The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Lets go back again to the anecdote about the guy riding too fast and too close to the person in front. WHwn the guy in front fell he could not stop and therfore came off. The helmet "saved" him, but the accident could have been prevented by cycling at a lower speed and at a safe distance

What needs to be done is to distinguish "racing" from cycling

If there is a vehicle racing event on roads or tracks then helmets, fire proof overalls, roll bars and other equipment is mandatory in teh car because participants have chosen to drive in an dangerous manner. How many would not ear these? We wil never know as use is forced by the organisers to wear helmets etc

Go on a track day with your normal car and you will need a hemet to participate

Racing as a cyclist is the same, there is a choice to make the ride more dangerous and accidents not only more likely, but also more severe when they happen. Hence as with vehice racing there is a need for additional equipment inthe eyes of the organisers

The number of racing cyclists is minimal compared to the number of cyclists who ride in a normal and sensible way

That is the level of cycling at which any debate should be levelled.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Have we any data yet on how much difference a helmet would make in a high speed crash on the road?

Thought not.

The promotion of cycling helmets as effective safety equipment is deplorable. It is unscientific, and irrational. As a ruse it is up there with homeopathy.

And it portrays cycling as an inherrently risky activity and thus provides millions with a ready made excuse not to take it up.

 

[martint235]

And the UCI is complicit in this. By insisting that the pro peloton wear helmets despite the absence of any evidence regarding their efficacy in the kind of collision likely to be experienced they have provided a key argument to the pro helmet lobby of "but the pros do it". The peloton fought against mandatory helmet use for years and these are the guys and girls that spend longer on their bikes than anyone else. Why did they fight so hard I wonder if the helmet offers them so much?

 

[Justinslow]

Lets go back again to the anecdote about the guy riding too fast and too close to the person in front. WHwn the guy in front fell he could not stop and therfore came off. The helmet "saved" him, but the accident could have been prevented by cycling at a lower speed and at a safe distance

What needs to be done is to distinguish "racing" from cycling

If there is a vehicle racing event on roads or tracks then helmets, fire proof overalls, roll bars and other equipment is mandatory in teh car because participants have chosen to drive in an dangerous manner. How many would not ear these? We wil never know as use is forced by the organisers to wear helmets etc

Go on a track day with your normal car and you will need a hemet to participate

Racing as a cyclist is the same, there is a choice to make the ride more dangerous and accidents not only more likely, but also more severe when they happen. Hence as with vehice racing there is a need for additional equipment inthe eyes of the organisers

The number of racing cyclists is minimal compared to the number of cyclists who ride in a normal and sensible way

That is the level of cycling at which any debate should be levelled.

Except that this incident was not in a race but a fast club run where at that moment they were in a fast chain. They/we don't ride like that all the time but sometimes we do. Some road race, others TT, some triathlon or duathlon, and we find it fun (obviously not fun crashing) but riding like this is often a necessity if you want to compete in the close company of others. Are we hooligans in Lycra, who knows? Ok perhaps this was a very specific and different accident to many other types, but it demonstrates the "extreme" range of cycling I guess. One of my points (which clearly got a bit muddled and side tracked and perhaps even my fault) was that any bike has the capability to travel at very high speeds ie down hills or out of control or under your own steam and risk is sometimes hard to judge. Should we cater for all eventualities, I guess not, as you wouldn't for walking or drinking beer as has been discussed, but if you go out riding knowing you are going to be riding at the more "extreme" end of cycling then I'll choose to wear a helmet thanks, which also seems to be most people's outlook it seems.

 

[Justinslow]

Have we any data yet on how much difference a helmet would make in a high speed crash on the road?

Thought not.

The promotion of cycling helmets as effective safety equipment is as deplorable. It is unscientific, and irrational. As a ruse it is up there with homeopathy.

And it portrays cycling as an inherrently risky activity and thus provides millions with a ready made excuse not to take it up.

Ok but you wear one off road and sometimes on road? Just incase you hit a branch because it stops your head hurting, granted this is not a high speed crash on the road.
And I'd say millions also don't take it up because it's hard work and they can't bothered judging by some of my friends!

 

[Justinslow]

Your justification for promoting helmet usage is that you feel a need to wear one when riding in circumstances were it is unlikely to be effective.

Except that I've come up with an anecdote explaining where I believe one was effective in just such a case but you don't believe it. That is the problem.

 

[ufkacbln]

Except that this incident was not in a race but a fast club run where at that moment they were in a fast chain. They/we don't ride like that all the time but sometimes we do. Some road race, others TT, some triathlon or duathlon, and we find it fun (obviously not fun crashing) but riding like this is often a necessity if you want to compete in the close company of others. Are we hooligans in Lycra, who knows? Ok perhaps this was a very specific and different accident to many other types, but it demonstrates the "extreme" range of cycling I guess. One of my points (which clearly got a bit muddled and side tracked and perhaps even my fault) was that any bike has the capability to travel at very high speeds ie down hills or out of control or under your own steam and risk is sometimes hard to judge. Should we cater for all eventualities, I guess not, as you wouldn't for walking or drinking beer as has been discussed, but if you go out riding knowing you are going to be riding at the more "extreme" end of cycling then I'll choose to wear a helmet thanks, which also seems to be most people's outlook it seems.

It is still a choice at ride at a faster speed and with a dangerous proximity that does not allow room for error. This increases both the likelihood of accident and its severity.
This is the point that is being continually missed whenever this "incident" is chosen, and why I chose a track day as an example... that is also not racing, but the choice to drive fast and close to other vehicles exists and the organisers have insisted on helmets.


Next time you are out, look around and see how many cyclists there are, and then count how many are in pace lines or travelling at 30mph +

If you argue that these fast riders "need" a helmet because they have chosen to compromise their safety, then can we not argue that the average commuter or shopper has already reduced the likelihood of accident sufficiently that the same "need" for a helmet no longer exists?

Another example - RoSPA has shown that training children is effective. When compared with a control group of untrained children the accident rate is reduced by 50%. SO the "need" for a helmet is also reduced as the accident is less likely

As always it is a case of the individual deciding their riding style, the steps they taken to reduce accidents, and then wear or not wear as the case may be.

This choice is then (most importantly) informed

 

[Profpointy]

It is still a choice at ride at a faster speed and with a dangerous proximity that does not allow room for error. This increases both the likelihood of accident and its severity.
This is the point that is being continually missed whenever this "incident" is chosen, and why I chose a track day as an example... that is also not racing, but the choice to drive fast and close to other vehicles exists and the organisers have insisted on helmets.


Next time you are out, look around and see how many cyclists there are, and then count how many are in pace lines or travelling at 30mph +

If you argue that these fast riders "need" a helmet because they have chosen to compromise their safety, then can we not argue that the average commuter or shopper has already reduced the likelihood of accident sufficiently that the same "need" for a helmet no longer exists?

Another example - RoSPA has shown that training children is effective. When compared with a control group of untrained children the accident rate is reduced by 50%. SO the "need" for a helmet is also reduced as the accident is less likely

As always it is a case of the individual deciding their riding style, the steps they taken to reduce accidents, and then wear or not wear as the case may be.

This choice is then (most importantly) informed

at the risk af being slightly mischevious, are you therefore conceding helmets are beneficial if you take risks?

And if so, isn't it likely they help even for sedate cycling?

 

[ufkacbln]

Except that I've come up with an anecdote explaining where I believe one was effective in just such a case but you don't believe it. That is the problem.

Yet you don't see that refusing to believe the anecdotal (and factual) information about pedestrian head injuries is a problem?

 

[ufkacbln]

at the risk af being slightly mischevious, are you therefore conceding helmets are beneficial if you take risks?

And if so, isn't it likely they help even for sedate cycling?

What I am saying is that the likelihoodand severity of an accident is increased which is why organisers cover themselves by insisting on helmets

To use the MOD parlance.... I can neither confirm, nor deny the effectiveness of helmets in an individual situation

This is the point.

There is evidence that in some cases helmets can prevent or mitigate an injury
There is evidence that in some cases they do neither, and can in fact worsen an injury
There will be cases where an EN1078 helmet will not help, but a Snell B95 would
There is evidence that the "snag points" on some designs will eject the helmet at both speeds rendering it ineffective
There is also evidence that helmets fail to cover important areas and need to have greater coverage of the face and base of the skull to be truly effective

The evidence from test standards suggests that a helmet is more likely to be effective at lower speeds (?especially pedestrian speeds?), however the injury itself will also be less at a lower speed, so is there less reason to wear one?

The important thing is that YOU take all this evidence on board and make a personal decision that is informed as to YOUR personal circumstances

Challenging spurious claims and reasoning to justify helmet use is not "anti - helmet", nor is it intended to suggest whether YOU wear one or not. It is all about making sure that the information is correct and realistic

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I know that there are a host of variables, but generally speaking, is there any real world way to give an idea of what a 13 mph impact equates to?

For example, (and I know it's far from the same, but could be a branch on a mountain bike) things like, how fast was the teachers cane going when it hit my hand, or how fast am I going if I trip and fall to the floor?

 

[MontyVeda]

I know that there are a host of variables, but generally speaking, is there any real world way to give an idea of what a 13 mph impact equates to?

For example, (and I know it's far from the same, but could be a branch on a mountain bike) things like, how fast was the teachers cane going when it hit my hand, or how fast am I going if I trip and fall to the floor?

A while back on radio four, the 20 mph speed limit for cars on residential roads was being discussed. The claim was made that one is far more likely to survive an impact at 20mph than at 30mph, and to back this up it was claimed that fast runners can sprint straight into a tree at speeds up to 20mph* and they won't die because the human body can just about cope with that. Whether this is fact or BS, I have no idea but i makes sense to me. I recall reading that if one falls like a log from a stationary position, they'll hit the ground at about 12mph... again, i don't know if this is fact or BS.

*or about 27mph if you're Usain Bolt.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

at the risk af being slightly mischevious, are you therefore conceding helmets are beneficial if you take risks?

And if so, isn't it likely they help even for sedate cycling?

Helmets are almost certainly beneficial in a narrow range of low speed offs when worn by short people. Offs that replicate the forces in the tests said helmets are designed to pass.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Ok but you wear one off road and sometimes on road? Just incase you hit a branch because it stops your head hurting, granted this is not a high speed crash on the road.
And I'd say millions also don't take it up because it's hard work and they can't bothered judging by some of my friends!

Where I ride off road I am guaranteed to hit some branches and stems. A bleeding scalp can spoil a ride. A lid has a handy strap to keep it on unlike my preferred headgear.

As to cycling being hard work... are the laws of physics different in Copenhagen? Your type of cycling might be hard work but we don't all find it so. I can ride for miles expending nor more energy or effort than I would walking. Every ride isn't a faux race.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A while back on radio four, the 20 mph speed limit for cars on residential roads was being discussed. The claim was made that one is far more likely to survive an impact at 20mph than at 30mph, and to back this up it was claimed that fast runners can sprint straight into a tree at speeds up to 20mph* and they won't die because the human body can just about cope with that. Whether this is fact or BS, I have no idea but i makes sense to me. I recall reading that if one falls like a log from a stationary position, they'll hit the ground at about 12mph... again, i don't know if this is fact or BS.

*or about 27mph if you're Usain Bolt.

We have evolved, I think, to survive certain sorts of collisions below certain speeds. But above those speeds and outside those certain circumstances catastrophe awaits.

Picture two rubgy players sprinting and the ensuing tackle versus same player sprinting straight into an unprotected steel post.