My helmet most likely saved my life yesterday

[cycle tramp]

Some evidence suggests helmeted have a higher fall-off rate.

I wouldn't be surprised... speaking generally a bike rider wearing a helmet is more likely to be an enthusiast of the idea of a bicycle as sporting equipment rather than as a mobility tool.

If....we accept this premise /hypothesis then those wearing helmets are likely to take (slightly) more risks and travel at a higher speed.. even using the bicycle to exhaust themselves (as apposed to hoping you have enough energy to cycle into town, do the shopping and make it back home before the ice cream defrosts/ or cycling yo the allotment to unearth your potatoes.. you ride in a style not to exhaustyourself, but to conserve your energy for the main event).

..if we di accept this or it can be proven, then we could step back from the whole helmet debate and re-focus more effective safety measures.

[Steady rider]

It sounds appealing, but it appears more complicated, for example, Robinson's 1996 reported injury data for children in Victoria and NSW. In Victoria, the equivalent number of injuries for pre law levels of number of cyclists increased by 15% from 1990 to 1992. For children in NSW the equivalent number of injuries increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) pre law in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. The relative injury rate increased by 59%, from 1310 to 2083. The relative increase in 'other' injuries of 72% and 27% for 'head' raises serious concerns. The proportion of head injuries decreased from 29.3% to 23.4% and would give the mistaken impression of a benefit if viewed in isolation.
Children's cycling speed and behaviour may have been similar and their accident rate increased in proportion to cycling levels.

Robinson (1996) stated, ‘Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling’. In 1991 the increased number of helmeted child cyclist from Melbourne surveys was 43 compared with 649 fewer cycling. Claims that cycling was not discouraged are misleading.

The Clarke/Gillham study of 2019 provides more examples of the increased accident rate associated with helmet wearing. Additionally, research generally shows helmet use associated with an increased risk of neck fracture for adults.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _to_Norway Appendix A for neck injury data for adults

A mandatory requirement or helmet promotion may influence the Courts and tend to reduce compensation for a non-helmeted cyclist compared to helmeted ones or indeed motor vehicle occupants or pedestrians who sustain head injuries.

Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

Clarke CF, Gillham C,(2019) Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates

There are multiple issues and research is not properly addressing the issues to gain the level of understanding needed.

A partial solution for the UK to the above could be to made by changing the advice in the Highway Code by stating,
research evidence shows cycle helmet may not provide an overall safety benefit , even if helping to reduce the risk of head injury in some cases. Evidence shows their use may increase the accident risk from falls and result in an increase neck injury risk for adults. Accident compensation due to cyclists must not be reduced based on whether they were wearing a helmet.

[wheelyhappy99]

I've only ever looked at this topic a couple of times and couldn't be bothered posting anything given that most contributors don't appear open to new information. Having seen this thread I will just pass on the experience of two people who, in separate incidents decades ago, fell off their bikes on the same fairly steep descent, having run into gravel washed down from the side of the cutting. No other vehicles involved.

My aunt, then in her twenties, frequently suffered ever after from severe headaches and couldn't focus on a TV screen for long.
A friend, then in his teens, was hospitalised for days while his head injury was treated. He has been deaf in his left ear since then.

I am not a doctor or other relevant expert but, based on their outcomes, if the same happened to me would much prefer to have a polystyrene carbuncle on my head in the hope it reduced the impact damage. This is simply for information and I won't be replying to any posts made in response.

[pjclinch]

I've only ever looked at this topic a couple of times and couldn't be bothered posting anything given that most contributors don't appear open to new information.

I think you'll find they're open to genuinely new information, but more anecdotes are not genuinely new information. As the saying goes, "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".

<snip anedcdotes>

I am not a doctor or other relevant expert but, based on their outcomes, if the same happened to me would much prefer to have a polystyrene carbuncle on my head in the hope it reduced the impact damage. This is simply for information and I won't be replying to any posts made in response.

Based on those two outcomes... if those are representative outcomes, and if the accidents are representative of a typical cyclist experience, and if a helmet would indeed have meaningfully mitigated those adverse outcomes then that would be a pretty clear call, but those are all rather big ifs and it's far from clear what the answers to them are.

As ever, the assumption made here that it's a general case that one must be better off in a helmet does not stand scrutiny.

Pete.

[mattheus]

I won't be replying to any posts made in response.

Good for you!

meanwile, I'm blocking your posts (something I've rarely had to do on this forum, praise be :-) )

[roubaixtuesday]

I won't be replying to any posts made in response.

Welcome to the discussion forum

[mjr]

, fell off their bikes on the same fairly steep descent, having run into gravel washed down from the side of the cutting. No other vehicles involved.

No vehicles, but gravel, which was removed from most helmet tests in the late 1990s, so you cannot count on a helmet offering effective protection in impacts involving it.

if the same happened to me would much prefer to have a polystyrene carbuncle on my head in the hope it reduced the impact damage. This is simply for information and I won't be replying to any posts made in response.

Yes, hope is all you'd have in that case. You'd not have any predictable benefit. It would be better not to ride so fast on gravel washouts, or even better to get the highway authority to do remedial works that prevent them.

If you're falling onto the top of your head, then of course it will probably be better to have some padding there, but that rather overlooks the bigger question of whether the helmet affects the decisions of the user or other road users and might make injury collisions more likely in total.

The main information this adds is that helmet fanatics will cling to any anecdote to bolster their irrational faith in polystyrene, regardless of whether it was likely to help.

[pjclinch]

No vehicles, but gravel, which was removed from most helmet tests in the late 1990s, so you cannot count on a helmet offering effective protection in impacts involving it.

The gravel, and whether or not it's in a test, is not cleary that important in impact protection. Whether I slide out on gravel, ice, oil, just going too fast round a bend etc. has little bearing on the energy I lose when I hit the ground. The ground remains the ground, whatever mechanism was involved in hitting it with some amount of kinetic energy, and somehow adding gravel, ice, oil or just losing traction by overcooking it into a helmet testing protocol won't really tell us much more.

Though you're quite right in pointing out ways of not falling off to start with being more useful than hoping a helmet works. It's pretty obviously not going to help much beyond your head, and those other bits suffer in falls on gravel too. In "gravel rash" we even have a well understood term for it: doesn't break much, hurts like hell.

Pete.

[mjr]

No vehicles, but gravel, which was removed from most helmet tests in the late 1990s, so you cannot count on a helmet offering effective protection in impacts involving it.

The gravel, and whether or not it's in a test, is not cleary that important in impact protection. Whether I slide out on gravel, ice, oil, just going too fast round a bend etc. has little bearing on the energy I lose when I hit the ground. The ground remains the ground, whatever mechanism was involved in hitting it with some amount of kinetic energy, and somehow adding gravel, ice, oil or just losing traction by overcooking it into a helmet testing protocol won't really tell us much more.

Wouldn't impacting the helmet on gravel rather than flat tarmac put rather differently uneven stresses on the surface? Helmet shells became noticeably thinner after the tests became simpler.

[Cugel]

Wouldn't impacting the helmet on gravel rather than flat tarmac put rather differently uneven stresses on the surface? Helmet shells became noticeably thinner after the tests became simpler.

In 1990/91 I acquired a first cycling helmet as they became de rigueur for road racing with many race organisations. It was a simple thing of hard (and quite thick) shell encasing a polystyrene inner. It was quite heavy (I recall the neck ache after any race in which I wore it) and looked like a large black soup dish upside down on me noggin.

Others had similar things. None of us liked wearing them as they were heavy, cumbersome and ugly. They were not evident on the training rides and chain gang outings for a year or few.

Later came the thin shelled and lighter helmets, although they were still half a kilogram or more. Gradually they were adopted as part of the always-worn uniform by racing cyclists .... and later by the wider cycling public.

Part of the evolution of helmet design (perhaps all of it) seemed to be driven by two main factors - how light they could be made and what they looked like. Now and then, a token mention was made of their supposed safety features, such as when MIPS was invented. But usually their supposed primary function of providing extra safety to the head was never mentioned in the adverts and "reviews". It was all about looks and light weight.

**********
In all my racing and training or any other group cycling, I never did see a helmet damaged in any way that could indicate that it had absorbed any significant force. In fact, to see a helmet even scratched on its thin shell was a very rare thing. They seemed to get damaged more by being dropped as the rider put them on or took them off!

After reading gawd-knows how much info concerning the functioning (or otherwise) of cycling helmets, I concluded that they were of little utility to my safety. Perhaps they save some accident-prone cyclists from a worse headache? It's very hard to know, eh? They certainly make the manufacturers zillions of profit.

[roubaixtuesday]

In all my racing and training or any other group cycling, I never did see a helmet damaged in any way that could indicate that it had absorbed any significant force. In fact, to see a helmet even scratched on its thin shell was a very rare thing. They seemed to get damaged more by being dropped as the rider put them on or took them off!

Years ago I had a head-on when an out of control car skidded across a bend into me.

My helmet cracked through; I suffered minor concussion but cannot say how different my injuries would have been without the lid.

I guess a couple of points follow:

(1) there are low likelihood serious consequence events which mean their lack of utility on most rides isn't necessarily at all relevant to whether helmets are a Good Thing or not.

(2) Rider care and skill is very important, but residual risks remain

The questions then are how significant the residual risks are, and to what extent helmets mitigate them, and what other downsides there are to helmet wearing.

I don't believe the risks are all that significant, or that helmets make a huge difference. Population level studies would surely show a conclusive difference if either were true.

I do think it's likely that in a severe collision they improve outcomes somewhat, though it's really impossible to say how much.

I also don't think there's much downside in most of my riding (historically, commuting and long leisure rides) to wearing one. I don't suffer from discomfort from the weight you describe and I normally forget it's on. It's also a useful mount for high level lights, which I think make a big difference to night time visibility.

So I always wore a lid for commuting, and normally do for leisure rides.

I don't when it's very hot, when I get sweat pouring into my eyes, and I don't for utility riding where it's just a PITA.

Obviously, my choices are purely rational and uninfluenced by societal norms or emotion, unlike others in the debate

[Cowsham]

I think spending time arguing against / for helmets is as harmful as the premise your argument is hung on if for no other reason than it's a waste of your life.

This is the thought that struck me when I wondered how many pages are written on this forum v everything else when helmets are mentioned.

Any statisticians care to crunch the numbers on that one?

[pjclinch]

No vehicles, but gravel, which was removed from most helmet tests in the late 1990s, so you cannot count on a helmet offering effective protection in impacts involving it.

The gravel, and whether or not it's in a test, is not cleary that important in impact protection. Whether I slide out on gravel, ice, oil, just going too fast round a bend etc. has little bearing on the energy I lose when I hit the ground. The ground remains the ground, whatever mechanism was involved in hitting it with some amount of kinetic energy, and somehow adding gravel, ice, oil or just losing traction by overcooking it into a helmet testing protocol won't really tell us much more.

Wouldn't impacting the helmet on gravel rather than flat tarmac put rather differently uneven stresses on the surface? Helmet shells became noticeably thinner after the tests became simpler.

First up, we don't know what the victims landed on, only what took them out.
Second up, the point is to mitigate injuries by absorbing some of the energy. That's still going to happen. I don't know but I doubt the uneven profile of gravel is going to cause significantly more problems to a helmet in a notional test than a kerb edge.

Helmet shells mainly became weaker with the transition from the original standards to EN1078, which is generally a lower spec. From an impact absorption point of view that's a Bad Thing, there again it means the helmet overall can be cheaper, lighter, more comfortable and lower profile, all of which are arguably Good Things in a "better hairnet" - it depends if you want a better hairnet or substantial armour. It would help if more people realised that you don't get the latter of you build for the former though.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

I think spending time arguing against / for helmets is as harmful as the premise your argument is hung on if for no other reason than it's a waste of your life.

This is the thought that struck me when I wondered how many pages are written on this forum v everything else when helmets are mentioned.

Any statisticians care to crunch the numbers on that one?

A significant amount of what gets said on here isn't arguing for or against helmets but trying to provide information and perspective on what we know, what we don't and what we can realistically expect of them.

If nobody bothers sticking at that then the idea that's already quite pervasive among the UK public that it's irresponsible not to wear one because they are a proven significant public health intervention may well get as far as ministers, damaging for cycling, transport policy and public health.

I don't think that's a waste of my life. I do wish I didn't feel the need to do it.

Pete.

[Cowsham]

I think spending time arguing against / for helmets is as harmful as the premise your argument is hung on if for no other reason than it's a waste of your life.

This is the thought that struck me when I wondered how many pages are written on this forum v everything else when helmets are mentioned.

Any statisticians care to crunch the numbers on that one?

A significant amount of what gets said on here isn't arguing for or against helmets but trying to provide information and perspective on what we know, what we don't and what we can realistically expect of them.

If nobody bothers sticking at that then the idea that's already quite pervasive among the UK public that it's irresponsible not to wear one because they are a proven significant public health intervention may well get as far as ministers, damaging for cycling, transport policy and public health.

I don't think that's a waste of my life. I do wish I didn't feel the need to do it.

Pete.

Sometimes it's good to sit down and have a talk with yourself.