Keeping safe and being seen on the road

[ebikeerwidnes]

I disagree completely. There are a few like him, but I am quite sure it is not "most" of the helmet advocates, nor even "most" (51% or more) of the rule-makers.

Personally, I am very much in favour of helmets, and always wear one myself, so you could call me a "helmet advocate", but I do NOT think there should be any legislation requiring their use.

If you enter an event (race or otherwise), then you have to follow the event organisers rules, whether you agree with them or not, but outside of that, it should be the choice of the individual.

I can see the argument that it is no different in principle to the requirement for motorcycle riders to wear helmets, or car occupants to wear seatbelts, both of which have been in force for decades. But while I understand that argument, I don't really agree with it, because I don't think the level of danger (in terms of injuries per 1000 hours or similar measure) is as high as either of those.

For organised races and the like then I would imagine there is an element of insurance problems if someone competed and didn;t wear a helmet
then crashed and injured their head

 

[oldandslow]

I find the racing situation a bit odd. Helmets were made mandatory in response to casualty rates. However, at least in professional racing, it seems that casualty rates have only increased since then.

I don't think there's any justification for claiming that helmets are responsible, and indeed it seems challenging to identify specific causes reliably - there are lots of suggestions, but no certainty. However, neither do they seem to have achieved their aim. You do wonder whether focusing on helmets might have delayed the investigation of more effective measures?

 

[Mike_P]

Pro races are getting faster so casualty fugures will be greater than they were and nothing to do with helmets.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I find the racing situation a bit odd. Helmets were made mandatory in response to casualty rates. However, at least in professional racing, it seems that casualty rates have only increased since then.

I don't think there's any justification for claiming that helmets are responsible, and indeed it seems challenging to identify specific causes reliably - there are lots of suggestions, but no certainty. However, neither do they seem to have achieved their aim. You do wonder whether focusing on helmets might have delayed the investigation of more effective measures?

again - for organised racing there is the insurance aspect

but also the idea that if racers wear a helmet, then it encourages others riders to wear them


(and it increases advertising space and clarity

 

[oldandslow]

My comment was more to do with evidence than with motives. I have no doubt that helmets were introduced to racing with the aim of reducing casualties. I just don't see that it's worked. Yes, speeds have increased but, if helmets are as effective as we are told by some, that surely would have meant that casualties would still have been reduced, just perhaps not by quite as much.

 

[matticus]

My view is that the organisers or employers can make whatever rules they like (within the constraints of the law of course), and if you want that job, or want to be a member of that club, then you follow those rules.

OK, that sounds reasonable, thanks ... so you'd be OK with a cycling ban at a workplace?

(I suspect you'd change your statement above PDQ if it was any significant inconvenience to you ...)

 

[matticus]

Pro races are getting faster so casualty fugures will be greater than they were and nothing to do with helmets.

That's a very good point... but you'd expect to see a step-change in serious head injuries after the rule's introduction. (as oldnslow says, considering the claimed benefits of modern helmets).

_________________________________________________________________________________
I recommend that folks always consider the example of boxing: the authorities DID introduce helmets (in relaatively modern times - 1982?). They monitored injuries etc, and in 2016 reversed the decision.
There are few sports where risks - and injuries - are focused so tightly in the head area.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

That's a very good point... but you'd expect to see a step-change in serious head injuries after the rule's introduction. (as oldnslow says, considering the claimed benefits of modern helmets).

_________________________________________________________________________________
I recommend that folks always consider the example of boxing: the authorities DID introduce helmets (in relaatively modern times - 1982?). They monitored injuries etc, and in 2016 reversed the decision.
There are few sports where risks - and injuries - are focused so tightly in the head area.

I may be wrong here as I am typing words based on naff all experience of boxing

but I think the head injuries on boxing arre due to acceleration of the skull caused by a blow
and the resulting movement of the brain inside where it hits the inside of the skull

which a helmet doesn very little to solve - and the same applies to cycling

but in cycling there is a possibility of the impact being with a sharp point/edge
such as a rock
and the helmet can help with that
and also a cycling helmet can deform in a one way manner (i.e. crushing the polystyrene) ina way that a boxing helmet has to bounce back from

so boxing may not be a sport that is perfect for a direct comparison

but it does reenforce the fact that hit a bus at 30 mph head first is not much better with a helmet than without
but that is not the only type of "accident"

 

[Mike_P]

That's a very good point... but you'd expect to see a step-change in serious head injuries after the rule's introduction. (as oldnslow says, considering the claimed benefits of modern helmets

The vast majority of cycling injuries are broken bones aka collar in particular. Its those that have increased with races getting faster and nothing to do with any protection afforded by a helmet.

 

[oldandslow]

but in cycling there is a possibility of the impact being with a sharp point/edge
such as a rock
and the helmet can help with that
and also a cycling helmet can deform in a one way manner (i.e. crushing the polystyrene) ina way that a boxing helmet has to bounce back from

True about the deformation, but I'm not aware that cycle helmets are designed to protect from sharp points/edges. They are mainly about compression from blows, surely?

The vast majority of cycling injuries are broken bones aka collar in particular. Its those that have increased with races getting faster and nothing to do with any protection afforded by a helmet.

I'm aware that collarbones are among the most common serious injuries. Subjectively, however, my impression was that head injuries had increased as well. I certainly don't see that helmets have decreased those - although, obviously, there are many potential confounding factors, of which race speed is one and reliable statistics are another.

 

[Alex321]

OK, that sounds reasonable, thanks ... so you'd be OK with a cycling ban at a workplace?

(I suspect you'd change your statement above PDQ if it was any significant inconvenience to you ...)

Well I wouldn't take a job where the employer banned cycling to work. But I accept they would have the right to do so if they wished.

 

[matticus]

again - for organised racing there is the insurance aspect

So how do you explain a major UK governing body voting in Mandatory Helmets for no reason related to insurance*.

One has to consider the notion that many helmet advocates are keen to mandate other cyclists wear them for reasons not entirely rational ...

(*The stated reason in the CTT AGM motion was "for the mental health of volunteers". )

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

So how do you explain a major UK governing body voting in Mandatory Helmets for no reason related to insurance*.

One has to consider the notion that many helmet advocates are keen to mandate other cyclists wear them for reasons not entirely rational ...

(*The stated reason in the CTT AGM motion was "for the mental health of volunteers". )

There is certainly a section of the discussion that insist that people NEED to wear a helmet because they do
and they do because they do and as a result everyone else has to

There are good reasons to wear a helmet
but there are also reasons to not wear one
and the reasons to wear one are often better is applied to car drivers and pedestrians

personally - as I have said before - I wear one so my wife doesn;t worry
and she is less likely to complain when the doorbell rings and I come back with a box
and when she asks what it is I say "something for my bike"

if anyone wants to come round and explain to my wife why there is no point in me wearing a helmet then they are welcome to arrange a time

she can go on a bit - and she is VERY good at discussions that come out the way she wants after a very long time

I'll be out on my bike wearing my helmet

until then it is your choice
unless the organisation insists on it - in which case it is their choice
and they must have reasons
Whether those are good or not is subject to discussion

but if an incident occurred and the insurance company COULD argue that a helmet might have made it less bad
then the resulting damages could bankrupt the organisation
maybe

 

[Ian H]

...They are mainly about compression from blows, surely?...

I've seen lots of photos of broken helmets. Are there any showing compression?

 

[oldandslow]

It's harder to notice and photograph. But polystyrene-type substances break easily in a snapping motion, with very little energy absorption. They absorb energy when they compress. So a snapped helmet doesn't mean that it wasn't also compressed, and therefore helped. But it would appear to mean that it was stressed in a way other than that under which it can provide maximum protection. In that sense, far from being evidence of how much it helped, a photo of a snapped helmet appears to raise questions about whether it actually did very much at all, and if not what else protected your head. Your skull maybe?