Helmet discussions: has anyone ever been persuaded otherwise?

[asterix]

I got so pissed off with all the helmet crap that I now do most of my cycling in France.

 

[Crackle]

Oh no, it's the 1000th ascension of the helmet thread, who opened the door of the tomb?

 

[twowheelsgood]

I was a convert from non-wearing to wearing. I've had two accidents, neither involving my head.

Really I don't see any downsides, no one pretends they'll stop you getting crushed by a truck.

 

[Dan B]

I've had two accidents involving my head: one helmeted, one not. Really, there are so many other factors that it's impossible to say if the helmet helps more often than not, or not. And if it doesn't: well, I sweat a lot through the head and even with a decent and fairly expensive vented helmet (Giro Pneumo) wearing a helmet means I get significantly hotter and stickier than I otherwise would. I'd say that was a downside.

 

[ufkacbln]

It depends whether you want to actually prevent head injuries or not.....

In all the cohort studied there are more drivers (despite seatbelts etc) and pedearians than cyslist by a significant margin.

The wearing of helmets by pedestrians would prevent far more head injuries than imposing their use on cyclists.

You can argue that the "risk" is lesser or greater, but the unfortunate fact for the soup brigade is that it is the the same straw and the same soup.

The question really is where the line should be drawn.

Lets take two examples:

Cyclists have a 1 in 100 chance of suffering a head injury and we can prevent 10 injuries in a year

Pedestrians have a 1 in 1000 chance, and we can prevent 50 in a year

Which is of greater benefit?

Why should we allow the pedestrian to choose not to wear protection, but impose it on the cyclist?

 

[HJ]

Strange how you often hear (or rather read) the stories about how a helmet saved someone head, but the actual statistics for head injury show that it is a lot less common. Maybe if you are wearing a helmet you are more likely to hit your head, certainly I have not hit my head falling off a bike. I can also be sure that had I been wearing a helmet the other week, it would not have stopped me cracking a rib, but it might have caused me to hit my head as well...

 

[on the road]

There's the extra weight of the helmet

 

[yello]

Yeah, my helmet weighs me down..... fnnar fnnar (no, I didn't call!)

 

[simon_brooke]

Personally I'm in favour of making them compulsory.

The way I see it is, no-one would question why motorcyclers are forced to wear a helmet - so why shouldn't cyclists be?

If you look at places where cycle helmets have been made mandatory, the actual number of deaths falls, but the number of people cycling also falls; and the number of fatalities per billion cyclist kilometres rises. That doesn't prove that cycle helmets cause the extra deaths, of course - but something does. So it's not at all clear that cycle helmets actually save any lives at all.

Well, for a start, people usually go faster in a 'race'. There's a clue in the word...

They not only ride much faster, they also ride much closer together, so the risks of falls are much higher. However, the question has to be asked, have the number of serious head injuries in the professional peloton gone down since the UCI mandated helmets? I've been trying to compile evidence on that, but it isn't easy; however it seems that the number of serious injuries has actually risen.

So there is more of a risk in the ''sport'' of cycling rather then the ''non sport''?

Very much greater. Racing cyclists have on average about one serious injury every three years; most non-racing cyclists never have a serious cycling injury in their whole life.

So, should you wear a helmet, serious question?

If you're concerned about cuts and bruises when falling off your bike then you should certainly wear a helmet; they definitely do protect against minor cuts and bruising .

If you're concerned about being hit by a speeding motorist, or by an HGV, then the difference between the energy absorbing capacity of a cycle helmet and the amount of energy in the collision is so disproportionate that I really can't see that it matters.

If you're concerned about heat-stroke - particularly relevant in this weather - then you should definitely not wear a helmet.

In the crash in which I broke my back - I overcooked a bend at 46 miles per hour and went straight into a cliff face - I was wearing a cotton cap.

It saved my life.

 

[palinurus]

I went through a period of wearing a helmet for my commute, I may have been swayed by one of the posters on the old C+ forum (Not Responding). His sig. line read "Wearing a helmet for normal cycling is pointless in terms of safety and serves only as a vote for compulsion". I did some digging.

I stopped wearing one for normal cycling. I sometimes wear one for time trials- it's pointy so it may have some benefit (although my times are pretty much the same with a backwards cycling cap). I wear one for cyclocross (it's the rules).

 

[Chonker]

Personally I'm in favour of making them compulsory.

The way I see it is, no-one would question why motorcyclers are forced to wear a helmet - so why shouldn't cyclists be?

I'm not sure motorcyclists should have to wear them, surely it's your own decision how safe you choose to be, the tree of life is self pruning

 

[HeartAttack]

Very much greater. Racing cyclists have on average about one serious injury every three years; most non-racing cyclists never have a serious cycling injury in their whole life.

Proof?? or just your view?? as going just from this site there is a hell of a lot of non racing cyclists posting about accidents, also what do you class as serious?

If you're concerned about being hit by a speeding motorist, or by an HGV, then the difference between the energy absorbing capacity of a cycle helmet and the amount of energy in the collision is so disproportionate that I really can't see that it matters.

Again proof, what speeds are you talking about? you can't make sweeping statements without backing them up, its like me saying all guns kill, whereas in reality its the people that use them that kill.

In the crash in which I broke my back - I overcooked a bend at 46 miles per hour and went straight into a cliff face - I was wearing a cotton cap.

It saved my life.

Have you tried doing the same when wearing a helmet? if not how can you say the cotton cap saved you? again personal view point no proof.

Bottom line is its your choice to wear one or not but unless you can prove sweeping statements you're just talking about your personal views, which count just for you.

Why not try riding along a line of cars, you doing 20mph in a cotton cap, all the cars move forwards close to your line of riding, do this 5 times, one car, you'll have no idea which one will actually pull out across you. then do the same test but wearing a helmet, after doing this 5 times with and without the helmet come back and give us the results, if no helmet means less injury for you i'll stop wearing one, if not I'll keep promoting them for others.

 

[MacB]

Heartattack, you're obviously coming from a pro racing stance and defending your corner. But most of us wouldn't need any proof to tell us that cycling at high speeds, in a closely grouped bunch, is more dangerous than our normal cycling habits. I think it was Montage on here that had a crash and was thankful for his helmet. He then pointed out that he was racing a friend, on wet roads, slightly uphill and travelling at 30mph. That set of circumstances will never occur in my cycling life, my choice. For any human controlled vehicle speed and distance gaps are a big factor in accidents. This is true of motoring and doesn't take einstein to make the correlation to cycling.

Level of protection supplied by helmets - I think the massive silence from the manufacturers around efficacy is most telling in this area.

I don't think anyone says don't promote cycling helmets, they just want them promoted accurately rather than via assumption, annecdotal evidence and by playing on peoples fears.

 

[Funtboy]

Lets take two examples:

Cyclists have a 1 in 100 chance of suffering a head injury and we can prevent 10 injuries in a year

Pedestrians have a 1 in 1000 chance, and we can prevent 50 in a year

Which is of greater benefit?

Why should we allow the pedestrian to choose not to wear protection, but impose it on the cyclist?

Eh, so what you could also say is:

Cyclists have a 10 in 1000 chance of suffering a head injury and we can prevent 100 injuries in a year

Pedestrians have a 1 in 1000 chance, and we can prevent 50 in a year

That makes that particular argument a chocolate teapot I'm afraid.

 

[HeartAttack]

Heartattack, you're obviously coming from a pro racing stance and defending your corner. But most of us wouldn't need any proof to tell us that cycling at high speeds, in a closely grouped bunch, is more dangerous than our normal cycling habits. I think it was Montage on here that had a crash and was thankful for his helmet. He then pointed out that he was racing a friend, on wet roads, slightly uphill and travelling at 30mph. That set of circumstances will never occur in my cycling life, my choice. For any human controlled vehicle speed and distance gaps are a big factor in accidents. This is true of motoring and doesn't take einstein to make the correlation to cycling.

Yes I do also use racing as a reason as I'm quite comfortable to ride at 20+ most of the time, but also my ride Tuesday which was ended with a trip in the back of an ambulance, neck brace and back board had nothing at all to do with road conditions, racing, sprinting or anything other than the driver who decided when I was level with his bonnet, looking right at me thought it would be safe to try and turn across me. The damage to my helmet was enough to show that had I not been wearing it I would have suffered head injuries at least.

And this sort of thing happens almost every day to normal non racing cyclists, anyone who things in the split second from impact to hitting the ground and can move their body so that they reduce or remove any chance of getting head injury is sadly mistaken. Those that have not suffered these injuries are lucky and nothing more, they could not do anything about it and other than thinking oh well this proves not wearing one is the right move is just stupid.

Although I personally feel a helmet is the right way to go and would not complain if it was made compulsory, until that day its everyone's own choice, but cut the crap and stop saying not wearing one is safer and you will get less injuries, its all speculation and personal input.