metro article on helmets

[Davidc]

On safety - There is absolutely no evidence either way. Well done Metro.

However, in winter helmets help keep your head warm.

That, by the way, is the only benefit available from wearing a cycle helmet (apart from keeping the spouse happy).

Unless, of course, you're in the habit of falling off a stationary bike and banging your head on the ground.

Cycling helmets only exist to make profits for helmet makers, and for no other reason. However, in winter helmets help keep your head warm.

If you want some protection you'll need to wear a full face motor cycle helmet which might be a bit hot on a pedalled bike.

If you want to wear a helmet that's fine, just don't try to spread the idea that it provides any protection in a crash because there's no evidence that it does.

My experience (anecdotal of course) when wearing one is that the space given by motorists goes down by about a third, and the number who try to go past at pinch points, when somethings coming the other way, etc. doubles. In winter though they help keep my head warm.

 

[caimg]

Yeah okay firstly I apologise for offending non-helmet wearers. It was late and I was half-asleep and it seemed like an accurate way to get my point across at the time

My point about wearing a helmet and so giving other drivers confidence in my cycling is an important one. If that guy Walker's research is accurate then he says that cyclists without helmets are more unpredictable and so are given more room. I don't want to appear unpredictable that's for sure. I don't wear a helmet primarily for this reason obviously but if wearing one gives drivers more confidence in how I'll ride then great. That still doesn't excuse idiots giving me 10cm worth of space as they pass!

Also, as I said, that theory is flawed because it was a test conducted by one guy, passing different motorists with and without a helmet, which would make it almost always unbalanced.

I'm not closed to the idea of helmets causing more problems than it prevents but when I leave my flat to go for a ride I reach for my helmet with the view that if my head is hit or if I fall on my head I don't want it being injured. I just don't see why everybody doesn't have this same concern?

 

[caimg]

Norm I'm not an 'evangelical' at all, I just don't want to crack my head open at the hands of a rubbish driver

 

[snorri]

I leave my flat to go for a ride I reach for my helmet with the view that if my head is hit or if I fall on my head I don't want it being injured. I just don't see why everybody doesn't have this same concern?

For the same reason that I don't wear a lifejacket when on a ferry.

 

[ianrauk]

You know, an excuse of being half asleep is no excuse for calling other bike riders douche bags.
You said it, you meant it and it's obvious that is what you think. A total lack of respect and very poor form indeed.

 

[ufkacbln]

I love this type of statement, wearing a helmet can make you hit something that your head wasn't going to hit anyway so the reason you hit your head was because you were wearing a helmet.

Unfortunately the evidence does show that helmets increase the size, weight of the head and this does have an effect on impact.Equally "snag points" on helmets have been shown to increase or even cause injury.

But what about the thing that your head was going to hit, ahh yes the impact was absorbed through the helmet and although some head damage occurred it was significantly less than would would have happened had a helmet not been on your head.

Not actually the case, if you read the article, and more importantly the original paper. This is the classic red herring. ONly in low impact cases do helmets have any real effect.

I agree helmets are useless in a lot of situations, but a lot of crashes are caused by people being clipped by cars, slipping on loose surfaces, misjudging corners or in racing being tapped by other bikes. These types of minor offs where your momentum means your head can hit the floor, railings by traffic lights, other riders bikes etc without your control can end in a lot of blood, bruising and skull fractures.. helmets can reduce (not necessarily will) the damage done to your head. Why wouldnt you wear one for the sake of 'it might not save me so therefore its a waste of money'. Ive posted this before, but I had a head on collision with the back of a minibus while I was traveling around 25mph. My helmet was a mess, cracked dented and fractured, my head however was free from bruises, bumps, lumps, cuts, grazes. I had a headache... but I believe it would have been a hospital trip or worse had I not been wearing it.

The same argument applies equally to pedestrians,so lets change the emphasis slightly.. but make the same points and use the same justification. How can anyone not wear a helmet when out walking?

I agree helmets are useless in a lot of situations, but a lot of falls are caused by people being clipped by cars, slipping on loose surfaces, misjudging corners or in being bumped by other pedestrians . These types of minor offs where your momentum means your head can hit the floor, railings by traffic lights, other pedestrians or street furniture etc without your control can end in a lot of blood, bruising and skull fractures.. helmets can reduce (not necessarily will) the damage done to your head. Why wouldn't you wear one for the sake of 'it might not save me so therefore its a waste of money'.

Ive posted this before, but I had a head on collision with the back of a minibus while I was traveling around 25mph. My helmet was a mess, cracked dented and fractured, my head however was free from bruises, bumps, lumps, cuts, grazes. I had a headache... but I believe it would have been a hospital trip or worse had I not been wearing it.

Your belief and you are entitled to believe what you will, but presenting it as evidence is not valid.

There are hundreds of similar cases where similar incidents without helmets have not resulted in serious injury.... does this prove helmets are unneccessary?

 

[ufkacbln]

You wouldn't choose a car without an airbag, why on earth would you actively choose to risk your life by not wearing a helmet?

Actually this is an excellent comparison.

There are situations where air bags can be beneficial and others where they can increase the danger and even cause injury. Choosing whether to have the air bag active or inactive is the right of the individual to choose on the evidence that exists.

The question is why people seem so afraid of allowing this informed choice?


No-one "risks their life" by not wearing a helmet, and to suggest that they do is absolute rubbish.

 

[Speedywheelsjeans]

Unfortunately the evidence does show that helmets increase the size, weight of the head and this does have an effect on impact.Equally "snag points" on helmets have been shown to increase or even cause injury.


Not actually the case, if you read the article, and more importantly the original paper. This is the classic red herring. ONly in low impact cases do helmets have any real effect.

Yes this is true and I did say in my post that they can be the cause of injury in some cases, you say it has an effect on impact, but helmets are built to absorb impact and the cut the risk of huge cuts to the vital parts of your head.

Most peoples crashes are low impact, I know even my motorbike helmet is useless in really high speed, or high impact crashes, but for those oops moments they can prove invaluable.

admittedly I have ridden plenty of times without a helmet so telling people they should be wearing them is hypocritical, but posting that helmets are more dangerous than not wearing them is generally an uninformed decision based on hearsay. How many people on this forum have actually done research into it, and how many people just spout the usual crap they have seen posted with no evidence from another thread.

Decent helmet companies put a lot of time and research into making our heads protected during riding, the more money you spend on a helmet the more research that company is likely to have done, the newer technologies they will be using and the better protected your head is. Better helmets fit better, have a smaller surface area and are made from stronger materials.

Have you seen race across America with james cracknall, Did you see the state of his head after being hit by the mirror of a truck, the damage to his head and brain afterwards, did you see the damage done to the helmet.. Do you think the injury would have been more severe had the impact of that mirror been directly on the back of his skull? ..

 

[Speedywheelsjeans]

What I dont understand is why people go out of their way to prove that helmet are useless, trying to pursuade people not to wear them.

 

[Bromptonaut]

We can review the Cracknell video ad nauseam. It shows that in some cases a helmet can prevent or reduce injury. But the helmet is uncomfortable, in my peripheral vision, subliminally affects my hearing and is susceptible to being left on trains. I don't like it and prefer the wind on what's left of my hair.

The chances of a helmet preventing a life changing injury are very small indeed. Thirty years ago nobody wore a helmet; cyclists didn't die like flies.

Don't think there's much of a move to deter people from weraing helmets as such. But there's a constant need to refute the WEAR ONE OR YOU'LL DIE propaganda.

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes this is true and I did say in my post that they can be the cause of injury in some cases, you say it has an effect on impact, but helmets are built to absorb impact and the cut the risk of huge cuts to the vital parts of your head.

Most peoples crashes are low impact, I know even my motorbike helmet is useless in really high speed, or high impact crashes, but for those oops moments they can prove invaluable.

As I pointed out above this is exactly why pedestrians should be wearing them

Cycling and walking carry similar levels of head injury risk (Whitelaw BMJ) . How can one justify not wearing a helmet - surely they will be equally invaluable for that "oops moment in both cases.

admittedly I have ridden plenty of times without a helmet so telling people they should be wearing them is hypocritical, but posting that helmets are more dangerous than not wearing them is generally an uninformed decision based on hearsay. How many people on this forum have actually done research into it, and how many people just spout the usual crap they have seen posted with no evidence from another thread.

This always amuses me. My helmet saved my life is absolutely unequivocal evidence, but the peer reviewed studies are "hearsay"?

Decent helmet companies put a lot of time and research into making our heads protected during riding, the more money you spend on a helmet the more research that company is likely to have done, the newer technologies they will be using and the better protected your head is. Better helmets fit better, have a smaller surface area and are made from stronger materials.

Again very naive. Again the evidence is the opposite. The stronger materials absorb less impact as they neither deform or compress. Modern helmets offer far less protection than older ones. There are no helmets that pass Snell B95 now, yet this was the benchmark 20 years ago.

Also helmet price does not reflect either the efficiency or effectiveness of a helmet.You can buy a helmet with Snell certification for £20 - £30 and ones that pass the laughable EN1078 for £80 - £90

Have you seen race across America with james cracknall, Did you see the state of his head after being hit by the mirror of a truck, the damage to his head and brain afterwards, did you see the damage done to the helmet.. Do you think the injury would have been more severe had the impact of that mirror been directly on the back of his skull? ..

I though that hearsay was uninformed?

You are aware that there is a theory that bolts on the mirror caught in the vents of the helmet and this exacerbated the injuries?

You are also aware that JC also has an undeclared interest in that he is being paid to promote helmet use?

What I dont understand is why people go out of their way to prove that helmet are useless, trying to pursuade people not to wear them.

Not the case, in fact the opposite. No-one tries to persuade people not to wear them. The dangerous claim is that helmets are the ultimate answer to cyclist safety and to try to bully, emotionally blackmail or coerce others into their use. Pointing out limitations, compromises in design, dangers in their use is giving people the information they need to make an informed choice as to whether or not they wear one. That is the point - an informed choice

 

[Speedywheelsjeans]

As I pointed out above this is exactly why pedestrians should be wearing them

Cycling and walking carry similar levels of head injury risk (Whitelaw BMJ) . How can one justify not wearing a helmet - surely they will be equally invaluable for that "oops moment in both cases.



This always amuses me. My helmet saved my life is absolutely unequivocal evidence, but the peer reviewed studies are "hearsay"?




Again very naive. Again the evidence is the opposite. The stronger materials absorb less impact as they neither deform or compress. Modern helmets offer far less protection than older ones. There are no helmets that pass Snell B95 now, yet this was the benchmark 20 years ago.

Also helmet price does not reflect either the efficiency or effectiveness of a helmet.You can buy a helmet with Snell certification for £20 - £30 and ones that pass the laughable EN1078 for £80 - £90



I though that hearsay was uninformed?

You are aware that there is a theory that bolts on the mirror caught in the vents of the helmet and this exacerbated the injuries?

You are also aware that JC also has an undeclared interest in that he is being paid to promote helmet use?




Not the case, in fact the opposite. No-one tries to persuade people not to wear them. The dangerous claim is that helmets are the ultimate answer to cyclist safety and to try to bully, emotionally blackmail or coerce others into their use. Pointing out limitations, compromises in design, dangers in their use is giving people the information they need to make an informed choice as to whether or not they wear one. That is the point - an informed choice

I try not to take one side nor the other, however in this thread it seems I am really pro helmet, which is not the case, although I do wear a helmet. The point I would like to put forward is that saying helmets dont offer protection is a useless statement unless you can determine the cause and events of each specific crash, which you cant. I am aware that is works both ways.

 

[growingvegetables]

My point about wearing a helmet and so giving other drivers confidence in my cycling is an important one. If that guy Walker's research is accurate then he says that cyclists without helmets are more unpredictable and so are given more room.

You can read it here. NOWHERE does he state that "cyclists without helmets are more unpredictable". He does comment on drivers' perceptions, however misguided and inopportune they may be.

Once again, happy to be in your "Utter Douche Club" - but stop peddling that stuff about cyclists without helmets being worse cyclists. You really don't do your argument any credit at all.

 

[ufkacbln]

I try not to take one side nor the other, however in this thread it seems I am really pro helmet, which is not the case, although I do wear a helmet. The point I would like to put forward is that saying helmets dont offer protection is a useless statement unless you can determine the cause and events of each specific crash, which you cant. I am aware that is works both ways.

Which is exactly the point of informed choice... As you say

The point that really needs making here is that saying helmets DO offer protection is a useless statement unless you can determine the cause and events of each specific crash, which you cant.

There are pros and cons. If you want to wear a helmet or not then the choice is entirely yours, but make sure that you are aware of the advantages, limitations, risks and pitfalls of helmets when you do so.

 

[growingvegetables]

What I dont understand is why people go out of their way to prove that helmet are useless, trying to pursuade people not to wear them.

Who? Where?

Several people have raised questions about their design and efficiency, but that's all.

Nobody that I can see has made any attempt to persuade people NOT to wear helmets - the "Utter Douche Club" have been very careful to show respect for individual choice, for each person's rational assessment and decision.