Cycling UK Forum

OH No, not helmets again......

no more helmets...cant take any more....

hubgearfreak wrote:It should absolutely be made illegal to cycle without a helmet, and should be more stringently enforced than driving without a seatbelt on. If you die through poor or dangerous cycling, then your life is yours to lose - your choice, fair enough. Think, however, of the guilt that the innocent driver whose wheels you cycle under will feel

What a load of rubbish!

If you are hit by a car at any kind of closing speed the least of your problems is a head injury. Start with broken limbs and spine then add a ruptured spleen and if the car goes over you crush injuries.
A helmet MAY help in SOME circumstances but can also make some impacts worse. See http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/helmets.html For details.

I am totally against compulsion, the little benefit it may do would be offset by the damage to numbers cycling.

By all means wear one yourself, but don't make it compulsory.

Oh and look up the number of stangulations of children wearing helmets in the USA.

I think that before you lynch Hubbers you might consider why he used green ink for his comments

Oh, won't anyone think of the children.

byegad wrote:By all means wear one yourself, but don't make it compulsory.

you're quite right old chap. i was quoting someone else in my earlier post, and just thought i'd share it for entertainment. i don't even own one for the record.

if i had written it, i think you let me off lightly

poor, innocent motorist? my eyehole

My apologies Hubbers.

Helmets are always a contentious issue and I worry that some time soon a do gooder will indeed make them compulsory.

byegad wrote:By all means wear one yourself, but don't make it compulsory.

Perfectly put sir!

I forgot mine the other day but the damned thing (Bell Citi) is so light I didn't notice it was missing until I was 2 miles into a 3 mile journey!!

I also omitted to replace my good watch with the cheap one I don't mind breaking if I fall off.

I don't normally put my thoughts into the numerous helmet debates that crop up on this forum, and many others...

But what I wonder is this, how many of you have actually attended an RTA (Road Traffic Accident) when a cyclist has been involved?

Having a number of paramedics as friends, and knowing some of the situations they have to deal with, I know exactly what there views are, wear a helmet!

Now personally, I believe as many others do that it should be personal choice. Mind you, my views differ when it comes to children, they have softer skulls after all.

One of the things that strikes me is that all of those that quote stats re helmet wearing in countries where it's been made compulsory, all suggest that the number of cyclists' decreases, and I can understand these arguments in terms of the overall health of a nation etc etc....

However something tells me that if these individuals actually attended a few RTAs, they'd almost certainly change there mind. To get the real hard facts, don't listen to the various statistics/reports.... ask the guys who literally pick up the peices, they're the only ones who can tell you the truth about the helmet pros and cons.

Just food for thought.....

Mudman wrote:I don't normally put my thoughts into the numerous helmet debates that crop up on this forum, and many others...

But what I wonder is this, how many of you have actually attended an RTA (Road Traffic Accident) when a cyclist has been involved?

Having a number of paramedics as friends, and knowing some of the situations they have to deal with, I know exactly what there views are, wear a helmet!

Now personally, I believe as many others do that it should be personal choice. Mind you, my views differ when it comes to children, they have softer skulls after all.

One of the things that strikes me is that all of those that quote stats re helmet wearing in countries where it's been made compulsory, all suggest that the number of cyclists' decreases, and I can understand these arguments in terms of the overall health of a nation etc etc....

However something tells me that if these individuals actually attended a few RTAs, they'd almost certainly change there mind. To get the real hard facts, don't listen to the various statistics/reports.... ask the guys who literally pick up the peices, they're the only ones who can tell you the truth about the helmet pros and cons.

Just food for thought.....

If it was so cut and dried though, wouldn't it be obvious in the accident stats? (I'm assuming they collect information on whether a hemet was worn or not).

I think kwackers has it right. The statistics are not clear. Also in some types of accidents the helmet itself may make some injuries worse.

The main problem is that a cycle helmet needs to be very light and even the best ones offer little protection compared to a Motorcycle or Motor Racing helmet.

The number of head injuries sustained walking and in the home far outweigh cycle related injuries yet pedestrian helmets have yet to be suggested, although I believe that in Australia helmets for children playing outside has been mooted!

My biggest objection to helmets is that it makes cycling appear to be a dangerous activitey and so discourages cycling.

Do I own a helmet, well yes three. Do I wear one? Only if an event will not allow me to take part without one.
I also wore one when riding off road where the chances of falling off were high, as I no longer ride two wheels due to Vertigo the need to use a helmet has gone, I ride a recumbent trike now and falling of that is near impossible!

Mudman asked "But what I wonder is this, how many of you have actually attended an RTA (Road Traffic Accident) when a cyclist has been involved? "

I've attended hundreds of road accidents over the last 3 decades. Of all those accidents I only remember four that involved cyclists.

One child cycled off a pavement into the side of a passing car because her brakes didn't work. When I looked at the bike, a typical supermarket bike, the brakes were so badly adjusted they almost completely missed the rims. She had minor bruising although if she had gone into the road 2 seconds earlier it could have been serious.

Another accident was where brakes failed on a teenager's bike on a steep on road downhill and he hit his head off a tree at high speed after losing control. I don't know the final outcome but I would say he was seriously injured as he was unconscious from my arrival at the scene until the ambulance arrived 20 or 30 minutes later. He was wearing a helmet which didn't prevent serious injuries. I wasn't involved in any investigation into that accident but there were comments made that the rider had been aware of issues with the brakes earlier on in the day.

Another accident was where an experienced tourist was clipped by a passing car causing a fall and minor injuries - not head injuries.

One that was personal was on a tour where my 15 yr old son lost control after hitting a pothole on a fast road descent and crashed at about 25-30 mph. No helmet. Injuries were bruising to the shoulder and road rash on one knee. No doubt if he'd been wearing a helmet it would have saved his life.

My conclusion from these incidents are that the first two wouldn't have happened with a properly maintained bike. As for the third I wouldn't use that road. It is a narrow busy A road ut there is a parallel B road that has a few more bumps and twists and turns but carries almost zero traffic. Did a helmet give a false sense of security? Who knows.
My sons accident was down to lack of experience, I think riding too close behind me to see the road ahead. or simple inattention
All these accidents were avoidable.

So my conclusion which seems to coincide with the stats is that the chances of a road accident on a bike are very low and an experienced rider on a properly maintained bike can reduce the risks even further.
If you do have an accident at speed then a helmet designed to cope with falls at 12mph will not prevent serious injury.

As I think we agree then helmets should therefore be a personal choice.

Mudman wrote:Having a number of paramedics as friends, and knowing some of the situations they have to deal with, I know exactly what there views are, wear a helmet!

We really, really, need proper accident investigation where cycle helmets are involved. Helmets would appear to be useful, but the long-term population data in countries with high usage suggest that they have no beneficial effect. Proper investigation might reveal why that is the case, but it seems that neither national authorities nor the helmet manufaturers are actually very interested in doing this.

In any cycle crash where a helmet was "used", that helmet should be packed up carefully and sent to a laboratory for analysis. That would allow quite accurate assessment of how much energy the helmet had absorbed, and hence how much protection it had provided. The results could then be fed back into future helmet design, as well as better general understanding of the levels of protection provided.

Such analysis would also enable the laboratory helmet tests (dropping a helmeted head vertically from a fixed height onto a range of anvils) to be improved to more closely model real-life crashes. In particular tests that measure the effects of helmets on head rotational forces (that cause diffuse brain injury and neck injuries) may well need to be added to the standards.

Mudman wrote:Having a number of paramedics as friends, and knowing some of the situations they have to deal with, I know exactly what there views are, wear a helmet! .

This is interesting.

I have lost count of the number of people that are paramedics, have friends that are paramedics, that work in head injury clinics, that are ambulance drivers... ...all claiming that they regularly see cyclists with serious head injuries sustained because they weren't wearing helmets - one even claiming that he deals with 'thousands' of such cases each year.

All I can think is that, when such an incident occurs, all of these people rush to the scene so that they can witness it and pass on their experiences of such horror to all of their friends.

There simply aren't that many examples. Either there is some exaggeration, or they are misinterpreting the facts - albeit with the most noble of intentions.

We really, really, need proper accident investigation where cycle helmets are involved. Helmets would appear to be useful, but the long-term population data in countries with high usage suggest that they have no beneficial effect. Proper investigation might reveal why that is the case, but it seems that neither national authorities nor the helmet manufaturers are actually very interested in doing this.

One of the things about statistical inference is that is just too suceptible to the large number of factors to prove a useful basis for reasoning in many situations. Some (most visibly politicians and spin merchants) often make an art form out of twisting statistical inference.

One of the arguments in the OJ Simpson defense was that several million woman in the UK suffer from domestic violance, but only a few 1000 of these end up begin murdered, therefore the probability of OJ doing it was one in a few thousand.

Others have pointed out, that of the few thousand abused woman murdered most (70-80%) were murdered by their partner. Therefore OJ probably did it.

Some times common sense is a much better guide than stats. Helmets are designed to absorb 12 mph of impact. Thats a significant cushion that anybody involved in an head impact is going to appreciate.

We do not need 'proper statistical analysis' to reason. There are many other, more reliable ways of doing it.

[quote Helmets are designed to absorb 12 mph of impact. quote]

Are they designed to absorb 12 mph of impact or are ineffective in any impact involving speeds over 12 mph?

And if the second - then is this the combined speed of the cyclist and any possible vehicle?

If so, then the helmet for an adult cyclist is nigh on useless.