indeed, go on a bike ride with a cross-section of people), you'll discover that it does. It's when people post exaggerated claims or start proselytising without doing the risk assessment that they're given a hard time.

Exactly the point

The personal assessment is key to the decision.

Some people even start whole threads because they dislike the concept of a risk based decision on whether or not to wear one!

 

[Racing roadkill]

I witnessed ( yet another ) incident involving a cyclist wearing a lid, which looked to be a very good idea, on my 110 mile road ride yesterday. The guy on a bike just in front of me did a quick shoulder check before a move to his left, to take a left hand turn. The van which had just passed me, misjudged the guys speed, and clipped his ( turned ) head, with his mirror. It brought the cyclist down, who's head was the first thing to contact the ground. Everybody stopped, and the cyclist got straight up, and started giving the van driver a 'talking to'. I have absolutely no doubt that either bit of the incident would have had a very different outcome, had the rider been lidless. I thought of all the helmet refuseniks when I saw the van clip the guys head, and thought, that's another situation these people would never have thought of, when it comes to the obvious benefits of lid wearing. Sequential incidents, both having a ( relatively ) favourable outcome, just because the guy ( sensibly ) chose to wear a lid.