Cycle helmets

blorg

I don't consider myself as part of an "anti-helmet lobby," and am not "rubbishing" helmet wearers. I don't see _anything_ wrong with people who do choose to wear them. I just don't wear one myself 100% of the time. For me it is mainly a comfort issue. If others are happy to wear a helmet, more power to them, I just don't want to see them made compulsory based on faulty reasoning.

TBH avoiding a "laissez faire" approach to cycling is likely to be more beneficial to your health than wearing a helmet. I ride fast myself, but I'm also observant and careful. And as I said, I would definately wear one mountain biking.

ruprect

Ghost Rider wrote:

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.

I think it is odd that they would brand people absolute idiots for not protecting their heads cycling, yet would laugh at the idea of wearing a helmet while driving or walking. I find it odd that they seem to have no regard for the safety of their other limbs and only seem to worry about brain damage. In my few crashes I never came close to hitting my head, but elbow, knee and thigh protection would have helped me. As I said before I would prefer limb protection to be mandatory before the head, (but would prefer none to be mandatory at all)

HusseinSarhan

ruprect wrote:

I have had a few falls and scrapes, and know far more people who had limb injuries on bikes than head injuries.

Irony here perhaps?

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

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.

I recall last year that one Dublin TD has it in her manifesto. In fact it was her entire cycling policy.

All we need is for a helmet factory in Ireland to lobby their TD to get a compulsoion law introduced to boost sales.

cerebus

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.

A valid concern. However, did you read the BMA report linked to above?

BMA wrote:

Significantly, with child cyclists, 85 per cent of accidents occur off road where primary prevention measures such as cycle lanes, vehicle speed reduction and driver education are ineffective [Go to reference 5].

Their statistics seem to show that the majority of accidents involving children occur in situations where other measures would have little or no effect. Would you be in favour of compulsory helmets for kids?

Again, let me stress that I am not necessarily a fan of compulsory helmet legislation.

RainyDay

ruprect wrote:

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.

Your finite element analysis drawings might give me some consolation the next time I'm missing the close family who died following a skull fracture after a fall down 4 concrete steps. Do send me over a set.

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.

That's possibly because they don't have broadband connections in the place where those cyclists who fractured their skulls are now.

blorg

RainyDay wrote:

Your finite element analysis drawings might give me some consolation the next time I'm missing the close family who died following a skull fracture after a fall down 4 concrete steps. Do send me over a set.

RainyDay, I am sorry for your loss but part of the issue is indeed that you are more likely to be killed falling down stairs than cycling but still nobody suggests the use of helmets for climbing or descending stairs.

Wibbs

ruprect wrote:

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.

Funny enough.... A few years ago I read a report from a state in the US that was bringing compulsory Helmet legislation for motorbikes. Among the bikers numbers was a loud call against same. Now you and I would think this a bit mad, but a few stats and a studies by some boffin types unconnected to the bikers supported ruprect's claim. Apparently if helmets were to be made compulsary in cars road deaths would drop off massively. Far more so than on motorbikes(and presumably their unmotored brethren). A huge amount of deaths in car accidents comes from blunt trauma to the head. When airbags became widespread such deaths dropped off dramatically. Deaths from bike accidents are largely due to crushing forces that no helmet will protect against.

Also IMH the head injury protection afforded by the usual type of bicycle helmet is fairly minimal. Unless you drop on the top of your head or some weird angle you're not that protected at all. Look at the average motorcycle helmet and compare and contrast. The full face jobs that some mountain bikers use I can see a reason and purpose for. That said in a rolling type of impact I would suspect serious wrenching forces on the neck from the pointy bits of said helmets catching the ground. The streamlined timetrial jobs I would suspect would be even worse in this respect(AFAIR they were banned in some big cycle races).

Personally I don't think it should be compulsory as apart from anything others have said on the con side, I have often found that people wearing "safety" devices of any kind can be wrongly overconfident. You can see it in a big way in cars. The "ah sure don't I have impact protection" mindset and the concomitant stupidity at speed is not that rare.

For me, I've tipped off a bike a number of times and I've never hit my head. Shoulders? Yes. Knees, arms, legs and elbows? Yes. Even my arse on occasion. Head? Nope. Now maybe I've been lucky, but I would have saved myself more injury if I'd had knee and elbow and wrist protection. That's another problem. Where do you stop with this? Some won't be happy till we're all swanning about cocooned in bubble wrap body condoms.

Trojan

I'm against making things mandatory (see bike lanes thread). However, I will also always wear my helmet. I've had only 1 fall where it may have helped me, but I think weighing the risk vs reward, it's worthwhile for me.

There was a recently (<2 years) reported case where a man was killed on the North Wall/Toll Bridge roundabout. He was hit by a truck - but that was not why he died. It was travelling extremely slowly around the roundabout. What killed him was that he fell sideways and smacked his head off the kerb. From reports, a helmet may have saved his life.

(I know about this story because I cycle through there all the time and wanted to know what the details of the accident were. I haven't found the thread with the history search, maybe someone else can find it. It was a man in his late 50s or early 60s, with a family, and the accident occurred early in the morning, 6.30-7.30 am)

blorg

Found some interesting pages on the CTC (UK National Cyclists Organisation) website about helmets as well as the BMA's about-turn on the issue. Trojan - I don't think anyone would argue that a cycle helmet has never ever saved a single life, but single cases don't really make that strong an argument.

Trojan

blorg wrote:

Trojan - I don't think anyone would argue that a cycle helmet has never ever saved a single life, but single cases don't really make that strong an argument.

Of course they don't. I'm giving a single anecdote where I believe that wearing a helmet may have helped under those specific circumstances.

This incident is relevant to me in that it confirms my thinking the risk-reward is such that wearing a helmet is the best option, considering the type of traffic I cycle through regularly. Also I find bright yellow tops to be very effective for visibility, and possibly have saved me from accidents that never happened.

This is not true for everyone, due to mileage and different cycling conditions, some may feel it is not necessary for them.

robfitz

Trojan wrote:

There was a recently (<2 years) reported case where a man was killed on the North Wall/Toll Bridge roundabout. He was hit by a truck - but that was not why he died. It was travelling extremely slowly around the roundabout. What killed him was that he fell sideways and smacked his head off the kerb. From reports, a helmet may have saved his life.

It's was just over a year ago, 2005-08-05. I've got some basic information about the accident at http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html (see 2005-08-05 entry).

I cycled down to the scene of the accident on the same day as the accident, around noon and took some photos rows 7 and 8.

From the photos I thinks it unlikely that the cyclists head or body could have hit the kerb, he could have hit his head on the ground. He may also have been thrown or rolled over as the initial impact seems to have been closer to the rail line.

I couldn't find a post on boards about this accident but here's an email I sent about the accident to ie-cycling.

robfitz wrote:

Here an update on the accident.

I went down to have a look at the scene later Friday afternoon.

It's not very clear from the markings on the ground. I think the
cyclist was coming from East Link Bridge onto East Wall Road. The truck
was turning onto North Wall Quay, it may have come from East Wall Road
or East Link Bridge though it seems to have taken a very wide (late?)
turn.

The cyclist seems to have been cycling near the outside edge of the
roundabout and was hit from the side by the front of the truck on the
drivers side.

These are some photos of the scene:

http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-08-05/2005-08-05_121036_1248.small.jpg
http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-08-05/2005-08-05_121154_1252.small.jpg
http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-08-05/2005-08-05_121210_1253.small.jpg

These are some news items in relation to the accident.

Dublin: Cyclist dies after collision with truck
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/08/05/story214868.html
Cyclist's death prompts lorry safety plea
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/08/05/story214901.html
Dublin crash victim named
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/08/06/story214999.html


These are the details for the most recent cyclist deaths.

2005-08-05, 58, Male, North Wall Quay & East Wall Road, Dublin, Truck
2005-02-15, 60s, Female, Swinford, Co Mayo, Truck
2005-02-09, 79, Male, Thurles, Co Tipperary, Car
2005-02-08, 32, Male, Nort Strand Road & East Wall Road (Annesley Bridge), Dublin, Truck
2005-01-20, 27, Male, East Wall Road & Alexandra Road, Dublin, Truck
2004-12-30, 70s, Male, Grand Canal Place & Echlin Street, Dublin, Truck

Trojan

Thanks rob, nice to have some facts injected. From my limited knowledge of the situation, I had thought that the cyclist was coming from Sandyford, across the bridge, and that the accident occurred at the location of the Yield sign at the foot of the bridge, with the truck turning right to head into town.

These pictures show a different story, so obviously my assumptions are incorrect. (I shall still wear my hi-vis jacket and helmet everytime I go through that area).

Ghost Rider

Well done, Rob.

robfitz wrote:

It's was just over a year ago, 2005-08-05. I've got some basic information about the accident at http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html (see 2005-08-05 entry).

I cycled down to the scene of the accident on the same day as the accident, around noon and took some photos rows 7 and 8.

From the photos I thinks it unlikely that the cyclists head or body could have hit the kerb, he could have hit his head on the ground. He may also have been thrown or rolled over as the initial impact seems to have been closer to the rail line.

I couldn't find a post on boards about this accident but here's an email I sent about the accident to ie-cycling.

Ghost Rider

(Apologise for this lengthy post in advance...)

I think it's important to point out situations such as the one Trojan described. There seems to be something of a resistance among those who are virulently against helmet legislation to acknowledging cases in which helmets have probably prevented death (bearing in mind that probability is all we have to go on.)

Even though that resistance becomes more understandable if seen as part of a pre-emptive stance against the possible introduction of coercive legislation, it can serve to distort many people's experiences.

I'm also concerned that the wrong message is being sent out to potential cyclists - people who may have a false sense of confidence when they take to the roads for the first time.

Two of my closest friends are now considering taking up cycling in Dublin and I'm duty-bound to tell them truth. That is, cycling in Dublin is not safe - not in the way that walking is.

It should be safe, and it might be in the future (if the political will materialises), but at present it isn't. The fact is that a far higher level of awareness is required of cyclists to avoid accidents than it is of motorists or pedestrians. You could put that down to the simple fact that cyclists' bodies are far more exposed than those of motorists, but that is neither here nor there. It is still true that pedestrians and motorists who decide to take up urban cycling who will have to step up their awareness levels considerably in order to avoid accidents.

The physical act of cycling is not inherently risky - not much more so than walking or running - but certain conditions dramatically increase those risks. Dublin is full of such conditions, yet the arguments against helmet laws often seem to play down the risks, and I think that's dangerous.

Trojan wrote:

Of course they don't. I'm giving a single anecdote where I believe that wearing a helmet may have helped under those specific circumstances.

.

robfitz

I'm just hearing on the radio that a Polish man cyclist has died at the pedestrian crossing beside Kilmacud Luas stop, after an accident a week ago. RTE

Here's two photos of the crossing from 2006 and 2005.

This crossing is only about 1km from my house, so I know it well. From the sounds of it the cyclist tried to jump the crossing while there was a pedstrain red light, or the car broke a red light. Loads of cars park (illegaly?) on the Luas side of the road which would have blocked the view of/from the junction.

It's not on my route home, but I'll cycle by it on my way home and see what information I can find out.

Trojan

Cheers GhostRider. I think it's important to balance both sides of the argument.

Let's see if I can summarise the argument neatly. Please copy and edit if you feel I haven't worded it correctly.

Compulsory helmets don't help average health and safety because less people will cycle, thus causing health risks, however,

for those who would cycle in either case, helmets do help health and safety because the risk of head trauma is decreased, however,

the risk of head trauma is low for certain cycling conditions.

Civilian_Target

40 posts later and I have yet to see any hard evidence that helmets are not of benefit to cyclists! I'm not the only person who thinks they are. Old I know, but...

The New England Journal of Medicine wrote:

A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets

A study conducted at five hospitals in Seattle between December 1986 and December 1987 of cyclists admitted to an emergency room. Of 776 cyclists admitted, 269 had head injuries. 235 of these, and 433 of the 507 cyclists who were admitted without head injuries, completed a questionnaire. The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%.

For all your knowledge of the well-formed skull, the above pattern is repeated across all medical research - helmets are far more effective at protecting your brain than your skull is.

However, I don't know what effect a mandatory helmet law would have overall. I'd have to call negative, a decline in the number of cyclists, when cycling has mostly positive health benefits, in my eyes can only be a bad thing, regardless of a small reduction in head injury rates.

ednwireland

had two accidents where helmet should have been involved one fell off the bike hit my head on kerb split the helmet in half rode home with sore neck second fell off without helmet ended up with several stiches and a cracked eyesocket (ende up in casualty) it was about the only time in 20 years i cycled without a helmet and beleive me it was the last. if a lorry or car hits you its not going to save you but you may walk away from accidents that might kill you. i dont understand people who cycle without helments i currently have a giro exodus ( plus 2 others) which is light cool cost about 100 euros and i dont get on a bike without it. my 2c worth

robfitz

Civilian_Target wrote:

40 posts later and I have yet to see any hard evidence that helmets are not of benefit to cyclists!

I'm absolutely sure wearing a helmet will reduce the severity of many different head verses soild object impacts. But the goal should be accident avoidance and not injury reduction.

A cycle helmet plays no part in accident avoidance (*).

Better awareness, education, and enforcement for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists will produce far fewer accidents and save far more lives then any sort of compulsory helmet law.

* keeping the sun, rain, dust, wind, etc out of you eyes does have a benfit but glasses will do the same

Capt'n Midnight

robfitz wrote:

A cycle helmet plays no part in accident avoidance (*).

There is an effect with young motorcyclists where they may think they are indestructable when wearing a helmet and my actually have more accidents.

SUV's are no safer for the ocupant than a normal car in the same price range, but people feel safer in them, even though they are 6 times more dangerous to other motorists, never mind all the kids that get reversed over.

In general improvements to driver safety have had a negative impact on pedistrians and cyclists since drivers feel they can take more risks.

A helmet does cocoon you from the environment a tiny bit so you may feel slightly less aware and may take more risks than without one, maybe.

I'll say it again, if you fall off your bike then a helmet is good.
If you are hit by a motorists such that you hit the ground at over 40mph then the normal polystyrene foam helmet won't make much of a difference, you'd need a motor bike helmet to handle that sort of impact.

Motorists should be made aware that one of the main reasons cyclists could need helmets (if not the main reason) is to protect them at juctions from motorists who cross their paths without indicating / yielding. Cycling is intrinsically safe, your chances of death or injury from another cyclists is minimal.

Civilian_Target

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Motorists should be made aware that one of the main reasons cyclists could need helmets (if not the main reason) is to protect them at juctions from motorists who cross their paths without indicating / yielding. Cycling is intrinsically safe, your chances of death or injury from another cyclists is minimal.

I think motorists are only the second most common reason for bike accidents. IMO the most common reason is cyclists rushing into poor road conditions, eg. cycling too fast on bad roads in the rain, or hitting oily patches at speed.

Cabaal

Civilian_Target wrote:

I think motorists are only the second most common reason for bike accidents. IMO the most common reason is cyclists rushing into poor road conditions, eg. cycling too fast on bad roads in the rain, or hitting oily patches at speed.

But when it comes to deaths it appears that cars, trucks, tractors etc are the cause of accidents...or are atleast involved in some way http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html

Ghost Rider

Why can't there be two goals? Accident avoidance AND injury reduction!

robfitz wrote:

I'm absolutely sure wearing a helmet will reduce the severity of many different head verses soild object impacts. But the goal should be accident avoidance and not injury reduction.

blorg

There can be as many goals as you like but you have to prioritise. Do you wear a helmet while in a car or bus? If not, why not?

Ghost Rider

The notion that the act of prioritisation entails the selection of "one" goal among many is an etymological illusion. One can prioritise two goals among ten, for example. There's no problem with that whatsoever.

When you ask why I don't wear a helmet in a car or a bus, you're implying that if there is a risk of head injury in a bike, a car and a bus, then it must be the same risk in all of them. This is not true. As I said before, I estimate the risk in each situation and act accordingly. On a bike, that means wearing a helmet. In a car or bus, it doesn't. We can argue all day about the relative risks but my risk estimations are based largely on my experience so we probably won't end up agreeing.

In short, the fact that I've been in two bike accidents, zero car accidents and zero bus accidents is significant to me. To imply that it shouldn't be is neither here nor there.

blorg wrote:

There can be as many goals as you like but you have to prioritise. Do you wear a helmet while in a car or bus? If not, why not?

blorg

Ghost Rider wrote:

The notion that the act of prioritisation entails the selection of "one" goal among many is an etymological illusion. One can prioritise two goals among ten, for example. There's no problem with that whatsoever.

Sure, I completely agree, and there are _at least_ ten things I would prioritise over a helmet. Ten very good points are made in How to Not Get Hit by Cars although there would also be others. As I said before, for me the marginal extra protection (and of course I admit there is some, helmets are not completely useless) doesn't outweigh the increased discomfort and hassle.

Back to the topic of the Polish cyclist killed near the Kilmacud LUAS stop, I cycle along that cycle lane every day myself and so took photos of the pedestrian crossing this morning:



As you can see there are double yellows immediately around the crossing but I don't think the cars parked up the rest of the road are parked illegally (and frankly I'd prefer them there than on the cycle lane) Rob - feel free to use these photos if you wish.

Trojan

Interesting link blorg, cheers. I'm glad to say I follow almost all of them to the letter. The single one I don't agree with is "Collision Type #7: The Rear End, Pt. 1" which is:

How to Not Get Hit by Cars wrote:

You innocently move a little to the right to go around a parked car or some other obstruction in the road, and you get nailed by a car coming up from behind.

He doesn't mention be aware of upcoming obstacles and move out into the lane in plenty of time, possibly signalling your intentions, as something to help avoid the problem.

Also, in there he doesn't mention "Look BIG" which is quite an important rule of thumb for city commuters