The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[matticus]

I don't think many of us would necessarily go as far as to claim that. However, given the Australian experience indicates that on average helmets make little difference, to me that suggests they sometimes make things worse, as that balances out the times they presumably help. For me it's harder to believe they don't make a difference in each and every individual accident, so sometimes good sometimes bad cancelling out is more plausible to me

Totally agree.

(The three main proposed* causes:
- extra rotation damage to your brain (because helmets tend to "grab" at the road surface as you slide along)
- risk compensation
- extra effective size of head means that some near misses convert to hits.

n.b. "proposed" - apart from risk compensation (which is a proven effect in many other accident scenarios) - I have yet to find good evidence of these things happening in any number.)

 

[icowden]

i very much doubt there's a 'great helmet debate' on walkingchat or pistonheads. Why do you think that is?

Well. People tend to wear a helmet to protect themselves from perceived dangers from their point of view. As a pedestrian everyone (well almost everyone) has had load of practice walking and it's rare for someone to fall off their own feet. When they do, the impact is minimal, as the speed is very slow.

As for pistonheads (I'm presuming motorcycles here), there is a *lot* more research and testing done on motorcycle helmets. I like wearing a cycle helmet and feel it has a benefit, but you have to recognise that they are no where near as well tested, as robust or as strong as a motorbike helmet.

If you come off a motor bike at 30mph your helmet will protect your noggin. I doubt that your cycle helmet will do much though. I just think it might do a little more than nothing, and there is some evidence to suggest that this is the case in slower accidents.

 

[MontyVeda]

Well. People tend to wear a helmet to protect themselves from perceived dangers from their point of view. As a pedestrian everyone (well almost everyone) has had load of practice walking and it's rare for someone to fall off their own feet. When they do, the impact is minimal, as the speed is very slow.

As for pistonheads (I'm presuming motorcycles here), there is a *lot* more research and testing done on motorcycle helmets. I like wearing a cycle helmet and feel it has a benefit, but you have to recognise that they are no where near as well tested, as robust or as strong as a motorbike helmet.

If you come off a motor bike at 30mph your helmet will protect your noggin. I doubt that your cycle helmet will do much though. I just think it might do a little more than nothing, and there is some evidence to suggest that this is the case in slower accidents.

I think pistonheads is more a motoring forum, boy-racer types... but probably has a motorbike section.

People in cars are statistically a bit more likely to get a head injury than cyclists.

Head injuries amongst pedestrians is about the same as it for cyclists, despite many years of practice walking around.

Accidents do happen, after all.

 

[icowden]

I think pistonheads is more a motoring forum, boy-racer types... but probably has a motorbike section.
People in cars are statistically a bit more likely to get a head injury than cyclists.

Cars are generally going quite fast and have copious amounts of airbags to protect head, torso etc. Hence no helmet needed.
Race cars on the other hand whether rally or F1, the drivers do tend to wear helmets for protection.

 

[matticus]

What???

 

[MontyVeda]

Cars are generally going quite fast and have copious amounts of airbags to protect head, torso etc. Hence no helmet needed.
Race cars on the other hand whether rally or F1, the drivers do tend to wear helmets for protection.

yet head injury statistics continue to show a lot of car occupants end up with a head injury in the event of an accident

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Cars are generally going quite fast and have copious amounts of airbags to protect head, torso etc. Hence no helmet needed

I seem to recall a statistic that over 50% of all head injuries are suffered by car occupants.

 

[matticus]

I seem to recall a statistic that over 50% of all head injuries are suffered by car occupants.

... which is hilarious when people drive to a bike ride, then get told to put a helmet on ...

 

[icowden]

yet head injury statistics continue to show a lot of car occupants end up with a head injury in the event of an accident

See the "cars travel quite fast" statement. Even with the best airbags in the world, it's difficult to slow a brain from 70mph to zero without it getting upset.
You have to couple the "car occupants with head injury" with "car occupants surviving the head injury)". If a car hits a pedestrian at high speed, the pedestrian will likely die from their head injury, whilst the driver will be inconvenienced by their own head injury.

Velocity is important.

 

[MontyVeda]

See the "cars travel quite fast" statement. Even with the best airbags in the world, it's difficult to slow a brain from 70mph to zero without it getting upset.
You have to couple the "car occupants with head injury" with "car occupants surviving the head injury)". If a car hits a pedestrian at high speed, the pedestrian will likely die from their head injury, whilst the driver will be inconvenienced by their own head injury.

Velocity is important.

It is.

Yet no one seems to be advocating the use of PPE to protect the vulnerable skulls of car occupants and pedestrians.

Why do you think that is?

 

[classic33]

It is.

Yet no one seems to be advocating the use of PPE to protect the vulnerable skulls of car occupants and pedestrians.

Why do you think that is?

It's been tried by the Danes

This Danish campaign poster reads:

"A walking helmet is a good helmet"
"Traffic safety isn't just for cyclists. The pedestrians of Denmark actually have a higher risk of head injury. The Danish Road Safety Council recommends walking helmets for pedestrians and other good folk in high risk groups."

 

[matticus]

See the "cars travel quite fast" statement. Even with the best airbags in the world, it's difficult to slow a brain from 70mph to zero without it getting upset.
You have to couple the "car occupants with head injury" with "car occupants surviving the head injury)". If a car hits a pedestrian at high speed, the pedestrian will likely die from their head injury, whilst the driver will be inconvenienced by their own head injury.

Velocity is important.

Sorry, I've read this several times now; is it PRO helmets for drivers? I mean it seems to be, but Ian's earlier post didn't ...

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Any research that shows helmets are indeed harmful or dangerous?

Yes there’s a paper that shows you are more likely to end up in hospital with a head injury if you wear a helmet. There’s another paper than shows a helmeted head will make contact with the ground in 70% of cases where as without the helmet they’d be no impact. Plus the introduction MIPS clearly indicates that a problem has been found with helmets causing rotation injuries to the brain, during accidents..

 

[oldwheels]

I think pistonheads is more a motoring forum, boy-racer types... but probably has a motorbike section.

People in cars are statistically a bit more likely to get a head injury than cyclists.

Head injuries amongst pedestrians is about the same as it for cyclists, despite many years of practice walking around.

Accidents do happen, after all.

The only falling accident I have had which caused injury was in falling off my feet. I slipped on a mound with wet grass at an agricultural show and damaged my shoulder. I was not wearing a helmet.

 

[mickle]

Cars are generally going quite fast and have copious amounts of airbags to protect head, torso etc. Hence no helmet needed.
Race cars on the other hand whether rally or F1, the drivers do tend to wear helmets for protection.