Negative View of Cycle Helmets

Heinrich

All those riders in the Tour de France wear the helmets for some reason. They are of course compulsary but there must be a pretty good reason.

Imagine sweating up the Ventoux with a helmet, well the real riders do just that.

tabatha

dalk wrote:

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

it doesnt just have to mean death nor did i mean it to be that. valuing your life can also mean not wanting to be in a vegetative state for the rest of your life or the like.

GreeBo

John_C wrote:

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.

All of which I am assuming you do to increase your safety when cycling?
Using that logic why not just adjust your breaks and not bother with the rest?
Why go so far and then stop?
Not being blind drunk will increase my safety when driving a car but thats not the only precaution I take.

John_C wrote:

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.

If it can protect me from one category of falls then thats good enough for me.
If it offers any additional protection then that is good enough for me.
Christ, if it stops me skinning my head on the ground then thats good enough for me.

John_C

Heinrich wrote:

All those riders in the Tour de France wear the helmets for some reason. They are of course compulsary but there must be a pretty good reason.

Imagine sweating up the Ventoux with a helmet, well the real riders do just that.

That's a completly seperate scenario. They're segregrated from traffic and are only involved in single bicycle or bicycle - bicycle colissions, which is what the helmets are designed to protect from.

tabatha

John_C wrote:

That's a completly seperate scenario. They're segregrated from traffic and are only involved in single bicycle or bicycle - bicycle colissions, which is what the helmets are designed to protect from.

and can this not happen in dublin on a given day?

John_C

GreeBo wrote:

All of which I am assuming you do to increase your safety when cycling?

The point I was making, probably badly, was that most cyclists I see don't take these precautions so I would place them well ahead of a mandetory helmet law.

GreeBo wrote:

If it can protect me from one category of falls then thats good enough for me.

The problem here is that it seems (at least according to wikipedia) that wearing a helmet can put you at risk from a different category of fall. All in all, these seem to balance out and wearing a helmet doesn't improve your overall safety.

I'm not opposed to improved safety, I'm just not convinced that wearing a helmet does any good.

John_C

tabatha wrote:

and can this not happen in dublin on a given day?

It can and does, although Dublin cyclists do travel at a slower speen than cyclists in the tour. I don't have any figures to hand but I would be surprised if the number of dublin cyclists killed or seroiusly injured by colissions not involving a motor vehicle was anywhere near the figure for accidents involving motor vehicles.

Again, though I'm in danger of repeating myself, any solid numbers on the issue I've seen have told me that wearing a helmet doesn't improve my safety.

Downtime

John_C wrote:

I'm not opposed to improved safety, I'm just not convinced that wearing a helmet does any good.

I spent €120 on a helmet. Six months later I was hit by a stupid pedestrian crossing the road and was sent flying with bike attached to me. Hit my head off the kerb - dented my helmet - not a sratch on my head. My knees were f##ked but my head was in one piece. Without helmet I was dead.

Downtime

Heinrich wrote:

All those riders in the Tour de France wear the helmets for some reason. They are of course compulsary but there must be a pretty good reason.

They became compulsory only in 96 I think after Fabio Casartelli died descending in 95.

rob1891

Heinrich wrote:

All those riders in the Tour de France wear the helmets for some reason. They are of course compulsary but there must be a pretty good reason.

Imagine sweating up the Ventoux with a helmet, well the real riders do just that.

Before helmets were made compulsory riders would not always wear helmets, particularly in the mountains. It was a knee jerk reaction to the tragic death of Fabio Casartelli (edit: this statement is wrong!), who crashing at 50mph would have died helmet or no helmet. The rule is as much about image as protecting the safety of professional cyclists who are well able to decide when to wear or not wear a helmet themselves.

Photo - 13 Jul 2000: Marco Pantani of Italy and riding for Mercatone Uno keeps the edge on Lance Armstrong of the US and riding for the US Postal Team as Pantani won Stage 12 of Tour de France 2000 from Carpentras to Le Mont Ventoux, France.

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=4109

John_C

Downtime wrote:

I spent €120 on a helmet. Six months later I was hit by a stupid pedestrian crossing the road and was sent flying with bike attached to me. Hit my head off the kerb - dented my helmet - not a sratch on my head. My knees were f##ked but my head was in one piece. Without helmet I was dead.

But my problem is that while there is a lot of anecdotal evidance of helmets doing good in individual cases, any time a proper survey of the issue is taken helmets are found on average to be of no use.

There seem to be a lot of helmet wearing cyclists who claim that the helmet saved their life but then there should be an equal number of cyclists dead from falling and hitting the ground who would have been saved by a helmet and this doesn't seem to be the case. As far as I'm aware, the majority of cyclists killed in dublin die under the wheels of lorries and busses.

rob1891

Downtime wrote:

They became compulsory only in 96 I think after Fabio Casartelli died descending in 95.

We are both wrong, it was after the death of Andrei Kivilev in the 2003 Paris-Nice race that the rule was introduced. Up until recently they have been able to ditch the helmet for the final climb of a stage, but that's against the rules now too.

Johnny Jukebox

dalk wrote:

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

Agreed.

The quid pro quo must be *increased* liability on the part of a cyclist who suffers injuries that would have be mitagated had they been wearing an approved cycling helmet.

This is of course is extremely difficult to quantify; however the fact that such a consideration is made should serve to focus attention.

You cant have it both ways - so enjoy the upside of not wearing a helmet and live with the downside.

dalk

tabatha wrote:

it doesnt just have to mean death nor did i mean it to be that. valuing your life can also mean not wanting to be in a vegetative state for the rest of your life or the like.

Again...

You really swing to extreme worst case scenarios... Falling off bike = being turned into a vegetable? :rolleyes:

GreeBo

John_C wrote:

As far as I'm aware, the majority of cyclists killed in dublin die under the wheels of lorries and busses.

But that does not mean that there are no other types of accidents.
I see people falling off bikes all the time, hit a wet manhole, someone walks out, front wheel skids, etc.

I'd be very interested to see how wearing a helmet can reduce your safety (other than a misguided sense of "I can do what I want, Im wearing a helmet" but in that case the test is flawed (imo) as the subject has changed.

The only way to test helmet safety is to remove the person and perfom tests with dummies/instruments.

John_C

GreeBo wrote:

But that does not mean that there are no other types of accidents.

That's true of course but my point is that the number of people who claim that a helmet has saved their life seems to be completly out of proportion with the number of people who die for want of a helmet. My reasoning there is only anecdotal though so I can't be certain.

GreeBo wrote:

I'd be very interested to see how wearing a helmet can reduce your safety (other than a misguided sense of "I can do what I want, Im wearing a helmet" but in that case the test is flawed (imo) as the subject has changed.

The only way to test helmet safety is to remove the person and perfom tests with dummies/instruments.

The article I linked to earlier said that a helmet absorbes a straight force but increases the twisting force on a head. This, apparantly, is very bad for your brain.

Like I said earlier though, all these specific cases will average over time in a statistical look at cyclists killed. No large survey that I'm aware of has shown a benefit, on average, of wearing a helmet.

robfitz

These are the most uptodate numbers from the NRA based on Garda data.

NRA - Road Accident Facts
http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/ListofPublications/RoadSafety/


Collisions Classified by Type and Vechicles Licensed
Collision Type        1989    1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
Fatal                  430     432     402     384     394     371     405     415     424     408     374     362     360     346     301     334
Injury               5,401   5,635   6,092   6,293   5,982   6,239   7,712   8,271   8,072   7,831   7,433   7,395   6,549   6,279   5,684   5,447
Material Damage     13,507  13,859  16,095  15,997  15,455  16,127  19,825  21,662  22,364  23,604  24,995  25,066  21,191  17,915  17,930  16,525
TOTAL               19,338  19,926  22,589  22,674  21,831  22,737  27,942  30,348  30,860  31,843  32,802  32,823  28,100  24,540  23,915  22,306
Vechicles Licenced   1,020   1,054   1,060   1,260   1,151   1,200   1,262   1,338   1,432   1,512   1,608   1,684   1,770   1,850   1,937   2,036
(thousands)


Persons Killed and Injured
                      1989    1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
Killed                 460     478     445     415     431     404     437     453     472     458     413     415     411     376     335     374
Injured              8,803   9,429   9,874  10,188   9,831  10,229  12,673  13,319  13,115  12,773  12,340  12,043  10,222   9,206   8,262   7,867
TOTAL                9,263   9,907  10,319  10,603  10,262  10,633  13,110  13,772  13,587  13,231  12,753  12,458  10,633   9,582   8,597   8,241


Persons Killed Classified by Road User Type
Road User Type        1989    1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
Pedestrians            141     150     114     115     136     121     113     115     130     114      92      85      89      86      64      70
Pedal Cyclists          39      46      40      35      24      26      28      22      24      21      14      10      12      18      11      11
Motor Cyclists          46      41      63      59      53      55      57      58      68      37      43      39      50      44      55      50
Car Users              211     206     196     169     187     178     193     218     219     253     236     260     230     200     172     208
Other Road User         23      35      32      37      31      24      46      40      31      33      28      21      30      28      33      35
TOTAL                  460     478     445     415     431     404     437     453     472     458     413     415     411     376     335     374


All Casualties Classified by Road User Type
Road User Type        1989    1990    1991    1992    1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
Pedestrians          1,370   1,391   1,496   1,560   1,449   1,491   1,775   1,832   1,759   1,583   1,398   1,332   1,202   1,196   1,115     982
Pedal Cyclists         656     697     783     780     717     693     893     835     676     592     475     451     363     296     307     298
Motor Cyclists         792     809   1,039   1,036     932   1,004   1,291   1,263   1,282   1,136     986   1,179   1,084   1,031     840     681
Car Users            5,557   6,039   5,933   6,195   6,217   6,443   8,064   8,629   8,565   8,751   8,933   8,395   7,033   6,225   5,521   5,395
Other Road User        888     971   1,068   1,032     947   1,002   1,087   1,213   1,305   1,169     961   1,101     951     834     814     885
TOTAL                9,263   9,907  10,319  10,603  10,262  10,633  13,110  13,772  13,587  13,231  12,753  12,458  10,633   9,582   8,597   8,241

Other accident info is available on my site.

tabatha

dalk wrote:

Again...

You really swing to extreme worst case scenarios... Falling off bike = being turned into a vegetable? :rolleyes:

it has happened to people. be it a worst case scenario, but its fact.

tabatha

can i also just ask, what is the upside to not wearing a helmet?

John_C

Thanks robfitz,
That's an excellent site. It's the type of thing I've always tought the government should do. If we had a record of what percentage of deaths were caused by what factors we could pick the biggest ones and work on eliminating them.

I'm wandering off topic but it's always been my opinion that the majority of cyclist deaths are caused by a lorry turning or veering left when the driver is unaware that a cyclist is there. When I have some time I might be able to check that using your site.

beans

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've fallen a few times in recent times in various situations, but generally manage to stop myself by way of a hand etc. The fall from the cycle was so quick I never saw it coming until the impact.

Point is, during all my years of living and falling, it's only been a bike fall that has lead to head impact, and for that reason alone i'm going to continue to wear my hat. Given, my reason for wearing it in the first place was anectodal evidence about protection, but I'm glad in hindsight.

(edit - so i guess the point is that despite the negative perception of cycling helmets on the part of quite a few, I'm standing by their inherent goodness)

John_C

tabatha wrote:

can i also just ask, what is the upside to not wearing a helmet?

There isn't one, and noone is going to criticise you for wearing one. The point being made is that there is no hard evidence to back up the perception that wearing a helmet improves your safety.

Gavin

robfitz wrote:

These are the most uptodate numbers from the NRA based on Garda data.
site.

AH ! Looks like you shouldn't have told that British Open Rights Group lady what your name was.

beans

My helmet also makes me go faster! Aerodynamics and all that...

(well i think it does - anyone got any statistics about that)

robfitz

tabatha wrote:

can i also just ask, what is the upside to not wearing a helmet?

I'm not sure there is an upside. But it is better for someone to cycle without a helmet then to not cycle because you are required to wear a helmet.

http://home.connect.ie/dcc/submissions/ObesityTaskForceJune04.html
...
Mandatory wearing of cycle helmets does not apply in any country in Europe, but in countries where it has been introduced, it appears to have had the effect of discouraging significant numbers of people from cycling. There is no population-based evidence that compulsory use of cycle-helmets is of any benefit in reducing serious injury or death among cyclists. The British Medical Association reviewed the available data in 1999 and concluded that “one of the most important reasons why it could be disadvantageous to make helmet wearing compulsory at the present time, is the risk that it may discourage cycling”22.
...

tabatha

robfitz wrote:

I'm not sure there is an upside. But it is better for someone to cycle without a helmet then to not cycle because you are required to wear a helmet.

i think vanity has a lot to answer for here and honesty. of course thats the reason why in countries when it has become law (like australia) that people have stopped cycling. what other reasons are they besides that? i mean, are there any valid reasons why someone shouldnt wear a helmet? just saying that there is no scientific proof that it doesnt protect isnt enough. the fact of the matter is that there is proof that is does aid, be it a little amount, but it does. the reasons they say not having it out weights the reasons for making it law is that if it does become law a lot pf people wont cycle anymore. again vanity reasons. in australia this was the case.

GreeBo

robfitz wrote:

to not cycle because you are required to wear a helmet.

Thats the most ridiculous reason for not cycling I have ever heard.
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Such an incredibly "teenage" response to being forced to do something.:rolleyes:
It wouldnt bother me in the slightest if the number of cyclists was reduced because of such a law, just free up the cycle lanes more for me.
:cool:

Mucco

GreeBo wrote:

Thats the most ridiculous reason for not cycling I have ever heard.
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Such an incredibly "teenage" response to being forced to do something.:rolleyes:
It wouldnt bother me in the slightest if the number of cyclists was reduced because of such a law, just free up the cycle lanes more for me.
:cool:

It may be a lame excuse, but it's proven that cyclist numbers do drop on the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing
.

sobriquet

I don't think it's all to do with vanity that numbers drop when helmet wearing is enforced. It may be partially the cognitive effect of being told that cycling is so dangerous that we're making protective headwear mandatory. When it sinks in, people might go (consciously or otherwise) with a train of thought like, "I didn't think cycling was that dangerous, but in light of this I might reconsider."

For example, I've known one former cycle commuter who gave up when local road layouts changed. He insisted that the traffic was more dangerous. Personally, I don't agree and believe it's the sudden lack of familiarity that made him realise the nature of the risks he was previously taking as a matter of routine.

rubadub

sobriquet wrote:

I don't think it's all to do with vanity that numbers drop when helmet wearing is enforced. It may be partially the cognitive effect of being told that cycling is so dangerous that we're making protective headwear mandatory. When it sinks in, people might go (consciously or otherwise) with a train of thought like, "I didn't think cycling was that dangerous, but in light of this I might reconsider."

I agree. Also it eliminates casual cyclists who may have an old bike in the garage that they take a spin on every few months. They may not be bothered going out and buying a helmet and so just call it a day and let the bike rust. I don't know what their definition of "a cyclist" is but it may have been a survey to see how many people cycled in the last year or not. I am sure in the US states where motorbike helmets are not mandatory more people go on them and take lifts of them. Since it is law here I have had to turn down lifts on motorbikes due to a lack of helmet.

Still nobody is mentioning knee or elbow protection, questioning others as to what reason on earth they could have not to wear a helmet, well what about other protection do they practise what they preach. Or is it this bizarre notion, tap on the elbow, scrape- tap on the head, death.