This helmet thing.

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby irc » 10 Dec 2015, 10:47pm

rmurphy195 wrote:Statistics statistics - here's one for you.
I started wearing a helmet when my children were younger, to set an example. Thier friends and cousins in turn copied them.
Out of the five of us 3 have escaped head injuries due to wearing a helmet. 2 have not - but they haven't been involved in accidents.
None of the accidents occurred when not wearing a helmet.


Stats! Now you're talking. I'll see your sample of 5 and raise you with UK wide cyclist and pedestrian fatalities.

1071-4.gif
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html
1071-4.gif (7.23 KiB) Viewed 437 times


From the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s while cycle helmet wearing rates increased cyclist fatalities did not decrease relative to non helmet wearing pedestrians. No protective effect in the stats.

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby drossall » 10 Dec 2015, 10:53pm

It's horrifying to think how many thousands of cyclists must have been dying from head injuries (on the basis of the number of injuries that are now saved) back when I started riding. And neither we cyclists nor the statisticians even noticed.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby TonyR » 10 Dec 2015, 11:58pm

irc wrote:From the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s while cycle helmet wearing rates increased cyclist fatalities did not decrease relative to non helmet wearing pedestrians. No protective effect in the stats.


The effect in New Zealand is even more dramatic
Image Attachments
ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1449791893.121573.jpg

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby TonyR » 11 Dec 2015, 12:02am

drossall wrote:It's horrifying to think how many thousands of cyclists must have been dying from head injuries (on the basis of the number of injuries that are now saved) back when I started riding. And neither we cyclists nor the statisticians even noticed.


Yes, horrifying to think on those statistics that 60% of the many millions of cyclists that don't wear a helmet have suffered head injuries. No wonder the NHS is at breaking point The wards must be stuffed to the ceilings with comatose cyclists. :wink:

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby pjclinch » 11 Dec 2015, 10:25am

TonyR wrote:
drossall wrote:It's horrifying to think how many thousands of cyclists must have been dying from head injuries (on the basis of the number of injuries that are now saved) back when I started riding. And neither we cyclists nor the statisticians even noticed.


Yes, horrifying to think on those statistics that 60% of the many millions of cyclists that don't wear a helmet have suffered head injuries. No wonder the NHS is at breaking point The wards must be stuffed to the ceilings with comatose cyclists. :wink:


No room for them since there are so many more patients with problems resulting from lack of exercise these days...
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 2704
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Vantage » 11 Dec 2015, 11:05am

I've got statistics too......

I've written off at least 3 helmets in my life. One was so badly mangled that to this day I still can't remember how I got home. Other helmets had smaller knocks and scratches. All the knocks and bumps happened with a lid on my head.

With the exception of the odd rainy day when I've worn it to help keep my head warm&dry I've spent the last 2 years or so helmet free. Not one single knock or bump has come my way.

In conclusion, helmets make me top heavy and more likely to make me lose my balance, fall off and suffer brain damage. There you have it.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48256
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Mick F » 11 Dec 2015, 11:16am

Sarcasm aside, it is self evident if one thinks about it, that millions of cyclists (in this country alone) never ever wore a helmet. They rode to and from work on them all their working lives and people have cycle-toured the length and breadth of the country since bicycles were first invented.

MILLIONS of them.

I first wore a helmet in 2004. I last wore one in July of this year. I very much doubt I shall wear one again.
Mick F. Cornwall

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby TonyR » 11 Dec 2015, 2:07pm

Vantage wrote:I've got statistics too......

I've written off at least 3 helmets in my life. One was so badly mangled that to this day I still can't remember how I got home. Other helmets had smaller knocks and scratches. All the knocks and bumps happened with a lid on my head.

With the exception of the odd rainy day when I've worn it to help keep my head warm&dry I've spent the last 2 years or so helmet free. Not one single knock or bump has come my way.

In conclusion, helmets make me top heavy and more likely to make me lose my balance, fall off and suffer brain damage. There you have it.


I think we need a new category of "helmet saved my life" stories. Where the helmet saved your life by staying at home and not being worn. :wink:

There could be something really interesting going on here. There was that (in)famous bit of research by two Scottish statisticians, Cook and Sheikh, that claimed that every helmet worn protected two people [1]. Now I had always assumed I was being protected by someone else wearing a helmet. But what if it turned out they didn't need to actually wear it for it to have its effect? If that were true all you'd need to do is have a helmet and leave it at home for it to work its telekinetic wonders. I feel and IgNobel prize coming on. :wink:

[1] http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content ... prev_el_59

kwackers
Posts: 14379
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby kwackers » 11 Dec 2015, 2:39pm

TonyR wrote: But what if it turned out they didn't need to actually wear it for it to have its effect? If that were true all you'd need to do is have a helmet and leave it at home for it to work its telekinetic wonders. I feel and IgNobel prize coming on. :wink:

Have you ever worn an helmet - even just tried one on?
If so then it's homoeopathy at work. Your head is more protected than you can ever imagine...

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby pjclinch » 11 Dec 2015, 2:40pm

TonyR wrote:I think we need a new category of "helmet saved my life" stories. Where the helmet saved your life by staying at home and not being worn. :wink:


Some years ago I was cycling along Glen Affric to a hut where I was due to spend the weekend. Being some years ago it was before Serious Lights were widely or easily available, and since I was only set up for urban night time riding I had rather pathetic lights which I turned off as not helping (the front beam would illuminate a few wee rocks in front of me that I got in to more trouble trying to avoid than just letting big knobblies roll over them), but despite being late at night it was midsummer so I could sort of see where I was going by the contrast between the pale path and the dark heather. On one part of the trip there was quite a descent so I started going faster, which meant looking further ahead in to the gloom, but there was a problem: I had quite a big rucksack on, and the raised top pocket against my helmet meant I couldn't raise my head far enough. I decided the accident prevention possibilities of being able to see slightly less vaguely where I was going were greater than wearing a helmet, so I reluctantly braked to a stop and took it off, and then set off again. Almost immediately I came upon a gate across the track high enough to prevent deer jumping it that had I not stopped to remove the helmet I'd have hit at some speed as it was invisible until I was practically on top of it.

So stopping to take my helmet off saved... well, not necessarily my life, but it would not have been any fun for all sorts of bits of my body.

(Any suggestion that I would have been better off with decent lights or just proceeding slowly when I couldn't really see what was in front of me would, of course, entirely miss the importance of stopping to take a helmet off being the really fundamental safety point)

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby pjclinch » 11 Dec 2015, 2:52pm

kwackers wrote:Have you ever worn an helmet - even just tried one on?
If so then it's homoeopathy at work. Your head is more protected than you can ever imagine...


Let's apply some (pseudo)science to this...

You need something that causes a "like" problem, say a brick to the head. Now dilute the brick down to infinitesimal levels of brickiness and wash your hair with it (or if you're like me, wet your head with it). That'll do it!

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Vorpal » 11 Dec 2015, 2:57pm

pjclinch wrote:Some years ago I was cycling along Glen Affric to a hut where I was due to spend the weekend. Being some years ago it was before Serious Lights were widely or easily available, and since I was only set up for urban night time riding I had rather pathetic lights which I turned off as not helping (the front beam would illuminate a few wee rocks in front of me that I got in to more trouble trying to avoid than just letting big knobblies roll over them), but despite being late at night it was midsummer so I could sort of see where I was going by the contrast between the pale path and the dark heather. On one part of the trip there was quite a descent so I started going faster, which meant looking further ahead in to the gloom, but there was a problem: I had quite a big rucksack on, and the raised top pocket against my helmet meant I couldn't raise my head far enough. I decided the accident prevention possibilities of being able to see slightly less vaguely where I was going were greater than wearing a helmet, so I reluctantly braked to a stop and took it off, and then set off again. Almost immediately I came upon a gate across the track high enough to prevent deer jumping it that had I not stopped to remove the helmet I'd have hit at some speed as it was invisible until I was practically on top of it.

So stopping to take my helmet off saved... well, not necessarily my life, but it would not have been any fun for all sorts of bits of my body.

(Any suggestion that I would have been better off with decent lights or just proceeding slowly when I couldn't really see what was in front of me would, of course, entirely miss the importance of stopping to take a helmet off being the really fundamental safety point)

Or not wearing a rucksack.... :wink:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Tonyf33 » 11 Dec 2015, 4:36pm

Many a time back in the day soldiers would remove their helmets stating they were cumbersome, made them bump into stuff they wouldn't ordinarily and were distractive (always having to adjust for comfort, get in your eyeline, restrict being able to shoot in certain positions, make your head hot etc).
Soldiers would also take more risks with them than without despite the fact that they were pretty useless at stopping anything except a low velocity bit of shrapnel (why they were introduced in WWI) which might not penetrate the skull as much or just embed in the metal at that speed as opposed to just going straight through at a higher velocity or a round that might glance off the side, that the round might actually have missed (albeit very closely) altogether often seems to be not thought about.
Additionally when the steel helmet was introduced in WWI they found a massive increase in head injury rates and a reduction in outright deaths, however in a battlefield scenario the cost of an injury far outweighs the cost of a dead soldier, it takes far more resources to retrieve and treat an injured soldier than it does a dead one.
However helmets past and present are rarely able to prevent death from heavier stuff such as artillery or tank fire nor high calibre/multiple shot weapons as it's just not the head that is effected.
Cycle helmets similarly to those helmets worn in the military are good for the low velocity stuff, however unlike being in a military conflict environ cycling doesn't have anything like the chances of head injury (327,299 TBI injuries suffered in US army 2000-2015 https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf )

User avatar
Heltor Chasca
Posts: 3016
Joined: 30 Aug 2014, 8:18pm
Location: Near Bath & The Mendips in Somerset

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Heltor Chasca » 11 Dec 2015, 5:08pm

I get what Tonyf33 is saying. I use a Stihl forestry helmet at work when using a strimmer or a chainsaw. It's mainly the visor which keeps crud out of your face and eyes. And my hair because I'm worth it. It's also to save your noggin from falling branches which hasn't happened yet. But I'm ALWAYS hitting my head under low things. I just don't have any spacial awareness when I'm wearing it. I've had two neck injuries when wearing it: once from braining myself on the underside of a treehouse and once on a peach tree.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48256
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Mick F » 11 Dec 2015, 5:11pm

Tonyf33 wrote:Additionally when the steel helmet was introduced in WWI they found a massive increase in head injury rates and a reduction in outright deaths, however in a battlefield scenario the cost of an injury far outweighs the cost of a dead soldier, it takes far more resources to retrieve and treat an injured soldier than it does a dead one.
This is another reason NOT to wear a cycle helmet?

Not wearing one gets me killed outright (cheap).
Wearing one gives me head injuries (expensive).
Mick F. Cornwall