Only just looked at this thread, I'm not going back hundreds of pages so I hope I'm not repeating what's already been said. I wear a helmet but if I hit my head hard enough to smash my skull I don't really expect it to save me. If I have a low speed low energy spill and bang my head. I hope it would be the difference between a bump and needing a trip to A&E.
The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread
- Thread starter Shaun
- Start date
-
- Tags
- helmet helmet debate
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
A cycling cap or beanie would have prevented that or indeed just being more aware of your head when coming off or indeed changing your cycling so you don’t come off in the first place.
lazybloke
Considering a new username
- Location
- Leafy Surrey
The abstract states that helmets are effective in reducing 'severe traumatic brain injury' but also says "There was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison to the un-helmeted group (all p<0.001), "
This sounds a littler counter intuitive. The helmets do protect the brain? But encourage riders to go faster, resulting in other injuries?
I guess I'll have to read the entire article, when I'm not so tired
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
Take the bike out of the equation and ask yourself, Would you wear a helmet to protect your head?
The unlikely event of sustaining a head injury is not restricted to cycling or working on a construction site.
sp why bother on a motor bike? or while rock c;limbing, or doing extreme sport, or moto gp. the question is whether you would wear a helmet to protect your head when undertaking an activity that has a higher risk. balancing on 2 wheels at 10 to 20mph is inherently risky.
Interestignly even Australia is now finding that helmets are a good idea:-
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds
classic33
Leg End Member
I got another hole in the head, last month, whilst inside at home. A few years ago, I cracked the skull whilst sat at a bus stop.
Where do you draw the line?
Oddly I've only been in one collision whilst wearing a helmet. Despite what one person has said about helmet wearers having more crashes, simply because we wear one.
Brandane
Legendary Member
- Location
- Costa Clyde
1. It's the law.
2. Motorcycle helmets comply with BS6658, far, far, more protection than the flimsy cycle helmet tested (to EN1078) for impacts of up to 20kph (12.4mph).
I am a motorcyclist as well as a cyclist. I wear a motorcycle helmet for the above reasons. I have some faith in the protective qualities of a motorbike helmet when compared to a cycle helmet. I do occasionally wear a cycle helmet (MTB'ing, or events where one is compulsory - which boils my piss but that's another matter). I trust a cycle helmet to protect me from minor bumps and altercations with low hanging tree branches and the like, but all this nonsense about preventing brain injuries (as opposed to head injuries), saving lives, and offering protection in the event of a collision with a car travelling at any speed are just nonsensical. I've come off a bike more times than I can remember without a helmet and injured hands, arms, ribs, legs, and hips. NEVER my head, even after going over the bars. The natural reaction is to stick out your hands and arms to protect the head, and I reckon hands/arms offer a lot more protection than a thin layer of foam and plastic.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
You're missing the point.
The majority of severe head injuries are caused by falls; tripping over a rug, tumbling off a curb, falling on steps, etc. Assaults are also a far more common cause of serious head injuries than extreme sports, rock climbing or riding a bike.
The stats strongly suggest that we're more at risk from a head injury when we're not doing something perceived as risky. Accidents just happen, so... would you wear a helmet to protect your head?
I'm not. Also you forgot to link to the research that backs up your claim. Which stats do you refer to?
matticus
Guru
I understand - but a few years back i went to A&E for stitches in my head, and my forehead was healed up a few weeks later. My teeth, less so; there is the potential to damage lots of body-parts in an RTA, worrying about your scalp is just vanity :P (this was a SMIDSY - I had no control over the crash, how I landed etc etc)
(crashed my car 20 years ago - no head injury, but 3 days induced coma and 9 weeks on crutches. Life is risky.)
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
there's plenty if you care to look... here's one
TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury
RTC = Road Traffic Collision
I'm presuming that a car colliding with a cyclist or pedestrian will fall under RTC, and cycling accidents that don't involve a motor vehicle will fall under 'other'.
source.
classic33
Leg End Member
I've cracked my skull at least twice this year. One I was sat on a chair, last point remembered, and first thing remembered along with two people in green asking questions. The last time, sat on the floor.
The first involved a trip to A&E, where the damage was confirmed. The second left a crack that can be felt, but no A&E trip. Are people seriously suggesting that helmets/protective headwear be worn in the house?
@MontyVeda, the local police don't classify all collisions on the road, involving a bicycle and motor vehicle as RTC's. Meaning figures/stats can be skewed.
The first involved a trip to A&E, where the damage was confirmed. The second left a crack that can be felt, but no A&E trip. Are people seriously suggesting that helmets/protective headwear be worn in the house?
@MontyVeda, the local police don't classify all collisions on the road, involving a bicycle and motor vehicle as RTC's. Meaning figures/stats can be skewed.
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
lazybloke
Considering a new username
- Location
- Leafy Surrey
OK, so you said:-
To support this argument you posted research into traumatic brain injury. Let's take a closer look. Firstly the falls data. The incidence of falls correlates to the age of the person falling. The older you are, the more likely you are to sustain a brain injury. For anyone under 50, the data is fairly evenly divided between RTCs and all falls.
In fact the research itself states in the opening:-
So the research you are using to back up your assertion, doesn't actually support what you said. It doesn't break down into they type of RTC, who is involved and what types of vehicle were involved. The "Falls" part of the data includes falls from height which presumably therefore includes extreme sports, and rock climbing.
Finally you made a presumption about the data which wasn't made in the audit. You also only support your argument in respect of severe brain injury. This data therefore specifically excludes anyone who did not sustain a severe brain injury as they had protected their head. So by definition, if cycle helmets *did* provide the ultimate protection against severe brain injury, it would still be the case that "The majority of severe head injuries are caused by falls; tripping over a rug, tumbling off a curb, falling on steps, etc" but it wouldn't be an argument that cycle helmets are not effective.
So the posted data would seem to support that risky behaviour such as driving a vehicle (RTC) and falls from a height are a significant factor in severe head injury rather than the opposite.
