The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Racing roadkill]

I think you might have missed a tiny smidgin of sarcasm in the post you're replying to

It was too subtle.

 

[jefmcg]

Oh look, another remark, from someone who’s ‘possibly’ never had the misfortune to have come off, with both a cheap, and expensive lid, so ‘maybe’ isn’t in a position to comment on the relative merits, in a real world example. There’s a surprise.

My post reads as someone who hasn't taken repeated blows to the head? That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me on CC today.

 

[srw]

‘Experiences cyclists’ wouldn’t , I despair. Idiots with sod all experience of actual cycling might be misled, but not anyone with a single iota of actual experience.

Not true. I have been berated both by extremely experienced riders as well as by non riders for my view on the risks.

Despite being a professional risk assessor myself.

 

[snorri]

‘Experiences cyclists’ wouldn’t , I despair. Idiots with sod all experience of actual cycling might be misled, but not anyone with a single iota of actual experience.

I believe there are many experienced cyclists (many miles covered over many years) who pay little attention to the factual evidence available relating to helmet wear and its effect on crash and injury rates.

 

[Randombiker9]

Update:
I personally agree with wearing a helmet.
1. when I was young back when I lived in Spain. I fell off my bike as the brakes suddenly snapped so I couldn't stop. Went over the handlebars if I wasn't wearing a helmet then things could of been worse and I possibly wouldn't off survived.
2. I know I said this previously and I'm not saying motorbike helmets are the same as bike helmets. But I'm saying since bikes are considered veichles and we have to follow the same rules as road users. Motorbike/moped riders have to wear a helmet by law. So why not cyclists? there designed for the same reason. Safety, just like how in cars we have seatbelts. Not to mention lights on bicycles are required by law in low light/dark hours for the same reason safety.

Some arguemets might be:
It's not safe- Actually helmets are safe they have to go through testing before on the shelves.
It's a hassle to carry it around- Fit it in your bag, clip it on your bag, (if your a school college uni etc.. and have a locker leave it in your locker. or at work leave it on your desk)
It messes up hair- Just get to where you need to be earlier and if this is your problem sort it out in the bathroom before you start.

 

[Glow worm]

Update:
I personally agree with wearing a helmet.

2. I know I said this previously and I'm not saying motorbike helmets are the same as bike helmets. But I'm saying since bikes are considered veichles and we have to follow the same rules as road users. Motorbike/moped riders have to wear a helmet by law. So why not cyclists?

Simple physics. A crash at 50mph on a motorbike on an A road is likely to cause more damage than me tipping over at 9mph on a bridleway.
The collective health benefits of more people cycling far outweigh those by forcing everyone to wear a plastic hat. Evidence from every country which has introduced compulsory lid laws shows fewer people will then choose to cycle. We should focus our attention on those road users posing the greatest risk not on hats.
All this stuff is upthread.

 

[srw]

It's as if the last 395 pages hadn't existed.

Went over the handlebars if I wasn't wearing a helmet then things could of been worse and I possibly wouldn't off survived.

Things could have been better, and you might have been less badly injured. But you don't know, and you can't know.

But I'm saying since bikes are considered veichles and we have to follow the same rules as road users. Motorbike/moped riders have to wear a helmet by law. So why not cyclists? there designed for the same reason. Safety, just like how in cars we have seatbelts. N

So why not wear helmets in cars? Car passengers are exposed to the risks of head injury, too.

It's not safe- Actually helmets are safe they have to go through testing before on the shelves.
It's a hassle to carry it around- Fit it in your bag, clip it on your bag, (if your a school college uni etc.. and have a locker leave it in your locker. or at work leave it on your desk)
It messes up hair- Just get to where you need to be earlier and if this is your problem sort it out in the bathroom before you start.

I would suggest that if you read pages 1 and 2 of this thread you'll discover the weakness in your first statement. You might have to get to page 10 before someone addresses your statements 2 and 3.

 

[Profpointy]

Update:
I personally agree with wearing a helmet.
1. when I was young back when I lived in Spain. I fell off my bike as the brakes suddenly snapped so I couldn't stop. Went over the handlebars if I wasn't wearing a helmet then things could of been worse and I possibly wouldn't off survived.
2. I know I said this previously and I'm not saying motorbike helmets are the same as bike helmets. But I'm saying since bikes are considered veichles and we have to follow the same rules as road users. Motorbike/moped riders have to wear a helmet by law. So why not cyclists? there designed for the same reason. Safety, just like how in cars we have seatbelts. Not to mention lights on bicycles are required by law in low light/dark hours for the same reason safety.

Some arguemets might be:
It's not safe- Actually helmets are safe they have to go through testing before on the shelves.
It's a hassle to carry it around- Fit it in your bag, clip it on your bag, (if your a school college uni etc.. and have a locker leave it in your locker. or at work leave it on your desk)
It messes up hair- Just get to where you need to be earlier and if this is your problem sort it out in the bathroom before you start.

But why do you think the experience from Australia or Ontario, where there's before and after compulsion data, does not show any benefit.

The Motorcyclists wear helmets so we should argument I don't follow at all. Why not pedestrians or motorists ? Likewise I weather leather trousers on my motorcycle but that isn't an argument for wearing them on a push bike.

The messes up hair argument is just an attempt to ridicule those of us who are influenced by evidence

 

[Mugshot]

The messes up hair argument is just an attempt to ridicule those of us who are influenced by evidence

I believe that helmet advocates see the messes up hair argument as a means to ridicule and by association belittle the whole helmet debate, but I think the argument itself is valid. We should be encouraging all groups to cycle however I would say more image conscious groups like young men and more particularly young women (or even women in general) are far less likely to get involved in cycling if helmets are either mandatory or perceived to be so because of "helmet hair" and also because helmets generally look pretty daft.
Helmet compulsion or the belief that they are a necessity stops people from cycling, what a silly thing to want to encourage.

 

[MontyVeda]

And strangely the expensive ones still only meet the same near-irrelevant standards...

Standards that the human skull will easily surpass.

 

[benb]

@Randombiker9 :

We know that helmet compulsion has a catastrophic negative impact on cycling numbers
We know that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by at least 20:1

So anyone whose goal is to improve public health should vehemently oppose mandatory cycle helmets, even if they believed them to be effective (which we know they are not, or at least not statistically delectably so)

So I have to ask, what purpose do you wish to make cycle helmets mandatory for, because it can't be for public health reasons.

 

[Flying Dodo]

If you actually spend the money your head ‘should’ warrant, you might see the point.

In that case why is it that that when you view websites selling helmets, there's very little information about the supposed safety reasons for actually wearing a helmet? Apart from any reference to conforming to EN1078 or other international standards, they don’t actually say much about the helmet protecting you.

Here's some random examples from various places:

POC Octal Aero Raceday -£198. 221 words of descriptive blurb. The only “safety” reference is “To further improve safety, the Octal provides more coverage and additional protection for the temples and back of the head and the EPS liner is strategically thicker in the most exposed areas”. Thicker than what?

Kask Protone - £189. 542 words of descriptive blurb. The only "safety" reference is “Its strengthened frame further reduces the risk of a shock breaking the shell.” So no mention of protecting your skull, just that the shell might be less likely to break!

Giro Synthe - £195. 363 words of descriptive blurb. No "safety" reference mentioned at all.

Giro Aerohead Ultimate Helmet with MIPS - £395. 665 words of descriptive blurb. Apart from saying the carbon compound they use is stronger than other carbon compounds and that the shell is stronger than previous helmets they’ve made, the only “safety” reference is the inclusion of MIPS: “designed to redirect energy and provide more protection in certain impacts”. What impacts?

Giron Aeon -£149. 359 words of descriptive blurb. The only "safety" references are that being lightweight doesn't compromise its protective qualities. Although it doesn't say what those qualities are.

What they all seem to extoll in far more detail is how light and airy and well ventilated they are, coupled with the fact you can hook your sunglasses on them as a cool feature. The blurb used by the online shops merely seems to copy what's on the actual manufacturers' websites.

If we should be wearing helmets because they’re absolutely brilliant at protecting us, why don’t they actually say anything in detail along those lines?

 

[mjr]

Some arguemets might be:
It's not safe- Actually helmets are safe they have to go through testing before on the shelves.

Please go look at those tests: they're simple drops onto flat surfaces and rounded edges while strapped onto a disembodied head, with only basically the top of the helmet required to work. There's no test for hitting even an idealised stone or bollard-top. There's no requirements for the edges to offer much protection. There's basically no test to make sure adult helmets don't strangle people if they get caught on a trailing branch, or break necks if you land flat on your back. Does anyone really think passing the weakened EN tests means they're safe?

Then there's secondary effects, such as making your head bigger and slightly heavier so it's more likely to hit the ground; overheating your brain so you're more likely to make a bad decision and crash; the straps in front of your ears increasing wind noise and impairing hearing more than listening to music on a handlebar speaker does; and drivers possibly giving less clearance to helmet users.

It's a hassle to carry it around- Fit it in your bag, clip it on your bag, (if your a school college uni etc.. and have a locker leave it in your locker. or at work leave it on your desk)

Would you really carry a helmet everywhere just in case you decide to ride a hire bike?

And what if you're already carrying as much as you can carry? Should people do extra trips to get all the shopping? For the no significant benefit of helmet protection? That's unreasonable.

It messes up hair- Just get to where you need to be earlier and if this is your problem sort it out in the bathroom before you start.

This isn't a major reason, but even helmet-company-sponsored advocates acknowledge it, albeit while claiming the rest of the downsides don't exist. I do prefer to arrive at my destination looking more ordinary than a motorist, rather than some sort of armoured stormtrooper. Helmet promoters often suggest that this is the only reason, or the main one: it really isn't.

 

[jefmcg]

Standards that the human skull will easily surpass.

Helmets aren't supposed to prevent skull damage per se, they are meant to prevent brain injury. Brain injury occurs in a typical bike incident not when your skull hits the ground, but a moment later when your brain hits the inside of your skull, which as you point out is quite hard. The helmet is meant to compress, reducing deceleration and thus the force of that second collision.

This may mean that helmets in American football are increasing brain injury. Players can use their heads as battering rams, with the helmet protecting them from bruises, abrasions and fractures but because they can endure greater force on outside of their skull, they are subjecting their brains to much more injury. I think very few of the players who have suffered terrible brain damage have had fractures.

 

[Profpointy]

At the risk of undermining the sceptical argument, the "carrying it around" argument is invalid. We already know that it is even more important to wear a pedestrian or car-passenger helmet, and particulalry to wear beer-drinking helmets, as it is to wear a cycling helmet. Thus you just continue to wear it on or off the bike. Surely taking off your pedestrian helmet just to ride a bike is a bit silly