The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Pat "5mph"]

Mod Note:
threads now merged.

 

[raleighnut]

Aaaargh, I've been dragged into this thread again.

 

[jefmcg]

What were helmets like in the 1970s? Do you have a picture to share? Did not even know they existed back then.

I can't say for sure for 70s, but when they made them compulsory in oz in the 1990, these "beauties" were the biggest seller.

The ugliness of this helmet may entirely explain this graph

As for the 1970s? <google google>

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Aaaargh, I've been dragged into this thread again.

All my options are open again. I had 7 inches lopped off my locks yesterday. Less than half. Now I can wear on my head, whatever I fancy.

I know you’ll understand, being my older doppelgänger; hair and facial hair mentor and all that.

 

[raleighnut]

All my options are open again. I had 7 inches lopped off my locks yesterday. Less than half. Now I can wear on my head, whatever I fancy.

I know you’ll understand, being my older doppelgänger; hair and facial hair mentor and all that.

 

[snorri]

If my head hit the curb whilst wearing a helmet I think my head would be in most cases better off than if my head hit the curb without helmet protection.

Perhaps it's because only a very small percentage of my cycle mileage is on kerbed roads that I haven't been convinced by this argument.

 

[Spiderweb]

Perhaps it's because only a very small percentage of my cycle mileage is on kerbed roads that I haven't been convinced by this argument.

Ok forget the curb, what about a Tarmac surface?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a traumatic brain injury than unhelmeted cyclists.

Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

• Cyclist - 0.41
• Pedestrian - 0.80
• Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
• Motorcyclist - 7.66

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457505001363#

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0001457596000164

Cycling is nothing special when it comes to head injuries. As you can see you are far more likely to have a head injury when you are getting about by different means.

Of course some counter intuitively will only wear a helmet for the least risky activity. I guess it can be blamed on them being suckered in to believing that the least risky is the most risky.

Cycling is an inherently safe activity.

 

[jefmcg]

Of course some counter intuitively will only wear a helmet for the least risky activity. I guess it can be blamed on them being suckered in to believing that the least risky is the most risky.

This is really noticeable with people from Melbourne. I was talking to a young woman who was born after they made helmets compulsory - and who is a keen cyclist, indeed before she was old enough to ride the distance to school, her parents took her there in a bike trailer - and she could not get her head around the idea it wasn't dangerous. Her mother similarly giggled nervously when we rode Boris bikes around London without helmets, even though there hadn't been a fatality or serious injury on them in 6 million or so rides (that has changed now, sadly). My father asked me not to cycle in Melbourne as it had got more dangerous than when I lived there. I told him I cycled in London which is much busier, and he said "I hope you wear a helmet". I lied, and also decided not to say "most fatalities in London are crushed under the wheels of tipper trucks". Dads don't need to hear stuff like that.

20+ years of compulsory helmet wearing has led most Australians to believe it's a very dangerous activity.

(I've probably posted exactly the same thing upthread)

 

[snorri]

Ok forget the curb, what about a Tarmac surface?

The risk is remote for utility cyclists.

 

[mjr]

Ok forget the curb, what about a Tarmac surface?

You're still ignoring that helmet use increases the probability of a head impact, through making the head a bigger target if nothing else. I'd rather not hit my head at all, TYVM.

 

[mjr]

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/air-bag-for-cyclists-ces-tech-las-vegas.244355/ shows a video of yet another unnecessary cycling safety product, but what makes it interesting here is it includes some of the few cycling crash test dummy simulations I've seen published.

There's hitting a low wall, which might be similar to the kerb-hitting described above. The dummy is not using a helmet but it seems to faceplant, so a helmet wouldn't do much good anyway.

There's a T-bone type crash, where a motorist has pulled out of a side road against priority into the path of a cyclist, which is one of the most common crash types IIRC. The dummy again faceplants, this time onto the bonnet, then lands on either front or back of shoulders as they slide off - not much to suggest a helmet would be useful there either.

Could this be why helmet makers aren't publishing crash test dummy results?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKyOl5qLw88

 

[Spiderweb]

You're still ignoring that helmet use increases the probability of a head impact, through making the head a bigger target if nothing else. I'd rather not hit my head at all, TYVM.

I'm not ignoring anything, I just don't agree with your logic.
I presume you don't wear a helmet, that is your choice and I respect that.

 

[mjr]

I'm not ignoring anything, I just don't agree with your logic.

Just out of interest, which part of that logic do you disagree with? That head+helmet is bigger than head, that the probability of hitting a target is proportional to its size, or something else?

I presume you use a helmet, that is your choice and I respect that, but I think on balance they should probably be banned from highways on the grounds of public health and kept to off-road and closed-road events.

 

[jack9266]

I would love to know the proportion of those people who do mountain and road biking and if they are more likely to wear a helmet if they goo off road then on road biking