Cyclists hitting their heads on crashing

[531colin]

I used to go rough-stuffing with a small group; at 50 I was the youngest.
All of us would come off from time to time, and all of us would tuck-up and roll.
I'm damned sure nobody taught us to do it!

75 now, I have only hit my head once coming off the bike....sideways fall on ice, hit the side of my head on the kerb. I reckon if there hadn't been a pavement, I wouldn't have hit my head. Got mild concussion, I have had a lot worse playing rugby and doing a bit of scrambling when a walk got a bit steep.

[Mick F]

Fallen off many many times in my cycling life, and never hit my head. Nasty injuries I admit.

I've fallen over drunk quite a few times when walking, and never hit my head.
I fell out of a tree when I was a kid, and broke my wrist.
I stumbled on a ladder a couple of days ago, a hurt my shoulder.
In the RN, I fell off some steps onto the steel deck below, and hurt my back.

I opened the hatchback of the car a couple of days ago, and it didn't open as far as it usually did, and banged my head on the edge. Didn't 'arf hurt! ............. but I don't wear a helmet when operating or driving a car .................... despite more head injuries per person/mile in cars than any other transport system.

helmet_causes.jpg (26.95 KiB) Viewed 962 times

[drossall]

The opening two crashes look like the classic thing for which helmets are designed - falling off sideways, with forward motion not being a real consideration. And the riders appear to bang their heads in the kind of impact for which you'd think a helmet would be most useful - straight down. On the other hand, some seconds later, you get another view of the same??? crash, in which their shoulders seem to take most of the impact. So it's really hard to know.

I doubt anyone, however, would claim that the helmet made the impact worse, because that's to misunderstand the argument. This type of crash (falling off sideways) for which helmets are designed is entirely different in its mechanics from the kind of over-the-bars one, perhaps in a TdF sprint, in which the rider would try to "nip and tuck", and a helmet might cause the (enlarged) head to hit the ground. I've certainly seen at least one sprint crash in which that seemed to be the likelihood. When people talk about helmets making heads larger and therefore making impacts worse, that's what they're thinking of. It's also why MIPS helmets emerged as a claimed response. All analysis of observed crashes is speculative, of course, because you can't play it again and change whether a helmet was being worn.

But the real questions are whether this is representative of the kind of crash that I might experience today, given that I always have to make the decision on whether to wear a helmet before experiencing any such crash. And, whether I might decide only to ride the race in the first place (were I eligible of course!) because I had a helmet. If the latter, there seems to be little chance that the helmet would provide enough protection to justify my taking a risk that I might otherwise not take.

So the video doesn't really affect my decision, because I'm not planning to ride races of that kind and, even if I were, I'd still have to assess whether that was the most likely crash mechanic.

[DaveReading]

Fallen off many many times in my cycling life, and never hit my head. Nasty injuries I admit.

I've fallen over drunk quite a few times when walking, and never hit my head.
I fell out of a tree when I was a kid, and broke my wrist.
I stumbled on a ladder a couple of days ago, a hurt my shoulder.
In the RN, I fell off some steps onto the steel deck below, and hurt my back.

I opened the hatchback of the car a couple of days ago, and it didn't open as far as it usually did, and banged my head on the edge. Didn't 'arf hurt! ............. but I don't wear a helmet when operating or driving a car .................... despite more head injuries per person/mile in cars than any other transport system.

helmet_causes.jpg

That chart doesn't show what you think it does.

The rate of fatal head injuries per km travelled is 16 times as high for cyclists as it is for motorists, according to this study: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1 ... cepted.pdf

The reason, of course, is that the denominator (km travelled) is obviously much higher for cars.

[tim-b]

snip...so in each case the rider is sliding out sideways at low speed.

snip...but a hard-as-nails professional racer on a famously technically difficult, very long, very tiring day at silly speeds is not representative of me, or I would venture to suggest, many others.

The vast majority of our miles probably fall into the "not representative of me, or I would venture to suggest, many others" category for both the Dutch commuter video and this Dutch pro rider video. I haven't seen Dutch commuter video, but it has been offered as evidence on this forum a lot and isn't helpful when it can't be found

So what's your point?

I want opinions to help me review my choice. Many will know that I'm firmly in the freedom of choice camp and my current choice is to wear one. I see arguments on here that the thickness of the helmet caused impact where there wouldn't be one and that the mass of the helmet increased the impact, etc. My question is, "Was the impact exacerbated by her helmet, or did it protect her?"

Thanks to those who have had a stab at a tricky question; the anecdotes about climbing out of the swimming pool, walking home, etc are frankly bizarre and have no connection to riding a bicycle. I haven't seen an elephant in the UK for years but, like cyclists with head injuries, they exist.

[pjclinch]

I want opinions to help me review my choice. Many will know that I'm firmly in the freedom of choice camp and my current choice is to wear one. I see arguments on here that the thickness of the helmet caused impact where there wouldn't be one and that the mass of the helmet increased the impact, etc. My question is, "Was the impact exacerbated by her helmet, or did it protect her?"

Whatever the answer for that particular case, Statistics 101 tells us that an anecdote like that won't tell you much useful, and that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". In short, looking at isolated video incidents won't tell you anything much useful.

It's also worth realising that a lot of the stuff posted about possible issues with helmets is simply a retort to "well, surely you're better off with a helmet" as illustrative points that there are possible mechanisms by which you may not be. It's a simple fact that a bigger head makes your head more likely to hit things, but that fact doesn't tell you (either as an individual or at a population level) whether the hitting more or having less protection is the bigger issue.

With the state of the evidence you won't get a definitive answer on what you as an individual should do by looking at charts, numbers, videos etc. What you can get a definitive answer about is what you personally prefer to do, and you'll get that by asking yourself if you're happier with or without a lid. That's all you need to make an entirely reasonable choice for your own context and is what I'd suggest you do. I know folk who are pretty much exactly on the same page as me regarding what the evidence does and doesn't tell us but they always wear helmets and I rarely do, and that difference is purely down to they prefer to wear and I prefer not to bother. There's nothing much to be gained by trying to rationalise your decision by looking at videos of elite racers and speculating about other folks' falls, or reading dozens of academic papers.

Thanks to those who have had a stab at a tricky question; the anecdotes about climbing out of the swimming pool, walking home, etc are frankly bizarre and have no connection to riding a bicycle. I haven't seen an elephant in the UK for years but, like cyclists with head injuries, they exist.

They don't have much to do with cycling but they have lots to do with evaluating risk in everyday situations, which is what you're trying to do. And you can learn lessons about evaluating risk on bikes by seeing how you evaluate risk doing other things, and if you're using very different reasoning for different things it's a flag that you're probably stacking the deck in favour of what you want to do in your gut rather than being objective.
These non-cycling things are often brought up simply to illustrate that people tend to do what they want to do and rationalise it afterwards, and their decision about whether they're happy is typically derived from the culture they operate in. Just admitting you're going by gut feeling is not necessarily a bad thing, and it's so much easier saying "I'm wearing a helmet because I feel happier in a helmet" than having a 20 page bibliography of reasoning.

Just do what you want, and realise that that's fine and is perfectly tuned to your particular context. You don't need "objective" evidence led risk management reasoning, and it's just as well that you don't because with the available facts you can't actually get that.

Pete.

[mjr]

This is the logic I apply when deciding whether or not to wear a cycling helmet: what are the comparative likelihoods of it coming into use to protect my head from the mild concussions it's designed to reduce?

Cycle helmets are designed to protect from moderate impacts. They are not designed to mitigate concussions. Some helmets include warnings about this in their user manuals.

There is a picture on one of the helmet sites of an anti concussion helmet, if you want to see the difference. It looks a bit like a half -sphere pillow, about twice the thickness of an inflated Hövding explosive collar.

-----

I've crashed many many times over 40+ years riding. Mostly without other vehicles. I used a helmet for maybe 14 years in the midst of it. Curiously, my head impacts were all in those 14 years, when I also crashed more frequently. I did study judo, for those of you suggesting that link.

[Cugel]

This is the logic I apply when deciding whether or not to wear a cycling helmet: what are the comparative likelihoods of it coming into use to protect my head from the mild concussions it's designed to reduce?

Cycle helmets are designed to protect from moderate impacts. They are not designed to mitigate concussions. Some helmets include warnings about this in their user manuals.

There is a picture on one of the helmet sites of an anti concussion helmet, if you want to see the difference. It looks a bit like a half -sphere pillow, about twice the thickness of an inflated Hövding explosive collar.

(snip)

Don't take me so literally. But perhaps I should lecture myself along the line of: be more precise in your language?

What I meant to say using that phrase you quote:

"This is the logic I apply when deciding whether or not to wear a cycling helmet: what are the comparative likelihoods (between cycling and my other mobile actions) of it coming into use to protect my head from the mild and small subset of possible blows it's designed to reduce the force of acting on my head?

Happy now?

Cugel

[Mick F]

Fallen off many many times in my cycling life, and never hit my head. Nasty injuries I admit.

I've fallen over drunk quite a few times when walking, and never hit my head.
I fell out of a tree when I was a kid, and broke my wrist.
I stumbled on a ladder a couple of days ago, a hurt my shoulder.
In the RN, I fell off some steps onto the steel deck below, and hurt my back.

I opened the hatchback of the car a couple of days ago, and it didn't open as far as it usually did, and banged my head on the edge. Didn't 'arf hurt! ............. but I don't wear a helmet when operating or driving a car .................... despite more head injuries per person/mile in cars than any other transport system.

helmet_causes.jpg

That chart doesn't show what you think it does.

The rate of fatal head injuries per km travelled is 16 times as high for cyclists as it is for motorists, according to this study: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1 ... cepted.pdf

The reason, of course, is that the denominator (km travelled) is obviously much higher for cars.

OK.

I've chosen my words incorrectly. Sorry for that, but the point still stands.

Why don't car occupants and pedestrians wear helmets?
Why don't schoolchildren in a playground not wear helmets?
Why didn't I wear a helmet opening the rear door of a hatchback?

Conclusion: Answering the question ‘How important are head injuries in cyclists as a cause of road travel death?’ depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. The fatal head injury rate is highest for cyclists by time travelled and for pedestrians using distance travelled.

[irc]

I've crashed many many times over 40+ years riding. Mostly without other vehicles. I used a helmet for maybe 14 years in the midst of it. Curiously, my head impacts were all in those 14 years, when I also crashed more frequently

Risk compensation?

[mjr]

I've crashed many many times over 40+ years riding. Mostly without other vehicles. I used a helmet for maybe 14 years in the midst of it. Curiously, my head impacts were all in those 14 years, when I also crashed more frequently

Risk compensation?

Possibly for the frequency, but I didn't think so at the time. The final hatted crash was partly risk compensation, but no head impact that time. I'm not sure I see a good way for risk compensation to increase head impacts.

[drossall]

Just do what you want, and realise that that's fine and is perfectly tuned to your particular context. You don't need "objective" evidence led risk management reasoning, and it's just as well that you don't because with the available facts you can't actually get that.

Good post.

[tim-b]

Good post

+1 , thanks all

[mattheus]

I'm not sure I see a good way for risk compensation to increase head impacts.

The mechanims will be varied and multi-faceted, but surely we all instinctively act to protect what we think of as most vulnerable areas.

e.g. if something is flying towards your eyes, or groin, you try to prevent impact with your hands. I'm sure as a kid I must have put my hands up in front of my head as I fell over, or crashed into something, even just running about, no need to bring cycling into it.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, but I don’t for one moment believe that wearing a helmet causes one to act differently, to not instinctively protect the head, in a crash. If you are going forward, your hands go out whether or not you’ve got a hat on.

What it might do, and I’m not sure there’s truly solid evidence either way, is cause you to act more recklessly, increasing the probability of a crash in the first place.