I don't usually quote anecdotal evidence as whilst it i is important to the individual and prvides a qualitative data source, it is of limited use as it only applies to that individual and the particular circumstances of that incident.
However ........
There is certainly anecdotal evidence of clais that neck injuries occurred and that the patient has been told by the doctor that the helmet probably caused the rotation. I can think of one particular case on ACF.
Of course if one does quote anecdotal evidence, one must give exactly the same credence, value and trust to all such evidence. We should therefore see "a helmet caused my injury" as equal in status to a "helmet saved my life" when weighingthis evidence - so therefore we have another stalemate!
Commuting with a Cycle Helmet!
Cycling helmets have been in widespread use for about 40 years now. Study of their use in real life is is possible because you can compare large populations of cyclists e.g. countries where helmet use is high with those where helmet use is low or where helmet use has changed significantly in the same population after compulsion. None of these studies has shown any real benefit attributable to helmet use. For example NZ and Australia after compulsion or comparing Holland with with any high usage population. A rational conclusion from this is that they don't make any difference in the real world.
If you take a look at the engineering and ergonomic aspects then you have to question how much protection 300 gms of polystyrene can offer. The manufacturers and standards bodies certainly have very low expectations. They commonly exclude falls in excess of 10-12 mph or any collision with another vehicles. There is a common fallacy that a helmet will provide some protection even if the impact is beyond these design criteria but this isn't supported by a knowledge of how they work.
It's also sensible to question why helmets are required for cycling but not for other activities that are as common and carry the same risk of injury e.g. walking.
No doubt someone will accuse me of being anti helmet. I'm not. Mostly I wear a helmet and I make sure it conforms to a good standard, fits properly, is worn properly and isn't older than 3 years or so.
I am very sceptical about the benefits they provide. I'm also aware that actively promoting them portrays cycling as a dangerous activity, which it isn't. Compulsion has been shown to reduce the numbers of cyclist wherever it's been introduced. There are credible studies that show that the safety of cyclists is directly related to the number of people cycling so both of these are particularly unhelpful. The British Government has stated that it intends to bring in compulsion when voluntary helmet wearing has reached a high enough level.
To me the big divide isn't between 'pro' helmet and 'anti' helmet people but between those who can discuss them rationally and those that can't.
If you take a look at the engineering and ergonomic aspects then you have to question how much protection 300 gms of polystyrene can offer. The manufacturers and standards bodies certainly have very low expectations. They commonly exclude falls in excess of 10-12 mph or any collision with another vehicles. There is a common fallacy that a helmet will provide some protection even if the impact is beyond these design criteria but this isn't supported by a knowledge of how they work.
It's also sensible to question why helmets are required for cycling but not for other activities that are as common and carry the same risk of injury e.g. walking.
No doubt someone will accuse me of being anti helmet. I'm not. Mostly I wear a helmet and I make sure it conforms to a good standard, fits properly, is worn properly and isn't older than 3 years or so.
I am very sceptical about the benefits they provide. I'm also aware that actively promoting them portrays cycling as a dangerous activity, which it isn't. Compulsion has been shown to reduce the numbers of cyclist wherever it's been introduced. There are credible studies that show that the safety of cyclists is directly related to the number of people cycling so both of these are particularly unhelpful. The British Government has stated that it intends to bring in compulsion when voluntary helmet wearing has reached a high enough level.
To me the big divide isn't between 'pro' helmet and 'anti' helmet people but between those who can discuss them rationally and those that can't.
MartinC wrote:Cycling helmets have been in widespread use for about 40 years now. Study of their use in real life is is possible because you can compare large populations of cyclists e.g. countries where helmet use is high with those where helmet use is low or where helmet use has changed significantly in the same population after compulsion. None of these studies has shown any real benefit attributable to helmet use. For example NZ and Australia after compulsion or comparing Holland with with any high usage population. A rational conclusion from this is that they don't make any difference in the real world.
If you take a look at the engineering and ergonomic aspects then you have to question how much protection 300 gms of polystyrene can offer. The manufacturers and standards bodies certainly have very low expectations. They commonly exclude falls in excess of 10-12 mph or any collision with another vehicles. There is a common fallacy that a helmet will provide some protection even if the impact is beyond these design criteria but this isn't supported by a knowledge of how they work.
It's also sensible to question why helmets are required for cycling but not for other activities that are as common and carry the same risk of injury e.g. walking.
No doubt someone will accuse me of being anti helmet. I'm not. Mostly I wear a helmet and I make sure it conforms to a good standard, fits properly, is worn properly and isn't older than 3 years or so.
I am very sceptical about the benefits they provide. I'm also aware that actively promoting them portrays cycling as a dangerous activity, which it isn't. Compulsion has been shown to reduce the numbers of cyclist wherever it's been introduced. There are credible studies that show that the safety of cyclists is directly related to the number of people cycling so both of these are particularly unhelpful. The British Government has stated that it intends to bring in compulsion when voluntary helmet wearing has reached a high enough level.
To me the big divide isn't between 'pro' helmet and 'anti' helmet people but between those who can discuss them rationally and those that can't.
Blimey a view on helmets that I seem to agree on!
Although the other thing I would add ('cos I refuse to agree on anything entirely) is that tere is another distinction. This onebetwen those that think that the helmet debate is important to the afety of cyclists and those who think that it detracts from their safety.
That is to say, there is a theory that discussing helmets (whether you are for or agin) moves focus away from the issues that would really improve cyclist safety. How many times do we see onthe news a bit about promoting cycling followed by a hand back to one of the presenters who points out that "none of them were wearing helmets". Thus the emphasis is taken away from preventing other people harming cyclists and put fairsquare onto the cyclist for not wearing a helmet. Likewise it's an oft reported incident on fora where a cyclist is cut up or endangered by an errant driver...the cyclist points out to the driver what they did and the driver replies "well you're not wearing a helmet" and departs - the whole helmet issue allows people to duck the real safety issues. It's a smoke screen used by those that can do something about cyclist safety to get out of their obligations.
Of course, the problem with this theory is that the only way that you can argue it is by joining the helmet debate and thus falling prey to it yourself
I don't actually care whether they make any difference. I feel that the risk of injury from my cycling is so low that its not worth wearing something I dislike even if it reduced it a little further.
I don't wear a helmet when commuting. I don't own one, although I borrowed one for a mountain bike event where they were compulsory.
Tony
I don't wear a helmet when commuting. I don't own one, although I borrowed one for a mountain bike event where they were compulsory.
Tony
dbrunner wrote:What would you do if they became compulsory?
Until recently, my answer would have been "Give up, because one-size-fits-all doesn't!" I do now have a helmet that sort-of fits, but I have never tried wearing it for more than an hour or two. I remember the pain of wearing a lacrosse helmet at school (but fortunately those games didn't last all day!)
I know I am not the only one in this position because I keep seeing pleas for help.
Otherwise, I'd wear one because it was the law, and because there is no evidence to suggest that they could make things sufficiently extra dangerous to eliminate the health benefits of cycling.
As aesmith said, other health/safety aspects of cycling are so much more important.
I know my picture shows me not wearing a helmet but now I do always. As you can see a helmet couldn't make me look much worse so style isn't really a problem for me but the aggressive habits of some drivers and stupidity of some pedestrians has made me realise that if I do come off a helmet might offer some protection. I realise that it may not and am aware of the arguments regarding making some types of injury worse but I have made a choice. I don't preach about it and certainly wouldn't get into an argument about it its just a question of personal choice thats all.
-
MarySkater
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 7 Mar 2007, 2:17pm
- Location: SW Scotland
-
Asdace
I've a few of them caps what cranky 1 wears. But being bald, means I'm vulnerable to the elements of rain and sun.
However I do like to wear the helmet, but what I do is cut the peak off the cap and use that for protection from rain and sun.
And you get a nice snug fit.
maryinoxford, the mirror on the helmet sounds a good idea, tell me more
However I do like to wear the helmet, but what I do is cut the peak off the cap and use that for protection from rain and sun.
And you get a nice snug fit.
maryinoxford, the mirror on the helmet sounds a good idea, tell me more
Being similarly challenged with a lack of follicular activity.....
I found that the Buff in particular the CoolMax ones. NOw all we need is an EN1078 Buff.
Just as a thought about compulsion - are you intending to simply note - Helmet worn and tick the box, or are we going to advise (and presumably fine) all those with useless helmets becasue of poor fitting, poor condition and poor strap positioning.
AN iportant question as answer A proves the LAw is about "saving cyclists" the second shows it is a cosmetic Law only.
I found that the Buff in particular the CoolMax ones. NOw all we need is an EN1078 Buff.
Just as a thought about compulsion - are you intending to simply note - Helmet worn and tick the box, or are we going to advise (and presumably fine) all those with useless helmets becasue of poor fitting, poor condition and poor strap positioning.
AN iportant question as answer A proves the LAw is about "saving cyclists" the second shows it is a cosmetic Law only.
I have come of my bike on many, many occasions. I have never, ever hit my head although I have injured various other body parts (numerous cuts, grazes, bruises on legs, handlebar into sternum, grazed chin, broken finger etc...).
My one head-related injury came when I wore a helmet. The reason why I have never hit my head is partly that having ridden a bike since the age of 5 and having fallen off bikes since that age at increasing speeds I have become adept at falling well, tuck-and-roll, keep the head protected.
I clipped a stone a few years back and went flying off, but as I tucked my head in and prepared to roll to absorb the blow I clipped my helmet, the back of it, on the bank and it jerked my head back. Hurt my neck and if I had bumped my head on the bank (which is the obvious counter-argument) I wouldn't have even got a lump.
Personal experience has suggested to me that helmets are pointless. I did for a while still wear them when off-roading, but have since given that idea up.
I also feel uncomfortable wearing them and that takes 5% of my mental focus away from what I should be doing, which can not be a good thing.
So for me it is another load of nonsense thought up by the 'life must be safe' brigade, telling other people how to go about their business. Learn to ride, learn to fall would be a better campaign.
My one head-related injury came when I wore a helmet. The reason why I have never hit my head is partly that having ridden a bike since the age of 5 and having fallen off bikes since that age at increasing speeds I have become adept at falling well, tuck-and-roll, keep the head protected.
I clipped a stone a few years back and went flying off, but as I tucked my head in and prepared to roll to absorb the blow I clipped my helmet, the back of it, on the bank and it jerked my head back. Hurt my neck and if I had bumped my head on the bank (which is the obvious counter-argument) I wouldn't have even got a lump.
Personal experience has suggested to me that helmets are pointless. I did for a while still wear them when off-roading, but have since given that idea up.
I also feel uncomfortable wearing them and that takes 5% of my mental focus away from what I should be doing, which can not be a good thing.
So for me it is another load of nonsense thought up by the 'life must be safe' brigade, telling other people how to go about their business. Learn to ride, learn to fall would be a better campaign.
-
MarySkater
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 7 Mar 2007, 2:17pm
- Location: SW Scotland
Asdace wrote:maryinoxford, the mirror on the helmet sounds a good idea, tell me more
One of these:
I got mine from a good local bike shop (Warlands, Oxford) but I got the photo from this web site: http://www.cyclexpress.co.uk/products/Helmet_mirror.aspx
The base sticks to the helmet, then the mirror arm clicks to the base with 2 poppers. I found it was a little too easy to remove; adjusting the position of the arm could pop it out of the base. So I put a strip of duck tape across one popper. That strengthens it so it doesn't detatch accidentally, but will if required.
I fold the mirror against the helmet when I'm carrying it, then swing it into position when I start a ride. It's a fair rear-view, with the advantage that a slight head turn "pans" it across.
By the way, like you, I've found that cutting the peak off a baseball cap and fitting it into the helmet does a better job than the peak (if any) that comes with the helmet.
Mary
-
MarySkater
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 7 Mar 2007, 2:17pm
- Location: SW Scotland
In a crash, I'm pretty sure the mirror arm would pop off its base and end up on the road somewhere. That's why, although I taped it a bit, I make sure it can still detach if moved with any force.
The arm is light, slightly flexible plastic, with an oval base for the poppers - not sharp. The mirror is (I think) glass, but at 1" across and cased in plastic, unlikely to break. I suppose you could get the mirror arm in your eye. But in the same way, if you were wearing sunglasses, you could get their leg in your eye... possible but I think unlikely, in both cases.
Mary
The arm is light, slightly flexible plastic, with an oval base for the poppers - not sharp. The mirror is (I think) glass, but at 1" across and cased in plastic, unlikely to break. I suppose you could get the mirror arm in your eye. But in the same way, if you were wearing sunglasses, you could get their leg in your eye... possible but I think unlikely, in both cases.
Mary
Cunobelin wrote:Just as a thought about compulsion - are you intending to simply note - Helmet worn and tick the box, or are we going to advise (and presumably fine) all those with useless helmets becasue of poor fitting, poor condition and poor strap positioning.
At a guess there'd be a new ISO standard, drawn up by non-cyclists, and you'd be fined if you helmet doesn't have the appropriate sticker. Nobody will care about condition or fit or even whether its buckled.
Wasn't there something in Italy with motorcycle helmets? The initial law said you had to "wear" one, but didn't specify it must be worn on the head.