Negative View of Cycle Helmets

Capt'n Midnight

Squirrel wrote:

If cycling's so safe why not make it safer, or don't and just be a statistic

Cycling is intrinsically safe.
It's only motorists that make it dangerous.

If you don't believe me find out just how many cyclists died from non-motorist related cases that weren't obvious Darwin Award canidates.
Tommy Simpson - durgs overdose
Some guy who went over a 300m cliff
Two unlit cyclists who collided at night down near wexford.
Fabio Casartelli's injuries were such that a helmet would not have saved him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_cyclists_who_died_during_a_race
Of those
Saúl Morales - hit by a truck
Russell Mockridge - was killed by a bus in Melbourne at the Dandenong Rd / Clayton Rd intersection just 2.1 miles from the start of the race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Casartelli

Many have claimed if Casartelli had been wearing a modern bicycle helmet his life may have been saved, but the impact was not exclusively to the part of the head protected by a helmet, and an impact at nearly 100 km/h (60 mph) has more than twenty times the energy a typical helmet is designed to absorb.

Sean Kelly's brother got killed by a motorist too.

The easiest way to making cycling safer would be to ban cars.
This would only save about 300 lives a year.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnbyage2002.htm - excluding those under 15 and half those between 15 and 17 our poupulation is 2,776,587 since about 400,000 (1 in 7) hold a provisional license, less than half the population hold a full driving license, so motorists can be considered a minority !

some day I'll find more direct info from the NVDF

SimpleSam06

Civilian_Target wrote:

Dunno - I cracked my helmet off the ground when I came flying off on a roundabout in Blanchardstown last year. If I hadn't cracked my helmet I'd have cracked my head, which would have been substantially more painful/fatal and expensive!

I think that really says it all about the cycling helmets debate. Anyone that has some idea of looking "cooler" with no helmet is at higher risk than someone that wears one. Sorta reminds me of the young wans out in town wearing miniskirts on a -5 degree night. Pretty cool alright.

John_C

Squirrel wrote:

My brother has managed to smash his helmet as a 10 year old racing around the block. He's now 20, he'd be a dead 10 year old if he didn't wear one according to the doctors, that was the extent of his injuries even with it on.

A neighbour's child cracked her head on the side of a fireplace while playing in their living room. Accidents happen in all walks of life.

If anyone on here wants to convince me that helmets improve a cyclists safety they need only provide a link to a respected publication showing that they do. I would then make a decision based on the relative risks. At the moment the only study that I'm aware of is by a final year engineering student in UCD who concluded that helmets disimprove a cyclists safety. She found that cyclists wearing helmets took more risks, presumably because they felt safer in the helmet.

It's my opinion that helmets have been over-sold and don't give an increase in protection corresponding to the increase in accidents.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

Two-thirds of bicycle fatalities occur due to traffic violations and 90% involve collisions with motor vehicles.

motorists and law breaking are much greater risk factors than not wearing a helmet.

cyclopath2001

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I think that really says it all about the cycling helmets debate.

I think that your post says it all for the 'pro-helmet' lobby. Anecdotes are trotted out instead of scientific evidence. Reasoned debate is ignored.

Have you read the label in your helmet?

rubadub

John_C wrote:

She found that cyclists wearing helmets took more risks, presumably because they felt safer in the helmet.

This is true for drivers too. I know a woman who now drives a SUV and admits she takes far more risks on the road than when in her little micra. I have also heard anecdotal stories of mates who play GAA and the guys with helmets have more injuries, mostly to limbs, fingers etc.

No pro-helmet people have answered the question if they think motorists should wear helmets.

Morgan

I'd happily wear this type of helmet all the time:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/airbag-helmet.html

cyclopath2001

rubadub wrote:

This is true for drivers too. I know a woman who now drives a SUV

Aren't SUVs an example of hardware sold to consumers who believe them to be safer but the opposite is the case?

People like safety solutions that can be bought rather than practised. The industry knows this.

tabatha

if i say black, u say white!

Capt'n Midnight

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Aren't SUVs an example of hardware sold to consumers who believe them to be safer but the opposite is the case?

No there is a major difference. SUV's are no safer for the occupant than a car of similar price. They are however, 6 times more lethal for other road users and a there are a shocking number of "reversing over your own kids" incidents.

I've no problem with people driving "all terraine" vehicles provided they actually use them off the road more than once in a blue moon. And I'd ban all petrol ones because of the carbon dioxide - that could wean a lot of people off them.

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

if i say black, u say white!

When you're older, you'll learn to see the shades of gray.

Squirrel

Chances of getting people driving and cycling safe is very slim compared to getting people to wear a helmet.

Cyclopath2001, do you wear a seat belt in a car? Do cars you travel in have airbags?

randomname2005

I wear a cycle helmet. Chances are if I am hit by a truck/van/car moving quickly it might not save me but it might prevent serious damage being done. But a lot of crashes/possible crashes occur at low speeds (personal experience rather than the statistics mentioned earlier!) :

one previous posted said they came off at a roundabout and cracked their helmet,

i came off my bike recently, thankfully with no cars around and in the middle of the road, but if i had been positioned differently I could have hit my head off the kerb and if this was to happen i would much prefer to have a helmet.

Many times each week pedestrians walk out in front of me, drivers pull too far out of side roads etc if a collision was to occur I would prefer to have the benefit, however small it may be, of a helmet.

R

dalk

Can we just clear something up here.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that you shouldn't wear a helmet if you don't want to.

People are simply questioning their efficacy and the rationale behind making the wearing of helmets compulsory...

John_C

Squirrel wrote:

Cyclopath2001, do you wear a seat belt in a car? Do cars you travel in have airbags?

You're missing the point. Seatbelts and presumably airbags have been shown statistically to improve safety. As far as I'm aware, cycle helmets have not been.

rubadub

Squirrel wrote:

Cyclopath2001, do you wear a seat belt in a car? Do cars you travel in have airbags?

Well seat belts are the law, and airbags are standard on most cars now, just like brakes are standard on most bikes. I wouldnt purposely remove brakes or airbags (though some studies would say airbags are not so great)

There is no law requiring cyclists or motorists to wear helmets. I see a far higher % of cyclists wearing helmets than motorists, even though the studies others posted suggested that they are more beneficial to motorists.
So Squirrel, do you wear a helmet in a car, and if not why not?

Many here feel strongly about it, I hope they start up a similar thread in the motoring forums.

beans

I too have had a spill at low speeds, in which my head was the first part of me to hit the ground. This shattered my helmet, and left me stunned with a headache, but not a bruise nor scratch. In this case the helmet was a welcome addition.

Regardless of statistics etc, I have never before hit my head with such force, and I have walked quite a bit, climbed trees, climbed mountains, driven cars, and done various other activities. So in the narrow case of my experience, I can honestly say that helmets on bikes do prevent serious head injury. And therefore I will continue to wear them.

Granted their efficacy may be questionable in some cases (high-speed van-collisions etc), but there's certainly 0 harm and potentially much good that can come from using them. So it's a personal choice i guess, but evolution's not complete yet!

rubadub

beans wrote:

my head was the first part of me to hit the ground. This shattered my helmet,
And therefore I will continue to wear them.

Glad you were not injured. Now if you had gotten off your bike to go into the shop were walking, tripped and fell and shattered the helmet, would you now continue to wear helmets while walking around in normal life. If not why not?

Cabaal

rubadub wrote:

Glad you were not injured. Now if you had gotten off your bike to go into the shop were walking, tripped and fell and shattered the helmet, would you now continue to wear helmets while walking around in normal life. If not why not?

I really hate this type of argument, in fairness the use of a helmet is a messure to try and stop yourself from getting even more hurt if you hit something at speed.....yes if you were walking and you fell you could also hurt yourself and if you wanted you could wear a helmet but nobody does.

But when it comes to being on a bike its a preventitive messure.

GreeBo

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html motorists and law breaking are much greater risk factors than not wearing a helmet.

It only takes one person to wear a helmet to increase that persons safety yet it would take every motorist that person meets on the road to increase their "safeness".

The measure of how dangerous something is so a function of risk and exposure.
Comparing cycling to walking is, if you will pardon the pun, pedantic.

I reckon I look cooler cycling with my helmet on that I would sitting in a chair with my eyes rolled back, my head lolling about and drool running down my face.
But hey, thats just me.:cool:

tabatha

cyclopath2001 wrote:

When you're older, you'll learn to see the shades of gray.

no need to be so childish cyclopath and start throwing insults!

John_C

GreeBo wrote:

It only takes one person to wear a helmet to increase that persons safety

Here we are back at the nub of the argument. Can anyone provide proof of that statement?

Edit: I had a look on wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

It contains a lot of info, none of which has convinced me that wearing a helmet significantly improves my safety. The situation seems to be that a helmet will help me if I fall from my bike myself and hit my head but won't help me if I'm hit by a car and may even do me harm.

Some highlights:

a typical helmet will absorb the energy of a fall from a stationary or slow-moving bicycle, an impact speed of around 12mph, but will reduce the energy of a 30mph impact to only 27.5mph, and even this will be compromised if the helmet fails

It is important that a helmet should fit the cyclist properly - according to research up to 96% of helmets have been found to be incorrectly fitted, and an incorrectly fitted helmet puts you at up to three times more risk.

There is good evidence to suggest that helmets prevent many minor head injuries. Solid evidence for their preventing any serious or fatal injuries is much harder to come by. The former UK Minister for Road Safety, Mr David Jamieson MP, acknowledged that he knows of no evidence linking increasing helmet use with reduced severity, or risk, of head injury to the cyclist population

tabatha

John_C wrote:

Here we are back at the nub of the argument. Can anyone provide proof of that statement?

i think the proof is speaking to the people that have had accidents and fallen off their bikes, who have had helmets on that have protected them. there are plenty of people who have told their stories on here. personally i remember the young girl of about 11 from ballyfermot a few years back who fell off her bike and hit her head off the side of a roundabout and died. i can recall at the time that a doctor in the hospital saying that if she has of had a helment on she would have surrived.

personally speaking, my husband is an avid cyclists. he cycles more than 20 miles a day. he never leaves home without his helmet on. it's more of a "just in case" type thing. you never know what could happen. ins't "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure".

for how many years were there no laws regarding the use of seatbelts. if it even protects one life, isn't that enough?

John_C

First up, I edit my post before I saw yours.

The proof you mention tabatha is not enough for me. If wearing a helmet significantly improved your safety it would be possible to measure that statistically. It seems that many people have tried but none have succeded.

The problem with anecdotal evidance is that you can use it to prove anything. I know a lot of people who have banged their heads doing a lot of things. Some safety equipment, like seatbelts, have been properly proven to improve safety. That is not true from what I can tell of bicycle helmets. I agree with you that an ounce of pretection is better than a pound of cure but I'm not convinced that I'm getting an ounce of protection from my helmet. As far as I'm concerned, the best safety features of my helmet are the visor on the front which keeps the sun out of my eyes and the fact that when I'm wearing a hood it keeps the hood from blocking my side and rear vision.

tabatha

i think this says it all...


"The safety benefits offered by wearing a helmet do exist, but these benefits should be neither over-estimated nor under-estimated. Surely anything which can offer an extra amount of safety is worthwhile as long as it does not leave you with a false sense of security. "

http://www.whycycle.co.uk/safety-helmets.htm

dalk

Its would seem then, that a helmet is probably a little bit better than nothing for certain types of falls, in certain situations...

So, not a case for the wearing of a helmet when cycling to be made compulsory in my opinion.

tabatha

well if you value your life then it should be compulsory on a personal level then.

John_C

Fair enough, I think we're pretty much on the same wavelength.

If I may quote from the same source:

Cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to an average weight rider travelling at a speed of 12 mph falling onto a stationary kerb shaped object from a height of 1 metre.

That's basically my understanding of it. They'll help me if I fall off my bike myself but won't help if a car hits me. For the record, in an impact I would expect to be travelling faster than 12mph, be falling from a hight of more than 1 meter and be of above average weight. I would consider the safety benefits of my helmet to be less than the benefits of correctly adjusted breaks, tyres at the correct pressure or even having your shoe-laces tied properly. If there is a marginal benefit to helmets (which I'm not entirely convinced of) it is neglible when compared to the other risks on the road or in life in general.

John_C

tabatha wrote:

well if you value your life then it should be compulsory on a personal level then.

I don't intend this as a criticism of you so don't take it the wrong way but you're falling back onto an emotional argument. If helmets improve safety I want to see numbers that can prove it. I don't expect you to have them available but for such a commonly held belief this issue seems to be based on very little, if any, real evidance.

dalk

tabatha wrote:

well if you value your life then it should be compulsory on a personal level then.

You really swing to extreme worst case scenarios... Falling off bike = death? :rolleyes: