The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Markymark]

You are statistically more likely to get a serious head injury by getting drunk. Hospitals are full of drunk people with serious injuries than cyclists.

if you go to the pub and have a few pints but you friend has orange juices. If they cycle hone and you walk home, you’re more likely to get a head injury than the cyclist. So for all the reasons given above the drunk person walking home should wear a helmet as, you never know/not worth the risk/seen too many injuries etc etc etc.

So do you and if not, why not?

 

[Poacher]

That might well all be true, but in each case I will examine if there is something I can do to reduce the risk, and whether that risk mitigation is proportionate to the improvement in outcomes. The latest statisitics from a meta-analysis of data suggest over a 50% improvement in outcomes for traumatic brain injury (TBI) through wearing a helmet: that's a not-insignificant reduction, and potentially life-saving choice I'm happy to make, especially given my recent experience.

Yet another meta analysis of various pro-helmet 'scientific studies', giving undue weight to the thoroughly discredited Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, and promulgated by Headway. What's not to like?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Been there, done that! I was knocked off my bike and suffered a head injury with unconsciousness. I didn't experience the same medium term symptoms as you but the impact was hard enough to not only fracture my skull but also shatter 2 vertebra in my neck. I wasn't wearing a helmet and have essentially walked away unscathed (not in reality, but to the casual observer it would appear so), but this is kind of indicative of the whole helmet wearing debate and tribalism. The chance of the serious accident is slim, the chance of suffering a life changing head injury as a result is many, many times less, to the point of being almost fleetingly insignificant when combined. This doesn't make it any less catastrophic for the poor person that does suffer one of the rare unfortunate outcomes where a helmet may have actually helped (I'm sure such situations could occur), but you have to wonder what level of risk is actually removed when one decides to wear a cycle helmet? This is the reason for the polar views. The fear of the serious injury makes the helmet choice a no-brainer (no pun intended) while the reality of the risk makes the decision to lid up one of irrational paranoia.
Personally, and without any widely approved and accepted statistics to back this up, I suspect you are probably more likely to die from food poisoning, or suffer a fatal heart attack, or (and I don't quite know how to put this tactfully so please don't be offended) be rendered incapable as a result of suffering a stroke! In fact, if it weren't such a serious subject, I would almost wager good money that you are more likely to win the lottery than be saved from life changing head injuries by wearing a cycle helmet.

I was told off by an anti-helmet wearer earlier for saying there is tribalism in this debate.

Choosing to wear a helmet because it makes anyone feel safer, and therefore more likely to ride, is not irrational, and you have not quite understood the meaning of paranoia. The poster possibly has a level of fear of serious head injury which is not justified by its likelihood but that is not paranoia.

 

[theclaud]

You are statistically more likely to get a serious head injury by getting drunk. Hospitals are full of drunk people with serious injuries than cyclists.

if you go to the pub and have a few pints but you friend has orange juices. If they cycle hone and you walk home, you’re more likely to get a head injury than the cyclist.

I never knew it was an either/or thing! Coulda saved me a fair bit of trouble...

 

[briantrumpet]

You are statistically more likely to get a serious head injury by getting drunk. Hospitals are full of drunk people with serious injuries than cyclists.

if you go to the pub and have a few pints but you friend has orange juices. If they cycle hone and you walk home, you’re more likely to get a head injury than the cyclist. So for all the reasons given above the drunk person walking home should wear a helmet as, you never know/not worth the risk/seen too many injuries etc etc etc.

So do you and if not, why not?

And going down stairs is full of risk too, but pointing out illogic in one area doesn't alter the logic in another. I'm much more likely to drown in a swimming pool than need a life jacket in an aeroplane, but I'm not going to argue that planes shouldn't carry life jackets or that I should be reminded how to use them, just because I'm more likely to die in a swimming pool.

 

[mjr]

No.

After two months off work with post-concussion syndrome, despite no visible damage to my brain, and the sobering thought that the 129 slices of my scanned brain contain everything I know to be me, wearing something that might reduce severe trauma to the thing that defines me doesn't strike me as the slightest bit inconsistent. I'd still be me if I lost any other part of me, but losing a brain is in a rather different order.

Lose your neck or liver or heart and are you still you? I think not!

Once you've felt your brain sending weird signals round your body for a couple of months, and realised how both fragile it is and how slow it is to heal (if you're lucky), you might end up with a different perspective. I hope you never do.

Too late, although my problems were medication rather than trauma. I still wouldn't wear only a top-of-head helmet - it's simply not a rational precaution because it is so unlikely to protect against brain injury. Even if I hit my head, it's pretty unlikely to be a direct strike on the protective zone of one of those and it is impact protection rather than effective concussion protection.

Even ignoring the other vital body parts while cycling, as others have pointed out, alcohol-drinking helmets and walking helmets have far more merit: do you wear either?

Funnily enough, I've been cycling over 50 years, and never hit my head. The one time I did could have easily killed me. That's why I'll not be returning to being lidless now. But each to his own.

With respect, based on the earlier description, it seems like your helmet may have contributed to the crash or injury, which would explain why injury rates don't vary with usage rates, plus being seriously scrambled while wearing one seems like a clear example that it doesn't protect sufficiently.

 

[mjr]

Wear a lid or don’t wear a lid in the end it’s personal choice.

No, it's not. What you assert as personal choice affects public policy in several ways and thereby impacts the freedom of everyone to ride. I wish you were correct but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am not 'anti helmet wearer', I am anti helmet manufacturers who tell lies and mislead people. I did not 'tell you off', I suggested it was more a matter of evangelism than tribalism, and you agreed with me. As I keep on saying, you can wear a helmet if you wish to, but don't preach about it on a basis of no evidence.

Thank you for the clarification. Told off was too strong, and I did agree with you.

I assume by 'you' in the last sentence you mean 'one' as I do not preach about it.

I thought there was evidence/research about its effectiveness, but the consensus on this forum seems to be that it is not as reliable as the counter-evidence.

 

[briantrumpet]

With respect, based on the earlier description, it seems like your helmet may have contributed to the crash or injury, which would explain why injury rates don't vary with usage rates, plus being seriously scrambled while wearing one seems like a clear example that it doesn't protect sufficiently.

With respect, I landed smack on the back of my head onto tarmac, no rotation, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you might consider that you weren't there, and that my experience on this occasion might carry a little more weight than your dislike of helmets. You seem to want to prove that helmets have no value whatsoever, but if you are suggesting that the back of my head wouldn't have smacked onto the tarmac if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I'd suggest that you are mistaken. And re my scrambled head - yes, concussed (and that's bad enough) but not fractured or spread on the tarmac. Given that cycle helmets aren't designed to stop concussion, that's 'sufficient' for me.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

I heard a story as a kid about a motorcyclist who crashed badly. When rescuers got to him, he was fine. Then they removed his helmet and his skull caved in, killing him instantly as he stood.

Urban myth? Or Ripley’s Believe it or Not

 

[mjr]

With respect, I landed smack on the back of my head onto tarmac, no rotation, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you might consider that you weren't there, and that my experience on this occasion might carry a little more weight than your dislike of helmets. You seem to want to prove that helmets have no value whatsoever, but if you are suggesting that the back of my head wouldn't have smacked onto the tarmac if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I'd suggest that you are mistaken. And re my scrambled head - yes, concussed (and that's bad enough) but not fractured or spread on the tarmac. Given that cycle helmets aren't designed to stop concussion, that's 'sufficient' for me.

Back of the head? So outside the tested protective zone on top of the head. I wasn't there and am only going on what you write but it really doesn't sound like the solid reason for usage that you seem to treat it as.

I don't "want to prove that helmets have no value whatsoever" and I acknowledge their tested impact protection. I just feel their benefits are exaggerated by most advocates, their drawbacks almost completely denied and belittled and there's no clear reason to speak well of them.

 

[classic33]

No, it's not. What you assert as personal choice affects public policy in several ways and thereby impacts the freedom of everyone to ride. I wish you were correct but that doesn't make it so.

I'm coming at this from a different point of view than most. I've spent more days in hospitals, and had more A&E visits due to non cycling head injuries than most will have done due to cycling related head injuries.

I've been advised by neurologists and orthopeadic specialist, that due to the nature & frequency of the fits/siezures/episodes/call them what you want, serious consideration should be given to wearing a helmet as an everyday item. I've one of what I'll call the older style cycling helmets somewhere, too small now as is the body armour I was given to wear. The
reaction to the condition was, and still is, bad enough. I didn't want to bother with all of that either, as a pedestrian. I was asked if I wanted to take part in trials of an inflatable device, that for the most part wouldn't be as visible as ordinary head protection, remember the inflatable helmet that was put on here? But I'm not a fan of wearing much round the neck on a daily basis.

I wear a full face helmet, that covers the sides and the back of the head, with some facial protection when cycling, on two wheels. My choice, despite the looks it gets.

If the specialists in their fields have had to do training to get to the point where they can advise people, what was your training?

Every helmet thread has instances of how injuries might be able to happen, some backed up, some not. The human body isn't concerned with the laws of physics and impact speeds when it hits something, causing it's movement to alter or cease.

I'll throw two actual, non cycling, impacts into the mix. You can argue over the science behind both. Maybe even explain why the outcomes were what they were.
Face plant from a standing position onto a marble floor. No cuts, cracks or bruises.
Fall to the floor from a sitting position onto the steel floor. Three large cuts, over a dozen stichess, broken jaw and two clear cracks to the skull.

In both the normal after effects were felt. So what was causing what to be sore can never be said, impact or condition.

As for the "seriously scrambled" comment made by yourself, have you any idea how offensive that remark is?
My brain, along with that of practically every person, may be far from perfect but it's got me this far.

 

[mjr]

As for the "seriously scrambled" comment made by yourself, have you any idea how offensive that remark is?

I was writing about the person who first used "scrambled" as a description of their injury themselves back on page one, so no, I don't agree it's offensive. I'll try to remember not to use it to describe you, but no promises, especially if my own mind gets messed up again in future.

 

[classic33]

I was writing about the person who first used "scrambled" as a description of their injury themselves back on page one, so no, I don't agree it's offensive. I'll try to remember not to use it to describe you, but no promises, especially if my own mind gets messed up again in future.

That last part is no excuse, whatsoever, for offensive remarks.

 

[PMarkey]

With respect, I landed smack on the back of my head onto tarmac, no rotation, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you might consider that you weren't there, and that my experience on this occasion might carry a little more weight than your dislike of helmets. You seem to want to prove that helmets have no value whatsoever, but if you are suggesting that the back of my head wouldn't have smacked onto the tarmac if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I'd suggest that you are mistaken. And re my scrambled head - yes, concussed (and that's bad enough) but not fractured or spread on the tarmac. Given that cycle helmets aren't designed to stop concussion, that's 'sufficient' for me.

Sounds very like my accident from a few weeks ago apart from the fact that I appear to have landed directly on the crown of my head and was not wearing a helmet, I ended up with a small cut to my head that needed gluing but no fractures or my head spread on the tarmac ,not to sure about concussion though. I was rendered unconscious for a few seconds I think (no memory of the actual crash or impact) and I do have occasional bouts of dizziness when I lay down but that's about it . As mentioned in a previous post the main injuries I sustained were broken ribs and a fractured hip socket both of which mean I am off work for 6-8 weeks .

So what can we take away from both accidents ? I think the main thing it proves is that helmets work and if I had been wearing one it would have done the job it was designed for and saved me from the bump and laceration on my head, would it have stopped me from "spreading my head all over the tarmac " I don't think so, I think that if I had hit the ground with enough force or at just the right angle I could have done serious damage and the only difference is that if I had suffered a serious head injury and had been wearing a helmet people would say it had saved my life and had I not been wearing a helmet that would be seen as the cause of the serious head injury