Cycle helmets

Victor

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/

BMJ 2006;332:852-853 (8 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7545.852-b

Letter
Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health?
Start with an assessment of the base problem, rather than assume a solution

EDITOR—In a subject as polarised as the efficacy of cycle helmet research it is hardly surprising that Robinson's work disagrees with a considerable body of the evidence and that the same can be said of pieces suggesting helmet use is highly beneficial.1 2

Much controversy still exists about the effectiveness of cycle helmets, and it shows no sign of abating. This uncertain state of affairs is not a reasonable basis for a major piece of public health legislation such as a compulsory helmet law for cyclists.

Before any further calls are made for such measures we must take a much more informed grasp of the true degree of the dangers of cycling. The data (summarised well by Wardlaw3) show that cycling is not particularly more dangerous than being a pedestrian and those accidents that do happen are not especially more productive of head injuries. Though a law requiring helmets for pedestrians might reasonably be assumed to have a similar effect on public health as one for cyclists, we know as a culture happy with the relative safety of being pedestrians that such a law would be absurd. In countries that have retained a cycling culture a similar view is evident for cycling: helmet use among cyclists is low, and so are rates of cyclist head injuries.

When asking why the UK public (including its legislators, civil servants, journalists, and doctors) has lost its confidence in the safety of cycling, a highly plausible answer is the extraordinary amount of time, money, and effort spent telling us that cyclists are in terrible danger so they should wear a helmet. In comparison, pedestrian safety campaigns do not tell us we are always in terrible danger without a piece of armour: they tell us we are typically quite safe if we behave sensibly, which is also true for cyclists.

Helmets are not a sensible answer for pedestrian safety, even though many of them are injured or killed on the roads every year, and cyclist safety should be approached the same way: promote skilled interaction with other traffic, and ensure the other traffic is in turn operating responsibly.

Peter J Clinch, clinical scientist

Department of Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Robinson DL. No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets. BMJ 2006;332: 722-5. (25 March.)[Free Full Text]
2. Hagel B, Macpherson A, Rivara FP, Pless B. Arguments against helmet legislation are flawed. BMJ 2006;332: 725-6. (25 March.)[Free Full Text]
3. Wardlaw M. Three lessons for a better cycling future. BMJ 2000;321: 1582-5.[Free Full Text]


Related Articles

Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health?
BMJ 2006 332: 722. [Full Text]

Arguments against helmet legislation are flawed
Brent Hagel, Alison Macpherson, Frederick P Rivara, and Barry Pless
BMJ 2006 332: 725-726. [Full Text]

Three lessons for a better cycling future
Malcolm J Wardlaw
BMJ 2000 321: 1582-1585. [Full Text]

Ghost Rider

I suspect the author of that is not a cyclist. If he was, he'd realise that the analogy between pedestrian safety and cyclist safety is extremely misleading. There is at least one major difference: pedestrians do not share the road with cars.

Victor wrote:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/

Morgan

Ghost Rider wrote:

I suspect the author of that is not a cyclist.

He is:
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cycling.htm

I agree with his argument.

blorg

I suspect the author was a cyclist. Most people pushing for mandatory helmet laws are most definately _not_ cyclists, and it is well known that when such laws are brought in (Australia is the key example) cycle use drops dramatically, with a likely attendent increase in public health problems due to the drop in exercise.

blorg

Ghost Rider: The aim of the "pedestrian helmet compulsion" idea is to challendge the notion that cycling is in some way terribly dangerous, which it simply is not. The original point was made in this article, which the author of that letter references:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

The point is, cycling and walking are about the same; in fact you are slightly more likely to be killed from a mile walking than a mile cycling:

The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial. Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping. Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling.

milod

I've avoided two serious head injuries and one almost certain fatality by wearing a helmet. Perhaps I'm not an average cyclist, in that I tend to go absolutely as fast as my fitness/gradient will allow.

On the three occasions when I was spared serious injury I was travelling at 35 to 45 kmph. On one occasion a car crashed into me when pulling out of a side road - on that occasion I literally landed on my head and have a cracked/dented helmet and fractured shoulder to show for it.

I would hazard a guess and say that most people using this forum are not the tweed jacket/trouser in sock/bike with basket variety of cyclist and should think about using a helmet...

All that said, I don't agree with making them compulsory - let Darwin prevail

Johnny Jukebox

milod wrote:

I would hazard a guess and say that most people using this forum are not the tweed jacket/trouser in sock/bike with basket variety of cyclist and should think about using a helmet...

Exactly. Its something thats never discussed when the helmet debate kicks off. If you ride hard, you'll fall hard, and a helmet makes all the difference between walking away and been carried away.

Ghost Rider

I understand the argument. Now note that I made no comment on the issue of law enforcement regarding helmets. What I said was that the writer's implication that cycling is as risky as walking is nonsense. It is in fact worse than that: it's dangerous nonsense.

At the present time, cycling in an urban environment such as Dublin city is risky - emphatically so. I, for one, believe it could be made a lot less so if more cyclists were willing to admit this uncomfortable truth, rather than shy away from it as if the mere suggestion was in danger of tainting their activity with a bad smell.

What else is likely to give cyclists the kind of conditions they need - decent road maintenance, proper cycle tracks, a culture of respect towards cyclists and so on - than the admission that these conditions do not currently exist? Than the admission that cycling in Dublin is far riskier than it needs to be?

And by the way, Blorg, when you say that you are slightly more likely to be killed walking a mile than cycling a mile, might that be related to the fact that you would spend 3-4 times as long walking that distance as you would cycling...?

blorg wrote:

Ghost Rider: The aim of the "pedestrian helmet compulsion" idea is to challendge the notion that cycling is in some way terribly dangerous, which it simply is not. The original point was made in this article, which the author of that letter references:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

The point is, cycling and walking are about the same; in fact you are slightly more likely to be killed from a mile walking than a mile cycling:

blorg

The author of the letter states that he sometimes wears a helmet himself - whenever he is doing any more "dangerous" types of cycling, in his case technical mountain biking. He's not opposed to helmets, just compulsion. That is what the letter/article being debated is all about - compulsory cycle helmets.

One of the points made in the original BMJ article was exactly that the data suggests that while helmets do help prevent minor injuries (grazing and bruising) they do _not_ actually prevent serious injuries (a skull is a lot harder to crack than polystyrene, so a cracked/dented helmet does not necessarily indicate that your head would have cracked open.)

What I am questioning is that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity, which it is not, as long as you take reasonable precautions. And by reasonable precautions I would mean defensive cycling, awareness of the environment around you, etc.

Two simple rules that are going to do you much more good than wearing a helmet: (1) never cross a junction on a red light; (2) never undertake a HGV.

Of course I completely agree with you that the safety situation can be made better (although I would question whether cycle tracks are the way to do this- they have a horrendous safety record) but frankly the statistics do not support the allegation that cycling in Dublin is suicidal as many people seem to think. I can understand how people, particularly new cyclists, might _feel_ that way however, and I do think the attitudes of other road users in particular has got worse over the last ten years. Cycled the length and breadth of Manhattan recently and drivers were far more courteous and careful than they are in Dublin.

beans

never undertake a HGV.

Written in the dust on the back of a truck on the Quays in Dublin recently, there was an arrow pointing around the truck to the right labelled 'Passing Side', and an arrow pointing between the truck and the kerb labelled 'Suicide'...

I had a good chuckle

Mucco

blorg wrote:

(2) never undertake a HGV

I don't really want to get involved in the helmet debate again[/] but as blorg has indicated, cyclist fatalities in Dublin nearly always involve a large vehicle. Show me the helmet that will protect me from being crushed by a HGV, and I'll take it.

cyclopath2001

Johnny Jukebox wrote:

Exactly. Its something thats never discussed when the helmet debate kicks off. If you ride hard, you'll fall hard, and a helmet makes all the difference between walking away and been carried away.

Not exactly true, if you're hit hard, you'll also fall hard.

Are you suggesting that helmets protect against broken leg?

Capt'n Midnight

can't find links but I seem to remember that a bicycle helmet was fairly ok if you fell off your bike. But was of very little use in collisions with motorists doing more that 30-40mph. A bicycle helmet does not give as much protection as a motorbike helmet which is what you'd need if you got hit by a car travelling at speed.


Some designs keep the rain off though.

Civilian_Target

Having been saved by a helmet, I will always wear a helmet when cycling at any speed. And I would advise any other cyclist to wear a helmet too. However, there are people that just don't want to wear them, and that's fair enough. On their head be it (drumroll)

It shouldn't be compulsory to wear a helmet, but it is advisable.

cyclopath2001

Civilian_Target wrote:

It shouldn't be compulsory to wear a helmet, but it is advisable.

Do you wear a safety helmet while using the stairs at home?

The stairs in your home — the ones you climb up and down every day — can be dangerous. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information2, between April 1, 2001 and March 31, 2002, a total of 6,224 Canadians fell on or from stairs or steps in their homes and were injured seriously enough to require a hospital visit. More than half of the 6,224 people hospitalized — 3,426 — were seniors (men and women 65 years or older). When seniors fall, the consequences can be severe and long-lasting.

blorg

One of the problems though, Civilian Target (and others), is how do you _know_ you were saved by a helmet, e.g. how do you _know_ what the outcome would have been if you were not wearing them? The evidence for cycle helmets saving lives is all anecdotal, and you don't know that your outcome would not have been the same in any case.

In Australia head injury admission did fall somewhat, but far less than the drop-off in cycling:

Studies in Australia show some prevention of superficial injuries (such as scalp lacerations) but only marginal prevention of "mild" head injuries and no effect on severe head injuries or death. When helmets were made compulsory in Australia, admissions from head injury fell by 15-20%, but the level of cycling fell by 35%. Ten years later, cycling levels in western Australia are still 5-20% below the level they were before the introduction of the law yet head injuries are only 11% lower than would be expected without helmets.

In Canada we see the same pattern:

The data presented by LeBlanc and colleagues show that the risk of head injury per cyclist did not change as a result of the law, but rather the risk of other injuries approximately doubled. Their bicycle count data show a 40%–60% fall in the number of cyclists after the law was passed, from 88 per day down to 33 or 52 per day. Their injury data show a sharp fall in total injuries in 1997, but for 1998/99 the number of injuries was higher than before the law (443 v. 416). The absolute number of head injuries has fallen by half, but so has the number of cyclists, although the total number of injuries has increased. Likewise, the claim of a doubling in the rate of helmet use omits the more telling point that the absolute number of cyclists using helmets did not materially change.

blorg

By the way, I have _no_ objection to people who actually do wear helmets; I have one myself and do wear it occasionally. I just object to the making of them compulsory, or the idea promoted that utility cycling / commuting / touring is somehow inherently dangerous, because it simply isn't (not too keen on the snide Darwin remarks I must admit.)

The point is, a cyclist not wearing a helmet is a hell of a lot healthier than one who gave up cycling because of mandatory helmet laws (a figure often quoted in the UK, I think by the British Medical Association, is that the health benefits outweigh the risks by a factor of 20, and _everywhere_ mandatory helmet laws have been passed has seen a severe decrease in cycling.)

Johnny Jukebox

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Not exactly true, if you're hit hard, you'll also fall hard.

Are you suggesting that helmets protect against broken leg?

On your first point, no argument.

On your second, of course not. But they can protect against a broken leg and a fractured skull.

FWIW, I've fallen off bikes literally hundreds of times, mainly offroad granted but a fair few spills on the road too. Helmets *do* work

cyclopath2001

Johnny Jukebox wrote:

On your second, of course not. But they can protect against a broken leg and a fractured skull.

Definitely no protection against a broken leg. Fractured skull - maybe depending on the nature of the fall and the speed.

FWIW, I've fallen off bikes literally hundreds of times, mainly offroad granted but a fair few spills on the road too. Helmets *do* work

Sounds like you need a helmet alright.

blorg

Johnny Jukebox wrote:

FWIW, I've fallen off bikes literally hundreds of times, mainly offroad granted but a fair few spills on the road too. Helmets *do* work

There is a lot to suggest that they protect against minor injuries but not major ones. I have taken a fair number of spills myself including two broken bones and a helmet would have helped me only precisely once, when I hit my head directly on the tarmac. That time there was a hell of a lot of blood and bruising but nothing serious. A helmet may have prevented this but point is it is unlikely it would have saved my life.

Just an anecdotal counterpoint. I would be sure to wear a helmet mountain biking also.

Civilian_Target

blorg wrote:

One of the problems though, Civilian Target (and others), is how do you _know_ you were saved by a helmet, e.g. how do you _know_ what the outcome would have been if you were not wearing them? The evidence for cycle helmets saving lives is all anecdotal, and you don't know that your outcome would not have been the same in any case.

I _know_ because my helmet had a big crack in the side of it and had to be replaced. If my head had ploughed into the tarmac at that pace, hospital would have been pretty much a certainty! And it happened so fast there would have been no time for any real protective reaction.

I don't tend to descend the stairs at 20mph, so I don't feel the need to wear a helmet.

Raphael

blorg wrote:

One of the problems though, Civilian Target (and others), is how do you _know_ you were saved by a helmet, e.g. how do you _know_ what the outcome would have been if you were not wearing them? The evidence for cycle helmets saving lives is all anecdotal, and you don't know that your outcome would not have been the same in any case.

I always wear a helmet for the same reason as Civilian Target. When I was younger I rode a friends bike, and ploughed straight into a wall. Their brakes weren't as good as mine >.< I was wearing a helmet at the time, which cracked in half on impact and cut me deeply enough that I have a scar on my forehead today. Now, seeing as the impact split the helmet in half, I really don't want to think about what it would have done to my poor young head.

RainyDay

I never bothered with a helmet until I saw a friend's split helmet after a car pulled out of a side road and he went over the bonnet. When I think waht would have happened to his skull without a helmet, wearing a helmet ain't so bad.

blorg

But break and absorb energy is _exactly_ what a helmet is designed to do. Your skull is much harder.

I'm not saying they are useless, but there are so many "a helmet saved my life" stories and given that _most_ cyclists don't wear them it just doesn't square up with the injury statistics. If there are X true "helmet saved my life" cases among the minority of cyclists who do wear helmets you would surely expect X*3 (or whatever, presuming 25% use) fatalities among the majority who don't.

But the truth is, there just aren't that many fatalities, and in any case the majority would not have been avoided with a helmet, HGV crushing being the particular problem in Dublin. These "helmet saved my life" cases just don't exist in any appreciable number; "helmet saved me a bad graze" perhaps.

Among things cyclists actually have control over, I would suspect drunken cycling, cycling without lights, frankly stupid/illegal cycling and plain inattention to surroundings are significantly bigger issues than non-helmet wearing.

cyclopath2001

Civilian_Target wrote:

I don't tend to descend the stairs at 20mph, so I don't feel the need to wear a helmet.

You would, if you fell.

dalk

blorg wrote:

Among things cyclists actually have control over, I would suspect drunken cycling, cycling without lights, frankly stupid/illegal cycling and plain inattention to surroundings are significantly bigger issues than non-helmet wearing.

Agree 100% with blorg's views. The above are real cycling safey issue.

milod

blorg wrote:

One of the problems though, Civilian Target (and others), is how do you _know_ you were saved by a helmet, e.g. how do you _know_ what the outcome would have been if you were not wearing them?

On one occasion a pedestrian ran into the road in front of me - I had time to duck my head which hit his head. The result was a scuffed knee and a buckled front wheel for me, and a fractured skull for him - helmet vs head, helmet won.

On another occasion a car hit me, bike stopped, I continued across car bonnet landing on head and shoulder - the was helmet severely cracked and dented. I landed head first from a height of roughly 1.5m - I may not be a physicist, but I know the helmet saved me!

Ghost Rider

Your argument here (and elsewhere) has to do with fatalities and/or serious head injuries, but that's taking a very narrow view of the debate. If a helmet prevents me from the possibility of getting a gash to my head, that's a damn good reason for me to wear one. End of, as far as I'm concerned.

And even if cyclists do other, more stupid things on bikes, what difference does that make? People fall off bikes for all kinds of reasons. Just because they're not minimising their risk of injury in every respect doesn't mean they should completely discard the whole issue of safety. It's not an "all or nothing" situation.

Also, the argument about public health being negatively affected by mandatory helmet laws is a red herring. Even if it were true that large quantities of people would rather not cycle at all than do so with a helmet (which I find hard to believe, even though I would rather not feel compelled to wear a helmet myself) that would not make public health in general the responsibility of legislators in the area of road safety.

In any case, the logic behind the argument itself is seriously flawed. The prevention of fatalities and serious head injuries is not the only benefit to wearing a helmet; there are plenty of other injuries which would be prevented by wearing a helmet and nobody could doubt that for a second. Therefore, statistics about the number of fatalities and head injuries give only a partial idea of what there is to gain by making helmets mandatory.

The concept of "the public health" is also a very wooly one and needs analysis. What sorts of medical condition does it take account of? I'd say it addresses issues like obesity and heart disease. Does it include non-fatal injuries to the head like concussions, hairline fractures etc.? I don't know, but I very much doubt it. If not, the argument that the public health would be negatively affected by making helmets mandatory is misleading. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is a distraction and not much more.

I repeat: I am not arguing helmets should be mandatory. I haven't thought through all the issues yet so I haven't reached a conclusion. I just believe that argument is a red herring.

blorg wrote:

But break and absorb energy is _exactly_ what a helmet is designed to do. Your skull is much harder.

I'm not saying they are useless, but there are so many "a helmet saved my life" stories and given that _most_ cyclists don't wear them it just doesn't square up with the injury statistics. If there are X true "helmet saved my life" cases among the minority of cyclists who do wear helmets you would surely expect X*3 (or whatever, presuming 25% use) fatalities among the majority who don't.

But the truth is, there just aren't that many fatalities, and in any case the majority would not have been avoided with a helmet, HGV crushing being the particular problem in Dublin. These "helmet saved my life" cases just don't exist in any appreciable number; "helmet saved me a bad graze" perhaps.

Among things cyclists actually have control over, I would suspect drunken cycling, cycling without lights, frankly stupid/illegal cycling and plain inattention to surroundings are significantly bigger issues than non-helmet wearing.

Ghost Rider

Why is it either/or? Can the issue of cycling safety not include drunken cycling, illegal cycling, lack of proper lights AND helmets?

dalk wrote:

Agree 100% with blorg's views. The above are real cycling safey issue.

Mucco

Ghost Rider wrote:

In any case, the logic behind the argument itself is seriously flawed. The prevention of fatalities and serious head injuries is not the only benefit to wearing a helmet; there are plenty of other injuries which would be prevented by wearing a helmet and nobody could doubt that for a second. Therefore, statistics about the number of fatalities and head injuries give only a partial idea of what there is to gain by making helmets mandatory.

I totally agree. Suits of armour should also be mandatory to save minor scrapes elsewhere on the body.

Ghost Rider

Okay, so I mis-worded that. What I meant was that statistics based purely on fatalities/serious head injuries give a misleading impression about what is to be gained by wearing helmets (as opposed to making them mandatory).

Mucco wrote:

I totally agree. Suits of armour should also be mandatory to save minor scrapes elsewhere on the body.

milod

Mucco wrote:

I totally agree. Suits of armour should also be mandatory to save minor scrapes elsewhere on the body.

C'mon will ya!! stop comparing apples and oranges...

I think the argument for a helmet centres round the notion that your head contains your brain, so falling on your arse is less likely to cause serious injury than falling on your head.

No doubt if your skull was surrounded by a nice shock absorbent muscle mass, the case for helmets wouldn't exist.

The simple fact is that as your speed increases, so does the chance of injury. Your skull is a vulnerable part of your body (ask Muhammed Ali...) which tends to hit things when propelled from a bicycle :eek:

blorg

milod wrote:

I landed head first from a height of roughly 1.5m - I may not be a physicist, but I know the helmet saved me!

It's anecdotal and you _don't_ know. I've landed on my head from a similar height in similar circumstances and just had a very bad cut and bruising (did go to hospital.) This experience does not mean that I recommend landing on your head from such a height but it is an anecdotal counter-point.

The fact is that the statistics do not support the case for helmets and there are probably at least ten things that action could be taken on before helmets (between cyclist actions, other road user actions, and the nature and state of the "facilities.")

We all seem to be agreed that helmets shouldn't be mandatory in any case, which is what this discussion was about. And nobody here has an objection to anyone choosing to wear a helmet as long as they are not compelled. I'm not saying to _you_ "don't wear a helmet," just accept _my_ choice to not wear one. (And I see helmet-wearing cyclists skipping red lights, cycling on pavements and performing dangerous manoeuvres every day, presumably insulated from the danger by their helmets.)

Ghost Rider wrote:

If a helmet prevents me from the possibility of getting a gash to my head, that's a damn good reason for me to wear one. End of, as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, it's a good reason for you, and that is fine, but preventing minor scratches and bruises is not generally a good motivator for coercive paternalistic legislation.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Why is it either/or? Can the issue of cycling safety not include drunken cycling, illegal cycling, lack of proper lights AND helmets?

It's not either/or but it's a matter of prioritisation. A lot of non-cyclist legislators have the very dangerous idea that compulsory helmets are some sort of cure-all when the truth is they are a disaster and they would be better off spending time on clamping down on other road users, road "facilities" and indeed other aspects of stupid cyclist behaviour. Helmets are simply a distraction from the real causes of cyclist injury/fatality.

You do know that countries with low helmet use have substantially less cyclist injuries than countries with high helmet use? Should motorists not also be forced to wear helmets, rally drivers wear them after all and presumably they are beneficial. If not, please explain why not.

Ghost Rider wrote:

The concept of "the public health" is also a very wooly one and needs analysis. What sorts of medical condition does it take account of? I'd say it addresses issues like obesity and heart disease. Does it include non-fatal injuries to the head like concussions, hairline fractures etc.?

The simple fact is that regular cyclists live longer on average than non-cyclists, accidents included, and don't have an appreciably greater chance of being killed or seriously injured in an accident.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Also, the argument about public health being negatively affected by mandatory helmet laws is a red herring. Even if it were true that large quantities of people would rather not cycle at all than do so with a helmet (which I find hard to believe, even though I would rather not feel compelled to wear a helmet myself)

You may find it hard to believe but the simple fact is that in all countries that have introduced such laws there has been a _dramatic_ reduction in the numbers of people cycling. Australia has a major child obesity problem (I am not saying this was the only cause but it doesn't help.) And in Canada while there was a radical drop in the number of cyclists there was no appreciable rise in the number of helmet wearers (e.g. basically what happened was the non-wearers simply stopped riding while the wearers continued.) Of course this is reported as an increase in the percentage of wearers but the fact is the absolute number stayed much the same.

dalk

Ghost Rider wrote:

Why is it either/or? Can the issue of cycling safety not include drunken cycling, illegal cycling, lack of proper lights AND helmets?

I wasn't making an either/or argument, merely stating an opinion on an order of importance. I believe proper cycling techniques/awareness etc is more important than wearing a cycling helmet. Simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-helmets or anything stupid like that.

I also disagree with the notion that cycling around Dublin is especially dangerous. This widespread belief merely puts people off cycling. A belief that in my experience (and my cycling friends) is not borne out by my everyday experience of cycling around the city.

Ghost Rider

All I can say is that my experience is different.

dalk wrote:

I also disagree with the notion that cycling around Dublin is especially dangerous. This widespread belief merely puts people off cycling. A belief that in my experience (and my cycling friends) is not borne out by my everyday experience of cycling around the city.

HusseinSarhan

Helmets should not be compulsary. It's not like seatbelts, the rider takes all the risk. It doesn't really affect anyone but the rider.

Anyone who argues that they do not prevent head injury is an idiot really. No personal attack intended, just what I'd call an idiotic opinion.

I wouldn't call someone a fool for not wearing a helmet though, maybe just foolhardy. Off-road though and you'd be a lunatic not to.

Cyling in Dublin is not especially dangerous.

Is it me or are there a huge amount of threads on this forum about commuting. Ok, the odd question about a hybrid or something technical is fine of course, but literally every second thread is about "what commuting tyres", "what pannier rack", "what rucksack", "cycle lanes" or "potholes". There IS a commuting forum. More threads about cycle-sport, or maybe organising spins would be good! A hell of a lot more interesting anyway.

milod

blorg wrote:

It's anecdotal and you _don't_ know. I've landed on my head from a similar height in similar circumstances and just had a very bad cut and bruising (did go to hospital.) This experience does not mean that I recommend landing on your head from such a height but it is an anecdotal counter-point.

So I'm pretty sure the helmet save me a trip to hospital

blorg wrote:

The fact is that the statistics do not support the case for helmets and there are probably at least ten things that action could be taken on before helmets (between cyclist actions, other road user actions, and the nature and state of the "facilities.")

lies, damn lies, and statistics - sure the death figures can be argued, but I'm happy enough to avoid a head injury - in the last 6 years I've avoided 4 head injuries (admittedly I may not have died, but the head bleeds like buggery :eek: )

blorg wrote:

We all seem to be agreed that helmets shouldn't be mandatory in any case, which is what this discussion was about. And nobody here has an objection to anyone choosing to wear a helmet as long as they are not compelled. I'm not saying to _you_ "don't wear a helmet," just accept _my_ choice to not wear one. (And I see helmet-wearing cyclists skipping red lights, cycling on pavements and performing dangerous manoeuvres every day, presumably insulated from the danger by their helmets.)

Sure, it's a good reason for you, and that is fine, but preventing minor scratches and bruises is not generally a good motivator for coercive paternalistic legislation.

Yeah, agree with this - though I'm an enthusiastic supporter of helmets based on my own (perhaps laissez-faire) cycling technique - I am totally opposed to a nanny-state approach - I think it would damage the already limited interest in cycling.

I think if I had to choose, I would rather see everyone on a bike with no helmet, tackling the obesity epidemic here in Ireland, than a few wearing compulsory helmets

ruprect

Ghost Rider wrote:

And by the way, Blorg, when you say that you are slightly more likely to be killed walking a mile than cycling a mile, might that be related to the fact that you would spend 3-4 times as long walking that distance as you would cycling...?

I would presume it is because of that fact. But if it is true it means it is safer for me to cycle to work than to walk. If you cycle 1 hour just for excercise and otherwise would be walking or jogging, then it may be more risky to cycle for the set hour.

RainyDay wrote:

I never bothered with a helmet until I saw a friend's split helmet after a car pulled out of a side road and he went over the bonnet. When I think waht would have happened to his skull without a helmet, wearing a helmet ain't so bad.

So do you now wear a helmet because of this? What if he was wheeling along his bike and it happened, and he split his helmet, would you consider wearing a helmet while out walking. My mate fell while walking drunk last week, broke his nose, jaw and cheekbone, everybody is joking saying we need to get drinking helmets, it does seem ludicrous but I know of far more people involved in injuries due to falling around drunk than any form of excercise.
In other threads some helmet wearing cyclists were branding others idiots and fools for not wearing them, yet would never consider wearing arm or leg protection. If some sort of protection was made mandatory I would perfer it to be arm and leg protection, its the only stuff I have ever considered wearing.

Civilian_Target

I don't understand what the anti-helmet brigade's issue with this is. I don't think anyone here is saying that wearing a helmet is, or should be mandatory. I don't think anyone here advocates cycling without lights (at night) either, and I think most of us agree it should be compulsory.

However, there is a concensus that, to a questionable extent, helmets provide head protection in the case of an accident. Whether that extent is sufficient to justify wearing a stupid looking, uncomfortable helmet is the matter of debate here, and a personal choice. I choose to wear a helmet, and would advise any quick-moving cyclist of same. I really don't care whether you choose to or not.

But don't go round debunking other people's anecdotal evidence and insulting their views without providing better evidence to support your own. You say the statistics do not support the case for helmets - I'd like to see them because I've seen some extremely good reasons to wear them!

RainyDay

blorg wrote:

Your skull is much harder.

I disagree - Your skull is a remarkably thin piece of bone around most of its surface.

kincsem

I don't land on my head very often.

Two I can remember -

As a six year old falling head first onto a footpath out of a parked, abandoned truck I was "driving". When I walked into my uncle's business, where my mother was visiting, she screamed. My face was covered in blood. Quite an entrance.:D

The second was this spring, falling off my bike and landing on my head in Enniscorthy at the end of the Mount Leinster challenge. The helmet cracked, I had a stiff neck from the impact, but was ok.

Cabaal

I think everyone here can agree that helmets should not be compulsory....can we?

OK, if somebody wants to wear one thats great
If they don't thats great too.

There's really no need to have such a big arguments over all this.

[EDIT] Oh and I do wear a helmet but only recently

cerebus

Before I go any further, let me state that I wear a helmet, but that I both understand and respect the opinion of people who don't believe in compulsory helmet legislation.

There have been some claims in terms of studies and statistics made eariler in this thread - just want to make sure people do some digging and educate themselves, then make up their own minds. I don't think the scientific evidence is as clear cut as some people have made out.

blorg wrote:

The fact is that the statistics do not support the case for helmets and there are probably at least ten things that action could be taken on before helmets (between cyclist actions, other road user actions, and the nature and state of the "facilities.")

You may find it hard to believe but the simple fact is that in all countries that have introduced such laws there has been a _dramatic_ reduction in the numbers of people cycling.

The British Medical Association's current (2004) policy on helmets is that they should be compulsory. This document states that recent findings suggest that some of the arguments you have made above do not necessarily hold true.

They provide some references to back this up. These cover both injury statistics and also the effect of compulsory helmet legislation on number of cyclists. (Note that they also provide a long list of other items that would help improve cyclist safety).

The most recent stuff I could find was dated April 2006, and this shows that the 2004 doc is still BMA policy.

Even the BMA is still not sure on the direction they will take though -minutes/votes from recent meetings seem to indicate that different groups want to (a) review the evidence and (b) keep the call for compulsory helmets.

Note that the BMA publishes the BMJ, source of the letter that Victor started the thread with.

Anyway, to re-iterate: do some research, then make up your own mind.

cyclopath2001

cerebus wrote:

They provide some references to back this up. These cover both injury statistics and also the effect of compulsory helmet legislation on number of cyclists. (Note that they also provide a long list of other items that would help improve cyclist safety).

The danger is that politicians, looking for a quick-fix, 'sound bite' solution to cyclist safety issues will go for the compulsory-wearing option and ignore measures that would stop the accidents happening in the first place.

Ghost Rider

I haven't made up my mind on the legal question yet. Some of the arguments against the legislation strike me as worthy of consideration; some are based on second-hand reports of statistics against which it is impossible to argue but which seem to me to be deeply counter-intuitive, and which therefore require further scrutiny; other arguments are simply a distraction.

One thing puzzles me about this debate, though: why is it taking place so vigorously here and now? Several of the posters have spoken as if there is a movement to pass such this legislation here in Ireland. Others have implied that the persistence of this debate occults so-called "real" safety issues, or at least de-prioritises them.

But where is this debate taking place apart from on this forum? What legislators are involved? I haven't come across any reference to the matter in newspapers lately.

Or could it just be that some people are expecting us to follow the lead of Australia in this matter? Or is it that the article from the BMI Journal is expected to prompt legislative debate in the UK (which will then have a knock-on effect here)?

Just curious...

ruprect

RainyDay wrote:

I disagree - Your skull is a remarkably thin piece of bone around most of its surface.

thin and remarkably strong. I studied mechanical engineering and in college they had crash helmets designs on computer using finite element analysis, the skull was also drawn up with all mechanical properties entered it is far stronger than you would imagine.
I have read numerous posters here talking of having crashes and most times their helmets crack, I have read no poster saying they didnt wear a helmet and had a fractured skull. All the people with cracked helmets then look at the crack and presume they would have died if they had not being wearing it. Helmets, like car bumpers ,are designed to absorb shock, one good way of doing this is to allow "crumpling".

Is there any talk of making wearing helmets in cars compulsory? I have read some reports saying it is far more advantageous to wear them in cars than on bikes.

jman0

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The danger is that politicians, looking for a quick-fix, 'sound bite' solution to cyclist safety issues will go for the compulsory-wearing option and ignore measures that would stop the accidents happening in the first place.

I'd say that is likely.
But only after cyclist fatalities garner the type of media attention motorist fatalities currently do.
Among folks i know (who are not cyclists) mostly seem to think a cyclist is "crazy" for not wearing one.
Therefore the Compulsary-Use lobby has already won. Or at least has a massive lead.

milod

ruprect wrote:

I have read numerous posters here talking of having crashes and most times their helmets crack, I have read no poster saying they didnt wear a helmet and had a fractured skull. All the people with cracked helmets then look at the crack and presume they would have died if they had not being wearing it. Helmets, like car bumpers ,are designed to absorb shock, one good way of doing this is to allow "crumpling".

Anecdotal though my evidence may be, I cracked a skull with my helmet when a pedestrian ran in front of me. I ducked my head, hit his head and fractured his skull, he also fractured the other side of his skull when he fell over, as I had knocked him unconscious!!

That proves to me that the helmet is stronger - admittedly with a crumple zone - your skull/brain doesn't have the luxury of a crumple zone...

I wear a helmet by choice and believe it should be a choice, NOT compulsory. But the anti-helmet lobby seem to need to rubbish everyone who has personal experience of the benefits of a helmet by quoting vague statistics

ruprect

milod wrote:

Anecdotal though my evidence may be, I cracked a skull with my helmet when a pedestrian ran in front of me. I ducked my head, hit his head and fractured his skull,

Some parts of the skull are weaker than others the forehead and hairline are very strong, I do not know where people are most likely to hit if falling from a bike. I think he was just unlucky, and you were lucky.

milod wrote:

That proves to me that the helmet is stronger - admittedly with a crumple zone - your skull/brain doesn't have the luxury of a crumple zone...D

Thanks christ it doesnt! most people would have brain damage.

milod wrote:

I wear a helmet by choice and believe it should be a choice, NOT compulsory. But the anti-helmet lobby seem to need to rubbish everyone who has personal experience of the benefits of a helmet by quoting vague statistics

I am not rubbishing it. I would find it to be a distraction myself, I do not wear hats on bikes for the same reason. I did mention I would wear arm and knee guards if anything, I have had a few falls and scrapes, and know far more people who had limb injuries on bikes than head injuries. I still think it odd that some helmet wearers who brand non-wearers fools would not consider any other form of protection other than helmets.

Seems for every study showing benefits there is another to say it increased accidents.

Ghost Rider

This does happen. I agree.

milod wrote:

But the anti-helmet lobby seem to need to rubbish everyone who has personal experience of the benefits of a helmet by quoting vague statistics

Ghost Rider

Why is that odd? Although some may disagree, I don't think my brain is in my knee or my elbow. For that reason, injuring my head is a risk I'm not willing to take, whereas injuring my knees or elbows is a risk I am.

ruprect wrote:

I still think it odd that some helmet wearers who brand non-wearers fools would not consider any other form of protection other than helmets.