Helemt or not??

[Wolf04]

Anecdotal evidence such as LLB's above are fine in themselves but unfortunately safety is often counter intuitive and "common sense" fails. However saying that I don't think many people are arguing that helmets are completely useless but that we should be aware of their limitations and not be taken in by their vastly overstated effectiveness.

 

[Jaded]

Perhaps some of the more scientificly minded on here could work out the impact forces behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off ?

Hopefully an even more "scientificly" minded person could explain the difference between a motorcycle and a cycle to the poster above.

Oh, and also if they could give the percentage of cycle rides that end up with the rider in the semi-illiterate state of "behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off" that would help too.

I'm sure that mjones would rather come across as an arrogant twit than an ignorant and blinkered one.

 

[Chuffy]

No, but I am already a cyclist. Compulsion would, I think, decrease the number of people converting to cycling:

This argument doesn't hold water.

Yes it does. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1021 for more info.

There are only two camps. Pro-choice and anti-choice. I belong very firmly in the pro camp (I don't even own one) and get very, very angry when the anti-choice lobby portray any argument with them as being 'anti-helmet'. See the letter from this idiot in todays Grauniad for a prime example...

You want to wear one? Fine, I don't mind or care.
You want to force me to wear one? You're in for one hell of a fight...

 

[Wolf04]

Yes it does. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1021 for more info.

There are only two camps. Pro-choice and anti-choice. I belong very firmly in the pro camp (I don't even own one) and get very, very angry when the anti-choice lobby portray any argument with them as being 'anti-helmet'. See the letter from this idiot in todays Grauniad for a prime example...

You want to wear one? Fine, I don't mind or care.
You want to force me to wear one? You're in for one hell of a fight...

Quote from the letter:
"Every year we help thousands of people who have had their lives shattered as a result of being knocked off their bikes."

Yikes if its that dangerous to cycle perhaps we should all give up cycling!

Or we could just give up reading the Guardian!

 

[LLB]

Hopefully an even more "scientificly" minded person could explain the difference between a motorcycle and a cycle to the poster above.

Oh, and also if they could give the percentage of cycle rides that end up with the rider in the semi-illiterate state of "behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off" that would help too.

I'm sure that mjones would rather come across as an arrogant twit than an ignorant and blinkered one.

Still feeling aggrieved Jaded ?

 

[LLB]

Yes it does. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1021 for more info.

There are only two camps. Pro-choice and anti-choice. I belong very firmly in the pro camp (I don't even own one) and get very, very angry when the anti-choice lobby portray any argument with them as being 'anti-helmet'. See the letter from this idiot in todays Grauniad for a prime example...

You want to wear one? Fine, I don't mind or care.
You want to force me to wear one? You're in for one hell of a fight...

Not at all, but I dislike the disdain and arrogant assertions made against them which is done in a way to assert some sort of moral high ground against their useage.

For every one against, there is a for, and has there been any studies done in Australia to ascertain whether the numbers have recovered (I expect they will be on the up with the increase in fuel prices recently).

Risk is risk at the end of the day. If I were hit by a car, I'd still be a happier if I were wearing one in case my head impacted the vehicle itself what with modern cars having their engine castings just a few mm below the bonnet.

Bicycle helmets do protect against head injuries

Under Strict Embargo for
00.01hrs BST
Friday 27 October 2000

The number of serious head injuries among cyclists of all ages has fallen as a result of increasing helmet use, despite doubts about the effectiveness of helmets, report researchers from Imperial College in this week's BMJ (1).

Dr Aziz Sheikh and Adrian Cook of the Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Imperial College School of Medicine, analysed all cyclist hospital admissions in England between April 1991 and March 1995, a period of increasing helmet usage.

They divided patients into three age categories: junior (6-10 years), secondary (11-15 years), and adult (16 years and over).

The authors found that numbers of emergency admissions among cyclists changed little over the four-year study period, from a total of 8,678 in 1991-92 to 8,781 in 1994-95.

However the percentage admitted with head injuries fell significantly from 40% to 28% per month, and each age group showed a significant reduction: 9% among junior, 11% among secondary and 13% among adults.

These findings indicate that helmets are of benefit both to children and, contrary to popular belief, to adults, say the authors.

While previous reports have suggested that helmets confer benefit, doubts have been expressed about the accuracy of these findings because of the difficulties in adjusting for differences in risk-taking behaviours between helmet wearers and non-wearers.

Dr Sheikh points out that helmets are not designed to protect the rider in a fall which involves other vehicles. Most adult accidents involve other vehicles.

"The reasoning behind this is that when a cyclist is knocked off by another vehicle, this frequently results in the head being spun and subjected to torsional effects. One consequence of this is that they tend not to hit the ground as cleanly as children who are typically involved in low-impact, non-twisting injuries," said Dr Sheikh.

Dr Sheikh described the results from their study as among the strongest yet presented. "We've seen that cyclist head injuries fell sharply during a period of increased helmet wearing."

"Stronger evidence may never emerge, given the practical problems of comparing helmet wearers with non-wearers, and the ethical problems of conducting a randomised trial," he added.

Writing in the BMJ the authors conclude, "Local publicity campaigns encouraging the voluntary wearing of helmets have been effective and should accompany national drives to promote cycling."

But Dr Sheikh also revealed that while head injuries fell during the study period, other cycling injuries (limb and miscellaneous) increased.

"Cycle helmets are therefore only a partial solution to improving safety in this group of road-users," he said.

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P2250.htm

 

[Chuffy]

Quote from the letter:
"Every year we help thousands of people who have had their lives shattered as a result of being knocked off their bikes."

Yikes if its that dangerous to cycle perhaps we should all give up cycling!

Or we could just give up reading the Guardian!

Hmmmmmm, official stats for 2002 give 108 killed and 1856 killed or seriously injured. Perhaps we should report the letter writer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, since he clearly has all seriously injured cyclists on his books. Oh, do all of those 1856 people have head injuries btw? Hmmmm.....

 

[Wolf04]

Hmmmmmm, official stats for 2002 give 108 killed and 1856 killed or seriously injured. Perhaps we should report the letter writer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, since he clearly has all seriously injured cyclists on his books. Oh, do all of those 1856 people have head injuries btw? Hmmmm.....

Shock
Your not suggesting he exaggerated his claims to support his own bias?
Shocking simply shocking .

 

[Chuffy]

Not at all, but I dislike the disdain and arrogant assertions made against them which is done in a way to assert some sort of moral high ground against their useage.

You want to wear one, fine. I don't mind or care.
That pretty much sums up the so-called 'anti-helmet' lobby.
The only moral high ground is that occupied by the idiots who think that we should all be compelled to wear one before we even straddle a cross bar...

Oh and as to whether the numbers cycling in Australia have recovered:- No.

 

[Chuffy]

Shock
Your not suggesting he exaggerated his claims to support his own bias?
Shocking simply shocking .

Imagine...
I'm sure that he and his charity do fine work. However I do begrudge the way that this work is exaggerated to make a (spurious) point...

 

[threefingerjoe]

I think it's a good idea to keep in mind that the helmet is your LAST line of defense.

For me, I prefer to wear the helmet, and have worn one for many years with no appreciable discomfort.

My annecdote: Many years ago, I broadsided a dog...a BIG dog. I did an endover. I landed on my shoulder, then my head snapped to the side and struck the concrete street. It flattened the side of my helmet. I needed no further convincing that wearing a helmet was good for ME and MY FAMILY.

I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm only telling this story because the topic is being discussed.

Side Note. Some years ago after the last National Hockey League player who died during a game after striking his head on the ice, all the other players who were still "grandfathered" (not required to wear a helmet under the relatively new helmet rule) voluntarily started wearing helmets.

I'm only offering this. If someone wants to say that this is totally irrelevent because ice hockey players are moving faster than bikes, or that ice is harder than concrete, or whatever, so be it...I really don't want to argue.

Let's just hope that NONE among us is ever in a serious accident...helmet or not.

 

[bonj2]

The thing I find ludicrous is not the fact that there is such disagreement of whether to wear a helmet or not - I think pretty much everybody accepts it is a matter of personal choice - or even the range of views on whether or not it should be compulsory. What is ludicrous is the ridiculous arguments people come up with for not wearing one. "They're only tested up to 12mph so there's no point wearing one if you go faster than that." That's for there to be NO damage - there's still going to be LESS damage if you're going above that!
Plus the speed at which your head hits the ground isn't necessarily proportional to the speed at which you are (were) traveling along.
"Drivers give cyclists without helmets more room". Absolute bladderdash.

It's in a way just as ridiculous as the arguments drivers come up with for why they don't cycle to work.

 

[yello]

I offer this invite to the sceptics: come along to a Headway house and see for yourself the damage that a brain injury can cause. Maybe then you will be better qualified to make the decision of whether or not to wear a helmet next time you get on your bike.

I find that sort of emotive argument of little help. Nobody thinks brain injury a trivial thing. Nobody is dismissive. Mr Griggs seems to imply that ALL the Headway house residents are victims of cycling accidents. That does a disservice to those that suffer these tragic and life changing injuries.

He could equally compare the number of residents that have been in cycling accidents to those in any other form of accident (e.g. a car accident) and conclude cycling was much safer.... or that car drivers should wear helmets. But those would be ludicrous claims wouldn't they?

 

[Aperitif]

A few weeks ago in France, I misjudged a corner and made a choice of road rash or tree/grass etc. Took the grassy option and went over the top - not too fast by then, but I weigh 103kg - and landed fairly comfortably but hit my head. Bit of a grazed forehead and my helmet was broken in two places (Giro Atmos). And that was a 'soft' hit. I also downed my bike, due to some unexpected wheel sized holes outside Ashford hospital and whacked my head against the kerb - all in about 1 second. Met helmet broken but my skin intact for the most part.
I'm no safer than anyone competent who doesn't wear a helmet, but I know that if something unexpected happens then I might be a bit better served with a helmet than without.

 

[MarkF]

I ride a motorbike and a Vespa, I used to fall off (crash) my motorbike a lot, more often as I got older. I never fell off (crashed) the scooter. Wearing full leathers, gloves and boots i.e. protective gear, made me ride, not as though I was invinceable, but a little less carefully than I should or would have if wearing my scooter gear, which could be a t-shirt and flip flops

I junked the protective gear years ago and have not crashed since, my riding style and has changed along with my levels of concentration/awareness so when I started cycling I made a personal decision not to wear a helmet.

Each to their own, I have read so many contradictory articles on helmet saftey, but I feel safer without one that's why I don't wear one.