Gordon Ramsey's message...

[pjclinch]

Decades ago the back of my arm was 'tapped' by the wing mirror of a passing car just above the elbow. I make no claims about having superior bike handling but, after a big wobble (and a lot of swearing), I stayed on the bike. I don't believe all cyclists would have been able to stay on the bike in the same circumstances. Had I not have been so fortunate, the resultant crash would not have involved the car even though it had caused it.

This sort of incident still happens around here, as only last year a friend was forced into a hedge after 'light contact' (their words) from a passing van on a narrow road.

On the one hand fair enough this is a different aspect of "collision", but on the other this anecdote is from "decades ago" so we're probably in the realm of highly occasional events which do happen, but don't bring about conspicuously greater head injuries than other "excrement occurs" events while on foot for which barely anyone wears extra PPE (e.g., icy pavements).

If it's impossible to safely negotiate the potholed roads on a road bike, then rather than carry on risking a crash but with some light head protection it would be better to not use a road bike (where you can still wear the hat if you want, but not rely on it to nearly the same extent).

As has already been pointed out, the best safety solution is not crashing, rather than crashing with lightweight protection to a limited part of the body. This is especially true if you're about to crash with immediately adjacent motor traffic.
And since it's now been fairly well established that you can get a lot of the performance of a road racer in a gravel/adventure bike vastly better suited to surviving potholes you don't even have to have much less fun

The risk of crashing can never be eliminated. I have measured some holes over 100mm deep, and it doesn't matter what bike you are pedalling if you put your front wheel down one of these you will be off. At that stage you will be grateful for all the protective clothing you are wearing.

You're quite right that the risk of crashing can never be eliminated, and if you're in a crash you may well be less unhappy thanks to a helmet, but you're applying different logic to your favoured device than to alternatives.
"You might crash, so more protection is good on the off-chance that you hit something protected by it" on the one hand plays to your favoured intervention (a helmet) coming good, but on the other hand a bike which is not infallibly crash-proof but none the less less likely to crash isn't worth using because it can only help some of the time (just like a helmet can only help some of the time, but you're applying a different train of thought to that).

So you have a helmet, which might help some of the time, because it might help (fair enough), but you won't use a bike with beefier tyres which might help some of the time because it won't help all of the time (not fair enough).

And while on the one hand you've scripted the reasoning for a helmet being that some crashes are inevitable, and "at that stage you will be grateful for all the protective clothing you are wearing", you don't seem very keen on either more protective helmets (e.g. a full face helmet as used by more crash-prone downhill MTB and BMX supercross riders) or insisting on long trousers in a tough fabric (also as worn in downhill MTB and BMX supercross) and no use for body armour, elbow and knee pads, and so on. In other words, you've rationalised what you do as opposed to followed consistent reasoning as to what you ought to do.

100 mm pothole unpassable, eh? Have a look at e.g. the World Cycling Gang Instragram feed and this is pretty typical stuff from an MTB XCO course,
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C64K2cyM6di/
And yes, I'd be wearing my helmet through a rock garden: I've never been trying to discourage you from wearing a lid, what I've been trying to say is that cycling in general isn't so uniquely productive of head injuries that it's always foolish to ride without one and, probably more importantly, riding in a manner that lowers the chances of crashing in the first place is better protection than a lightweight helmet that covers part of the head, especially given that falling riders tend to damage other bits far more often. And there's nothing stopping you addressing both post-crash protection and crash avoidance together, it's not one or the other.

Pete.

[mattheus]

I do note you also said, "And how do we acquire this super-skill so that we can guarantee that our bikes will never fail mechanically, our tyres will never blow out, and we will never be clipped by another cyclist or, worst still, a motorist from behind?" which sounds like it covers a cyclist-vehicle collision to me, but leaving that aside you're still taking a rather bizarre line of reasoning.

Decades ago the back of my arm was 'tapped' by the wing mirror of a passing car just above the elbow. I make no claims about having superior bike handling but, after a big wobble (and a lot of swearing), I stayed on the bike. I don't believe all cyclists would have been able to stay on the bike in the same circumstances. Had I not have been so fortunate, the resultant crash would not have involved the car even though it had caused it.

What are you talking about? You were hit by a car*!!!!!!!!?!

(*due to driver negligence)

[853]

I have measured some holes over 100mm deep

For those of you in the 'helmets don't work' brigade, I said over 100mm deep and we were talking about tarmacked roads so any talk of MTB bikes and riders is totally irrelevant.

[Mike Sales]

I have measured some holes over 100mm deep

For those of you in the 'helmets don't work' brigade, I said over 100mm deep and we were talking about tarmacked roads so any talk of MTB bikes and riders is totally irrelevant.

I always think it a bad sign when a poster describes those they don't agree with as a 'brigade'.

[pjclinch]

I have measured some holes over 100mm deep

For those of you in the 'helmets don't work' brigade, I said over 100mm deep, and we were talking about tarmacked roads so any talk of MTB bikes and riders is totally irrelevant.

Who is saying "helmets don't work" here?
Name names, please.

For those of you in the "MTBs don't go on roads" brigade, MTBs work on roads too. My off-road MTB touring typically invloves at least as much tarmac as track and trail. Gravel/Adventure bikes with 40-50 mm relatively low pressure tyres work on roads too. They deal with potholes far better than narrow high pressure tyres on road bikes. Road bikes are designed for smooth tarmac, which by your own description is not what's in play here. Why do you keep rationalising away proven ways of not crashing?

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

I have measured some holes over 100mm deep

For those of you in the 'helmets don't work' brigade, I said over 100mm deep and we were talking about tarmacked roads so any talk of MTB bikes and riders is totally irrelevant.

As someone who used to take road repair calls, a pothole 10cm deep, is a bit of a problem- certainly I'd expect the pothole to be completely denude of any tarmac and well into the crushed stone underneath... I'd also be half expecting something like a collapsed drain or even a sink hole to be causing the issue...
A pothole 10 cm deep will certainly unseat most motorcycle riders and represent a sizeable challenge to most usual cars.
Certainly worth reporting to the council, if only to avoid harm to other road users.

...wouldn't recommend riding into it at any speed, and should by its nature of depth and change in texture be easy to spot - unless it was under a puddle - in which case if you can't see the bottom of the puddle best avoid it, or get your speed right down...

[853]

Who is saying "helmets don't work" here?
Name names, please.

Your faith in EN1078 helmets to save lives is not backed up by reality. They're a couple of centimeters of expanded polystyrene that cover part of the head, they can't be expected to work miracles and their track record doesn't make it obvious that they do.

[pjclinch]

Who is saying "helmets don't work" here?
Name names, please.

Your faith in EN1078 helmets to save lives is not backed up by reality. They're a couple of centimeters of expanded polystyrene that cover part of the head, they can't be expected to work miracles and their track record doesn't make it obvious that they do.

I said there that they don't work miracles. They don't.

I said your faith in them to save lives is not backed up by a track record of them saving lives i.e. by "track record" I mean there is no clear evidence that fatality rates in a population have fallen in line with helmet uptake. That is a matter of record: if you think otherwise show us the data of a clear reduction in fatality rates in a population with helmet uptake, and I mean robust population data, not uproven anecdotes of life-saving.

If you haven't read https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f38 ... eytype=ref then it's time you should. If these chaps say it's very hard to see what the effect of helmet use then that's because it's very hard to see it: they have no axe to grind and see their jobs as being finding useful information in statistical data.

As has been explained, helmets can be expected to work according to their specifications, but EN1078 doesn't say anything about saving lives. Read the packaging on a helmet and you'll find various disclaimers, a note of the spec they're rated to and that's about it. Nothing about life saving, because the legal departments know they'd be in the soup if they were so foolish as to make such claims.

I further remind you of the Cycling UK helmet policy being much in tune with what I've said here (e.g., "Cycle helmets have in any case not been shown to be an effective way to reduce cyclists’ injury risks"). Do you think that means you think CUK are saying "helmets don't work", even though it's easy to find CUK imagery with helmeted riders, including staff?

Pete.

[853]

If you haven't read https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f38 ... eytype=ref then it's time you should.

Thank you for providing a link to a source with statistics.

For those of you short of time, the above link is to an article from May 2013 from thebmj (a medical journal wholly owned by the British Medical Association). The article is based on the findings of this paper https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674 which is based on data for hospital admissions in Canada between 1994 and 2008, and compares the figures for the 6 provinces that implemented helmet legislation against those that didn't. As we haven't been discussing legislation, (from either perspective), it's not exactly comparing apples with apples - but it does offer some data. Below are the results and conclusions from the abstract (there's a lot more info if you've got the time to read it)

As the authors have said that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries, and that they encourage their use (and the data agrees with it), the advice from this is to wear a helmet

[Mike Sales]

If you haven't read https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f38 ... eytype=ref then it's time you should.

Thank you for providing a link to a source with statistics.

For those of you short of time, the above link is to an article from May 2013 from thebmj (a medical journal wholly owned by the British Medical Association). The article is based on the findings of this paper https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674 which is based on data for hospital admissions in Canada between 1994 and 2008, and compares the figures for the 6 provinces that implemented helmet legislation against those that didn't. As we haven't been discussing legislation, (from either perspective), it's not exactly comparing apples with apples - but it does offer some data. Below are the results and conclusions from the abstract (there's a lot more info if you've got the time to read it)


2617.jpg


As the authors have said that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries, and that they encourage their use (and the data agrees with it), the advice from this is to wear a helmet

Certainly they encourage helmet wearing, but if you actually read their conclusions they have to state that, even from their partial point of view, any improvements on an already decreasing head injury trend, are minimal.
I do not think that this piece shows what you, and its writers, wish it to.

Here are some papers which do not agree with this rose-tinted view.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1023.html

[Mike Sales]

Here is an article about the American experience.

Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm’s way.

But new data raise questions about that assumption. The number of head injuries sustained in bicycle accidents has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. With ridership declining over the same period, the rate of head injuries among bicyclists has increased 51 percent even as the use of bicycle helmets has become widespread.

https://bicycleuniverse.com/head-injuri ... e-helmets/

[pjclinch]

If you haven't read https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f38 ... eytype=ref then it's time you should.

Thank you for providing a link to a source with statistics.

Though the authors are statisticians with international reputations the piece is simple discussion and It doesn't have any statistics. It's not a peer reviewed paper but an editorial opinion from two highly regarded experts on how taking the peer reviewed research doesn't seem to get you anywhere, rather to their chagrin.

For those of you short of time, the above link is to an article from May 2013 from thebmj (a medical journal wholly owned by the British Medical Association). The article is based on the findings of this paper ...

No it's not. It's based on decades of experience of the cycle helmet debate in general, taking the paper mentioned as a starting point to say that the body of literature on helmets isn't conclusive because it isn't consistent and goes on to give some of the reasons that is so and problems that have yet to be overcome in the field.
The editorial says how the research to date doesn't seem to have solved anything, and you then take the single paper taken as a start point and treat it as though it's conclusive.

The peer reviewed literature is not conclusive. That's the point.

You seen to have missed that point.

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

The New Zealand experience.

You will note that the figures are from the New Zealand Government Ministry of Transport

[853]

The New Zealand experience.

You will note that the figures are from the New Zealand Government Ministry of Transport

I should point out that this is the Helmets & helmet discussion section, and we have been discussing head injuries and ways of preventing them.

Your graph is from New Zealand, probably the furthest country you could select from the UK. It is for the period 1988-2011, and it is now 2024, and is for total injuries - Not head injuries. It has no relevance to the discussion

The graph that you have cherry-picked actually comes from https://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html and says so at the bottom. If you had chosen to do so, you could have selected this one, which shows a reduction in deaths and injuries over a wider and more recent period of time.

[pjclinch]

The New Zealand experience.

You will note that the figures are from the New Zealand Government Ministry of Transport

I should point out that this is the Helmets & helmet discussion section, and we have been discussing head injuries and ways of preventing them.

Your graph is from New Zealand, probably the furthest country you could select from the UK. It is for the period 1988-2011, and it is now 2024, and is for total injuries - Not head injuries. It has no relevance to the discussion

Head injuries are a subset of total injuries. If the only thing changing is head injuries thanks to helmets then total injuries ought to go down as helmet use goes up.
About NZ being a long way away, how does that affect helmet efficacy?

The graph that you have cherry-picked actually comes from https://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html and says so at the bottom. If you had chosen to do so, you could have selected this one, which shows a reduction in deaths and injuries over a wider and more recent period of time.

But over a recent period of time in NZ there will be little variation in helmet use because they've been mandated for ages, so with helmet wearing rates not changing any variations in injury rates can't be attributed to them.

The key point in either graph is where the law comes in and wearing rates change and injury rates are not obviously affected.

Pete.