Helmet just saved life...

chakattack

rp wrote: »

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

A quick review of the data:

The study was May-Jun 2006 all during daylight hours.

It was all urban cycling. 2 of the 2366 data points were on rural roads.

All the data was taken from 3 cities in the southwest of the UK by the same cyclist.

So we can conclude that for one man's cycling behaviour, dressed in civilian clothing on a hybrid bike with panniers cycling during summer daylight hours on urban roads in the southwest of the UK, drivers will give more distance passing if a helmet is not worn.

Are there any other similar studies with similar results? Or is this the only basis being used to promote an idea that cycling without a helmet decreases the chance of being hit by a car? It may well be true but there isn't a substantial volume of evidence is there?

What about during darkness when only lights can be seen?

What about rural roads?

galwaycyclist

chakattack wrote: »

Are there any other similar studies with similar results? Or is this the only basis being used to promote an idea that cycling without a helmet decreases the chance of being hit by a car? It may well be true but there isn't a substantial volume of evidence is there?

The available numbers suggest that the risk of injury went up for the remaining population of cyclists after Australia's helmet laws came in. One possible explanation for this is "risk compensation" by motorists changing their driving behaviour in response to the percieved protective effect of helmets.

rflynnr

Not sure this'll add much to the debate but for anyone who's really, here's the full version of the Bath study as it appeared in Accident Analysis and Prevention in March 2007.

MOD VOICE: Material is pay per view, putting it up here is the equivalent of stealing, anyone else does it and the ban hammer comes out

chakattack

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The available numbers suggest that the risk of injury went up for the remaining population of cyclists after Australia's helmet laws came in. One possible explanation for this is "risk compensation" by motorists changing their driving behaviour in response to the percieved protective effect of helmets.

That's a HUGE assumptive leap to make and definitely not evidence.

galwaycyclist

chakattack wrote: »

That's a HUGE assumptive leap to make and definitely not evidence.

It's evidence based speculation. Anyway although n = 1, Dr. Ian Walker's experiments do provide an evidential basis for one explanation for an effect that has already been identified at a population level (n = 100,000+) *


* or whatever the Australian cycling population was at the time of their laws.

chakattack

monument wrote: »

You want me to answer a yes or no to a question about a complex issue which a ton of researchers can't agree on? Fine, so overall my answer is:

No.

People commuting or going down to the shops would be, on balance, better off without helmets. I'll sum up what I have said already:

Even if helmets were proven to have some significance benefit (which there's no proof of), the risk of hitting ones head while cycling generally is so low that helmets have little practical everyday use unless you're very unstable, accident prone, or are engaging in risky behaviour. If we take the "just in case" view, where does it stop? Face protection? Pollution masks? Knee pads? All year around gloves designed to protect your hands from falls? Body armour?... Why stop at helmets when helmets have little to no backing?

Yes, a helmet may offer some protection, but that protection maybe so limited it will not be significance in reducing brain injury, a helmet may also cause more risk by motorists driving closer to cyclists, may contribute to cyclists engaging in risky behaviour and may make things worse with some types of crashes. Helmets may also have an off putting effect which reduces the health benefits of cycling at a population level.

Remember that my question was on an individual basis.

You're saying that on balance Mr. X is better off without one because the true efficacy (beyond cuts, bruises and scarring) of a helmet is unknown.

Your argument is that:

• if one wears a helmet it attracts drivers to pass closer - 1 very limited study has hinted at this - certainly not case closed - you said "some" studies earlier in the thread and elsewhere
• may contribute to risky behaviour - pure speculation
• may make certain crashes worse - possible but as unlikely as the low risk pootle to the shops crashes

The population argument is irrelevant to the question but also unproven in Ireland. Cycling is increasing...

A few more direct questions and I'm done:

• Why are you vehemently against helmet wearing given that there's lots of unknowns on both sides?
• Why do you advocate your views here and in other media by adopting the theories as fact when there's little concrete evidence to back them up?
• Is every person who doesn't wear a helmet a mini victory in the fight for public health and promoting cycling?

Now before my words are twisted further, the whole where does it stop argument is ludicrous, we're talking specifically about helmets on heads, not chinguards, kneepads or any of that madness.

I regular cycle short distances without a helmet and I don't care if anyone else does or doesn't. Thanks to this thread I'm much more skeptical about how good my helmet is but I never thought it was a protect all device either.

CramCycle

chakattack wrote: »

That's a HUGE assumptive leap to make and definitely not evidence.

I didn't read the study, another interpretation (not having looked at the numbers) is that only certain % people were putting themselves (excluding external circumstances) at risk by bad cycling techniques and that they did not give up (or only a minority gave up) cycling after the introduction of the law, therefore increasing the statistical risk without affecting the common sense actual risk.

Statistics you damned if you do and your statistically damned if you don't set your confidence interval correctly.

On an anecdotal note, bad accident myself a few years ago, went through the back of a car after being struck by another, gardai said I was lucky I had my helmet on, analysis of the accident showed that the helmet caught my head on the cross bar and is the reason for my persistent neck issues, if I wasn't wearing it, my head would have been fine and all that I would have happened was a few lacerations.

But like most of the helmet stories, its anecdotal, and in the general population means nothing, hopefully a few people realise that.

tomasrojo

I think the relevant question is whether a bare-headed cyclist is negligent. If not, we can stop having helmet threads.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the relevant question is whether a bare-headed cyclist is negligent. If not, we can stop having helmet threads.

At the very least it should be a clear point that money and time directed towards helmets by the RSA etc. should be directed elsewhere.

monument

chakattack wrote: »

Remember that my question was on an individual basis.

That's how I answered it. If you're replying to the you had in bold -- "which there's no proof of" -- anecdotal stories don't count as proof.

chakattack wrote: »

You're saying...
Your argument is that...

My argument is in more than one posts in this thread. The last post includes a summary -- and you did not even including my main point from my summary: the tiny risk of hitting ones head.

chakattack wrote: »

if one wears a helmet it attracts drivers to pass closer - 1 very limited study has hinted at this - certainly not case closed - you said "some" studies earlier in the thread and elsewhere
may contribute to risky behaviour - pure speculation
may make certain crashes worse - possible but as unlikely as the low risk pootle to the shops crashes

There's a good reason why I said 'may' so many times in the last post. I'm not saying these things are sure things.

Regardless of how limited you say it is, the study did not hint at it, it found such -- it is the first part of the first line of the conclusions of the research as published, although it also warns such is "...a poor guide to the likelihood of a collision occurring".

chakattack wrote: »

The population argument is irrelevant to the question but also unproven in Ireland. Cycling is increasing...

Cycling is increasing in some places in Ireland, in other places it's static or in decline. Even where it is increasing, only limited areas in Dublin have anywhere notable modal share for cycling and even those notable numbers are only just around 10% for sections of the city -- there's a long gap to bridge to the Dublin target of 20-25% of all trips by 2020.

chakattack wrote: »

Why are you vehemently against helmet wearing given that there's lots of unknowns on both sides?

If somebody wants to:

• stop phone masts been built because of radiation risks, or
• get people to wear a tinfoil hat because it will help protect against radiation, or
• have people not take an MMR vaccine because there's an apparent danger, or
• put a huge percentage of the safety focus for any road user onto styrofoam hat, or
• distract from the promotion of type of transport which has a wide-range of large benefits for individuals and the state

...then they need to have the burden of proof on their side.

chakattack wrote: »

Why do you advocate your views here and in other media by adopting the theories as fact when there's little concrete evidence to back them up?

What theories are you talking about?

chakattack wrote: »

Is every person who doesn't wear a helmet a mini victory in the fight for public health and promoting cycling?

Sure, if you want to use those words... and I guess "a mini victory" over hysteria too.

chakattack wrote: »

Now before my words are twisted further, the whole where does it stop argument is ludicrous, we're talking specifically about helmets on heads, not chinguards, kneepads or any of that madness.

Why is it so ludicrous?

The "where does it stop" question comes as a follow up to the weak "just in case" argument.

Keep_Her_Lit

OP, I'm glad to hear that you're OK. I'll chime in with my own tuppenceworth.

• I wear a helmet on nearly all cycle journeys. Occasionally I don't bother for very short local trips.
• I am opposed to compulsion. People's individual choices on the matter don't concern me.
• I believe that I am safer with a helmet than without one. This is based on intuition and experience, rather than the outcome of an objective, exhaustive study of the available research and data. In summary, if there is a reasonable risk of whacking my skull against a hard, unyielding surface, then I would rather place a layer of shock absorbant material between my skull and that surface than take my chances without any protection.
• Granted, helmets provide limited protection and I accept that there may be circumstances in which they can exacerbate rather than mitigate. But the basic concept remains sound and on balance my preference is to wear one.
• With approximately quarter of a century of urban/suburban commuting under my wheels, I am confident that my decision to wear a helmet is the correct one, for me at least.

Over that time, I've had quite a few spills. I have never been hit or knocked off by another vehicle (thank God), though I have crashed twice as a result of contact with other vehicles, both of which were entirely my own fault. Among those crashes, there have been four where my head has hit the road. In each case, I was wearing a helmet and did not sustain any head injury. In two of those crashes, the helmet was destroyed. In the other two, I was wearing an old bucket style '80's lid, significantly heavier and less fragile than today's helmets.

Of course, it is impossible for me or anybody else to say with certainty how I would have fared without a helmet. However, I do know for certain that I wouldn't have fared any better and I suspect that I may have fared worse in at least a couple of cases.

To take an example, one of those four crashes occurred when taking a corner at considerable speed one crisp winter's night. I was well warmed up and didn't realise just how cold it had become. There was a nice patch of frost waiting for me in the middle of the bend. When I hit it, there was no sliding sensation or gradual loss of control, as there can be in other conditions; the bike was simply gone from under me, instantaneously. I hit the road an unmerciful slap and although I got my hands out in front of me in time, there was very little grip on the road surface, so my fall wasn't broken as effectively as it might have been. Consequently, I concluded my ungraceful dismount with a good solid head butt to the road. I was shaken up and pretty damned sore but unharmed.

Now I really don't know just how hard I could head butt a road with my unprotected skull before something bad might happen. But not for all the money in the world would I be prepared to re-enact that accident helmetless for the sake of finding out.

Another of those four crashes occurred due to mechanical failure, when my handlebars snapped while descending at a good speed towards a T-junction with a red light against me. My desperate attempts to maintain control for the final couple of seconds made matters worse and I fell heavily and very awkwardly on my right side, breaking my collar bone. The side of my head got a good "clonk" off the road as I went down and my helmet maintained contact with the road until I eventually slid to a halt. I can still hear the sound of the lid scraping along the tarmac as I waited for my ordeal to end.

Once again, would that knock to the head have caused any serious injury had I not been wearing a helmet? I don't know. However, it seems likely that there would at least have been some cosmetic damage to the side of my head or face. Thankfully, I didn't need to get up with my broken collarbone and go searching the road for bits of my ear.

Those were the two accidents in which the helmets weren't destroyed. I won't bore readers any further with details of the others, except to say that I also believe the presence of a helmet on my head to have been beneficial on those occasions, rather than neutral or detrimental.

If helmets suddenly disappeared in the morning, I would continue to cycle and I don't believe that I would change my riding style as a result. For me, a helmet probably offers some level of risk reduction and it comes more or less "for free", so I see no good reason not to wear one. The financial cost is reasonable and infrequently incurred (provided you don't crash); modern helmets are light, well ventilated and reasonably comfortable to wear in most conditions; and I'm unconcerned about the appearance, so I'm not "paying a price" there either.

Some further ad-hoc thoughts on some of the points made in this thread:

• Regarding the distinction between sporting and non-sporting activity, I wouldn't find it useful to make that distinction. I would agree that per mile travelled, racing is riskier than commuting or leisure cycling. However, if you cover lots of non-competitive miles in a busy environment over a long period of time, there may still be an appreciable risk, depending on your riding style. Clearly, whether or not that risk is deemed negligible is very much down to the individual. But the bottom line is that once you're unfortunate enough to come off your bike and your bonce is headed for the tarmac, the context is of secondary importance.

• The modest standards which helmets are designed to meet gives rise to the argument that helmets can only provide protection in very limited circumstances and at low speed. I don't believe it's as black and white as that. In my own experience, crashes at higher speeds typically involve sliding, rolling and possibly glancing blows, as opposed to smacking full on into some immovable object which causes instantaneous deceleration to zero. A helmet can still provide a useful level of protection under such conditions.

• On the issue of compression vs. destruction of a helmet upon impact, the argument is made that a helmet which is destroyed by an impact has failed to protect as it should have, since the lining should instead compress. Is there some reason why the two must be mutually exclusive? Without claiming any expertise in helmet design, it seems entirely possible that the lining of a helmet could indeed compress as intended during an impact which ultimately destroys the helmet. Even if this isn't the case, the fact remains that the energy consumed by the destruction of the helmet will, in its absence, most likely be absorbed instead by the skull/brain.

• Apparently, it has been found that motorists allow less margin when overtaking helmeted cyclists than when overtaking helmetless cyclists. It certainly isn't a problem that I've noticed. That's not to say that I'm never skimmed or cut up. But it occurs very infrequently and I'm sceptical as to whether the kind of people who drive like this give a damn either way, consciously or subconsciously, about the type of apparel sitting on my head.

• The argument that helmet wearing deters others from taking up cycling seems tenuous at best. But even taking it at face value, my response would be: so what? I feel under no obligation to promote cycling just because I cycle myself. I really enjoy my cycling. If others want to take it up, great. If others don't want to take it up, great. It seems that there's a desire to create some kind of EUtopian cycling environment in which we're all gliding around serenely at 17.3km/h on our high nellies in our slacks and sandals. Naaaaah, no thanks!

chakattack

monument wrote: »

What theories are you talking about?

The concept that wearing a helmet invites sideswiping and that you're safer without one. It's a theory, with one limited study showing it to be true under a very specific set of circumstances. It may well be true but a lot more work is needed to get to that conclusion. For now the word may strongly applies but you continue to treat it like fact.

It's not a proven phenomenon but yet it's one of the key features of your arguments against helmet use.

It's written in the abstract...it must be universal truth

The way you use it is as bad as the way tabloids relay all sorts of psuedoscience and yet you're the one complaining about bad science when it suits you.

Your use of the word may highlights a degree of doubt in all the reasons you've used against helmet use but yet you're so firm in your crusade to save society one less helmet at a time. Once again, why bother?

Mucco

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the relevant question is whether a bare-headed cyclist is negligent. If not, we can stop having helmet threads.

A UK-based cycling barrister has written an article on this. Obviously it's based on UK law.
Cycle_helmets_a_duty_to_wear

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the relevant question is whether a bare-headed cyclist is negligent. If not, we can stop having helmet threads.

I agree that it's the relevant question in the context of personal safety (and the answer is wholeheartedly and abso-fookin-lutely no, in my view!).

But there is of course the broader picture - Is the parent of a child without a helmet negligent? Does wearing a helmet reinforce the public perception that cycling is dangerous? Should the topic under discussion really be why the helmet manufacturers appear not to have adequately addressed the significant questions about helmet design and effectiveness? Should helmets really be the focus of such attention anyway or should efforts be put into better education of road users instead? Why is polystyrene so bloody expensive anyway? The RSA - who, wha', why, why, and fookin' why? Etc.

I must admit that at least some of those questions are ones that I never placed any value on in the past, particularly those in relation to cycling by the public generally. I rode/ride my bike lost in my own world and didn't really care what other people thought about cycling. But as my circumstances have changed some of those have become questions/issues that I do consider relevant. Getting older is part of the reason why, becoming a father is part of it. But also, after 20 years of being a cycling blow-in in Dublin I look around and see commuting by bicycle only slightly more accepted than when I first arrived here - not only is it a bit depressing that car culture remains just as strong, if not stronger, it also bothers me that I'm surrounded on my commute by so many feckin' eejits in cars that simply have no experience of cycling, and arguably partly as a result of that they have little or no consideration for cyclists.

I've come to believe that a better understanding of cycling by all road users would be a good thing, but that's a huge challenge. I'm not even sure how you'd go about achieving that, but I've (reluctantly) come to believe that doing so involves tackling a far wider range of issues and misconceptions than I would once have considered relevant. I think helmets may fall into that category.

monument

chakattack wrote: »

monument wrote: »

What theories are you talking about?

The concept that wearing a helmet invites sideswiping and that you're safer without one. It's a theory, with one limited study showing it to be true under a very specific set of circumstances. It may well be true but a lot more work is needed to get to that conclusion. For now the word may strongly applies but you continue to treat it like fact.

It's not a proven phenomenon but yet it's one of the key features of your arguments against helmet use.

It's written in the abstract...it must be universal truth

The way you use it is as bad as the way tabloids relay all sorts of psuedoscience and yet you're the one complaining about bad science when it suits you.

Your use of the word may highlights a degree of doubt in all the reasons you've used against helmet use but yet you're so firm in your crusade to save society one less helmet at a time. Once again, why bother?

Sure, it's a theory that wearing helmets may increase the chances of sideswipes.

It is however more than just a theory to say that the study found motorists (in the study areas) drove closer to the cyclist when he was wearing a helmet compared to when he was not. People on discussion websites tend to speak more loosely and when I tried to be careful and repeated the word 'may' you took it to somehow mean something else.

As for the helmet and passing link being a key feature of any argument I'm putting across here - it's one part of a long list of things than make up my reasoning.

On helmet research in general, it's not just that there's little to nothing supporting their use for general commuting, but that the research against compulsion is stronger that for and the Netherlands shows there's no major problem which needs fixing.

Can I ask a question now?... Taking into account what I've already said re people on foot and in cars wearing helmets: Why don't we have people in cars and on foot wearing helmets?

chakattack wrote: »

The way you use it is as bad as the way tabloids relay all sorts of psuedoscience and yet you're the one complaining about bad science when it suits you.

You can't stand that up. I'm not saying helmets are harmfull, but just that there's a chance they may be which is backed by fairly solid --even if limited -- research.

chakattack wrote: »

Your use of the word may highlights a degree of doubt in all the reasons you've used against helmet use but yet you're so firm in your crusade to save society one less helmet at a time. Once again, why bother?

At this stage it feels like I'm on the receveing end of a crusade.

I've already answered why i'm bothered, even if you disagree with my reasoning. doozerie maybe does an even better job at explaining in the post directly before this one.

A big question is: Why are you so bothered?

smacl

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

The argument that helmet wearing deters others from taking up cycling seems tenuous at best!

First off, great post KHL, and I agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of it. Purely anecdotal, but I have seen strong negative reaction to helmets though, specifically for my image obsessed older daughter and nephew, and my fuzzy haired wife. For my daughter, I'm not sure she is put off cycling by the helmet, or uses the helmet as an excuse because she doesn't much like cycling. My nephew uses the bike one way or another, and is reluctantly made wear a helmet on longer journeys. My wife just cycles without a helmet full stop, potential severe brain damage is one thing, but don't go messin' up that ladies hair

I think if you skip back a couple of generations, e.g. to when I were a lad, the social motivation to take up cycling as a child was much stronger. No mobile phones to chat to your mates, and a phone in the hall with all ears listening in is not the same. No pyjama clad yummy mummies in SUVs acting as a free family taxi service. Bikes were necessary for many kids to have a decent social life. You also had a lack of distractions such as multi-channel TV, internet, and games consoles, so unless you were a scrabble fiend, doing anything outside seemed like a pretty good option. For those that don't cycle today, I seriously doubt that helmets are the issue, it's more to do with the role of the bicycle and the functionality it offers for those that don't want to cycle for its own sake.

dub_skav

Very well thought out and intersting post from Keep her lit. However, I have one problem with it that I see come up a lot.
You say that in the 2 crashes you describe that you hit your head, however you actually hit your helmet.

The helmet makes the effective radius of your head larger, meaning you are more likely to hit it off things.
I have had a few spills over the years, all unhelmeted and while my shoulder, hip and arms have taken a bang, I have never hit my head.
In my experience a sideways fall - far more likely than an over the handlebars type - means that the hip then shoulder hit the ground first. Years of growing up and experience of walking, running, falling etc both on and off the bike have taught all of us to protect our heads by keepiing them up away from the ground by pulling the neck muscles as far the other way as possible, thereby allowing the shoulder to take the hit.
The helmet in a way overrides all this experience by making your head that bit wider.

I am not saying that helmets make all situations worse, but I firmly believe from my own experience and my personal risk assessment that I am unlikely to land head first and that the increased radius of my head may make things worse in the type of accident I am likely to have. Add to this the increased risk of torsional injuries to the spinal column and I am not sure a helmet is of any real use for commuting.
Certainly I believe there are enough "just in case" worries to wearing a helmet to balance out the "just in case" worries of not wearing one.

droidus

Mucco wrote: »

A UK-based cycling barrister has written an article on this. Obviously it's based on UK law.
Cycle_helmets_a_duty_to_wear

That's pretty good. Some relevant quotes:

26. The risks are comparable to those faced by pedestrians yet nobody seriously suggests that pedestrians should wear helmets. What of the cyclist who crosses a shared cycle/pedestrian crossing alongside a pedestrian when both are run down by a motorist who jumps the lights?


27. There is also no real logic to a line drawn between the cyclist and the motorist. The motorist driving from London to Edinburgh faces a comparable risk of death or serious injury as the cyclist travelling from London to Watford. The real comparison is not with car seat-belts but with motor helmets.

...

Conclusion
38. It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with the person or persons responsible for the collision.

droidus

Id also like to say that the cries of 'there is no evidence that mandatory use would reduce numbers in Ireland' are annoying in their disingenuousness.

Of course there is no evidence, as mandatory use has not been introduced.

smacl

droidus wrote: »

Id also like to say that the cries of 'there is no evidence that mandatory use would reduce numbers in Ireland' are annoying in their disingenuousness.

Of course there is no evidence, as mandatory use has not been introduced.

I don't see anyone on this thread advocating mandatory helmet usage. Implying that those who wear helmets themselves, and believe that they're on balance beneficial as a matter of personal choice, are somehow advocating mandatory usage for all could also be seen as disingenuous.

droidus

I have neither claimed that there have been calls for mandatory use here (though I think there was at least one), nor have I implied that you or anyone else is advocating this.

What I am saying is that statements like this:

The population argument is irrelevant to the question but also unproven in Ireland. Cycling is increasing...

In response to the 'compulsion decreases numbers cycling' argument are completely disingenuous.

Bonita810

I'm glad that you are ok and that you are resonable enough to wear your helmet. Be careful next time!:(

monument

Bonita810 wrote: »

I'm glad that you are ok and that you are resonable enough to wear your helmet. Be careful next time!:(

Yes, I admit it! I'm not resonable! That's why I don't wear a helmet.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw

smacl wrote: »

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

The argument that helmet wearing deters others from taking up cycling seems tenuous at best!

First off, great post KHL, and I agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of it. Purely anecdotal, but I have seen strong negative reaction to helmets though, specifically for my image obsessed older daughter and nephew, and my fuzzy haired wife. For my daughter, I'm not sure she is put off cycling by the helmet, or uses the helmet as an excuse because she doesn't much like cycling. My nephew uses the bike one way or another, and is reluctantly made wear a helmet on longer journeys. My wife just cycles without a helmet full stop, potential severe brain damage is one thing, but don't go messin' up that ladies hair

I think if you skip back a couple of generations, e.g. to when I were a lad, the social motivation to take up cycling as a child was much stronger. No mobile phones to chat to your mates, and a phone in the hall with all ears listening in is not the same. No pyjama clad yummy mummies in SUVs acting as a free family taxi service. Bikes were necessary for many kids to have a decent social life. You also had a lack of distractions such as multi-channel TV, internet, and games consoles, so unless you were a scrabble fiend, doing anything outside seemed like a pretty good option. For those that don't cycle today, I seriously doubt that helmets are the issue, it's more to do with the role of the bicycle and the functionality it offers for those that don't want to cycle for its own sake.

In the one post you show how people don't like helmets, and then you say helmets are not because there are other issues.

Is there any chance helmets are an issue as well as the other barriers to cycling?

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Some further ad-hoc thoughts on some of the points made in this thread:

I don't see a point tackling your personal use of a helmet, but on your genral points...

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

[*] Regarding the distinction between sporting and non-sporting activity, I wouldn't find it useful to make that distinction. I would agree that per mile travelled, racing is riskier than commuting or leisure cycling. However, if you cover lots of non-competitive miles in a busy environment over a long period of time, there may still be an appreciable risk, depending on your riding style. Clearly, whether or not that risk is deemed negligible is very much down to the individual. But the bottom line is that once you're unfortunate enough to come off your bike and your bonce is headed for the tarmac, the context is of secondary importance.

Speed alone and the diffrence speed can make in a crash makes the distinction important. Regardless of individuals who commute at racing speeds, the genral adverage is much lower.

Another diffrence is urban vs rural roads -- the latter seem to be more dangerous statically and the bulk of commuters are on urban roads, while a lot of sporting type cycling is done on country roads.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

The modest standards which helmets are designed to meet gives rise to the argument that helmets can only provide protection in very limited circumstances and at low speed. I don't believe it's as black and white as that. In my own experience, crashes at higher speeds typically involve sliding, rolling and possibly glancing blows, as opposed to smacking full on into some immovable object which causes instantaneous deceleration to zero. A helmet can still provide a useful level of protection under such conditions.

For surface damage yes, for brain damage it seems no.

You're also backing up why diffrent cycling should be viewed differently.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

On the issue of compression vs. destruction of a helmet upon impact, the argument is made that a helmet which is destroyed by an impact has failed to protect as it should have, since the lining should instead compress. Is there some reason why the two must be mutually exclusive? Without claiming any expertise in helmet design, it seems entirely possible that the lining of a helmet could indeed compress as intended during an impact which ultimately destroys the helmet. Even if this isn't the case, the fact remains that the energy consumed by the destruction of the helmet will, in its absence, most likely be absorbed instead by the skull/brain.

The problem is that besides low impact crashes, ability of a bicycle helmet to absorb energy is tiny compared to the overall force, and thus no notable protection is offered to the brain.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Apparently, it has been found that motorists allow less margin when overtaking helmeted cyclists than when overtaking helmetless cyclists. It certainly isn't a problem that I've noticed. That's not to say that I'm never skimmed or cut up. But it occurs very infrequently and I'm sceptical as to whether the kind of people who drive like this give a damn either way, consciously or subconsciously, about the type of apparel sitting on my head.

The study which found motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists isn't about the feelings of its author but the mesurements which showed motorists did go closer to him when helmeted.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

The argument that helmet wearing deters others from taking up cycling seems tenuous at best

Yet, as shown in smacl's post, loads of people seem to have a problem with helmets.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

But even taking it at face value, my response would be: so what? I feel under no obligation to promote cycling just because I cycle myself. I really enjoy my cycling. If others want to take it up, great. If others don't want to take it up, great. It seems that there's a desire to create some kind of EUtopian cycling environment in which we're all gliding around serenely at 17.3km/h on our high nellies in our slacks and sandals. Naaaaah, no thanks!

The current Dublin City Development Plan says it well:

"Cycling is a healthy, efficient and environmentally friendly form of transport that has the potential to transform quality of life in the city and improve the health and well being of citizens. The vision for cycling is to make Dublin a city where people of all ages and abilities have the confidence, incentive and facilities to cycle..."

You don't want to live where a wide range of people of different ages feel good about getting on a bike?

I dont think high nellies, slacks or sandals will ever be mandtory.

droidus

monument wrote: »

I dont think high nellies, slacks or sandals will ever be mandtory.

But if they were, there is no evidence to suggest that this would affect the numbers cycling in ireland.

smacl

droidus wrote: »

I have neither claimed that there have been calls for mandatory use here (though I think there was at least one), nor have I implied that you or anyone else is advocating this.

In response to the 'compulsion decreases numbers cycling' argument are completely disingenuous.

No, but at post 38 even the implication of advocating helmet use was attacked with some zeal;

Personal choice is grand, but when we get to advocating helmets (as the OP and his consultant are doing) we're talking about something that can negatively affect the levels of cycling and thus negatively affect health at a population level and squander a good chance to lower the massive state spending on health.

Personal choice is grand, and that choice extends to expressing the opinion that regardless of the greater good, many individual cyclists are of the belief that in certain circumstances helmets can be beneficial. From where I'm sitting, it seems that this stance is difficult to attack, so the old reliable of 'the evils of mandatory helmet usage' was dragged out yet again as an easier target by those who'd brought it up in the first place. I don't have strongly held opinions on helmets one way or another, but seeing the same agenda pushed time and again irritates.

rp

monument wrote: »

Yes, I admit it! I'm not resonable! That's why I don't wear a helmet.

I'm guessing that you are at least consistently unreasonable, and don't wear helmets in cars or walking?

I dont think high nellies, slacks or sandals will ever be mandtory.

SPD sandals are law.

doozerie

Keep_Her_Lit wrote:

But even taking it at face value, my response would be: so what? I feel under no obligation to promote cycling just because I cycle myself. I really enjoy my cycling.

That has historically been my view too. My views have changed over time though, and particularly in relation to commuting. My commute is not a cycle that I particularly enjoy, some days it can be enjoyable alright but fundamentally it's a chore. The cycling that I enjoy is on routes that take me away from the city centre with its numerous traffic lights, congestion, aggression, etc., and on a bike and in clothing not well suited to my commute to and from my workplace. My commute obliges me to cycle on routes, and in circumstances (e.g. at rush hour), that I don't like much, which some days drains my journey on the bike of any and all pleasure.

Cycling remains my preferred means of getting to and from work though because it offers many benefits (it wakes me up, helps me wind down (sometimes), keeps my fitness ticking over, etc.) and also because the alternatives (drive, bus, walk, ...) suck by comparison. I'd like to think that my daughter will enjoy the same benefits of cycling when she is old enough to get around by bike. Even just the sense of freedom and options that being on a bike presents to you as a kid is something that I hope my daughter has to look forward to.

But it seems to me that as a society we continue to drift further and further away from seeing cycling as a real alternative to the car. At best many people seem to see cycling as a temporary bump in the road to becoming a car owner, at worst they see it as something so scary/undesirable/embarrassing/whatever that they'll never even consider it as an option. You could argue that that's their loss and leave it at that - it is their loss, but it's also our (cyclists) loss too as sharing the roads safely absolutely requires at least some consideration and empathy on the part of motorists and the less that motorists are able to relate to cyclists the less empathy they are likely to feel towards them/us.

That isn't to say that all cyclists are considerate towards each other, they clearly are not (I'm thinking of some of the regularly obnoxious idiot cyclists on my commute here), so there obviously is a greater battle involved than just getting motorists to treat cyclists with respect. But starting with promoting and encouraging the view that cycling is normal, safe, and fun can only help and that is something that we can all contribute to - and it needn't take much effort either, just an open mind and a willingness to view the bigger picture. I haven't always been willing to view the bigger picture personally, but I find more and more reason to do so these days.

smacl

monument wrote: »

Is there any chance helmets are an issue as well as the other barriers to cycling?

At the level of my kids, quite probably to some extent, but the bigger issue is they don't see the value in bikes that I would have at their age. Once the desire to be able travel significant distances independently kicks in, I'm hoping that will change. That's already been the case with my nephew, where the freedom the bike provides has real value.

monument

smacl wrote: »

No, but at post 38 even the implication of advocating helmet use was attacked with some zeal;

Personal choice is grand, and that choice extends to expressing the opinion that regardless of the greater good, many individual cyclists are of the belief that in certain circumstances helmets can be beneficial. From where I'm sitting, it seems that this stance is difficult to attack, so the old reliable of 'the evils of mandatory helmet usage' was dragged out yet again as an easier target by those who'd brought it up in the first place. I don't have strongly held opinions on helmets one way or another, but seeing the same agenda pushed time and again irritates.

Regardless the topic, when people express and relay strong opinions on an interweb board, its normal to expect people with the opposite view to also surface. Also regardless of topic, the "same agenda" or opposite view is likely to be "pushed time and again" when the other view is pushed "pushed time and again".

I'm quoting you for those phrases as you could pointlessly apply such emotive words to any contentious debate, not just one about helmets.

From where I'm sitting you do seem to have strongly held views on how beneficial helmets can be, given the small risk of hitting your head while cycling generally, the very limited benefits, and the small chances of negative results.

You also are very keen to downplay how unattractive helmets are to so many people and how unneeded helmets make cycling to work, school or the shops look a lot more dangerous... Or maybe I'm not building a complete picture of the challenge that is cycling promotion while it's up against the private car which is so heavily marketed and advertised as safe, fast, comfortable and convenient? Or where a bus, tram, or train looks so much easier or safer.

Also: while helmet compulsion has been shown to reduce helmet use, I dont think it's a huge leap to think that the massive state, group and individual promotion of helmets we see has some affect on perceptions of cycling being dangerous -- that's not to say it puts off current cyclists but that it puts off non-cyclists.

smacl wrote: »

At the level of my kids, quite probably to some extent, but the bigger issue is they don't see the value in bikes that I would have at their age. Once the desire to be able travel significant distances independently kicks in, I'm hoping that will change. That's already been the case with my nephew, where the freedom the bike provides has real value.

Other issues are harder to tackle when there's a large elephant in the room.

You're also a cyclist, helmets reinforce the idea to non-cycling parents and others that cycling is too dangerous and thus cycling is avoided completely.

doozerie

Given the frequency with which the "yeah, but people objected to seatbelts too until they copped themselves on" argument is used to support calls for mandatory helmet use, you'd think that seatbelts are universally accepted as being essential to safe driving. My wife pointed out some stats on the An Garda website last night that challenges that particular theory.

According to these stats, over 1,000 Fixed Charge Notices relating to seatbelts have been issued each month so far this year. And the figures are fairly consistent each year going back as far as 2008 (with some substantially higher figures during 2008 it has to be said). It seems that lots of people remain unconvinced of the merits of seatbelts.

That really has little or no relevance to a discussion of helmets, of course, 'cos comparing helmets and seatbelts is essentially comparing apples and oranges, I just thought the figures were interesting in themselves.

Incidentally, that page above also lists the fatal collision statistics for this year to date - out of 120 people that have died as a result of a collision (from 112 collisions), 7 were cyclists. The total numbers are actually very close to those for the same period last year - by this date in 2011 there had been 121 fatalities from 110 collisions. The total number of fatalities has been declining each year since 2005.

rp

doozerie wrote: »

That really has little or no relevance to a discussion of helmets, of course, 'cos comparing helmets and seatbelts is essentially comparing apples and oranges, I just thought the figures were interesting in themselves.

Kinda interesting all the same: I've been wearing a seatbelt in a car every trip since 1976, and it all that time and all those kilometres, it has never saved my life nor prevented an injury. More recently, the introduction of airbags: same result, at no time has an airbag saved my life. Motorcycle helmets: ditto.
Yet, figures show these measures have saved many lives - what am I doing wrong?
So maybe instead of posting saying "hey, a helmet saved my life", perhaps it would be better to ask, if a helmet did indeed save your life, "how can I ride so as a I am less likely to incur a head injury?"

smacl

monument wrote: »

From where I'm sitting you do seem to have strongly held views on how beneficial helmets can be, given the small risk of hitting your head while cycling generally, the very limited benefits, and the small chances of negative results.

I've really no idea how beneficial helmets are or are not, and find the debate is confused in the extreme. On one hand you have most cycling clubs, run for cyclists by cyclists who love cycling and know cycling inside out, mandating that helmets should be used during all club cycling activity (racing or touring). You also have a plethora of anecdotal evidence from threads such as this where someone in an accident felt the helmet was hugely beneficial, and a similar opinion was arrived at by the attending medic. On the other hand you have people such as yourself suggesting that wearing cycling helmets is some kind of a scourge on society at large, and you've the various academic studies to back it up. The gist of it seems to be that cycling isn't dangerous, but were it dangerous the chances are you'll get mangled by a bus, or mutilated by a HGV, and the helmet won't help you. It amuses me that these threads trying to sell cycling as intrinsically safe invariably feature a good dose of death, mutilation, and severe brain injury.

You also are very keen to downplay how unattractive helmets are to so many people

Really? And here's me thinking I was the first one on this thread to unambiguously point out that I know people who don't like cycling helmets.

Other issues are harder to tackle when there's a large elephant in the room.

You're also a cyclist, helmets reinforce the idea to non-cycling parents and others that cycling is too dangerous and thus cycling is avoided completely.

Maybe so. Maybe the elephant's a ghost, and the rigidity of your stance is doing more harm to your cause than any arguments put forward.

doozerie

smacl wrote:

On one hand you have most cycling clubs, run for cyclists by cyclists who love cycling and know cycling inside out, mandating that helmets should be used during all club cycling activity (racing or touring).

Requirements imposed by a club's insurance policy might play a large part in dictating that requirement, I imagine. When money is involved it serves to just muddy the whole thing, unfortunately. An insurance company would rather that people wrap themselves in bubble wrap, and stay at home in their beds, than risk the possibility of having to hand over money in the event of an incident.

galwaycyclist

Popoutman wrote: »

It's all well and good to be pro-choice, but for choices to be made well, those choices have to be informed choices. In the absence of the ability to form an informed choice, then it's a good idea to legislate for that. Take for example the issue of seatbelts in cars. Not everyone is an engineer that can understand the effects of deceleration on the body in a crash situation. Not everyone can understand why the positive effects of controllable deceleration when wearing a belt is better than not wearing a belt in an accident. As not everyone can understand why, it was made law that people should wear belts, and everyone was better off. There were those that cried out about being trapped in the car and such other nonsense, but over time people accepted that it was a good thing while the engineers continued to improve things and reduced the risks inherent in car use.

Hmmm introducing seatbelt laws into a debate on cycling or cycling helmets might be considered a brave move.

At best it suggests that you have little knowledge or understanding of the history of such measures or of the controversy surrounding seatbelt legislation.

To summarise, some of us who are sceptical of claims surrounding helmet use come to the discussion as people who already opposed, and lobbied against, compulsory seatbelt legislation. The reason is because as cycling (and pedestrian) activists, we felt a moral obligation to fight measures that result in increased risk of death and injury for cyclists and pedestrians. e.g. compulsory seatbelt wearing.

Reviews of the effect of seatbelt wearing legislation have associated it with increased risk of death and injury to non-car users in the following countries.

Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway Australia, New Zealand, Canada and, perhaps best documented, the United Kingdom.

Claims that seatbelt wearing reduces deaths among car occupants are not universally supportable either. Ireland introduced its seatbelt law in 1979 resulting in a doubling of the wearing rate for front seat occupants. The official road death figures gathered by the Garda that year show a 4% increase in deaths among car occupants with a particular increase in single vehicle collisions. That is somewhat curious is it not?

The strongest candidate explanation for the effect seen across various countries is the "risk compensation" hypothesis which proposes that users of safety features change their behaviour in a manner that consumes the safety benefit.

There is a potted history from the Galway Cycling Campaign here that touches on some of the issues (with references)

http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/seatbelts.html

Here is a 2007 article for the journal of the Royal Statistical Society. That argues that seatbelt legislation should be repealed in the UK.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/seat-belts-for-significance-2.pdf

If you want to get into more detail I strongly recommend Professor John Adams of University College London.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/category/seat-belts/

The problem with engineers is that they frequently ignore the fact that what they design is being used by real people and not crash test dummies or idealised theoretical users. This is a much wider problem than seatbelts or helmets but also applies to road design and other issues.

There would be a view that the proponents of seatbelt legislation, such as yourself apparently, are directly responsible for avoidable deaths among cyclists and pedestrians and are directly responsible for an unnecessarily hostile roads environment.

In the UK and Ireland, if you start spouting the merits of seatbelt legislation to a group that includes some old-school cycling activists then you are unlikely to get a receptive audience.

smacl

doozerie wrote: »

Requirements imposed by a club's insurance policy might play a large part in dictating that requirement

Very likely the case all right, but there still appears to be a large body of cyclists that seem to consider cycling helmets add a potential benefit during certain more hazardous activities such as racing and mountain biking. I'm at a loss to see how they provide benefit in case of accident in these circumstances but not in others. Worth noting that in the OPs case, we're talking about hitting a kerb, rather than an oncoming vehicle, and the opening premise of the thread is the helmet did indeed help in just such circumstances.

Undercover Elephant

smacl wrote: »

Very likely the case all right, but there still appears to be a large body of cyclists that seem to consider cycling helmets add a potential benefit during certain more hazardous activities such as racing and mountain biking. I'm at a loss to see how they provide benefit in case of accident in these circumstances but not in others.

It's much clearer if you express the question as whether there is a worthwhile benefit. It's at least partly subjective.

Max_Charger

monument wrote: »

Yes, I admit it! I'm not resonable! That's why I don't wear a helmet.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw

A man who died from falling off something...oh the delicious irony :pac:

doozerie

smacl wrote:

Very likely the case all right, but there still appears to be a large body of cyclists that seem to consider cycling helmets add a potential benefit during certain more hazardous activities such as racing and mountain biking.

For racing you are obliged by the UCI's rules to wear a helmet, so no helmet = no race. There seem to be a variety of theories knocking around as to why the UCI decided to impose the requirement, but it's the UCI and trying to apply logic to anything involving the UCI is an exercise in frustration!

Mountain biking itself throws up a number of questions regarding helmets. I did a lot of mountain biking quite a few years ago, some of it before helmets became the norm. My friends and I took any number of spill off the bikes, without helmets, and suffered no head injuries, but that's obviously just another anecdote. I remember when I first donned a helmet though, and suddenly feeling so much safer (for no good reason other than I was wearing something that "everyone" said would keep me safe), and promptly going out and throwing myself off higher jumps and down steeper and longer sets of stone steps (which still paled in comparison to what my friends were doing, and them without helmets - tut! ).

Anyway, I've not ridden off-road in years but one concern that (now) springs to mind with regard to wearing a helmet while mountain biking is the fact that a helmet has holes through which the likes of branches can insert themselves. Helmets are not really designed to prevent them being pierced in any case though, making the presence of ventilation holes a bit moot - basically the risk of the helmet being pierced is something that I don't believe mountain bike helmets try to address. It could be argued that few, if any, mountain bikers have ever had their head pierced by a branch, but it could also be said that few, if any, mountain bikers have died for want of a helmet either. So yet more stuff to further complicate the discussion and not push it in any particular direction, I guess.

smacl

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

It's much clearer if you express the question as whether there is a worthwhile benefit. It's at least partly subjective.

Nope. Worthwhile suggests net value versus cost. I'm just trying to gauge opinion if in the case of an accident from a road race or MTB spill the helmet might decrease risk or degree of injury. If not, why are cyclists keen on wearing helmets under these circumstances. If so, why does the same helmet not protect in accidents other circumstances.

I fully accept that for many people, many cycle journeys do not present a level of risk that they deem worthy to necessitate a helmet, and thus the helmet is not worthwhile to them in this context.

Peterx

All credit to the apparently worthless anecdotal personal experience but in my personal experience helmets make sense on a mountain bike as I found you tend to go head first over the bars as often as you slide off sideways in crashes. Crashes happen a lot more on the MTB than on the road. MTBers in Ireland tend to cycle in forestry with plenty of vertical poles invitingly awaiting a head-on head impact which is a situation in which a helmet will definitely help, no rotational forces or other vehicles to worry about.
As to whether or not this forum is vehemently pro or anti helmet usage I think that depends on your personal viewpoint to an extent. I prefer to wear a helmet and in my opinion this forum has a very strong anti helmet bias with very very strong opinions being expressed in any thread that it might possibly be relevant in.
Presumably someone who passionately believes helmet usage kills cycling thinks differently.

Beasty

Peterx wrote: »

in my opinion this forum has a very strong anti helmet bias with very very strong opinions being expressed in any thread that it might possibly be relevant in.

I refer you to Post 39 above

I really don't think you can draw the conclusion that this forum has a "very strong anti-helmet bias" based on a handful of posters who have contributed to this thread

I know quite a lot of the regulars in this forum, the vast majority of whom choose to wear a helmet (whether racing, training, commuting or simply out on a spin) - they also tend to be very much against compulsion, leaving it for the individual to weigh up the pros and cons and take an informed decision

chakattack

smacl wrote: »

No, but at post 38 even the implication of advocating helmet use was attacked with some zeal;


many individual cyclists are of the belief that in certain circumstances helmets can be beneficial. From where I'm sitting, it seems that this stance is difficult to attack, so the old reliable of 'the evils of mandatory helmet usage' was dragged out yet again as an easier target by those who'd brought it up in the first place. I don't have strongly held opinions on helmets one way or another, but seeing the same agenda pushed time and again irritates.

I think smacl has summed up my sentiments well, irritation. I don't care about the helmet debate and I'm disgusted with myself for getting involved. The discussion was simply irritating and I hate misinformation or what I see to be misuse of studies and statistics to prove a point.

Monument, I probably gave you too much of a hard time but only because you can be so unweilding to open discussion and counter everything with the same long winded answers rehashed. I see that you're a great supporter of cycling and do some great work when not debating helmets.

Why did I bother...you're right, why did i bother?

I'm out

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

But also, after 20 years of being a cycling blow-in in Dublin I look around and see commuting by bicycle only slightly more accepted than when I first arrived here - not only is it a bit depressing that car culture remains just as strong, if not stronger, it also bothers me that I'm surrounded on my commute by so many feckin' eejits in cars that simply have no experience of cycling, and arguably partly as a result of that they have little or no consideration for cyclists.

Reminds me of a legendary exchange when Adlai Stevenson was out working the crowd in his campaign for the US presidency.

"Governor Stevenson! The thinking voter is with you."

"Oh, we're going to need a lot more than that."


The cycling enthusiast is the equivalent of the "thinking voter".

Peterx

Beasty wrote: »

I refer you to Post 39 above

I really don't think you can draw the conclusion that this forum has a "very strong anti-helmet bias" based on a handful of posters who have contributed to this thread

I know quite a lot of the regulars in this forum, the vast majority of whom choose to wear a helmet (whether racing, training, commuting or simply out on a spin) - they also tend to be very much against compulsion, leaving it for the individual to weigh up the pros and cons and take an informed decision

Post 39 is fair enough Beasty and to be honest I'm sure the majority of posters are reasonable.

It is only my opinion but it remains the case that in my opinion the anti helmet posts and the likes of "oh no, here we go again with another guy who thinks his helmet saved his head, does he not know the research...." are completely contrary to my experience which is that helmets help when they come between your head and the hard road.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that tonnes of research and evidence can show that my head is actually very sturdy and very unlikely to hit the hard road but unfortunately I've already smashed enough helmets and swollen and disoriented heads (with and without helmets in fairness) to go with the gut feeling and wear it most of the time.
As always in these "debates" people with strong opinions are not easily swayed and to be honest I do generally learn a bit more about the research from the likes of Monument's posts and am interested more an more in the theory that compulsory helmet wearing would actually decrease the numbers of cyclists and make my commute more dangerous as drivers become less and less used to sharing the roadspace with cyclists. Interesting stuff..

Keep_Her_Lit

dub_skav wrote: »

The helmet makes the effective radius of your head larger, meaning you are more likely to hit it off things.

That's a valid point and indeed I've clipped my head helmet on low door frames a couple of times because I hadn't allowed for the increased height. It's also correct to say that one's natural reflexes can do a surprisingly good job of protecting one's head in the event of a fall.

However, since accidents are characterised by a loss of control, they are inherently chaotic and unpredictable events. Falling from a bicycle at a speed greater than you could achieve by sprinting on foot only increases the unpredictability further. The dynamics of the fall may be quite different to those for which your reflexes are optimised and of course the forces are likely to be greater.

Consequently, there may be some falls for which your natural reflexes cannot prevent a blow to the head. The example I gave of coming off on the frosty corner fits this description. My reflexes behaved honourably in the circumstances but it wasn't enough, because my fall towards the tarmac was faster than normal and there wasn't enough friction between my hands and the road surface to effectively break the fall.

Going with the argument of increased effective radius, not wearing a helmet would have given me maybe an additional 30-40mm in which to halt the trajectory of my skull directly towards the tarmac. That really isn't very much, is it? And since my helmet hit the road with a really good clatter, I'm pretty sure my unprotected head would have too.

In the crash caused by the failure of my handlebars, I was thrown from the bike at an unusual angle onto my right side. I recall that the helmet was pressed firmly against the road during that slide and my hands were not out in front of me to assist with raising my head/torso. Would an extra 30-40mm have allowed my head to stay clear of the tarmac? I don't know for sure but I don't think so.

One of my other "helmet-strike" spills occurred during a race. That involved going over the bars at just less than 50km/h. My body was approximately upside down by the time it was coaxed back to terra firma with the assistance of gravity. I can't say what the hell my arms were doing to try and save my head in that decidedly non-standard situation but it wasn't very effective. So I came down pretty much on the top of my head. Without a helmet, I would simply have fallen slightly further before the inevitable impact.

The last of the four spills to which I referred happened when I struck a vehicle to my left while cycling through traffic. This was potentially the nastiest crash I've had and also occurred at relatively low speed. The force on the left of my bike caused it to pirouette, dumping me on my back and in the process, completely eliminating any protective role that my natural reflexes could play. The back of my helmet hit the road hard, causing it to break up. There isn't a chance that I wouldn't have hit my head without a helmet. It would be highly unusual to experience such a fall when running but I've no reason to doubt that other cyclists have also crashed in a similar manner.

In conclusion, I wouldn't rely on the idea that because my head presents a smaller target when there is no helmet on it, that it isn't going to get hit.

monument wrote: »

I don't see a point tackling your personal use of a helmet

I don't see any point in you doing that either, since you'd have one helluva job convincing me that I'd actually have been better off without a helmet in the scenarios I describe.

monument wrote: »

Speed alone and the diffrence speed can make in a crash makes the distinction important. Regardless of individuals who commute at racing speeds, the genral adverage is much lower.

Another diffrence is urban vs rural roads -- the latter seem to be more dangerous statically and the bulk of commuters are on urban roads, while a lot of sporting type cycling is done on country roads.

3 of the 4 helmet strikes I described occurred on suburban journeys, 1 during a race. So that's commuting and racing covered. As for leisure cycling on narrow country roads, I would agree that such roads are more dangerous than urban roads, so I wear a helmet while cycling on them also.

Regarding speed, in general it makes sense that higher speeds entail greater risk. But as I mention above, the crash where I landed on my back occurred at fairly low speed, probably less than 25km/h. If I could wear a helmet for only one of those four accidents, it would be that one.

monument wrote: »

The problem is that besides low impact crashes, ability of a bicycle helmet to absorb energy is tiny compared to the overall force, and thus no notable protection is offered to the brain.

To re-iterate, I find myself absolutely unconvinced that my helmet provided no useful protection in any of the four crashes I have described.

monument wrote: »

The study which found motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists isn't about the feelings of its author but the mesurements which showed motorists did go closer to him when helmeted.

I never mentioned the author's feelings. I merely stated that his measurements/observations are not consistent with my own experience.

monument wrote: »

You don't want to live where a wide range of people of different ages feel good about getting on a bike?

Is that what I said? No, it isn't.

Specifically, what I don't want to do is relinquish a piece of safety equipment which I believe has served me well over a long period of time because of some notion that this may ultimately result in a greater number of cyclists on the road. I'm the one wearing the helmet and I don't perceive the roads as being unduly dangerous. If other non-cyclists reach a different conclusion, I have no intention of chucking my lid into the bin because of your belief that this may change their minds.

TBH, my blunt dismissal of cycling promotion in the context of this thread is really a reaction to the kind of attitude neatly encapsulated by this type of rhetoric:
[yes, I know it wasn't you and neither was it directed at me]

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There would be a view that the proponents of seatbelt legislation, such as yourself apparently, are directly responsible for avoidable deaths among cyclists and pedestrians and are directly responsible for an unnecessarily hostile roads environment.

Appalling stuff altogether.

BTW, I acknowledge your diligence (i.e. both monument and galwaycyclist) on cycling related matters and have read many of your posts. But claiming that other posters are directly responsible for avoidable deaths among cyclists and pedestrians is not the way to win hearts and minds.

doozerie wrote: »

That has historically been my view too. My views have changed over time though, and particularly in relation to commuting. My commute is not a cycle that I particularly enjoy, some days it can be enjoyable alright but fundamentally it's a chore. The cycling that I enjoy is on routes that take me away from the city centre with its numerous traffic lights, congestion, aggression, etc., and on a bike and in clothing not well suited to my commute to and from my workplace. My commute obliges me to cycle on routes, and in circumstances (e.g. at rush hour), that I don't like much, which some days drains my journey on the bike of any and all pleasure.

Thanks for your considered response. It's a pity that your commute has turned out this way for you. I would regard it a big loss if I no longer enjoyed my commute, as it constitutes the bulk of my annual mileage. Thankfully, I don't have to go too near to the city centre.

Like you, I hope that my kids feel that daily cycling will be an option for them in the future. But I'm reasonably optimistic and expect that growth in the numbers of cyclists will continue as people seek out more economical and healthier modes of transport.

droidus

chakattack wrote: »

I think smacl has summed up my sentiments well, irritation. I don't care about the helmet debate and I'm disgusted with myself for getting involved. The discussion was simply irritating and I hate misinformation or what I see to be misuse of studies and statistics to prove a point.

Monument, I probably gave you too much of a hard time but only because you can be so unweilding to open discussion and counter everything with the same long winded answers rehashed. I see that you're a great supporter of cycling and do some great work when not debating helmets.

Why did I bother...you're right, why did i bother?

I'm out

Oddly enough, I dont really care about the helmet debate either. Its simply that the 'if it makes even a small difference/its just common sense' position is so incredibly illogical that I cant help myself sometimes.

I dont wear a helmet while commuting, mainly because I get way too hot and sweaty already without a hat to compound things. Plus I have a huge square head.

Now, obviously, if I am involved in an accident I would prefer to have a helmet on at the time, along with knee/arm/body protectors. But of course I would also like to have a helmet on if Im hit by a car whilst walking across the road or driving, or falling down the stairs, or slipping in the shower.

Since the chances of accident or head injury are generally greater in the latter, it bothers me that the emphasis on helmets and high-vis contributing to the general view of cyclists as 'negligent' if they arent wearing same, thus creating another stick to beat cyclists over the head with and exacerbating the 'blame the victim' mentality when it comes to accidents involving cyclists and motorists.

I also havent seen any examples of monument 'misusing statistics', though I think the efficacy of the Bath study is wildly exaggerated. Obviously studies and data cant give us a full picture, but it is striking that nearly all studies point to two apparent facts.

1) Helmets are effective only in limited circumstances and may even cause further injury in some circumstances.
2) Compulsion and/or emphasis on the 'danger' of cycling leads to decreased numbers cycling.

Combine this with fact 3) (The most effective way to increase safety for cyclists is to increase the numbers cycling), and I can see why some would view helmet advocacy as distraction at best, and counter productive at worst.

galwaycyclist

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

TBH, my blunt dismissal of cycling promotion in the context of this thread is really a reaction to the kind of attitude neatly encapsulated by this type of rhetoric:
[yes, I know it wasn't you and neither was it directed at me]

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There would be a view that the proponents of seatbelt legislation, such as yourself apparently, are directly responsible for avoidable deaths among cyclists and pedestrians and are directly responsible for an unnecessarily hostile roads environment.

Appalling stuff altogether.

BTW, I acknowledge your diligence (i.e. both monument and galwaycyclist) on cycling related matters and have read many of your posts. But claiming that other posters are directly responsible for avoidable deaths among cyclists and pedestrians is not the way to win hearts and minds.

Who said anything about winning hearts and minds? This issue here goes to the heart of how we screwed up our country and is bigger than peoples personal feelings or anecdotes about peoples personal experiences of cycling.

Perhaps I can set the bigger context for you.

In 1997, 1998 and 2002, Ireland had the highest child pedestrian death rate in Western Europe. This happened against a backdrop of declining exposure of Irish children to traffic. Between the 1996 and 2002 census there was 27% drop in walking and a 59% drop in cycling by Irish primary schoolchildren. There was also a 24% drop in bus use, a mode that by default requires a pedestrian component. Among secondary schoolchildren the equivalent declines were -20% for walking, -60% for cycling and -6% for bus use.

As I recall at the time the primary Government "Road Safety" interventions were seatbelt use and compulsory car testing. Both of which are at best distractions from the real issue - making our roads safer. Both of these measures have the potential to make the roads less safe and looking at the results, quite likely did. There was a studious avoidance of measures like speed enforcement, lower speed limits, traffic restrictions, traffic calming and so on.

Curiously enough the Irish media, both state and privately owned, did nothing to highlight the issue of child road deaths or confront the causes. Indeed somewhere I have press clippings showing that references to the level of child deaths was edited out by the newspapers reporting official press statements on road safety.

In the Netherlands, a similar child death problem sparked the "stop de kindermoord" campaign that lead to official action on safe routes to school. In Ireland there was nothing.

A proportion of Irish parents at least had the advantage of having sufficient resources to be able to withdraw their children from the public roads environment. The proportion of children walking to primary school has not recovered since 2002 and hovers around 23%. Bus use has continued to decline from 17% in 2002 to about 12% today. There are encouraging signs of a cycling recovery but the base numbers are tiny (1.25%).

The situation is possibly even worse now because some state agencies such as the RSA or the Garda Siochana might take the view that is in their interest if levels of walking and cycling kept down so that their numbers continue to "look good".

The Irish official approach to road safety of vulnerable road users is best described as a desperate attempt to avoid doing things that work while releasing streams of press releases advocating things that are a distraction or are established to make things worse.

Issues like hi viz, helmets and "safe cross codes" feed into this official need to avoid making the roads safer for our children. They allow official Ireland to avoid measures that control the real source of danger: driver behaviour.

When extreme "life saving" claims are made for helmets they become an part of an active disincentive to both cycling and an active disincentive to real concrete measures to improve cycling safety.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Really? And here's me thinking I was the first one on this thread to unambiguously point out that I know people who don't like cycling helmets.

Yes, really. You can point something out and then downplay its importance. It's a bit contradictory but not imposable.

smacl wrote: »

Maybe so. Maybe the elephant's a ghost, and the rigidity of your stance is doing more harm to your cause than any arguments put forward.

First: I don't think it's fair to call cycling promotion my cause. After all it's stated national government policy and a wish of Dublin City Council (and maybe less so for councils elsewhere in the country).

Secondly, I don't think my stance on anything can compare to the level of and reach of safety gear promotion seen at a national level by the likes of the RSA and supported by councils, departments, companies, full time campaign groups and many individuals.

chakattack wrote: »

I think smacl has summed up my sentiments well, irritation. I don't care about the helmet debate and I'm disgusted with myself for getting involved. The discussion was simply irritating and I hate misinformation or what I see to be misuse of studies and statistics to prove a point.

Random claims of misinformation and "studies and statistics to prove a point" isn't the best way to bow out.... not much better that your first post with a "crock of sh*t logic" and my "personal Dianetics". These threads usually go around in circles, but not like this.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

To re-iterate, I find myself absolutely unconvinced that my helmet provided no useful protection in any of the four crashes I have described.

I'd agree that helmets might save people from some cuts and bruises, maybe even a few nasty ones.

But the protection offered to the brain is so limited I'd compare the feelings of those who crash with helmets hit to somebody who has take a placebo. Users of placebos are also convinced that the placebo has worked wonders. The science shows otherwise.

Placebos can also be harmful and get in the way of proven, effective treatments.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

I never mentioned the author's feelings. I merely stated that his measurements/observations are not consistent with my own experience.

You're own experience is based on feeling or little more, right?

His research is based hard data, measured by a device.

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Is that what I said? No, it isn't.

Specifically, what I don't want to do is relinquish a piece of safety equipment which I believe has served me well over a long period of time because of some notion that this may ultimately result in a greater number of cyclists on the road. I'm the one wearing the helmet and I don't perceive the roads as being unduly dangerous. If other non-cyclists reach a different conclusion, I have no intention of chucking my lid into the bin because of your belief that this may change their minds.

You said:

The argument that helmet wearing deters others from taking up cycling seems tenuous at best. But even taking it at face value, my response would be: so what? I feel under no obligation to promote cycling just because I cycle myself. I really enjoy my cycling. If others want to take it up, great. If others don't want to take it up, great. It seems that there's a desire to create some kind of EUtopian cycling environment in which we're all gliding around serenely at 17.3km/h on our high nellies in our slacks and sandals. Naaaaah, no thanks

So, I viewed it as if you were talking as you were actually for a second "taking it at face value" and I was responding in that context.

BTW -- I'm not sure if I or anybody else has asked you to relinquish your helmet. I'm fairly sure I've been consistent that the risk is higher for people engaging in riskier behaviour than that of cycling commuters in general or most people popping down to the shops. Cuts and scrapes become a larger risk with more riskier behaviour.

tomasrojo

I was thinking about Ian Walker's study earlier (the one where he found motorised vehicles passed him more closely when he was wearing a helmet).

It's true that it was a very limited study (one person in one town), but I think what was notable about it was that the average passing distance when he wore a helmet was lower than the average passing distance when he didn't, and that difference was statistically significant (that is, it had a very low probability of being due to chance). So the study wasn't too small to be meaningful at all. (Raw data are here, and he responds to criticism here.)

Of course, the conclusion might be restricted to: drivers definitely pass Dr. Ian Walker more closely when he wears a helmet cycling around Bath. Repeating the study with other riders in other environments would clear up whether the effect is a general one.

(The bit where he wore a wig to gauge whether the effect was different for women is silly, but very clever in terms of getting his study noticed by the mass media.)

EDIT: Silly though the methodology was, the finding on gender was replicated in Florida:

As for gender comparison, the results indicated that motorists are more courteous to female than male riders. The lateral separation for female riders was significantly greater than for male bicyclists. This finding is consistent with that of Walker (2007).

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42900/42925/FDOT_BDK82_977-01_rpt.pdf

And this might have some relevance for helmets, or at least lycra:

Motorists provided 0.5 ft additional lateral separation to female bicyclists and 0.35 ft additional separation to casually dressed compared to athletically dressed cyclists.

(Noticed this from a comment in one of the links above, the response to criticism.)

tomasrojo

Also, given how (arguably) far off-topic this has gone, I should say that I'm very glad the OP is ok, very glad he took the advice and went to see a doctor, and say that I do think his contention that the helmet was of use in this case is not improbable, based on what I've read on this topic. However, I am not an expert, just a slightly obsessive personality type with an interest in statistics.