The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Steve T]

Most cycle helmets are not designed or tested for colliding with other vehicles. Is yours different or was any protection probably a fluke?

Obviously not being a cycle helmet expert I can't comment other than to say I'm glad I was wearing it mjr, if it was a fluke it was a happy fluke for me. I'll let others decide whether a helmet is a good safety device or not. I'm attaching a picture of the helmet after the accident as requested by ozboz.

 

[ozboz]

Obviously not being a cycle helmet expert I can't comment other than to say I'm glad I was wearing it mjr, if it was a fluke it was a happy fluke for me. I'll let others decide whether a helmet is a good safety device or not. I'm attaching a picture of the helmet after the accident as requested by ozboz. View attachment 465090

Well it would appear that the helmet saved you from at least a very nasty head wound , I’m no expert either on helmets , I m thinking of buying the new trek helmet ,

 

[mjr]

This is from https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/survey-says-roads-feel-too-dangerous-for-cycling.248949/ where I dared suggest that a survey of a group of cyclists where 96% use helmets might not be representative of UK cyclists (last official stat was 36% usage and I think it's fallen):

Given that all children are encouraged to wear helmets have have been for some years now, it would make sense that helmet wearing has increased as those children become adults.

1. But a 266% increase in helmet usage in about a decade? I think that's not credible. Even if all children had swallowed the encouragement and continued, that would still only explain at most a 50ish% increase (based on my recollection of demographics), not a 266% one.
2. And anyway, I think the zealots forcing children to wear helmets in school training lessons and similar has backfired because teenagers ditch them as soon as they're able, possibly because it's made cycling ordinarily - that is, without a childish helmet - into another small sign of adulthood.

Most people I see wear helmets,

I wonder where you're looking. BC clubs?

and regardless of the debate on the semantics of safety, it just feels right that to have some sort of cushioning in between your head and a hard object is going to be helpful

There's loads of things that "just feel right" which are actually more dangerous than doing nothing. Cycling helmets could be another electric socket child safety cover.

(a good example is the chap mown down in central London who sustained a head injury but was wearing a helmet, without which is injury would likely have been much worse)..

I've no idea what example you're referring to, but we'll never know whether it would have been worse or not (no way to test it), helmets aren't designed for colliding with other vehicles and by the time you've been "mown down", you've basically lost already and are appealing to flukes to save you - that's not a good way to evaluate safety measures. We need to look at the effect of helmet usage on casualty rates on the whole and there is basically no effect.

 

[icowden]

Most cycle helmets are not designed or tested for colliding with other vehicles. Is yours different or was any protection probably a fluke?

Your question doesn't derive from your statement. A Compact Disk isn't designed or tested for holding coffee cups, but it will still protect a table from scratches and stains more than not using one.

I agree with you that it is unclear whether helmets help or not when factors such as the likelihood of having an accident are factored in and that overall there is an argument that in some respects a helmet could be considered to be more dangerous in terms of motorists behaviour and risk behaviour, not to mention design flaws, but there does seem to be evidence from medical research which supports the notion that if you are knocked off a bike a helmet is more likely to prevent a serious head injury and or damage to the face, bones etc than if you are not wearing one. Had I been wearing one when I went over the handlebars of my bike for example, it is likely that I would not have fractured my nose as the front of the helmet would have prevented my conk from kissing the concrete.

Steve's man vs vehicle altercation would seem to support that notion. Clearly the protection provided by the helmet was not a fluke. It got in the way of the head. Yes the head might have passed over the vehicle had the helmet not been worn, but looking at the dent, I'd say not.

 

[ozboz]

The damage to @SteveT ‘s helmet looks very light in comparison to the car damage as seems evident from both photos ,the car came worse off it would appear , it also reveals that the helmet possibly saved SteveT from a probable nasty head wound especially around the temple are of his bonce , to my knowledge , impact of force around this area can be very serious ,
Fluke ....luck ....... in this instance the helmet did its job and SteveT is all the better for it

 

[srw]

there does seem to be evidence from medical research which supports the notion that if you are knocked off a bike a helmet is more likely to prevent a serious head injury and or damage to the face, bones etc than if you are not wearing one

Really? I'd like to see it. Especially pertaining to the face, where most helmets don't reach.

 

[srw]

Had I been wearing one when I went over the handlebars of my bike for example, it is likely that I would not have fractured my nose as the front of the helmet would have prevented my conk from kissing the concrete.

Really? That feels a bold statement given the laws of conservation of momentum.

 

[srw]

The damage to @SteveT ‘s helmet looks very light in comparison to the car damage as seems evident from both photos ,the car came worse off it would appear , it also reveals that the helmet possibly saved SteveT from a probable nasty head wound especially around the temple are of his bonce

Really? Those two sentences appear inconsistent.

If the car was damaged more than expected and the helmet less than expected it seems that the logical deduction is that the car would have been damaged even without the helmet, and that the skull and scalp would have been damaged as lightly as the helmet.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
there does seem to be evidence from medical research which supports the notion that if you are knocked off a bike a helmet is more likely to prevent a serious head injury and or damage to the face, bones etc than if you are not wearing one.
...

if we remove the mode of transport from your statement, we've got a really good reason for us all to wear ped-helmets and force our kids to wear play-helmets... dang... we may as well just don a lid when we get out of bed... those kitchen wall unit doors are out to get me.

 

[ozboz]

Really? Those two sentences appear inconsistent.

If the car was damaged more than expected and the helmet less than expected it seems that the logical deduction is that the car would have been damaged even without the helmet, and that the skull and scalp would have been damaged as lightly as the helmet.

Is that right , but no one will ever know because he was wearing it , and I’m glad that nothing more than his helmet was damaged ,
It may be logical to you , so no doubt your opinion is absolute ?

 

[snorri]

but there does seem to be evidence from medical research which supports the notion that if you are knocked off a bike a helmet is more likely to prevent a serious head injury .

A reference to this evidence would be helpful as it contradicts previous evidence, as quoted below from cyclehelmets.org

'Helmets provide best protection in situations involving simple, low-speed falls with no other party involved. They are unlikely to offer adequate protection in life-threatening situations.'

 

[classic33]

Can any one say why the old style "hairnet" helmet is considered more than adequate for protecting the skull?

This in cases where the head is receiving repeated blunt trauma impacts. Medical opinion is very firmly set and backed up that they do.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Can any one say why the old style "hairnet" helmet is considered more than adequate for protecting the skull?

This in cases where the head is receiving repeated blunt trauma impacts. Medical opinion is very firmly set and backed up that they do.

Who considers it more than adequate and in what circumstances?

I haven't seen one on a cyclist for decades and the only time I've seen one since was being worn by a teenager in a wheelchair, so presumably it was for incidents of him falling over, either while in the chair or getting in/out of it. It may well be adequate in those circumstances but unlikely to be of any use in a collision with a motor vehicle.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Who considers it more than adequate and in what circumstances?

@classic33 I couldn't edit my post to say that the above isn't a challenge for evidence etc., it's a genuine query as I've never heard that to be the case.

 

[classic33]

Repeated blunt impact trauma. Normally in a fit/siezure/episode/call it what you want.

Neurologists. They are slowly moving onto more modern helmets as first choice.