Cycle helmets are useless?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

benb

Evidence based cyclist
Location
Epsom
I think it's time to bring this one out again :smile:

Helmet compulsion is detrimental to population health: -

"It is well established that, if you weigh up the life-years gained through cycling (due to increased physical activity) versus the life years lost (due to injury), the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved. One widely quoted figure for the UK, acknowledged by Government, puts the benefit:disbenefit ratio for the UK at 20:1. Other ratios for other countries are higher still. (N.B. some of the academic references reduce the ratio by including the negative effects of pollution - however that's obviously irrelevant to the helmet debate. If you remove the pollution effect, the other references all come out with ratios above 20:1). But let's take 20:1 for the sake of argument.

From this, recent research shows that, if you tell people to wear helmets (whether by law or simply through promotion campaigns) and this reduces cycle use by more than 1 unit of cycling (e.g. one cyclist, or one km cycled) for every 20 who continue, this is absolutely guaranteed to shorten more lives than helmets could possibly save - even if they were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. leg, arm, shoulder injuries as well as head injuries) for the remaining cyclists. That maximum threshold, beyond which you would be doing more harm than good, then drops further still - down to c2% - once you take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries. And this is still assuming that helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.

In fact, the evidence on the effectiveness of helmets has become increasingly sceptical over time. A recent literature review by Rune Elvik, an internationally recognised authority on road safety, found that the estimates of helmet effectiveness have progressively decreased over time, with the most recent studies showing no net benefit. In this same report he documents evidence that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. In a separate report, Elvik has also found that helmet-wearers suffer 14% more injuries per mile travelled than non-wearers. The reasons for this are unclear, however there is good evidence that (at least some) cyclists ride less cautiously when wearing helmets, and that drivers leave less space when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without.

The only clearly documented effect of enforced helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand or parts of Canada) is to substantially reduce cycle use, typically by about a third. Reductions in cyclists' head injury have been similar to the reductions in cycle use, suggesting no reduction in risk for the remaining cyclists, and in some cases this appears to have worsened. In addition to the possible explanations in the para above, this may also be becuase reductions in cycle use undermine the "safety in numbers" effect for the cyclists who remain - see see www.ctc.org.uk/safetyinnumbers. A clear relationship has been shown between cycle use and cycle safety - cycling is safer in places where cycle use is high (e.g. the Netherlands or Denmark - or within Britain, in Cambridge or York). Telling people to wear helmets, instead of creating safe cycling conditions, is contrary to the aims of encouraging more, as well as safer, cycling.

From this, I hope it is clear that the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets is not the main point. As explained above, even if helmets were 100% effective, you would still be doing more harm than good if you deter more than c2% of cycle use by telling people to wear them. That's because the risks of cycling are not especially high, and the health benefits are SO much greater. You are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking - do we also need walking helmets? - no, of course not! The idea that you need helmets to cycle is both a symptom of our massively exaggerated concern about the "dangers" of cycling, which results in such pitifully low cycle use in Britain.

In short, if we want to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of cycling, we need to focus on creating safe conditions, and thus increasing cycle use. Resorting to helmets simply tackles the symptoms of the problem, not the causes, and thus deters people from cycling. This is pretty much guaranteed to shorten more lives than it could possibly save. Faced with both an obesity crisis and a climate crisis, the last thing we should be doing is driving people into increasingly car-dependent, obesogenic lifestyles."

Roger Geffen CTC

Sums it up perfectly.
Even if helmets were significantly effective (& there is no good evidence that they are) compulsion would be a public health disaster.
 

Ern1e

Über Member
Stick a melon on your bonce and you'll live forever.
My only problem with that is I don't think it would survive more that 10 miles before I had eaten the thing ! unless of coarse you just mean the outer skin part ?
 

Ern1e

Über Member
Yet another reason for their superiority to an EN1078 helmet
I must say that I agree with that they may very well offer just as much protection to the skull ! but what does a person do wear an approved motorcycle helmet ? these having been tested to a higher standard so therefore should offer better protection,but are heavier and on a hot day almost unbearable (the one I used to have in the late 70's was) so i think it's just a personal choice thing again this is a "good" thing rather than as per m/cycle ended up with having to wear the bloody thing ! ok they di save some types of injury but lets face it if you slam head first into what ever at 20+ mph what would it save ?
 
As I pointed out before, this is another of the pro-helmet hypocrisies.

There is no interest in improving helmet design to one that is effective and would be able to prevent head injury, and one of the most common reasons is this.

The pro helmetists feel that feeling too hot and heavy is an excellent reason not to improve helmets, yet refuse the same argument's validity if someone uses this same reason for not wearing one.
 

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
As I pointed out before, this is another of the pro-helmet hypocrisies.

There is no interest in improving helmet design to one that is effective and would be able to prevent head injury, and one of the most common reasons is this.

The pro helmetists feel that feeling too hot and heavy is an excellent reason not to improve helmets, yet refuse the same argument's validity if someone uses this same reason for not wearing one.
Ironically I think there are already a huge supply of very nice, high quality helmets on the market which would be effective in high energy impacts -
http://www.icaro2000.com/Products/Helmets/Free-flight-models.htm
 

User269

Guest
Yes, I would love to hear about Mt Ventoux, pictures also welcome :smile:
It still takes me nearly two and a half hours to get to the top, as it has done each time during the 10 years since I first ascended.
Appropriately enough, we did it on a French national holiday this year............Ascension Day.
The main thing is, I wore a helmet that matched my clothing and one of the posts in the background.
 

Attachments

  • ventoux.jpg
    ventoux.jpg
    73.6 KB · Views: 78

raleighnut

Legendary Member
Not long now
6 3/4 hours
 

Davidc

Guru
Location
Somerset UK
Never seen a post yet from a rider who didnt wear a helmet, boasting about how much less damage he suffered to his head by not wearing one.

Until they start appearing en masse, I would rather keep a lid on that thin bit of skin between the road and my noggin.

I guess all of these wannabee heroes dont wear padding in their shorts either
You clearly haven't read my earlier post in this thread. The police chief road safety officer was quite clear on the issue in his submission to the coroner. Still anecdotal though.

I do wear a helmet some of the time. Keeps some people happy and keeps my head warm when it's cold. Doesn't make me feel any safer than not wearing one though.

If you want to wear one please do. I'd never try to stop you.
 
Last edited:

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
What energy absorption are they designed for?
It's more complicated than that, in high energy impacts/collisions you typically actually have a number of smaller impacts rather than a single high energy impact, a friend of mine researches all kinds of head impact scenarios in sports environments. A free flight helmet is designed to project a handglider or mircolight pilot hit a tree at say 40mph. What he's found is that in typical collision scenarios the helmet will be impacted 3 or 4 times, but a cycle helmet tends to be ineffective after the first impact, a free flight helmet will endure 5 or 6 impacts before it becomes ineffective. Also while they will allow for milder impacts to exert more deceleration at higher energies they tend to stop with lower deceleration without total failure of the helmet.

His research into this was triggered by watching video footage of a cyclist hitting the deck after their front wheel went down a drain or pot hole. The cyclist was left with sever brain damage despite having a cycle helmet. The helmet worked more-or-less perfectly for the first impact & the second it was destroyed it, these were glancing blows to the helmet, however the final impact(s) were against a kerb stone. The key was they hit their head 3 or 4 times, the last one being a slide into a kerb which caused most of the damage.
 
Last edited:

doog

....
You clearly haven't read my earlier post in this thread. The police chief road safety officer was quite clear on the issue in his submission to the coroner. Still anecdotal though.

I do wear a helmet some of the time. Keeps some people happy and keeps my head warm when it's cold. Doesn't make me feel any safer than not wearing one though.

If you want to wear one please do. I'd never try to stop you.

I believe you have the the wrong end of the stick. I wear a helmet,dont hold a grudge and have never confronted any non helmet wearer because they dont (not withstanding the cyber warriors on here).Having attended the scene of numerous road traffic fatalities over the years im interested to know why your lack of helmet in 72 saved you from decapitation.

Im simply interested in the reason , no agenda.
 
I believe you have the the wrong end of the stick. I wear a helmet,dont hold a grudge and have never confronted any non helmet wearer because they dont (not withstanding the cyber warriors on here).Having attended the scene of numerous road traffic fatalities over the years im interested to know why your lack of helmet in 72 saved you from decapitation.

Im simply interested in the reason , no agenda.

One question that should always be asked in these cases....

Doess your experience in attending these incidents reflect the findings of all the cohort studies in that pedestrians, car occupants and motorcyclists all outnumber the cyclists?
 
No helmet of any kind should be relied on after a FIRST impact
Even a simple drop from the handlebars, or a bike falling upon it

You cannot tell what structural changes have happened

How many of those helmets that "split into several parts" are actually failing along weak points caused by prior impacts?
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
Now that would be an interesting addition to the testing regime (assuming no one has done it already). Give helmets to people to use for a few months and then run the normal tests to see how they fare.
I devoutly hope nobody in Australia ever conducts such a test: the end result would no doubt be legislation to force us to buy new helmets every year, because we live in such a ridiculous nanny state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom