The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 5363779, member: 43827"]If the majority wear them of course it statistically becomes the norm, but is hardly a barrier to cycling at a few quid each, far less than the price of a bike. People have a mind and a choice.

Diminishing the freedom and pleasure of cycling is a personal thing not an objective measure. I usually wear a helmet, but very occasionally forget and don't realise I have not worn it till I get home or get to the cafe. No change in the freedom/pleasure. YMMV.

By all means continue your arguments with those who wish to foist them on to you, but don't act as if everyone is against you. I honestly don't give a toss about whether you wear them or not, in fact I am against compulsion.[/QUOTE]
If I had a pound for every stranger or acquaintance (almost always men, btw, although it wouldn't be any less annoying if it were women) who insisted on sharing their opinion of my lidlessness with me against my wishes, I'd have a Whole Lot of Pounds. Number of times I have offered unsolicited commentary on a person's silly plastic hat, on the other hand, is zero. It's a one-way thing.

 

[I like Skol]

There is already plenty of evidence available for those wishing to make an informed decision regarding wearing or not wearing a helmet. Money used for any further research into helmet issues would be better used to resolve some of the already well proven dangers to cyclists.

Brilliant! Since a serious accident involving a head injury earlier this year I have been trying to find acurate, hard evidence of the benefits of cycle helmet use. Please link to some of this plentiful and readily available evidence for me as i have really struggled to find anything more than opinion or suggestions!

 

[snorri]

Brilliant! Since a serious accident involving a head injury earlier this year I have been trying to find Please link to some of this plentiful and readily available evidence for me as i have really struggled to find anything more than opinion or suggestions!

The fact that you have found no "acurate, hard evidence of the benefits of cycle helmet use" perhaps suggests that none exists. Others would interpret the information and evidence differently. You must draw your own conclusions, we are not yet entirely in the nanny state!
We all undertake personal risk assessments daily on a variety of situations, and long may that continue.

 

[Mrklaw]

The fact that you have found no "acurate, hard evidence of the benefits of cycle helmet use" perhaps suggests that none exists. Others would interpret the information and evidence differently. You must draw your own conclusions, we are not yet entirely in the nanny state!
We all undertake personal risk assessments daily on a variety of situations, and long may that continue.

Having objective, empirical evidence doesn't mean we're in a nanny state! If there is no clear evidence then people 'making their own minds up' are just doing so in a vacuum of ignorance. That isn't a good thing. What if all those people choosing to wear a helmet don't realise they are actually endangering their lives or the lives of their children because they don't have the information to back up that choice? Same goes for those not wearing a helmet.

 

[Profpointy]

Having objective, empirical evidence doesn't mean we're in a nanny state! If there is no clear evidence then people 'making their own minds up' are just doing so in a vacuum of ignorance. That isn't a good thing. What if all those people choosing to wear a helmet don't realise they are actually endangering their lives or the lives of their children because they don't have the information to back up that choice? Same goes for those not wearing a helmet.

Aren't you perhaps saying the same thing?

No clear evidence of benefit, given a lot of effort has beem spent looking is pretty close to "helmets do little if any good". It's not that people haven't bothered looking for evidence.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Much of this has been said before, but a well put article IMO.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...83e4b0162f471bf935?4x3&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

 

[Mrklaw]

Aren't you perhaps saying the same thing?

No clear evidence of benefit, given a lot of effort has beem spent looking is pretty close to "helmets do little if any good". It's not that people haven't bothered looking for evidence.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I want evidence that backs one of three possible options:
1) wearing a helmet reduces your risk of injury in a cycling accident
2) wearing a helmet increases your risk of injury in a cycling accident
3) wearing a helmet has no effect either positive or negative

That will allow people to make meaningful decisions.

 

[benb]

The evidence is clear: Helmet wearing confers no statistically detectable protection against serious head injuries.
We must conclude therefore that either
- the effect they confer is so small as to be undetectable,
- or that there is a significant protective effect, but another factor (such as risk homeostasis) means that helmeted riders are more likely to suffer a head impact, thus cancelling out the protective effect.

My opinion is that the first scenario is most likely, given that cycling is a low risk activity to start with, and that the likelihood of falling off is already small; the likelihood of an off that results in a head impact is therefore smaller still; and the subset of those that fall into the performance envelope of a helmet are vanishingly unlikely.

It's also obviously the case though that helmeted riders are more likely to have a head impact, as the cross-sectional area of the head is being increased by at least 25%

I think helmets are effective at preventing minor bumps knocks and scrapes, but any claims of their effectiveness beyond that are unfounded and spurious.

I don't see that any further research would add anything to what we already know.

 

[Mugshot]

And so we create Pascal's helmet wager

 

[Profpointy]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I want evidence that backs one of three possible options:
1) wearing a helmet reduces your risk of injury in a cycling accident
2) wearing a helmet increases your risk of injury in a cycling accident
3) wearing a helmet has no effect either positive or negative

That will allow people to make meaningful decisions.

Look at the australian or ontario head injury rates before or after compulsion. Both are large scale "trials" as it were showing no reduction, maybe slight increase of head injury rate (rate needs to be corrected for the reduced numbers of cyclists). It convinced me

Another factor, which isn't per se evidence, but may nonetheless be telling is that the "pro lobby" seem happy to lie and dissemble to promote the cause. Why do this if there is real evidence? The prime example being the 75 or 85% head injury reduction claim pushed by various campaigners longer after the original research had been discredited.

 

[classic33]

Full face can save you from cuts to the head, through impact with the surface.

As for your brain in an impact, it will continue to move around inside your skull after impact. Helmet or no helmet.

I did more damage, the specialists view, when T-Boned by a car wearing a helmet. The shoulder and side taking the impact on the car bonnet. The neck injury was said to be due to the helmet.

 

[Brandane]

Full face can save you from cuts to the head, through impact with the surface.

As for your brain in an impact, it will continue to move around inside your skull after impact. Helmet or no helmet.

And there is of course a huge difference between "head injury" and "brain injury", a fact which is conveniently ignored by the pro-helmet brigade.
A head injury is no worse than a leg or arm injury, so why not make body armour compulsory?

 

[classic33]

And there is of course a huge difference between "head injury" and "brain injury", a fact which is conveniently ignored by the pro-helmet brigade.
A head injury is no worse than a leg or arm injury, so why not make body armour compulsory?

For years they tried to get me to wear one of these

for head protection, the research was there to validate their use as a safety device for epilepsy.

The inflatable helmet that appeared on here is now being sold as head protection for people with epilepsy. Ignores the rest of the body.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Out for spin this morning and catch up with another rider;
Me; Lovey day for a ride isn't it
Her; Out without a helmet, you're brave, not many people do that
The reply that went through my head was 'maybe just better informed' but I bit my tongue wished her a good ride and carried on my way. I have no problem with anyone wearing a lid, but this kind of thoughtless faith in a bit of plastic and polystyrene without any informed consideration and the implication that I'm some sort of nutter for not wearing one does irritate me.

 

[Fab Foodie]

No, they are in fact directly connected. More and more people wear these hats, and new cyclists are under the impression that they are compulsory already, as Flying Dodo has said. Then someone like Mr Thomas weighs in unthinkingly, on the basis that 'everyone wears them already' so why not make it compulsory? In the meantime the manufacturers are coining it, selling an unproven item as a 'safety device' when a fashion item is actually all it really is. It's an insidious process, and one that needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

G. Has apparently backtracked on his statement....