How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[benb]

"I ought to be able to walk around town in fine clothes without a stab vest. However I would be very foolish to do so and I would consider myself partly at fault if I got knifed."

The only difference I can see between your analogy and mine is that the normal prudent person is currently expected to lock his car but is not expected to don body armour in public. And it seems to me that though we're stuck with "you're stupid if you don't lock your car" because that's Just How Things Are and have been for a long time, normalising body armour would on the whole be bad for everyone and should be resisted despite any temporary advantages it might offer in some situations to early adopters. Likewise any other defensive behaviours that aren't presently "normal" but could be made so by social pressure: what do we actually gain as a society by making them so?

Well I agree with that, but mainly because stabbings are very rare, but petty theft isn't.

Are you saying you shouldn't take any measures to protect yourself? You could easily say that you shouldn't have to move to primary at a pinch point (as car drivers shouldn't overtake you there anyway), but we do - in order to protect ourselves.

 

[Dan B]

Well I agree with that, but mainly because stabbings are very rare, but petty theft isn't.

Are you saying you shouldn't take any measures to protect yourself? You could easily say that you shouldn't have to move to primary at a pinch point (as car drivers shouldn't overtake you there anyway), but we do - in order to protect ourselves.

No, I'm saying that there's a complicated and ugly relationship between the measures we take to protect ourselves and the degradation of the social environment that results from that protection becoming perceived as "normal". If stabbings become less rare, would you rather our collective response was to bring the force of law enforcement to bear on their perpetrators (thus, hopefully, making them rare again) or to endorse the stab vest as everyday outdoor clothing?

And I'm not saying "don't protect yourself" - by all means, do whatever you need to do to make yourself safe and make yourself feel safe - I'm just saying there are certain likely consequences if everybody else does too, and that we should bear those consequences in mind before we start casting aspersions on other people for not doing the same. It's the "safety in numbers" thing in reverse, really.

 

[benb]

No, I'm saying that there's a complicated and ugly relationship between the measures we take to protect ourselves and the degradation of the social environment that results from that protection becoming perceived as "normal". If stabbings become less rare, would you rather our collective response was to bring the force of law enforcement to bear on their perpetrators (thus, hopefully, making them rare again) or to endorse the stab vest as everyday outdoor clothing?

And I'm not saying "don't protect yourself" - by all means, do whatever you need to do to make yourself safe and make yourself feel safe - I'm just saying there are certain likely consequences if everybody else does too, and that we should bear those consequences in mind before we start casting aspersions on other people for not doing the same. It's the "safety in numbers" thing in reverse, really.

I agree with that too. I would obviously rather the perpetrators, or root causes, of the problem were dealt with. Sometimes that's not possible or it's only partially effective and we need to take additional measures to protect ourselves - galling as that might be.

We would all like to live in a place where no-one commits crime, no-one behaves in a dangerously negligent manner, and no-one has to worry about their safety.
Realistically that is never going to happen, so sometimes the potential victims do need to take measures to protect themselves - even though in an ideal world they shouldn't have to.

But I do agree with everything you said - I very much dislike the effect that gated communities have, and they cause more problems than they solve. Other situations are less clear or more nuanced, or both.

 

[Red Light]

I completely agree with what you say about cycle helmets, but the bolded section doesn't always apply.
I ought to be able, for example, to leave my car unlocked with a wallet full of cash on the front seat. However I would be very foolish to do so, and would consider myself partly at fault if my cash and/or car were stolen. The thief would still be entirely responsible for the crime, but we all also have a responsibility to protect ourselves.

For that reason, if there was decent evidence that helmets were effective at reducing head injuries (and the protective effect was greater than the negative side effects), I would probably wear one - even though I completely agree that motorists are the primary cause of danger to cyclists, and we should concentrate on training (driver and cyclist) as the best way to reduce injuries.

I personally think, since motorists are so keen for us to be protected, that we could solve this and help pedestrians and horse riders too if all cars were covered in 2" of polystyrene foam instead.

 

[ufkacbln]

Don't make the common mistake and mix up limited protection and no protection.

The problem here is that often inflated claims are made about helmets,then when these are queried or questioned the response is to call everyone anti-helmet and claim they are denying helmets have any use at all, and hate anyone who wears one!

There was actually one claim that anyone who did not fully support compulsion had to be anti helmet!

The common stance is wear a helmet if you wish, but please make an informed choice with a realistic and valid knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of helmets, the different types and standards.

 

[ufkacbln]

I personally think, since motorists are so keen for us to be protected, that we could solve this and help pedestrians and horse riders too if all cars were covered in 2" of polystyrene foam instead.

This is what I find totally hypocritical, and really rather morally distasteful


Given an accident it is up to me to protect myself from the vehicle and reduce my level of injury yet the motorist is quite entitled to buy a vehicle that they know will increase the amount of injury and damage inflicted in an accident.



Wearing a helmet may help if you have an impact with a 4* safety marking saloon, but in the same accident will less likely to do so if the vehicle is a 0* safety marking SUV

Then include the lower limb injuries that are more likely to occur with the latter and not the former

Where does the responsibility lie to reduce injury and level of severity here?

If we are serious about this isn't it time we started banning vehicle designs with poor pedestrian (and other road user) safety standards?

 

[twobiker]

The range of Helmets available on this site looks a bit different to the norm, www.50cycles.com

 

[Mark_Robson]

There is no evidence that helmets reduce or prevent injuries. That's no evidence. None. In spite of what 'common sense' tells us.

Statements like this totally undermine your argument. Helmets do offer a level of protection in the event of an impact. The level of protection may not be as high as people would like but never the less they do offer some protection.

 

[ufkacbln]

Statements like this totally undermine your argument. Helmets do offer a level of protection in the event of an impact. The level of protection may not be as high as people would like but never the less they do offer some protection.

Or more importantly as people claim.........

Which is the real issue- they do offer some protection, but as in a recent case where it was claimed that they prevented facial injuries, some claims do need to be challenged if someone is going to use this information to decide

 

[Red Light]

If we are serious about this isn't it time we started banning vehicle designs with poor pedestrian (and other road user) safety standards?

It would be a start if the NCAP included provisions for cyclists, not just pedestrians. The dynamics when they are hit are quite different. A flat fronted SUV is actually better for a cyclist and worse for a pedestrian - the former tends to get pivotted onto the bonnet, the latter knocked down and run over.

 

[Red Light]

The problem here is that often inflated claims are made about helmets

The manufacturers don't make many claims at all for them. Its other people that think they work well beyond anything the manufacturers would dare claim.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

The health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by a factor of 20 to 1 (though it may be even greater than this).

There is no evidence that helmets reduce or prevent injuries. That's no evidence. None. In spite of what 'common sense' tells us.

They are in any case, designed to comply with a very rudimentary test - the drop onto an anvil. I'v seen the rig. I cannot imagine an accident which would replicate the test. Unless you did a 'superman' into a brick wall.

And they are designed to perform within a very narrow window - up to 12.5 mph.

They are often poorly fitted - and I believe that a poorly fitted helmet is far more dangerous than no helmet at all.

The onus of responsibility: The danger (what little there is - cycling is a very safe activity) of cycling is delivered by the drivers of motor vehicles with whom we are obliged to share our roads. It seems illogical, unfair and extremely perverse to expect the victims of danger to protect themselves. The answer to cyclist danger is not helmets it's driver education. Remove the danger from the victim not the victim from the danger. If someone is waving a gun around we don't expect everyone to don vests do we? Improved road conditions would help too.

The widespread use of cycle helmets gives the very strong impression that cycling is dangerous. This discourages cycling in the general population.

If, as a society, we really cared about head injuries we would also compel car drivers, their passengers, pedestrians, users of ladders and drinkers of alchohol since they all bang their heads too, and in far greater numbers than cyclists.

I'll let someone else do 'risk compensation'.

a very good post. i agree that there is NO unflawed research evidence to show that helmets save lives. there isn't even any research to show that helmets even reduce injuries. but there is evidence based research that shows that, tear drop designs with open vents and externally fixed straps increase injuries.

so, if you make the choice to wear a styrofoam hat, at least wear a smooth round design with internally fixed straps and make sure you adjust the straps correctly.

 

[david k]

The widespread use of cycle helmets gives the very strong impression that cycling is dangerous.

To who? I understand your logic but i struggle to accept it is 'very strong impression'. It is certainly no more of a sign than wearing a seat belt in a car or firm walking boots when rambling.

 

[david k]

The manufacturers don't make many claims at all for them. Its other people that think they work well beyond anything the manufacturers would dare claim.

The only people i see making unrealistic claims are those challenging the pro helmet wearers, as without these erroneous claims there would be little to challenge.

 

[Kleban]

I'm a newcomer to cycling and therefore do not have the knowledge of some of the previous posters on this discussion thread. Having said that I'm a firm believer in the adage; prevention is better than cure.

Personally I will always wear a helmet when cycling. This gives me comfort in the knowledge that should I have an accident, then the helmet will afford some protection against serious head injury.