The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Algarvecycling]

In Amsterdam my wife and I do not wear helmets for getting around. Hardly anyone does. However, locally at home here in Portugal, I always wear one, for both road and MTB.

I've have my share of crashes on BMX as a kid and now already had a few on my MTB and absolutely believe helmets have saved me from grazes and bumps to my head. On my road bike I've had only a few crashes, two training and two in races. In my very first race, it was a sprint finish, the rider to my left moved from his line and knocked me off. A couple of riders behind me went over me...a wheel hit my head. This was back when we had those flimsy foam-type ones mainly but I had an early Bell hard-shell. The helmet was badly scuffed, tyre marks etc. I was fine albeit a lot of road rash elsewhere.

I have zero doubt that my current helmet would not fully protect me from a high-speed crash with or without another bike or a motor vehicle involved where my head suffered a severe blow. However, I know from personal experience that they can protect me from grazes and bumps.

The reason I do not wear a helmet in Amsterdam is due to the slow commute speeds and constant start-stopping involved. The risk is far less than with mountain biking or riding on the open road at speed and not much different to tripping up whilst jogging or even walking. I will always wear one for road and MTB though because I am convinced that, on balance, it is the wiser choice.

 

[icowden]

And it's always worth bearing in mind that this is a study mainly focussed on the 6000 odd riders in a 5 year period who ended up in hospital "with cycling-related major injuries" and for whom the admitting doctors recorded whether they happened to be helmeted. It doesn't talk about the 5000 odd admitted without that being recorded. Or about the several million riders who weren't admitted to hospital in that period.

Yes. Quite right that it doesn't include data which would not be helpful as it doesn't meet the criteria for the study. I think that's how most retrospective studies work. What is notable is that the data available which met the criteria of the study, does suggest that those cyclists wearing helmets generally fared better than those who did not.

Generally speaking medical studies do tend to find that some protection to the head is likely to reduce injuries to the head. On balance therefore I personally find that helmets do seem to be a good idea, even if they just help prevent the more minor injuries. I have yet to see or find any evidence that wearing a helmet contributes to worse outcomes. The one that gets waved about is that mandatory helmet wearing reduces cycling uptake. That study is quite old now however, and probably out of step with changing attitudes to cycling and safety.

 

[Mr Whyte]

I made sure I got a helmet when I got my bike the reason I will wear it is, just in case I fall off my bike as don`t fancy hitting my head on a curb again.

 

[GetFatty]

Is this thread still going on? I left CC for a couple of years I would have thought this would be over by now

 

[mjr]

I made sure I got a helmet when I got my bike the reason I will wear it is, just in case I fall off my bike as don`t fancy hitting my head on a curb again.

But you survived ok?

Why take extraordinary measures against one tiny risk? And what happens if you headbutt a pyramid-shape stone that no helmet is designed to protect against? Better to do whatever you can not to fall IMO.

 

[Drago]

I'm with I'd been wearing a helmet when I fell off my Raleigh Chopper in 1975. It might have saved me from breaking my pelvis.

 

[Milkfloat]

The one that gets waved about is that mandatory helmet wearing reduces cycling uptake. That study is quite old now however, and probably out of step with changing attitudes to cycling and safety.

Is Australia's experience not recent enough?

 

[Mr Whyte]

But you survived ok?

Why take extraordinary measures against one tiny risk? And what happens if you headbutt a pyramid-shape stone that no helmet is designed to protect against? Better to do whatever you can not to fall IMO.

I do agree, when I did fall off all those years ago I woke up in hospital with 25 stitches down the left hand side of my forehead.

 

[icowden]

But you survived ok?
Why take extraordinary measures against one tiny risk? And what happens if you headbutt a pyramid-shape stone that no helmet is designed to protect against? Better to do whatever you can not to fall IMO.

This could be phrased as:

Why not take basic measures against one tiny risk? It might offer some protection if you headbutt a pyramid-shape stone even though it isn't specifically designed to protect against that kind of injury. Better to do whatever you can not to fall IMO.

You see how reductive this line of argument is. Show us research that support your notion that wearing a helmet is somehow more damaging or risky that not wearing a helmet. Show us research based on modern recent cycling trends and injuries.

 

[MartinQ]

It's also worth reading the authors' caveat section carefully. It undermines the conclusion they choose to draw, and equally supports the conclusion that wearing a helmet is correlated with increased injury to parts of the body other than the head.

And it's always worth bearing in mind that this is a study mainly focussed on the 6000 odd riders in a 5 year period who ended up in hospital "with cycling-related major injuries" and for whom the admitting doctors recorded whether they happened to be helmeted. It doesn't talk about the 5000 odd admitted without that being recorded. Or about the several million riders who weren't admitted to hospital in that period.

That reminds me of the study reported in a maths book where they looked at the damage / bullet holes in returning aircraft during WWII. The largest concentration of damage was in the fuselage, so the obvious conclusion was to reinforce that area ... until someone pointed out the survey was being done on returning aircraft, not ones that had been shot down.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

That's why you won't find a single helmet manufacturer that will straight out and say that their product will, or is even likely to, protect you from injury, or reduce injury levels. Not a single one.

Correct.

Not even when a high profile sportsman claims that a helmet saved his life.

James Cracknell is convinced that’s what his did in 2010 and he has campaigned for helmets to be worn ever since. The strange thing is that, considering the enormous free publicity and celebrity endorsement which would surely bring increased sales, the makers of that helmet have never made, or supported, any such claim for their product. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Drago]

Is Australia's experience not recent enough?

Indeed. Australia's continuing low cycling numbers, not to mention Australia's cycling death rate continues to remain higher than before the legislation was introduced.

The lack of casualty reduction is beautifully illustrated by Australia having low uptake, near universal helmet wearing, and high casualties, particularly when compared with the Netherlands which has a high cycling uptake, relatively low cycling casualties, and very low number wearing helmets. The only sensible conclusion that the problem is a structural and cultural one in the way society treats and views cyclists and cycling, and wearing a helmet is no remedy to that.

 

[GetFatty]

This could be phrased as:



You see how reductive this line of argument is. Show us research that support your notion that wearing a helmet is somehow more damaging or risky that not wearing a helmet. Show us research based on modern recent cycling trends and injuries.

Why not show some evidence on how a helmet helps? The baseline is no helmet, to move from that requires an evidenced proposal

 

[srw]

That reminds me of the study reported in a maths book where they looked at the damage / bullet holes in returning aircraft during WWII. The largest concentration of damage was in the fuselage, so the obvious conclusion was to reinforce that area ... until someone pointed out the survey was being done on returning aircraft, not ones that had been shot down.

Even if we do accept the parallel, the logical deduction is that protecting the bit of the body that usually bears the scars (according to this study it's the head) isn't the most sensible idea.

In fact, of course, the number of cyclist deaths who never make it to hospital (the exact parallel of planes being shot down) is somewhere in the relatively low double-digits per year. It doesn't register in the statistics.

Millions upon millions of us ride every day without injury. Cycling is very safe.

Here's a reminder of an article I might have posted once or twice (or ten or twenty times) before...
https://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect&usg=AOvVaw0SxkzpPrSxBib08kORUquk

 

[Drago]

SRW is correct. Cycling is an inherently safe activity. Per billion journey miles 53 cyclists die. Compare that to 59 pedestrians, yet people don't usually feel the need to do PPE when going for a walk, despite it being the more dangerous activity.

While car drivers over all are far less likely to die than cyclists per journey mile, about 3 per billion, their chances of dying of a head injury are actually higher than those of a cyclist, yet how many pro helmet contributors to this thread merrily drive their cars with no protective head gear?

In terms of risk (ie, changces of it happening x the possible severity if it does happen) cycling death by head injury doesn't really rate, yet it gets all the attention while other far more prevalent forms of death are wilfully ignored.