The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[glasgowcyclist]

Holland's A&E departments must be bursting at the seams... no?

GC

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Why didn't you say that in the first place?
I'm not preaching for you to wear one, or for it to be compulsory, just to accept that they can help sometimes, it's now coming out that some of you arnt quite as "hardcore" as you make out.

All I'm asking is "Define the times when they help. Define the degree to which they help."

Based on my assessment of the evidence, and my direct experience, on road they rarely help, except in very low speed falls, like when a stranger has an spd moment in front of you, and the reason they make very little difference because they are not designed to do so but rather are designed to pass tests that do not represent anything other than a tiny proportion of offs.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Scaremongering BS like this makes be so angry.

Very similar to the emotive BS Denmark foisted on folk in 2008. Strangely they didn't run a similar campaign pointing out less cycling = more car journeys = more KSI.

 

[benb]

There's simply no getting away from the fact that we cannot detect any significant protective effect in the data. If helmets were effective, we would expect to be able to detect that. We can't.

So either the circumstances that helmets make a difference in are so vanishingly remote that we simply can't detect the effect in the statistical noise (which is my view), or they do significantly protect, but other factors make helmeted riders have more head injuries than non-helmeted ones to balance that out. Either way, the position that "helmets help protect you from a serious head injury" cannot be backed up.

I do also get very frustrated with the position that we should seek to protect cyclists from head injuries, but not bother with pedestrian head injuries.
Now I'm quite prepared to accept that cycling is somewhat riskier than being a pedestrian, but purely on absolute numbers you'd definitely do more good promoting pedestrian helmets than cycling ones. But if you suggest pedestrian helmets you are (rightly) laughed at. There are lots of activities where the risk of head injury is broadly similar to that of cycling, yet only cyclists are singled out for helmet promotion. Why?

 

[MontyVeda]

...
There are lots of activities where the risk of head injury is broadly similar to that of cycling, yet only cyclists are singled out for helmet promotion. Why?

Simple answer... easier marketing.

 

[Mugshot]

but purely on absolute numbers you'd definitely do more good promoting pedestrian helmets

And car helmets too. It often crosses my mind too that for the reduction in head injuries for the maximum amount of people, cycling is NOT where you need to be pouring your resources.

 

[Justinslow]

Here's the thing.

In places where cycling is seen as a normal, everyday activity, as natural and as mundane as walking, the overwhelming majority of cyclists

a) don't identify themselves as cyclists any more than they identify themselves as shoeists when they are walking.
b) don't wear special clothing to ride their bikes.
c) don't wear helmets.

Go figure.

a, I do identify myself as a cyclist
b, I do wear special clothing
c, do wear a helmet
Maybe this is the difference.

 

[Mugshot]

Because for some people life is not like that, and is not seen as "everyday activities could result in the same result", for some people cycling IS seen as dangerous, based on personal views, people we know or experiences we've had.

Another reason that people see cycling as a dangerous activity is of course the insistence that is, which is reinforced by people wearing helmets. People that don't are routinely questioned and mocked and bullied for their decision not to, usually by people that have taken no time to look at the wider picture and more concerningly, refuse to do so.

 

[ufkacbln]

What happens if you have a "high speed" puncture and rapid deflation on the well adjusted bike? How does "sensible" have anything to do with it? Oh I know, avoid running over the offending item that caused the puncture, right?

So we are back to high speeds, where for a few minutes on a ride the rider is at at high speed and for most of the time at low speeds, yet all the accidents happen during the high speed

But again there is a ray of light

You are right avoiding riding over the offending item would indeed have prevented the accident

 

[Mugshot]

Most of you have conviently brushed aside any attempt by anyone who says a helmet helped in a crash (except @Profpointy) yet you say "they may be of some benefit in some circumstances"? That is not the message coming across, some even saying a "woolly hat" or a "ceiling tile" is just as effective.
You can throw all the evidence you like my way, I will still wear a helmet when i choose, it is my right, you have the right to not wear one, based on that same evidence.

As @benb says above the fact is that there does not seem to be any significant benefit for helmet wearing when the data is examined.
I believe that in some situations they must help, I may even fall into the "well it's obvious innit" camp here. Low speed offs, protection from light abrasions and bumps. I could however well believe that a wolly hat could offer a similar level of cushioning. However for me the chances of the stars aligning in such a way that I was actually in the position where a helmet would help are so vanishingly remote as to be not worth taking notice of. When you start adding speed into the equation, for example in Gregs scenario, then the obvious answer seems to be "well of course I'd want something between my head and the road if I'm sliding along it" but when I look at a cycle helmet I cannot see anything other than a snapped neck as a result of the thing snagging on anything and everything it can grab on to. Again, I consider the chances of it happening to be remote, but could see that the helmet could very well make a bad situation worse.
I am intrigued which evidence that has been put to you here is convincing you to wear a helmet?

 

[MontyVeda]

In the past I've been belittled by friends for wearing safety goggles when i get my router out (woodworking, not interweb)... from experience, I prefer to have the goggles on and would recommend others do the same. But it really is a case of each to their own.

 

[ufkacbln]

You realise that can be parsed two ways, right?

I always wOnder just how these individuals extrapolate extending helmet use as "anti helmet"

 

[GrumpyGregry]

a, I do identify myself as a cyclist
b, I do wear special clothing
c, do wear a helmet
Maybe this is the difference.

Yes. The difference is you clearly dont regard cycling as a normal everyday activity that ordinary everyday people can undertake. And that's the problem...

 

[ufkacbln]

Why didn't you say that in the first place?
I'm not preaching for you to wear one, or for it to be compulsory, just to accept that they can help sometimes, it's now coming out that some of you arnt quite as "hardcore" as you make out.

...and calling anyone who doesn't a fool?

 

[Justinslow]

As @benb says above the fact is that there does not seem to be any significant benefit for helmet wearing when the data is examined.
I believe that in some situations they must help, I may even fall into the "well it's obvious innit" camp here. Low speed offs, protection from light abrasions and bumps. I could however well believe that a wolly hat could offer a similar level of cushioning. However for me the chances of the stars aligning in such a way that I was actually in the position where a helmet would help are so vanishingly remote as to be not worth taking notice of. When you start adding speed into the equation, for example in Gregs scenario, then the obvious answer seems to be "well of course I'd want something between my head and the road if I'm sliding along it" but when I look at a cycle helmet I cannot see anything other than a snapped neck as a result of the thing snagging on anything and everything it can grab on to. Again, I consider the chances of it happening to be remote, but could see that the helmet could very well make a bad situation worse.
I am intrigued which evidence that has been put to you here is convincing you to wear a helmet?

Ok how about motorcycle helmets or horse riding helmets, both significantly more bulky than cycle helmets, do they snag and cause massive numbers of more injuries? Motorcycle helmets often have fairly promenant vents sticking out aswell. I don't see why you single out cycle helmets?