why is there not a definative study about helments?

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.
martinn
Posts: 319
Joined: 1 Dec 2012, 8:20pm

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby martinn » 13 Dec 2014, 11:12pm

The main rational behind my original question is my grumpiness at not being able to participate in charity cycle rides (or sportives) because I do not see the point in wearing a helmet. The CTC briefing on this subject, suggest that this might be illegal in some instance, and may derive from a perceived insurance requirement.
Hence if there was a definitive study that on the beneficial affects of helmets in cycling, then either I would wear a helmet, or I would be free to choose not to wear a helmet depending on the outcome of the study.

I think the rational behind wearing a helmet because you don't want a headache makes sense if you want to finish a race, however, the counter point here is, if the helmet then caused you to sustain a rotational injury you may not be able to finish the race because you were wearing a helmet!.... this is a bit of a circular argument.

Martin

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 14 Dec 2014, 2:21pm

martinn wrote:The main rational behind my original question is my grumpiness at not being able to participate in charity cycle rides (or sportives) because I do not see the point in wearing a helmet. The CTC briefing on this subject, suggest that this might be illegal in some instance, and may derive from a perceived insurance requirement.
Hence if there was a definitive study that on the beneficial affects of helmets in cycling, then either I would wear a helmet, or I would be free to choose not to wear a helmet depending on the outcome of the study.

I think the rational behind wearing a helmet because you don't want a headache makes sense if you want to finish a race, however, the counter point here is, if the helmet then caused you to sustain a rotational injury you may not be able to finish the race because you were wearing a helmet!.... this is a bit of a circular argument.

Martin


I always ask to see the insurance documents, then chase the insurance company and ask them to provide an explanation - raising concerns about rotational injuries etc.

It should be up to them to demonstrate that it is a reasonable requirement...

Of course you could just wear the helmet on your elbow...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby pjclinch » 14 Dec 2014, 4:51pm

I think it's worth following up Bob's example of having a targeted moan. If enough people moan then new, more Clueful insurers may well be found.

Next year's York Rally has a helmets-needed sportive, the rationale behind which was getting something imperfect organised was better than not getting something perfect organised, though the organisers appear to have taken the criticism it generated on board and will look for an alternative insurer for the one after. It's a major PITA that British Cycling seem responsible for a lot of this insurance led idiocy (their insurers are very keen on lids), so each time I get the membership feedback I make a point of moaning that their events arm needs to listen to their campaigning arm.

Beyond that you are stuck to a degree by the My Game, My Rules problem. If you're organising something you can insist on Santa suits if you want, but as Tony's pointed out organisers haven't really get a substantive leg to stand on as far as evidence underpinning safety (as in serious incidents) goes. Sadly the case that the Highway Code is lagging some years behind the available information, and a typical insurer will see "you should wear a cycle helmet" as an indication that you're Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Insure if you don't. Sadly the case that for a lot of insurers the definition of "reasonable requirement" will be "that's what most companies do". They're not keen on perceived risks.

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

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby Vorpal » 14 Dec 2014, 7:15pm

martinn wrote:The main rational behind my original question is my grumpiness at not being able to participate in charity cycle rides (or sportives) because I do not see the point in wearing a helmet. The CTC briefing on this subject, suggest that this might be illegal in some instance, and may derive from a perceived insurance requirement.
Hence if there was a definitive study that on the beneficial affects of helmets in cycling, then either I would wear a helmet, or I would be free to choose not to wear a helmet depending on the outcome of the study.

I think the rational behind wearing a helmet because you don't want a headache makes sense if you want to finish a race, however, the counter point here is, if the helmet then caused you to sustain a rotational injury you may not be able to finish the race because you were wearing a helmet!.... this is a bit of a circular argument.

Martin

Most of these events will make an exception for a medical reason. Get a note from your GP and ride without a helmet.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

martinn
Posts: 319
Joined: 1 Dec 2012, 8:20pm

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby martinn » 14 Dec 2014, 11:26pm

I am intrigued, what medical condition could allow me to be safe to ride, but unable to wear a helmet?

Martin

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby Vorpal » 14 Dec 2014, 11:49pm

They cause headaches? Or can't be correctly fitted? They irritate your skin and make your head itch?

You have to remove it sometimes to avoid overheating?

It might be a problem if your GP thinks that helmets are a necessary bit of kit.

Some events might give you an exemption if you just challenge them. I had an employer for a while that required them. They would accept medical and religious exemptions,
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14993
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby mjr » 15 Dec 2014, 9:18am

martinn wrote:I am intrigued, what medical condition could allow me to be safe to ride, but unable to wear a helmet?

Some minor neck injuries. :-(
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

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

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby TonyR » 15 Dec 2014, 12:52pm

martinn wrote:I am intrigued, what medical condition could allow me to be safe to ride, but unable to wear a helmet?


New Zealand where helmets are mandatory provides good examples. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10882081

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby Thermostat9 » 15 Dec 2014, 2:02pm

TonyR wrote:
martinn wrote:I am intrigued, what medical condition could allow me to be safe to ride, but unable to wear a helmet?


New Zealand where helmets are mandatory provides good examples. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10882081

Three riders were also granted exemption between 2000 and 2003 for a "personal desire not to wear helmet".

I imagine there might be a few more applicants for that one if that ridiculous law was introduced here! :wink:

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 2009
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby Tigerbiten » 15 Dec 2014, 3:37pm

Thermostat9 wrote:
TonyR wrote:
martinn wrote:I am intrigued, what medical condition could allow me to be safe to ride, but unable to wear a helmet?


New Zealand where helmets are mandatory provides good examples. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10882081

Three riders were also granted exemption between 2000 and 2003 for a "personal desire not to wear helmet".

I imagine there might be a few more applicants for that one if that ridiculous law was introduced here! :wink:

Me for one.
I ride a recumbent trike ........ :D
So I think that any accident I could have where my head is hit and a helmet may be a bit of use will also be an accident where the forces involved will be above what a helmet is designed to withstand.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: why is there not a definative study about helments?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 15 Dec 2014, 3:44pm

And on the old hard shell seats a helmet would have put an awful crick in the neck,,,
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.