Be prepared for an accident

[ebikeerwidnes]

I have read the papers I think you are referring to and that is very much my recollection.

You do make, or at least imply, the confounding factor in that it is conceivable that helmets per se might individually be a "good thing" but compulsion increases the injury rate due who , and how many cycles and how they are treated by motorists if numbers are lower. Working out how much of this is the "confounding factors" alluded to vs helmets being harmful on occasion would be hard to quantify.

But all that said, if it's so hard to come up with a proper survey which overwhelmingly proves a benefit there genuinely can't be much in it.

To a degree I now make a point of not wearing one as it has been stated by some authorities that compulsion would be pursued after helmets become more widespread, so my refusal is a bit of a political act.

Even though my rational side believes the numbers that there's little benefit, psychologically I felt safer when I used to wear one (long before most people did).

I would agree with being totally against compulsion

If anything I believe that it would reduce the number of people riding bikes
and the more people do then the safer I believe we are as driver become more used to looking for us

But i have not heard any serious suggestion that compulsion is to be pursued in this country

and I have had several minor incidents where a helmet has saved me from a sore head!

OK - and one where it saved me from a scratch but nearly threw me off when a twig got stuck into the vents in the top when I was going downhill!

 

[icowden]

Which clinical evidence is that? I read lots of anecdotal. But the clinical evidence of which you speak, please share.

I have. Multiple times.

 

[blackrat]

All I'll say on this is I had a very low speed off which I basically fell off to one side due to issue with road and an oncoming tractor. Anyway, I hurt my hip which was blinking painful but I also smacked my head. Quite a dent in helmet so without one I suspect I'd have done myself some quite serious damage.

Personally I think wearing a helmet is a good idea but if you don't, carry on.

"Personally I think wearing a helmet is a good idea but if you don't, carry on"

Quite true. And it is irresponsible to say to anyone: Apparently helmets are absolutely lethal regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

[oldandslow]

Someone will be along shortly to tell you that if you hadn't been wearing a helmet you wouldn't have hit your head, and people with medical training know nothing about head injuries anyway.

Apparently helmets are absolutely lethal regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

In all the helmet debates I've seen over a period of nearly 40 years, nobody has ever argued that. However, it's possible that some people have questioned the large claimed benefits of helmets, and had their rather mild responses misquoted as making such claims.

The best summary is probably the kind of thing that Chris Boardman would say, that these are rather marginal matters, and concentrating on almost any other aspect of safety would be more productive.

 

[blackrat]

All I'll say on this is I had a very low speed off which I basically fell off to one side due to issue with road and an oncoming tractor. Anyway, I hurt my hip which was blinking painful but I also smacked my head. Quite a dent in helmet so without one I suspect I'd have done myself some quite serious damage.

Personally I think wearing a helmet is a good idea but if you don't, carry on.

"Personally I think wearing a helmet is a good idea but if you don't, carry on"

Quite true. And it is irresponsible to say to anyone anything as unfortunate as this: Apparently helmets are absolutely lethal regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

[matticus]

But i have not heard any serious suggestion that compulsion is to be pursued in this country

I think members of our elected government proposing it in parliament rates quite high on the serious-ometer.

 

[Alex321]

"Personally I think wearing a helmet is a good idea but if you don't, carry on"

Quite true. And it is irresponsible to say to anyone: Apparently helmets are absolutely lethal regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

I think you rather missed the point of that post. He was being sarcastic, referring (with a bit of exaggeration) to the way some on here post about helmets.

 

[icowden]

Quite true. And it is irresponsible to say to anyone anything as unfortunate as this: Apparently helmets are absolutely lethal regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

And yet that's effectively the counter-argument that gets trotted out every time. Just read back through the various helmet threads and you will learn that helmets cause accidents, they offer no protection, and doctors don't know what they are talking about. Head injury statistics are irrelevant. Most helmets will give you neck injuries, worsen your concussion etc etc etc.

My take is that most doctors seem to think they help. I've provided many references to medical studies which have shown that outcomes when wearing helmets are generally better than when not. Having worked as PA to a very senior Neurosurgeon for almost a year, my tendency is to think that they know what they are talking about.

 

[dicko]

Getting ready for a ride out today I was shocked to find, whilst putting on my helmet, that the strap had parted where i

t wrapped around the male clip. It’s twelve years old so a quick repair with needle and cotton and off to the helmet shops.

 

[presta]

What are 'low fruit' and what risks to they present? Are limbo dancers safer?

People who eat insufficient fruit and veg have a higher mortality rate.

My point is that you tend to try and protect your head from injury in circumstances where you are most likely to injure your head but that you have to factor in the amount of time in that environment.

If there were ten times as many head injuries in the home as on a bike, then that would be ten times the potential for saving lives by wearing helmets, irrespective of how many hours spent doing each activity.

I'm finding it hard to envision a scenario where a helmet actually makes someone crash.

People who don't wear a helmet have a greater motive for being careful, just as motorists who don't wear a seatbelt drive slower.

 

[All uphill]

And yet that's effectively the counter-argument that gets trotted out every time. Just read back through the various helmet threads and you will learn that helmets cause accidents, they offer no protection, and doctors don't know what they are talking about. Head injury statistics are irrelevant. Most helmets will give you neck injuries, worsen your concussion etc etc etc.

My take is that most doctors seem to think they help. I've provided many references to medical studies which have shown that outcomes when wearing helmets are generally better than when not. Having worked as PA to a very senior Neurosurgeon for almost a year, my tendency is to think that they know what they are talking about.

Doctors, I suspect, will form opinions based on the injured people they see, who will be a small subset of all cyclists.

They won't see the people who have avoided accidents by concentrating on road positioning, signals and observation.

I'll also repeat the classic line from a cardiologist - if my patients cycled half of them wouldn't be my patients.

 

[oldandslow]

And yet that's effectively the counter-argument that gets trotted out every time. Just read back through the various helmet threads and you will learn that helmets cause accidents, they offer no protection, and doctors don't know what they are talking about. Head injury statistics are irrelevant. Most helmets will give you neck injuries, worsen your concussion etc etc etc.

My take is that most doctors seem to think they help. I've provided many references to medical studies which have shown that outcomes when wearing helmets are generally better than when not. Having worked as PA to a very senior Neurosurgeon for almost a year, my tendency is to think that they know what they are talking about.

Can you actually quote examples of that? Because, again, I've never seen it. What I have seen is people having the temerity to question claims of massive benefits to wearing helmets.

In my experience, people in these debates split into pro-helmet and pro-choice. The latter query claims of "my helmet saved my life" because, among other reasons, we actually have been watching the statistics, in my case since, I think, the mid-1980s. Most of what you see as objections originated in attempts to explain why helmets were not producing the claimed benefits, and not as objections at all.

Overall, in my best assessment, it's a lot more complex than you think it is, and an over-emphasis on helmets can be really dangerous. That's partly because, to expand on the last post here, whether you cycle is enormously more important for your life expectancy than all the risks put together - those where a helmet might and those where (because any fatal injury wasn't to the head in the first place) they definitely couldn't. But there's every reason to think that, when people hear, "You need a helmet", the message they take away is, "I'll go and do something less dangerous instead." Except that not-cycling is far more dangerous than cycling, with or without a helmet, at least if you don't get other forms of exercise.

The second reason is that, in any sane attempt at safety, protective gear comes last in the considerations. But that's not what people hear in safety campaigns.

 

[Alex321]

Can you actually quote examples of that? Because, again, I've never seen it. What I have seen is people having the temerity to question claims of massive benefits to wearing helmets.

In my experience, people in these debates split into pro-helmet and pro-choice.

I have not seen anybody suggesting helmets should be anything but a personal choice. Whether pro or anti.

I have seen many antis suggesting it is a pointless or even wrong choice.

I think a few in the pro camp feel that maybe it should be compulsory for children, but every one I have seen says it should be personal choice for adults.

 

[MontyVeda]

I have not seen anybody suggesting helmets should be anything but a personal choice. Whether pro or anti.

I have seen many antis suggesting it is a pointless or even wrong choice.

I think a few in the pro camp feel that maybe it should be compulsory for children, but every one I have seen says it should be personal choice for adults.

Don't you remember this a decade ago?
Bradley Wiggins said that cyclists need to 'help themselves' by wearing any protection possible.

“I think cyclists have to help themselves in terms of wearing helmets and things,” he said. “I think that probably should go some way to becoming the law soon.”
(source)

Wiggins quickly began backpedaling on that statement.

 

[Profpointy]

The reason some of us are sceptical on the value of helmets is that we have looked at some of the so-called "research" and found it wanting, in some cases to the extent it seems actually dishonest and intented to justify a position

I personally was an early adopter of helmets long before they were really a thing for leisure cyclists, and thought it "commons sense" and "obviously" a considerable safety benefit. Reading stuff on a similar forum I started to look into it. Here are some examples

The now notorious Rivera Thompson Rivera study which, from memory, indicated a huge reduction in head injuries. The trouble was they'd done something along the lines of comparing nice middle class helmeted kids riding in parks and leafy suburbs with unhelmetted inner city kids riding unsupervised on busy roads. Helmet wearing was also associated with a significant reduction in leg injuries. The result was therefore no surprise once you spot the error. In fairness at least one of the authors has acknowledged the flaws and distanced himself from the conclusion. Less honourably organisations like RoSPA used the result in their campaigns long after it had been discredited, arguably they were outright lying "think of the children" after all.

Another example was an Australian study which compared the proportion of head injuries vs other injuries pre and post helmet compulsion, which, fair enough seemed to show a reduction in head injuries indicating a benefit. I was half convinced until I saw the dates chosen did not correspond to introduction of compulsion (wearing rates went from 10% to 95% or whatever) but some different set of dates which looked to me like they'd been cherry picked to get the desired answer

Another recent study, I think in the UK did something similar then rather glibly happened to mention there was a correlation between drunk cyclists and not wearing helmets and also surprise surprise a correlation between drunken cycling (and for that matter drinking i. general) and head injury. The conclusions ignored this rather significant question which looked to me just as bad as the Rivera Thompson Rivera flaw. Also there does not seem to be a campaign for beer drinking helmets which might actually do some good. I half seriously argued this with a doctor friend who angrily shouted down my skepticism of cycle helmets.

Another study on the opposite side showed little to no benefit (maybe a small worsening) pre and post compulsory helmets in Australia and Ontario, but did indicate a reduction in people cycling. You'd have thought this would be considered relevant by the advocates but seemingly not

Another thought: it is worth remembering that an awful lot of doctors are not really all that numerate. I'm not saying this as an insult, but remember most doctors, unless they specialise in statistical analysis will not have studied maths beyond O level (or whatever it is). Typically doctors will have A levels in physics chemistry and biology and won't have time to do maths as well, and arguably maths is less important for their future study. This doesn't mean docs aren't clever people by and large but there is a tendency for genuine experts in one field to thing they know more than they do in another, especially if "common sense" is involved

I'm not a statistician and have studied very little stats but the flaws above seem blatant to suggest very poor grasp indeed by some of the authors

Another fairly simple fag packet calculations suggests a helmet makes your head into a 50 to 100% bigger target (cross sectional area not diameter remember). This too will obviously (and I think "obviously" is really justified here) have an impact (pub intended). You only have to turn a proportion of near misses or glancing blows into actual hits and you could potentially cancel out the benefit of a helmet for "legit" hits. I had such an incident where my head missed the ground by maybe the width of a helmet ! If I'd been wearing one I might well have been arguing on here it had "saved my life"