The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

To be allowed to continue to do so in peace without hysterical criticism from ignorant people. Without period attempts to introduce legislation that would curtail that freedom.

Fair enough, thanks. End the thread here!
Can we all live happily ever after now?

 

[Justinslow]

Alas not, because it doesn't go away.

Bugger

 

[Profpointy]

Because I don't understand where Martin is going with his post? I know nobody has called for "helmets to be banned" but what do the people like Martin want? The non wearers are very vocal in errrrr not wearing helmets, but what do they want, what is their goal?

That's better - a perfectly fair question !

I can't speak for Martin, but what I want is for people who preach helmets to me, to actually listen or consider, when I answer that the evidence (eg Australia) suggests they are not much, if any value, and not then call me stupid (for what, listening to the evidence?). I don't much care if people chose to wear helmets, but I deeply resent attempts at compulsion (which is often the follow up stance from the pro lobby) - especially as those doing the preaching can't even be bothered considering evidence, or dismiss it out of hand as against their pre-defined view.

If someone says, in a measured way "Ok, there are pros and cons, but on balance I reckon I'm safer because of this or that" - well fair enough.

I also resent people, ill-informed people at that, banning kids from riding to school without helmets, or refusing to train kids who don't have helmets - that's wilfully increasing risk to kids to prove a point - a so-say safety point at that. This is simply despicable.

Justin - I'm not accusing you of any of this necessarily, but these are some of the reasons the sceptics join the argument.

As I've said elsewhere, I used to wear a helmet, and thought people who didn't were stupid, but I changed my view based on evidence.

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 3995858, member: 43827"]That is a stupid statement that just demonstrates how many posts in this thread are led by prejudice. Where is the evidence that helmet wearers wear them as fashion accessories. From a survey of the one cyclist in my house I know that I wear them because I believe they give me some protection and not as a fashion accessory.I may be wrong and there are arguments on both sides about their benefit or otherwise but no need to trivialise those arguments with such idiocy.[/QUOTE]
There is no evidence that a helmet will offer any protection in a crash other than anecdotal evidence. Therefore if you want to wear one do so but it's not backed up by anything other than a fashion choice.

 

[martint235]

I haven't seen anybody here saying "you should wear a helmet", or people pushing their "helmet wearing" on others, most people are saying "I wear one because........".
So they don't make any difference in any crash?
You see how your message becomes jumbled?

Have you not been reading the thread or the other ones that start off with something along the lines of "People who don't wear helmets are stupid cos my mate just had a crash and his helmet saved his life". I can't be a***d to go and look them up for you though.

There is no evidence to suggest they make a difference in a crash, no.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Yer but, that's your own anecdotal evidence and is equally as valid as my mate who suffered brain swelling and concussion when he landed in his head and ALL the medical personnel commented that his helmet probably saved his life.

Quite.

 

[mjr]

How does a helmet impair your vision?

I was sure there was a pilot or stage-one research report (so basically the conclusion was that more research was required - which is why I called it possible) that suggested that helmet-wearers moved their heads to look around less (which I think is hardly surprisingly when you're balancing a quarter-pounder to half-pounder on top of your head) but I can't find it on the usual helmet link websites so maybe I dreamed it. Anyone else remember this research?

There was an interesting post about someone's dad having a bike accident, which resulted in him ending up in hospital with a concussion. The medical experts at the hospital were of the opinion that the helmet saved the guy from being far more seriously hurt, or killed. I tend to listen to what medical experts have to say on the subject.

I agree with @martint235 about that:

Because medical experts are also expert in the design and manufacture of safety equipment?

No. No, they're not. Also, as we're often reminded, cycle helmets are not accepted as Personal Protection Equipment by HSE.

The post about the bike accident was https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/trying-to-figure-out-a-bad-bike-accident-please-read.190731/ - it's hard to see on the photos but it looks like an uncompressed helmet fragment to me - can anyone see compression on it? Others point out that it's not hard to split a helmet before I suggested we continue this discussion here.

In other anecdotes, there was a single-bike crash on the group ride I was on yesterday. Unusually for our group, the rider hit the head on something - probably the road. I found it very unsettling. The details seem unimportant for this discussion but it's basically unexplained despite numerous witnesses and us all trying to figure it out while waiting for the ambulance. While unexplained crashes are worrying, that's not the main thing unsettling me.

The rider had quite a bloody cut high on the forehead which I think looked like road-rash except there seemed no road debris in it (unlike the hand). The paramedics said the cut was superficial but what's really unsettled me is that the cut was in a place that the helmet should have covered. The helmet appeared to have cracked up without compressing and the front peak was scratched so I think it had hit the road, but it had not broken off (should it have?). While I don't wear a crash helmet and I think non-racing cyclists shouldn't, I sincerely do want them to protect those who do crash while choosing to wear one, else we're all getting the drawbacks without the wearer getting the single-cycle crash impact protection that is meant to be the benefit.

The only things reassuring me are:
1. the front of the helmet isn't tested by EN 1078 as I understand it ("the headform shall never be turned so that the vertical axis comes below the horizontal plane even if the test area allows") so hopefully if the top had been struck, it would have compressed visibly before cracking up;
2. I was told the helmet was "old" (after the collision, possibly while a bit dazed, so I didn't quiz and it didn't seem to me like a good time to have the helmet debate - although that didn't stop various helmet-wearers making "it's just as well you were wearing a helmet" comments ), so maybe a helmet less than three years old (as often recommended) wouldn't crack up like that.

As far as I know, the rider was taken to hospital for observation, was basically OK and we await news from friends who ride with us. As ever, we can't know whether it'd have been better or worse in another scenario, but the behaviour of that helmet troubles me. Should it?

 

[Profpointy]

And that's another thing, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any of these qualified medical types, who could put their hand on their heart, and say that a helmet actually caused more damage. I have heard some badly misquoted, in cases where rotational injuries caused injury, where the refusenik brigade have jumped on, and selectively (mis) quoted the person. They said (something along the lines of) the person who had the accident, suffered a lot of damage to the brain, because of a rotational injury, and a helmet wouldn't have stopped this. What is usually missed out is the bit about the helmet almost definitely preventing a fracture injury, which may have had far more severe consequences / made matters even worse.

A different way of looking at the same question, is the Australian evidence - which suggests helmets, on balance, made little difference to the safety of the cycling population. So, either they make no diffence either way in an accident (unlikely in my view, as it seems to me that they probably do help sometimes) - OR, they help sometimes, and make things worse other times thus balancing out. There is various speculation, and maybe some evidence too, for some of these "bad" effects. If these bad effects didn't happen, then the results wouldn't balance out ! QE(f)D.

It is unarguable that they make your head (quite a lot) bigger , therefore you'll get hit a lot more often - double maybe going by simple geometry?

 

[mjr]

And that's another thing, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any of these qualified medical types, who could put their hand on their heart, and say that a helmet actually caused more damage.

I think it was easier when most helmets had great big lumps jutting out the back (what was the point? just making them look a bit aero?) which meant some people damaged their neck after landing on their back, but helmet designs seem to have improved to reduce that problem, even if they've gotten worse in other ways.

I haven't seen anybody here saying "you should wear a helmet", or people pushing their "helmet wearing" on others, most people are saying "I wear one because........".

Maybe not on here (but I think I've seen a few) but there's no shortage of people in other places happy to tell us we should wear them, that we're setting a bad example by not doing so (I've been accused of encouraging others to play Russian Roulette or words very close to that!) and some (British Cycling, despite Saint Boardman) forcing people to choose between wearing and not participating on some non-racing recreational rides.

Ultimately, how many of the supposedly pro-choice helmet-wearers would support a campaign to remove the instruction to wear helmets from the Highway Code?

[QUOTE 3995858, member: 43827"]Where is the evidence that helmet wearers wear them as fashion accessories.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on, I was quite enjoying a version of the "Vanity Myth" being used against helmet-wearers for a change!

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 3995898, member: 43827"]In your opinion. But you know what they say about opinions.

If I were to make a choice of headgear by fashion it would definitely not be a helmet. I look like a knob in one.[/QUOTE]
So where's the evidence? My opinion is formed by a lack of evidence to the contrary.

If you choose to do wear something that doesn't have a distinct purpose, then I count that as a fashion choice. I wear cycling shoes with cleats on them because there is evidence to suggest that using the upstroke improves my efficiency. I wear a waterproof when it's raining because there's evidence that it will keep me drier than not doing. I wear a cap that says "Team Lelly" down the side as a fashion choice.

 

[benb]

A different way of looking at the same question, is the Australian evidence - which suggests helmets, on balance, made little difference to the safety of the cycling population. So, either they make no diffence either way in an accident (unlikely in my view, as it seems to me that they probably do help sometimes) - OR, they help sometimes, and make things worse other times thus balancing out. There is various speculation, and maybe some evidence too, for some of these "bad" effects. If these bad effects didn't happen, then the results wouldn't balance out ! QE(f)D.

It is unarguable that they make your head (quite a lot) bigger , therefore you'll get hit a lot more often - double maybe going by simple geometry?

My view is that they probably help a bit in low impacts, particularly against minor cuts and bruises, but the likelihood of such an event happening is very remote in the first place, and the subset of those events where a helmet will turn a death into just a serious injury, or turn a serious injury into a minor one, are so vanishingly unlikely that they are simply undetectable amongst the statistical noise.

 

[mjr]

I wear cycling shoes with cleats on them because there is evidence to suggest that using the upstroke improves my efficiency.

What evidence is that then? I thought there was better evidence that it can improve effectiveness at the expense of a little efficiency.

Slightly off-topic, but advocacy of clipping in seems almost as stubborn, fashion-led and evidence-free as helmet advocacy - at least that's not in the highway code and there's never attempts to compel anyone to do so AFAIK, so it's more truly a personal choice.

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 3995920, member: 43827"]You have no idea why I make choices, just an opinion. As I said about opinions.......[/QUOTE]
And to be frank I couldn't care less why you make choices so long as you don't try to foist those choices on to me which is what the pro-helmet brigade try to do. I've never told someone not to wear a helmet and yet people keep telling me I should wear one.

 

[ufkacbln]

I haven't seen anybody here saying "you should wear a helmet", or people pushing their "helmet wearing" on others, most people are saying "I wear one because........".
So they don't make any difference in any crash?
You see how your message becomes jumbled?

You mean like this:

Like I said before, refuseniks are everywhere, and occasionally you do find them in the medical profession, they are entitled to their opinions, but they should really think before they speak. How long did it take you to find someone who would actually do this? The only time I've ever encountered one, was when someone I know was looking for compo, and he had a devil of a job finding someone to say it.

The same point applies as before..

We have no idea of the actual incident, what the evidence was or the mechanics of the injury

Yet Without any of this knowledge the individual who gave evidence is dismissed as a "refusenik", their evidence discounted as invalid , and apparentky they shouldn't be allowed to voice that opinion

Like an infant... Fingers in ears and LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA

 

[ufkacbln]

ON a recumbent trike, if there is "leg suck" then thhe leg is dragged under the frame with harsh consequences.

Cleats (or other secure fixings) are therefore recommended