The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[hatler]

Yes there’s a paper that shows you are more likely to end up in hospital with a head injury if you wear a helmet. There’s another paper than shows a helmeted head will make contact with the ground in 70% of cases where as without the helmet they’d be no impact. Plus the introduction MIPS clearly indicates that a problem has been found with helmets causing rotation injuries to the brain, during accidents..

Or, the marketeers are relying upon another bit of snake-oilery to sell their product.

 

[MontyVeda]

It's been tried by the Danes
View attachment 578813
This Danish campaign poster reads:

"A walking helmet is a good helmet"
"Traffic safety isn't just for cyclists. The pedestrians of Denmark actually have a higher risk of head injury. The Danish Road Safety Council recommends walking helmets for pedestrians and other good folk in high risk groups."

I've seen old ads for the motoring helmet (70s I guess) ...it obviously didn't take off. Laughed out of Halfords I expect.
They also had the Thudguard helmet for babies and toddlers... laughed out of Mothercare, I presume.

So we have the full set. A royal flush of helmets; walkerists, motorists, cyclists.

I trust those who claim to 'always wear a helmet, just in case' will have one of each?

 

[MontyVeda]

Yes there’s a paper that shows you are more likely to end up in hospital with a head injury if you wear a helmet. There’s another paper than shows a helmeted head will make contact with the ground in 70% of cases where as without the helmet they’d be no impact. Plus the introduction MIPS clearly indicates that a problem has been found with helmets causing rotation injuries to the brain, during accidents..

we need links to those papers

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Yes there’s a paper that shows you are more likely to end up in hospital with a head injury if you wear a helmet. There’s another paper than shows a helmeted head will make contact with the ground in 70% of cases where as without the helmet they’d be no impact. Plus the introduction MIPS clearly indicates that a problem has been found with helmets causing rotation injuries to the brain, during accidents..

Just for consistency - I think someone should ask for a link to that paper
please

BTW - I wear a helmet so my wife is happier when I go out riding - hence less worry at home and less problems when 'another parcel' turns up with bike stuff in it!!!

and when I fell off a few years ago I found a part of my helmet had a load of compressed polystyrene at the back/right hand side - which MAY have happened at the accident - for some reason a camera bike wasn't following me across the local park so I couldn't check the slow mo replay

 

[classic33]

I've seen old ads for the motoring helmet (70s I guess) ...it obviously didn't take off. Laughed out of Halfords I expect.
They also had the Thudguard helmet for babies and toddlers... laughed out of Mothercare, I presume.

So we have the full set. A royal flush of helmets; walkerists, motorists, cyclists.

I trust those who claim to 'always wear a helmet, just in case' will have one of each?

Motorists helmet, from Davies Craig in Australia.

https://colvilleandersen.medium.com/the-case-for-motorist-helmets-d1d6c4ae3ed2

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Just for consistency - I think someone should ask for a link to that paper
please

BTW - I wear a helmet so my wife is happier when I go out riding - hence less worry at home and less problems when 'another parcel' turns up with bike stuff in it!!!

and when I fell off a few years ago I found a part of my helmet had a load of compressed polystyrene at the back/right hand side - which MAY have happened at the accident - for some reason a camera bike wasn't following me across the local park so I couldn't check the slow mo replay

If you’ll search you’ll find them easy enough. It’s not just one paper by the way, about half a dozen.

 

[Profpointy]

we need links to those papers

the 70% more likely to hit your head point is simple geometry, so hardly needs a paper does it?

 

[MontyVeda]

the 70% more likely to hit your head point is simple geometry, so hardly needs a paper does it?

Geometry isn't my strong point. I'm also not the person who needs convincing.

If someone uses the results of a paper yet doesn't provide a link for those they're trying to convince... it's just someone saying stuff on the interweb, and is easily brushed to one side.

If they want to be more persuasive in the debate, then a link to the papers they're referring to would be beneficial.

 

[Rusty Nails]

the 70% more likely to hit your head point is simple geometry, so hardly needs a paper does it?

As someone not having done any research into this subject could you please explain the geometry to me please? Or a link to to the research paper?

 

[MontyVeda]

The only falling accident I have had which caused injury was in falling off my feet. I slipped on a mound with wet grass at an agricultural show and damaged my shoulder. I was not wearing a helmet.

I've got a scar on my forehead from being drunk and silly in someone's sitting room. I wasn't wearing a helmet either.

I still drink yet don't get that drunk anymore.

Drinking less seemed like a more sensible option than continuing to get stupidly p!ssed and donning a helmet in order to avoid more scars.

 

[Gunk]

BTW - I wear a helmet so my wife is happier when I go out riding - hence less worry at home and less problems when 'another parcel' turns up with bike stuff in it!!!

I have the same rationale, small price to pay.

 

[Arrowfoot]

View attachment 578824

I am surprised by cycling and walking sharing the same figure. Cycling per day per person is less common than walking or any other activities listed and should be negligible or close to zero. No sure about crime.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Yes there’s a paper that shows you are more likely to end up in hospital with a head injury if you wear a helmet. There’s another paper than shows a helmeted head will make contact with the ground in 70% of cases where as without the helmet they’d be no impact. Plus the introduction MIPS clearly indicates that a problem has been found with helmets causing rotation injuries to the brain, during accidents..

Any reason why motorcyclist wearing helmets is mandated by law pretty much around the world and they too should be prone to rotation injuries no different to cyclist with the exceptions of speeds at much higher level.

I read somewhere that helmets for cyclists are not mandated because most cycling is done at a leisurely space and head injuries are less severe. However it did not say that helmets were a hazard for cyclist hence not mandated.

I was trying to search for that article but could not find it. I do recall it was something to do with why Australia mandated it but we had not.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Any reason why motorcyclist wearing helmets is mandated by law pretty much around the world

Because they offer much greater protection than a cycle helmet and have been clearly proven to reduce deaths and injuries.

 

[icowden]

I was trying to search for that article but could not find it. I do recall it was something to do with why Australia mandated it but we had not.

Was it Mok et al, or Wasserman et al as below?

Adverse effects of helmets
Helmeted cyclists have been shown to be more likely to hit their heads if they crash and may be more likely to crash in the first place (Wasserman et al, 1988). The disproportionate number of helmet wearers who believe that a helmet has saved their life (see above) is further evidence that helmet use might adversely affect crash involvement or outcome.

Risk compensation by cyclists who wear helmets has been confirmed in research (Mok et al, 2004; Halliday, White, Finch and Ward, 1996). It is also reflected, where helmet use is voluntary, in the much higher levels of helmet wearing by cyclists riding on busy roads (Inwood, Whitley and Sexton, 2005).

This info can be found at https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
However in this article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941:-

5. Conclusions
Supporters of risk compensation argue against bicycle helmet wearing as they hypothesise the protective benefit is offset by risky behaviour. This systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature found little to no supportive evidence of the risk compensation hypothesis and bicycle helmet wearing. Although two out of the 23 studies were supportive of risk compensation, ten other studies found helmet wearing was associated with safer cycling behaviour

This paper however did not consider either Wasserman or Mok to be of sufficient interest (or quality?) to include in their peer review. They find that risk compensation does not make helmets more dangerous.

On closer look at Wasserman we find a number of flaws ( https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1162.html):-

• The actual number of cyclists hitting their heads was only 21, of whom just 7 suffered head injuries. These are very small numbers for comparison.
• The fact that helmeted cyclists were better educated and more likely to use seat belts was a source of bias between cases and controls.
• Self-report data, subject to bias.
• No data on injury severity.
• The number of cyclists using helmets was small.
• There was a very large proportion of students in the sample.
• Due to the small numbers involved, little weight can be put on this study.

If we look at Mok et al, we see that this is a paediatric study on general risk avoidance in children and is not specific to cycling. Halliday FInch White and Ward's study is also found to poor quality (https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1143.html).. I couldn't find this study on line to look at but the arguments on that link seem to be reasonable and are well argued.

In other words, we can all find studies to support either side of the argument. What is important is to find well regarded, peer reviewed studies involving large amounts of sample data, and the more recent the better as attitudes towards cycling have changed over time.