Helmets - useful or waste of money?

[stoatsngroats]

...for the no helmet brigade,
...Is there any scenario you could envisage where you MAY want to wear a cycle helmet

Yes, of course, but you're missing the point magnificently. I don't get to decide that I'm going to be in that kind of accident.

I was only trying to gain understanding on whether a person who chose not to wear was doing so with the point that they could be prone to some freak incident...I wasn't saying that they could control most incidents, and then chose to put a helmet when they were about to have an accident!

I had training in risk management and safety awareness some years ago, and my reason for the interest in peoples' differing opinions was based purely on this interest. As has been mentioned before on this thread, and others, Helmet wearing is personal choice - do I or dont I? is the question we all have to answer...I have no malice towards anyone regarding this!

[Cunobelin]

All these doctors who say that using a helmet may have been beneficial... are they just saying that because they're jumping on the bandwagon that "in certain circumstances" they "may have helped" to reduce injuries?

Thoughts please...

Actually it is more worryingly devious than that.

The BMA allowed 5 whole minutes to debate supporting helmet use, and then tabled the pro and equivocal speakers first removing any evidence from debate that wasagainst the motion. Additionally much of the information that was given was flawed (including the infamous BHIT claim of 28000 children's lives being saved each year)It was then the only "show of hands" ballot of the day.

If Doctors are so convinced of helmet efficiency, why the dirty tactics to ensure a favourable vote?

[la_bicicletta]

Well...

I was cycling on the A710 this morning with a friend, about 25 miles outside of Dumfries.

All was going well, halfway through our planned 50 mile jaunt. We had stopped for a coffee at a place called Sandyhills, and had set off again.

3 or 4 miles down the road it narrows to cross a low bridge. We were riding single file at this point.

A bus passed me, doing maybe 50, and began to swing in to where my friend was. The bus driver hadn't seen him.

15 yards behind, I can see it all develop with clarity and in slow-mo; the side of my bus sweeping into my friend, he being jostled the entire length, finally tumbling behind the bus and he and the bike performing at least one somersault.

When I get to him he's out cold, but I briefly think he's dead. Terrifying.

He's spending the night in Dumfries General. He could have been spending the night in, at best, the Southern General Neurology Unit, or worse, a morgue, with a skull fracture to the right temporal area of his head. Why not? Because his helmet, now a badly chewed and carved bit of plastic, took most of the impact of his head hitting the ground at 25 mph and flipping over.

Are helmets a good idea? I'm an ex-nurse, and know my way around clinical research, and I'm tempted to go off and gather evidence and present it to you all, but I really haven't the time, and suspect that those who are against them will try and find reasons to shoot me down, and its such a no-brainer (no pun intended) that I'm not going to insult myself by responding to trolls.
But if you are in the Borders area tonight you can always head for the hospital and ask my friend. I'll PM his name to anyone who wants to.
He's still alive, thanks to the helmet, and I suspect he'll have a clear answer for you.

lb

[Dee Jay]

La bicicletta,

My thoughts are with your friend ..... and you .... to have witnessed that must have been so distressing.

I hope his recovery is swift and complete.

My best wishes.

[drossall]

I think we're all glad he survived, and I can understand why the emotion of the moment makes you apply the word trolls to those who take a different view from yourself.

[la_bicicletta]

Thanks for your wishes, guys.

Drossall- you're right, was very pent-up last night. My friend was discharged from hospital this morning, a-ok. And yes, 'troll' was far too strong a word- I apologise for any offence and I'm embarrassed I used it.

But I have to say that, immediately prior to the accident yesterday, like many in this topic I was in the 'not sure about helmets' camp, but this has definitely moved me to 'definitely in favour'.

Funnily enough, this subject came up recently among a group of friends, and there really is a dearth of hard evidence out there, not much in the way of reported accident stats either. I think helmets seem generally regarded as being a 'good thing' in medical and police circles, from what I gather.

regards

lb

[Dee Jay]

My friend was discharged from hospital this morning, a-ok.

lb

Excellent news!

[Cunobelin]

Again - my sympathies to your co-rider.

Are helmets a good idea? I'm an ex-nurse, and know my way around clinical research, and I'm tempted to go off and gather evidence and present it to you all, but I really haven't the time, and suspect that those who are against them will try and find reasons to shoot me down, and its such a no-brainer (no pun intended) that I'm not going to insult myself by responding to other posters.

Cohort studies of casualty admissions such as those by Thornhill et al (2000) do not mention cyclists. Falls, assaults and alcohol are the greater features in head injury admisssions. Cycling as an admission factor doesn't even gain a mention.

The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury

Kennedy showed conclusively that there were far greater benefits to be gained from pedestrian helmets than cycle helmets. They looke d at admissions and applied the same criteria to all head injuries. Theoutcome was that some ten times as many lives would be saved if helmets were worn by pedestrians than by cyclists!

The evidence is there, but unfortunatelly does not point at cycle helmets!



Sharon Thornhill, Graham M Teasdale, Gordon D Murray, James McEwen, Christopher W Roy, Kay I Penny Disability in young people and adults one year after head injury: prospective cohort study British Medical Journal, June 17, 2000 by

Kennedy A. The pattern of injury in fatal pedal cycle accidents and the possible benefits of cycle helmets. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1996 Jun;30(2):130-3.

[Gisen]

The evidence is there, but unfortunatelly does not point at cycle helmets!

So his friend wasn't better off for wearing a helmet?

This is nonsense, most pedestrian falls and injuries are from elderly people losing their balance.

[drossall]

Well we weren't there, but on the face of it, not necessarily.

I'm assuming that no-one believes that the helmet offered protection from the bus, but rather from the fall. We need to remember that 20-25mph is normal racing speed, and racing crashes were commonplace before helmets existed. The main result was road rash and the occasional broken collarbone. Head injuries are very rare. 20-25mph is not that terrifying a speed in head terms, although road rash is enough to make a crash worth avoiding!

In this case, the helmet was damaged, but there are several points there.

• A helmetted head is much bigger, so who knows whether a bare head would have touched the ground at all.
• Helmets are supposed to collapse alarmingly on impact - that's how they work - so a half-destroyed helmet has not necessarily prevented substantial damage to the head.
• The design limits of helmets are 12mph max, and the square law applies, so at 25mph we are talking four times beyond the design limits, and the benefit of a helmet can only be very limited - so if the accident was survived with a helmet you wouldn't expect to be far off surviving it without.
• In terms of hitting the ground rather than an upright object, then it's the starting height that matters; for a cyclist that's about the same height and therefore the same impact as for the elderly person you mention, who does not, you seem to think, need a helmet.

I can't possibly say that a helmet did not help in an accident I did not even see. The outcome was not as bad as it could have been, so no-one would wish things very different in this case. However, it seems to me that common sense limits the likely benefit in a typical event of this type.

[Gisen]

Any protection is better than no protection.

Do you believe crumple zones in cars (imagine a formula 1 crash) don't really protect them? Or is it just helmets that physics doesn't work on?

The helmet material absorbs some of the energy of the collision instead of your head, consequently rattling your brain around in your head less (sudden acceleration is the problem, not total force - anything reducing the acceleration will help)

Am I the only one that sees the slight benefit in "Surviving with a helmet" and 'almost' surviving? There's a bit of a dropoff there!

I didn't say elderly people don't need helmets, they are
1) more susceptible to injury - osteopenic bones are more fragile, and the age related degeneration of the brain means that there is a lot more space for the brain to rattle around inside the skull
2) more likely to fall
3) dramatically under-represented in the cycling community (hard to cycle with two hip replacements)
so the stats are skewed.

[drossall]

I didn't actually say that there was no protection in an accident I didn't see*; I simply tried to put in context how much protection there could be. Same answer on the physics - the amount of crumpling and energy absorption in a car is orders of magnitude different from that in a helmet, so comparing them can be misleading. What's more, crumple zones protect the whole body, whereas helmets do nothing for the neck and body except possibly increase twisting forces.

There's a huge difference between surviving and almost surviving, as there is between surviving essentially unscathed and suffering permanent injury. I'd go for surviving every time. However, when you put in context how much protection a helmet can offer, you wonder how often the helmet that "saved your life" actually made any significant difference. As you may be aware, the number of helmets saving lives appears massively greater than the number of lives that would be at risk in a typical year.

I'm as keen for safety as the next person, but I am aware of the great difficulties in demonstrating that, on a population level, widespread helmet wearing makes any noticeable difference. The above musings are entirely consistent with that. Over-estimating the potential benefits could be risky for cyclists.

New debates open up when you go to look at the population-level statistics, but that's for another time.

* Even if I had seen it, I don't think I'd be any more able to comment - how would I know?

[la_bicicletta]

Interesting thoughts from you all. Now that I've calmed down a little...


I think the best thing that can be said at present is that there needs to be more research. At present, as Cunobelin has stated, any research found does not gather cyclists within a cohort, and can't really be included.

In the light of this, what I've contributed can only truly be described as apocryphal, I suppose- but I'm convinced that the helmet made a difference, judging by the impact itself, damage to head and helmet (we're talking a large chunk mostly missing from front-right hand side, folks, with the webbing clearly visible beneath) and this was confirmed by the A&E staff and police.


I wonder why the BTRL haven't delved into this? Or maybe they have?

lb

[GrumpyGit]

At the risk of repeating myself, anything that comes between my head and hard / rough / sharp things gets my vote!!!

[Tom Richardson]

interesting to compare Jon cycletour websites comments, where he says that people think that youre some form of nutcase if you wear a cycle helmet in Holland. I wonder how the greatest cycle nation in europe reconciles that.