How many of you always wear a helmet?

[steve climpson]

Why would I want any helmet? I'm prepared to accept they mitigate head injuries from modest impact to the top of the head, that's beyond question. It has nothing to say about the rest of the head or body or the wider impact of helmet wearing on cyclists or attitudes of those they share the road with.

Isn't that all any cycle helmet is designed for? To mitigate upper head injuries in a modest impact - say falling off at normal speed and striking the road with your head. Surely this is the most common accident.
They will not help protect most of your face or body but that can all be repaired. Brain damage is very difficult to repair, severe brain damage AFAIK impossible to repair.
As for car drivers, sure they need to be better but in any given minor accident caused by a car (eg. forcing you onto the verge) just who is going to come off worst? For that reason alone it's worth wearing a helmet.

Of course I'm not talking about a car hitting you - for that accident no helmet will make much difference.

[pigman]

the glossy outer surface is designed to allow the head to slide rather than stop abruptly

The glossy outer surface is there for cosmetic reasons

No, it's not cosmetic, it's functional. Motorcycle helmets have a slippery shell for the same reason.

Ben

A bit of both chaps! Its there so that in the event of an accident, the outer shell holds the pieces together so that they dont leave your head. The first "modern" helmets had a lycra cover for this reason. these days a glossy outer skin is provided so that its easily wiped clean and allows the manufacturers to show off their colours and logos.

Im also amazed at the view that a broken helmet "must have saved my life - just think if that was my skull". Just because a helmet has split, doesnt mean your head would have done the same. The poly helmet is designed to break and act as a sort of crumple zone, so that your head feels little. If the helmet was made to hold together under whatever impact, then the trauma would be far more severe. A few years ago, I was a passenger in a small hatchback that was shunted from behind. We felt very little, yet the spare wheel cavity was crushed. Had the back of the car remained intact, we'd have suffered whiplash etc. Same argument with the broken helmet scenario.

[Ben Lovejoy]

the glossy outer surface is designed to allow the head to slide rather than stop abruptly

The glossy outer surface is there for cosmetic reasons

No, it's not cosmetic, it's functional. Motorcycle helmets have a slippery shell for the same reason.

A bit of both chaps! Its there so that in the event of an accident, the outer shell holds the pieces together so that they dont leave your head.

A shell is there for that reason, but the shell is slippery to allow it to slide.

Im also amazed at the view that a broken helmet "must have saved my life - just think if that was my skull". Just because a helmet has split, doesnt mean your head would have done the same.

Indeed, splitting of the plastic shell means little or nothing. However, crushing of the polystyrene means that the helmet absorbed some of the forces that would otherwise have been absorbed by your brain hitting the inside of your skull.

Ben

[glueman]

Isn't that all any cycle helmet is designed for? To mitigate upper head injuries in a modest impact

Indeed. They shouldn't be sold or perceived as a general panacea for road safety, by riders or motorists. Unfortunately they've come to be seen as a moral issue and wearer's siding with the angels by hospital staff and police. How many times are the owners of broken arms and collar bones asked, 'were you wearing a helmet'.
They've become the new Saint Christoper medal, a way of warding off bad luck with attributes way beyond their efficacy.

[thirdcrank]

Yes. I would add that it is the evangelism of pro-helmeteers that some of us find so worrying.

[Ben Lovejoy]

Yes. I would add that it is the evangelism of pro-helmeteers that some of us find so worrying.

This is the problem: the debate has become almost a religious one. Pro-helmeteers are prone to exaggerating the benefits, and anti-helmeteers to being overly-dismissive of them. The lack of objective evidence means that it is difficult to tackle either.

Ben

[swansonj]

I posted my initial contribution somewhere around page 4 but reading the increasingly acrimonious subsequent dozen pages has actually helped me clarify my thinking as to why I do wear a helmet.

The evidence suggests helmets may well make it more likely a car will hit you but that if you do come off the helmet will absorb some energy and therefore reduce the brain damage. Which of those is the larger effect? Well, in twenty years cycling, I have been hit by a car twice (neither resulting in any injury, both were glancing impacts) and I've come off because of my own fault five times. More significantly, for four years now I've been commuting 20 miles round trip two or three times a week on A roads through south London rush hour; and in that time, through consciously choosing my own riding style, I don't feel I've ever come close to being knocked off by a car; but I have come off once again through my own fault (my broken femur is coming along quite nicely, thanks!)

So for me, the biggest risk seems to be myself rather than motorists and therefore I deduce the positive effect of some energy absorption when I come off almost certainly outweighs the negative effect of increasing collision risk. So I'll wear a helmet (plus, as others have said, it keeps the wife happy). But if I thought I was at a bigger risk of being hit by a car - or if I found the helmet unpleasantly hot - or I was convinced the increased risk of rotational injury to the brain outweighed the energy absorption - I might not wear one.

Of course, risk compensation works for the cyclist as well as the motorist - most of us acknowledge that we ride more cautiously if we forget our helmet (if we're a helmet wearer to start with) or if we know our brakes aren't very well adjusted - and I can't quantify that effect. But I suspect that once you've broken a bone, that tends to dominate your decision about how fast to go...

John

[ianr1950]

I agree with Ben that there are as many vigorous pro helmet as there are anti helmet and then there are those in the middle who just think whatever.

I don't think that whether you are wearing a helmet or not has any influence whatsoever on how motorists perceive you and whether they react in an agressive way or not towards you.

I wear one as I have to when I race so I just use it all the time, and I can't tell whether I have got it on or not.

The only other thing I can say about the wearing of them is that if you do so, at least wear it correctly and not have it perched on the back of the head as many seem to do.

[hubgearfreak]

Yes, and didn't find it convincing for reasons already discussed in the thread.Ben

i did type earlier that of course it would be good for the study to be extended for many more cities and many more overtakings.

I don't personally believe that a helmet makes any measurable difference

whether you find it convincing or not and with all due respect, i give it more weight than your personal belief.

[andrew_s]

I don't wear one, as I regard them as being of minimal effectiveness overall, and I consider that wearing one is a de facto vote for compulsion.

Witness the response of the government to a "no compulsion" petition at
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15021.asp

The Government does not have any plans to introduce mandatory helmet laws for pedal cyclists. However, we believe that it is sensible for cyclists, and especially children, to protect themselves by wearing a cycle helmet. A review commissioned by the Department for Transport (Road Safety Research Report No. 30, 2002) concluded that overall there is evidence that bicycle helmets can be effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injuries and that they can be effective in reducing injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children.

The report also found that compulsory helmet wearing may have discouraged some people from cycling, leading to decreased bicycle use. In particular, it found that in the state of Victoria, Australia, immediately following the introduction of helmet legislation, cycling levels fell amongst children and particularly amongst teenagers, though cycling levels amongst adults increased marginally. In Western Australia, participation in cycling remained steady for most groups, but fell for primary school children and recreational cyclists. In South Australia there was a significant reduction in children cycling. In Ontario, Canada, there was no effect on cycling rates.

The DfT is planning to commission a new research project on cyclists' road safety soon. This will include an updated review of cycle helmet effectiveness. The research project as a whole is likely to be 3 years in duration, but an interim report on cycle helmets should be published by summer 2009.

The DfT measures wearing rates periodically, most recently in 2006. The 2006 wearing rate survey shows that cycle helmet rates have gone up from 28% in 2004 to 31% on major built up roads and from 10% to 14% on minor roads. The wearing rate for children on major roads increased from 14% to 18% and on minor roads from 6% to 9%. Whilst compulsion remains an option that will be reviewed from time to time, at these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling.

However, the Government believes it would be irresponsible not to promote a product that can reduce injuries and continues to promote helmet wearing on a voluntary basis, especially by children.

[Ben Lovejoy]

whether you find it convincing or not and with all due respect, i give it more weight than your personal belief.

And that being the case, it would be logical for you not to wear a helmet. Just as it is logical for me to wear one.

So, what else shall we talk about?

Ben

[Ben Lovejoy]

Oh, and the govt report referred to above can be found here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... effect4726
or http://tinyurl.com/2lbprz

Excerpt:

"In terms of tone, the bicycle helmet debate can best be described as sour and tetchy. Neither side seems willing to concede that there can be alternative points of view. Both sides can descend into language that reflects little credit for either, for instance, expressions such as irresponsible zealots who oppose legislation find their counterpart in helmet advocates dismissed as do gooders and mandarins of health promotion. This can be disappointing for those seeking enlightenment from the debate."

Sound familiar?

Ben

[Sares]

Stoobs, to answer your question about Walker's paper from several pages back, about the correlation being 15% better than chance, I think it's likely that there is some effect of risk compensation by drivers at work, although other factors mean that it is not that strong on its own. I've looked through his CV online- he teaches mainly stats, so I'm satisfied that he probably understands statistics well enough to make statistically based statements. I'd be more surprised to see no risk compensation here, as that is a topic I've been looking at quite a bit for work, and this is a good example of where it would be expected to occur to a moderate degree. Moderate because it is easily perceived to enhance safety, but the user cannot practise using it and gradually adapt their behaviour to its performance (like they could with anti-lock brakes).

Whether the effect of wearing the helmet on risk compensation outweighs the benefit of wearing one or vice versa, I really don't know. Most collisions occur at junctions, not while being overtaken, so maybe the effect of the helmet on risk from drivers is very small. But cyclist behaviour could also be more risky with a helmet on, so then that could (and I'm sure would, for some people) outweigh the helmet protection.

Finally, the effect of helmet wearing being seen as necessary, but often undesirable/uncomfortable may well cut down on people cycling at all. Does safety in numbers without helmets outweigh the protection from helmets????

[bovlomov]

It's a scientific FACT that Adam and Eve ruined us all, for the sake of an apple. One of the repercussions of their greed was that we are now burdened with the responsibility of FREE WILL.

It's really a damned nuisance, as most of us would prefer somebody else to make decisions on our behalf- but there it is!

[hubgearfreak]

So, what else shall we talk about? Ben

nothing really, regarding helmets. we are just about unanimously in agreement with the CTCs standpoint, that it's for the individual to choose.

to call for them to be banned would be as mad as to call for compulsion