No helmet

[Spin City]

Thanks for your reply Jaded. I purposefully stated that it was a personal opinion of mine because I didn't have the empirical evidence that swayed me one way or the other. Please point me in the right direction and I shall take a look at any available evidence.

Personal opinions are still allowed.

 

[yello]

So what's the definitive answer then?

I think it's, um, something along the lines of 'in the absence of any conclusive evidence of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the currently available cycle helmets in protecting the cyclist from the variety of injuries that they might foreseeabley sustain whilst cycling, it is suggested that the cyclist makes up their own mind'..... or words to that effect.

 

[BentMikey]

Helmet religeonistas!!! It's a matter of faith that they help protect cyclists, not a matter of evidence.

 

[Chris James]

The issue of helmet testing standards appears to be a real problem. Did all helemts have to pass the Snell test 10 years ago?

No but it was possible to choose helmets that were safer than other ones available. The first helmet I bought was a Bell that was certed to Snell B (I think)

If they did, why has the EN test superseded the Snell test? Do all helmets on sale in the UK have to pass the EN test?

Snell is an independent body. EN is a European regulation and as such all helmets sold in Europe have to pass this test. I believe it is less rigorous than the US test as the top of the range Giro (Ionos -sp?)failed the US test but was available in Europe regardless. They may have subsequently redesigned it to pass US law. Snell testing is effectively voluntary but the manufacturers don't bother as it costs them money (a few cents per helmet) to test them.

Helmet manufacturers produce the lightest, best ventilated and cheapest to produce helmets that will scrape past the relevant legislation allowing for production variability. There is no incentive for them to produce 'safer' helmets as few people would buy them. Just look at the recommended helmet threads on here - they all revolve around weight and ventilation. The safest helmet is a solid, thick shell but who could possibly stick wearing one of them?

The statement "the fewest accidents per kilomtre cycled" needs to be looked into carefully. For example, if there were two countries with identical populations but the population of one of the countries (A) cycled twice as much as the other one ( then the number of crashes/accidents could be 1.999 more in country A than country B and your statement would still be true. However, the authorites in country A may still be more than concerned about the vastly increased number of cycling crashes/accidents in their country.

Indeed. And your logic agrees neatly with the Australian experience after introduced helmet compiulsion. Fewer cyclists were killed. But only because many times fewer people now cycled. Instead they did no exercise at all and increased their risk of heart disease and strokes. So the nett risk of death to the population actually increased. This is the nub of argument that has been going on for 39 pages. You look at helmets and say that, in the event of an accident, you feel they offer protection. That is almost certainly true. However it is a great leap to suggest that everyone should be forced to wear them as kids can simply give up cycling. And the evidence shows that they do. As do adults.

 

[ufkacbln]

One of the advantages of the Snell system is that the helmets are taken off the shelf (i.e. what you are actually wearing) whereas EN 1078 actually allows manufacturers to make "test batches" for the test. In addition the Snell test has higher impacts and different angled surfaces.


Although US based BHSI offers a good guide to standards and why some helmets are better than others.

 

[ufkacbln]

The other conveniently forgotten factor with the Australian experience is that the helmet legislation was only one of a raft of legislation.........

Drink driving, speeding and dangerous driving were also clamped down on at the same time.

Again this is inconvenient as it should have also reduced the number of cycle accidents - another confounding element in the claims about the effect of helmets on accident rate, if you factor in this then the need to explain why the expected decrease in injuries never happened is even more desparately needed!

 

[Spin City]

BentMikey: That is an interesting point. You are probably correct to say that as helmets are not compulsory in the UK then the evidence as to how much, if at all, they protect cyclists may not be available. (However, there may well be evidence from other countries/states that have introduced compulsion.) On a slightly different subject it has been proven that the introduction of seatbelt compulsion in the UK led to a reduction in injuries for people in vehicles involved in an RTC.
Therefore, depending on the evidence available, you could possibly be right to say that people who wear a helmet are putting their faith in the fact that it may help them if they are involved in a particular sort of crash/accident. Possibly people such as frazerlaing, I expect.
If you want, you could take a look at this case-study done in the USA: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...te=1/1/1988&tdate=10/31/1990&journalcode=nejm which shows, amongst other things, that people wearing helmets had an "88% reduction in their risk of brain injury". Read it carefully though because I've only shown a very brief quote from the study.

Chris James: Just a response to the "Instead they did no exercise at all and increased their risk of heart disease and strokes. So the nett risk of death to the population actually increased" comment in your post.
I presume you know that people gave up cycling, then did no alternative exercise and were then more likely to die from the lack of exercise. I think that is what your comment is suggesting.

Cunobelin: I think I would like to see a review of the standards of helmet testing to enable cyclists to have greater faith in the helmets they are wearing. By the way, the BHSI website looks to be quite informative.

 

[Jaded]

If you want, you could take a look at this case-study done in the USA: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...te=1/1/1988&tdate=10/31/1990&journalcode=nejm which shows, amongst other things, that people wearing helmets had an "88% reduction in their risk of brain injury". Read it carefully though because I've only shown a very brief quote from the study.

That's a case study of people that had accidents.

Looking at one part of the equation again.

 

[Spin City]

As I've said before Jaded it doesn't make any difference whether you wear a helmet or not if you are not involved in a particular type of crash/accident.
However, wearing a helmet probably does have an effect if you are involved in a particular type of crash/accident.
It's not that difficult is it, seeing as it is these sorts of crashes/accidents that are being discussed in this debate. You really need to discuss the issue.

 

[4F]

However, wearing a helmet probably does have an effect if you are involved in a particular type of crash/accident.

I don't think anyone has disputed this. Without doubt they will help prevent road rash and abrasions.

I thought the main point here was that is should be up to the rider or not to make their mind up whether to wear one rather than being a compulsion issue which really inflammed this thread.

 

[Jaded]

As I've said before Jaded it doesn't make any difference whether you wear a helmet or not if you are not involved in a particular type of crash/accident.
However, wearing a helmet probably does have an effect if you are involved in a particular type of crash/accident.
It's not that difficult is it, seeing as it is these sorts of crashes/accidents that are being discussed in this debate. You really need to discuss the issue.

Why?

 

[Chris James]

Chris James: Just a response to the "Instead they did no exercise at all and increased their risk of heart disease and strokes. So the nett risk of death to the population actually increased" comment in your post.
I presume you know that people gave up cycling, then did no alternative exercise and were then more likely to die from the lack of exercise. I think that is what your comment is suggesting.
.

To be honest I am getting a bit bored of this. I would have given up posting ages ago if you had merely said that you thought that helmets were good for cyclists. Since you appear to favour legislation then it spurred me on to keep going.

As far as the point above. Believe what you want. The stats showed that cycling levels dropped by over one third after the helmet ban was introduced.

If you think the kids in the second fattest nation on Earth took up going to the gym or playing sport to offset the effect of them no longer cycling to school then fair enough.

However I would have thought the burden of proof should be the other way round - i.e. we know that the amount of cardiac exercise done through cycling has dropped - so show me some figures that it has been offset by other means if you believe helmet compulsion experience does not demonstrate an increased health risk due to inactivity.

Whether the relationship is causal, Australian obesity levels have doubled since the ban was introduced. A return to the pre ban levels of cycling would help to alleviate this.

 

[Spin City]

Dear All
This is my last post in the Great Helmet Debate. This is for a variety of reasons including:-
The discussions are low level and not linear (due in part to the number of posters taking part) in that the line of debate hops about all over the place and questions don't really get reviewed or answered properly.
Posters do not seem to take any notice of evidence or are not able to process the evidence adequately and therefore their views remain unchanged. In fact, some posters mention totally spurious evidence which just doesn't move the debate forward or resolve any issues.
A lot of the evidence provided (usually) by the pro-choice group is simply either false/untrue or not relevant or just unfounded. I don't know why this is done.

I believe that there does need to be some real debate about the issues of helmet wearing but I am convinced that this will never happen on an internet forum. The discussions need to be moved elsewhere so that they can be debated seriously. I am pointing the finger mainly at the pro-choice group as they seem to be the posters unable to debate seriously, consider the views of other posters who hold different views from them, etc.

Below are my current personal views on some aspects of the Great Helmet Debate:-
I would definitely like to see an improvement in the protection requirements for helmets. I believe this would have to introduced by legislation to implement the appropriate testing standards.
I would like to see a move towards helmet compulsion for children cycling either on the road or off-road. Furthermore, I would also like to see some sort of cycle training to be a pre-requisite requirement for all children before they start cycling on the road on their own.
Over time, I would like to see the percentage of adult cyclists wearing helmets increasing. (I guess this may happen when helmet compulsion becomes a requirement for children.) If this does not happen voluntarily then I would like to see some measure of compulsion being introduced. How this would work and be implemented I have no idea.

And finally, this is what I do currently (I don't really ride off-road):-
I never wear a helmet when going to the local shops, leisure centre, etc on my sit up and beg bike.
I sometimes wear a helmet when riding my fixed wheel bike locally.
I always wear a helmet when out training on either my fixed wheel bike, my road bike or my road bike with tri bars.
I always wear a helmet when commuting which will either be on my fixed wheel bike or my sit up and beg bike.

Please feel free to reply to this post but I won't be responding to any replies.

 

[Chris James]

I couldn't even be bothered to finish your post you pompous buffoon.

You haven't offered a shred of evidence yourself so it seems particularly rich that you should dismiss out of hand as untrue, irrelevant or unfounded all evidence offered contrary to your views.

 

[4F]

Posters do not seem to take any notice of evidence or are not able to process the evidence adequately and therefore their views remain unchanged. In fact, some posters mention totally spurious evidence which just doesn't move the debate forward or resolve any issues.

You are David Walton and I claim my £ 5.00