How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Cyclopathic]

I come to the debate late so excuse me for asking what must have been explained before. I don't wear a helmet for comfort and aesthetic reasons yet I do think I perhaps should because it seems logical to assume that they will protect my head in the case of an accident. However now I come to rad about it it seems that there are a lot of people who think they do no good or at worst make cycling more dangerous.
Please can somebody explain, as if to a simple child, how a layer of protection can not protect the head, at least a little bit?

 

[rowan 46]

here is where I got shot down in flames. there may be occasions when a helmet will save you some damage, I can envisage a few however most of the controversy centres on one issue and that is compulsion. the argument goes something like this Helmets will save your life therefore it should be worn by all cyclists like seatbelts in cars. Some go further and say that for your own good the state should legislate to make it compulsory as in seat belts for cars. The arguments against come in several varieties but boil down to freedom and prove it. there lies the rub. The freedom issue comes in several varieties one is the obvious right to choose another is the slippery slope argument. the first is self explanatory the second goes something like once government starts interfering with riders by regulation other more draconian laws will come about in the interests of safety. the prove it lobby have a more straight forward case their argument is that if you want to legislate you must prove a need for it studies appear to be on the the pro choice side. however the pro helmet side have a powerful argument on their side and that is their are some who claim the helmet saved their lives. i think it does no good to rubbish their personal experience as the helmet may have saved their lives in some cases. But in some rare incidents injuries are caused by rotational injury this is where part of the helmet snags stopping the head from following the rest of the body hence straining or snapping the neck. Neither side has proven their case conclusively and my argument is if you can't prove it conclusively then parliament should concentrate on what is important. the one thing that is agreed by both sides is that training cuts down accidents which is a more effective way of cutting injuries perhaps the real focus should be on better training for motorists during the learning phase and perhaps making cycle training part of the school syllabus.
sorry in answer to your question wearing a hemet could cut down the severity of injuries under very limited conditions and can in very unusual circumstances cause problems. The answer is the jury is out. wear or don't wear what makes you feel safe as it seems neither on an individual basis has any more safety basis than the other

 

[numbnuts]

Coming from an engineering background (Blacksmith and not one of those poofs that shoes pony’s) we had to wear loads of protection, it was there to prevent an accident, not to make you look silly, but when you added up the amount of accidents you had over the years it was less than 0.5% and we were handling lumps of steel the size of dustbins.
If you wear a helmet and do lots of cycling sods law will say one day you will need it, but hopefully your accident won't happen, it's a bit like insurance we have to have it and we all complain about it, but we’ve dam glad we have it when things go wrong. Well that's what I think for what it's worth.

 

[MontyVeda]

I don't think people believe they offer 'no' protection... 'they' like me, (i assume) choose not to wear one for exactly the same reason I don't wear one as a pedestrian, or whilst drinking (when i sustained my only head injury of the last 25 years).

 

[Mad at urage]

One of the problems is that they will potentially save you from minor injuries such as grazes and bruising, without doing much (or anything) about the deceleration of the brain that can result in far more significant injury.

This is indeed a problem that has been found to occur with head guards in martial arts / boxing etc, which were introduced at the behest of the medical profession to reduce/prevent head injuries (after all, it's 'common sense' that they must, right?). It is now accepted in medical circles that these have increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts (which would have otherwise stopped people from training / competing until healed) are no longer present.

If your head hits the ground and bleeds, you are quite likely to consider the possibility of brain trauma and do something about it. Medical professionals are quite likely to take the possibility seriously too.

Hit your helmet on the ground and consequently don't get a grazed head: Will you or the medical professionals treat as for concussion? You and they should, but there is a risk that this won't happen.

 

[MontyVeda]

One of the problems is that they will potentially save you from minor injuries such as grazes and bruising, without doing much (or anything) about the deceleration of the brain that can result in far more significant injury.

This is indeed a problem that has been found to occur with head guards in martial arts / boxing etc, which were introduced at the behest of the medical profession to reduce/prevent head injuries (after all, it's 'common sense' that they must, right?). It is now accepted in medical circles that these have increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts (which would have otherwise stopped people from training / competing until healed) are no longer present.

If your head hits the ground and bleeds, you are quite likely to consider the possibility of brain trauma and do something about it. Medical professionals are quite likely to take the possibility seriously too.

Hit your helmet on the ground and consequently don't get a grazed head: Will you or the medical professionals treat as for concussion? You and they should, but there is a risk that this won't happen.

According to QI (and i don't believe everything i hear on QI) ... boxing became far more dangerous with the introduction of the boxing glove.. prior to that people didn't go for the skull for fear of breaking their hand.

I'm not sure if martial arts or boxing is a good analogy with reagards to head protection ... when cycling I don't have people actively trying to hit me around the head every few seconds.

 

[Mad at urage]

According to QI (and i don't believe everything i hear on QI) ... boxing became far more dangerous with the introduction of the boxing glove.. prior to that people didn't go for the skull for fear of breaking their hand.

I'm not sure if martial arts or boxing is a good analogy with reagards to head protection ... when cycling I don't have people actively trying to hit me around the head every few seconds.

I believe the first to be true.

I think it is a valid comparison, if you hit your head whilst cycling.

 

[Andy_R]

You've also got the additional factors of how people behave - do you take more risks because you feel protected if wearing a helmet? Do drivers take more risks around cyclists who wear helmets? Do they give cyclists a wider berth if the cyclist isn't wearing a helmet? Got to add those to the whole mix.

 

[mickle]

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'.

 

[Norm]

Something which rowan touched upon is that there is a limited range of circumstances that they will help - generally, requiring the accident not to involve others.

They don't protect the whole head (most leave the base of the skull vulnerable), they are only designed to absorb limited force applied from above, they could hide internal injuries, or make injuries worse if they snag. They also make the head bigger, so you might hit your helmet and get whiplash-type injuries wearing a lid which would have completely missed your head without. The extra weight of a helmet may also increase susceptibility to or effects of whiplash injuries.

They will also, obviously, only give any protection that they do give to the skull, so will be useless in an accident which leaves you with other serious / fatal injuries.

Some of the above are obvious, some are marginal, taken in the round, though, I now wear the lid off road but usually not if I'm on tarmac.

 

[Red Light]

Some important aspects that have not been touched on.

A helmet doubles the size of your head. That means your head is at least twice as likely to be hit, more so as all our instincts are honed around avoiding hitting our normal size head, not one double the size.

A helmet makes your head heavier which require more effort to keep it away from things.

A helmet makes the effective radius of your head much larger so that if it is hit there is a much greater lever arm wrenching your head round which is not good for your neck, and worse still takes you further into the territory of the thing that causes real traumatic brain injury - rotational injuries where the brain rotates inside the skull and tears the layers apart.

If you do catch your helmet a glancing blow it is strapped firmly to your head and transfers that blow straight to you head. Catch your bare head a glancing blow and first the hair moves to slide the object over your head and then the skin moves over your skull cushioning the blow and reducing the rotational forces on your brain

Finally there is growing evidence that cyclists with helmets feel safer so take more risks while car drivers do the same, making an accident more likely in the first place.

 

[pshore]

... without doing much (or anything) about the deceleration of the brain that can result in far more significant injury.

I was reading one of the motorcycle helmet research articles (might have been about the snell standard) and it made the point that the polystyrene can only be made to delererate a certain force.

Eg, you can design a helmet to absorb, deform and decelerate high speed impacts, but that same helmet will not absorb a low speed impact.

In bicycle helmets its the reverse. The helmet is designed to pass a test for a low speed impact. But when faced with a 60mph car, the helmet's ability is exceeded.

 

[benb]

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'.

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.

 

[benb]

I was reading one of the motorcycle helmet research articles (might have been about the snell standard) and it made the point that the polystyrene can only be made to delererate a certain force.

Eg, you can design a helmet to absorb, deform and decelerate high speed impacts, but that same helmet will not absorb a low speed impact.

In bicycle helmets its the reverse. The helmet is designed to pass a test for a low speed impact. But when faced with a 60mph car, the helmet's ability is exceeded.

More like 15mph, but you are basically correct.

 

[Dan B]

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.

"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?