John Humpheys

[Cunobelin]

Research from the Netherlands is interesting...

The use of cycle helmets is 1% yet when it comes to hospital admissions, 13% of admissions were wearing a helmet.

Statistically helmet wearers are at far greater risk if this evidence is correct.

Far from improving safety it would appear that helmets have an adverse effect

[kwackers]

I've come off twice due to cars and I went almost immediately from upright to staring at the sky. There was certainly no way I could control the crash.

Consciously, no. But as you fall you will automatically try to keep your head off the floor*. Falling onto your back your instinct is to lift your head away from the ground. Wearing a helmet the extra size would make it nearly impossible in such a position to prevent it hitting the floor, throw in the extra mass and it's a dead cert.
I've fallen and ended up in similar positions (not from a bike though) and my head has never hit the deck, with a helmet on I think it would.

If we accept the helmet increases the chances of your head hitting the floor then one problem is that if when it hits the floor you're still travelling the helmet will dig in and start to rotate. In contrast without one skin would simply tear from the skull and there'd be no rotation. This sudden rotation can cause serious brain injury - an injury that wouldn't have occurred if you hadn't been wearing it.

Helmets aren't tested for rotational injuries, the testing they undergo makes an assumption that you'll simply 'bang' your head and of course this is where the 'common sense' argument pops up since if you were going to hit your head on something pretty much everyone would want a helmet on.

As I've said before helmets are good for the right sort of accidents. We can't decide in advance what type of accident we'll have but we can determine the likelihood based on how and where we ride and that fundamentally is why I think the choice should be up to the individual.


*As you get older you lose this ability. In theory OAP's should wear helmets as a matter of course for all activities...

[RickH]

Research from the Netherlands is interesting...

The use of cycle helmets is 1% yet when it comes to hospital admissions, 13% of admissions were wearing a helmet.

Statistically helmet wearers are at far greater risk if this evidence is correct.

Far from improving safety it would appear that helmets have an adverse effect

I would argue that it is probably the type of riding that the helmeted riders are doing - racing, mountainbiking (not that there are many mountains ), etc. - rather than the actual wearing of helmets per se.

Rick.

[kwackers]

I would argue that it is probably the type of riding that the helmeted riders are doing - racing, mountainbiking (not that there are many mountains ), etc. - rather than the actual wearing of helmets per se.

Rick.

Exactly. And if (when) I was ever racing or mtb'ing I'd wear a helmet. But nipping to the shops for a bag of sugar? I don't think so.

[Cunobelin]

You are both right - that is the finding of the research, that helmeted riders are the ones you describe.

[Graham O]

Consciously, no. ...... etc

*As you get older you lose this ability. In theory OAP's should wear helmets as a matter of course for all activities...

Sorry, I'm not convinced. I think that for you to be able to lift your head and prevent contact with the ground would be another case of "having the right sort of accident" And the same with the rotational injury scenario. It would be interesting to see how the probability of having a helmet wearing right sort of accident compares with the non helmet wearing right sort of accident.

[kwackers]

Consciously, no. ...... etc

*As you get older you lose this ability. In theory OAP's should wear helmets as a matter of course for all activities...

Sorry, I'm not convinced. I think that for you to be able to lift your head and prevent contact with the ground would be another case of "having the right sort of accident" And the same with the rotational injury scenario. It would be interesting to see how the probability of having a helmet wearing right sort of accident compares with the non helmet wearing right sort of accident.

Not convinced of what?
You seem to agree with me that the possibilities exist (or have I read your reply wrong?)

My first point is that there are different types of accidents, some of which helmets make worse and some they make better.
My second point is that the added weight and size of an helmet must make it easier for it to collide with something.
Finally the third point is that we attempt to protect our heads when falling and will try to keep them from hitting things, usually by automatically adopting a pose and using our limbs.
None of those three points is as far as I can see in any way contentious.

In the first case we know how bad rotational trauma is and we know that cyclists and motorcyclists are much more likely to suffer it than pedestrians. Even helmet manufacturers/testers state the product hasn't been tested for it's effect on rotation, presumably to reduce the chance of them being sued when someone gets brain damage as a result of wearing one.

The second is a simple case of physics.

And the third is just normal human behaviour which has been well observed and documented for millennia.

However how much they contribute isn't something I know, nor as far as I'm aware do we attempt to figure it out. A start would be to check injured cyclists with and without helmets for indications of rotational trauma. Rotational trauma is much more significant in cyclists / motorcyclists than pretty much any other group. Pedestrians simply aren't fast enough! It also requires mechanical advantage to inflict, something that is difficult to obtain unless your head is strapped to something that can suddenly rotate...

What we do know however is that overall helmets make no statistically significant difference and so it's not unreasonable to put the above forward as one (of many) possible mechanisms.

[Graham O]

I'm just not convinced that in an accident, one would be able to protect ones head on first contact.

[meic]

I am pretty sure that everyone can not manage every time but I personally have managed every time as a child on a cycle and as a man on a motorbike. I have easily lost count of the number of crashes that I have had and some at very high speed but I have always kept my head off the deck. Normally I have enough time to land in the press up position and I have quite slow speed of reactions compared to most other people.

Only anecdote I know.

and statistically there has to be a throw of a large number of coins where each one lands heads up every once in a while.

[[XAP]Bob]

Heads up on a die must be hard - but yes. Derren Brown televised 10 heads in a row. Of course it took him all day to record.

Statistics cannot support compulsion

There is an elephant in the room - the cars, bus and lorry.

[kwackers]

I'm just not convinced that in an accident, one would be able to protect ones head on first contact.

I'm not sure why not.
Long before it learns anything a baby instinctively knows how to fall to protect it's head, adults have the same instinct but it becomes diluted through 'muscle training' and lost as reflexes slow with age.
When you start to fall you automatically start to adjust your body positioning to protect your head. This doesn't mean you can protect it, but in evolutionary terms "every little bit counts".

[irc]

I'm just not convinced that in an accident, one would be able to protect ones head on first contact.

I'm not sure why not.
Long before it learns anything a baby instinctively knows how to fall to protect it's head, adults have the same instinct but it becomes diluted through 'muscle training' and lost as reflexes slow with age.
When you start to fall you automatically start to adjust your body positioning to protect your head. This doesn't mean you can protect it, but in evolutionary terms "every little bit counts".

Makes sense. In any (non cycling) falls I have had I don't recall consciously deciding to put my hands out to break my fall so I didn't land flat on my face. I always did it though.

I think the risk compensation effect may be bigger than thought. After all the internet is full of stories from helmet wearers of their falls while I've never had an on road fall/accident at more than walking speed in decades. Plenty other people are similarly accident free. Either I'm supremely skilled (don't think so!) or I don't take the same risks some riders do.

[Guy951]

. In any (non cycling) falls I have had I don't recall consciously deciding to put my hands out to break my fall so I didn't land flat on my face. I always did it though.

I think the risk compensation effect may be bigger than thought. After all the internet is full of stories from helmet wearers of their falls while I've never had an on road fall/accident at more than walking speed in decades. Plenty other people are similarly accident free. Either I'm supremely skilled (don't think so!) or I don't take the same risks some riders do.

Very much +1

[Graham O]

I'm just not convinced that in an accident, one would be able to protect ones head on first contact.

I'm not sure why not.
Long before it learns anything a baby instinctively knows how to fall to protect it's head, adults have the same instinct but it becomes diluted through 'muscle training' and lost as reflexes slow with age.
When you start to fall you automatically start to adjust your body positioning to protect your head. This doesn't mean you can protect it, but in evolutionary terms "every little bit counts".

I'm convinced of the falling reflex in babies and seen that with my kids, but that is different to a cycling accident. Some people on here have said they have protected their heads when falling but then admitted they were non cycling falls. Cycling often involves speeds which are beyond anything evolution would have designed us for. I can only give evidence of my bike accidents. One was a 25mph swerve to avoid a car pulling out and I ended up on my back looking at the sky and the second involved a car doing about 20mph hitting the back wheel while I was doing 15mph. A witness said that I spun round before rolling on the road. Both accidents happened at speeds which you can't respond to. That is why I don't believe you can protect your head. But, and I emphasise the word but, if an accident happens at low speeds it may well be possible to do something. It all comes down to having the "right sort of accident".

[kwackers]

It all comes down to having the "right sort of accident".

Exactly, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

If you're going to hit something head first or get hit from behind then a helmet makes sense. However simply falling off a bike then the time taken to fall is the same regardless of how fast you're going and you've plenty of time for reflexes to do their thing. I think this sort of accident is what you generally don't want to be wearing a helmet for and it's this sort of accident that I've always had. (Pedal strike, loss of rear wheel traction, clipped by a car on a roundabout, knocked off by a car that moved into my lane and failing to unclip plus several motorcycle accidents usually involving loss of traction at the rear...)