Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

cython

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My problem isn't the number of people falling down the stairs or getting injured playing darts or whatever the **** point you THINK you're making.

My issue is that it is totally irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that cyclists should wear helmets. Pointing out that people get injured in other areas is totally irrelevant.

Unless of course they want to be afforded a bit more clearance when overtaken, perhaps? Your blind assertion assumes that there is no downside to helmet wearing, and several studies indicate otherwise (the above is just one, others have suggested that in some injury cases the helmet exacerbated the damage).

And frankly other rates of injuries are completely relevant, since if you are naive enough to call any a cyclist "an idiot" for not wearing a helmet then presumably you would regard drivers and passengers in vehicles as equally idiotic since there is a demonstrably higher rate of head injuries in collisions involving them? Or is that inconvenient to you?

AndrewJRenko

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is such a deflection that it's almost amusing. We put massive amounts of safety equipment into cars to prevent injury. You can engage in any level of whataboutery you want, but it doesn't change the simple facts.
.

You're absolutely right - it doesn't change the simple facts that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes - so why would you not be pushing people to wear crash helmets when in a car?

FreudianSlippers

cython wrote: »

Unless of course they want to be afforded a bit more clearance when overtaken, perhaps? Your blind assertion assumes that there is no downside to helmet wearing, and several studies indicate otherwise (the above is just one, others have suggested that in some injury cases the helmet exacerbated the damage).

That's ridiculous. Please provide the source for helmets cause more injuries.

I don't think we should discount the fact that drivers are to blame for a significant number of cyclists' injuries - I never said that at all - but it's not a good defence as to why cyclists shouldn't wear helmets.

And frankly other rates of injuries are completely relevant, since if you are naive enough to call any a cyclist "an idiot" for not wearing a helmet then presumably you would regard drivers and passengers in vehicles as equally idiotic since there is a demonstrably higher rate of head injuries in collisions involving them? Or is that inconvenient to you?

Whatabboutery of the highest order - just like the person that claims people die from falling down the stairs. Why does that matter? It's irrelevant to anything. We're talking about cyclists not motorists or stair-fallers (thank you for my award for coining that phrase)... it's just deflection on the point at hand.

I presume you're in defence of motorcyclists not wearing helmets too?

FreudianSlippers

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're absolutely right - it doesn't change the simple facts that far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes - so why would you not be pushing people to wear crash helmets when in a car?

Go for it. I don't actually care as it's a silly argument - it's still hugely irrelevant to whether cyclists should wear helmets.

FreudianSlippers

Since you all love random whatabouttery: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety-laws-new-kim-briggs-death-warning-against-witch-hunt-a7960291.html

cython

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Please provide the source for helmets cause more injuries.

I don't think we should discount the fact that drivers are to blame for a significant number of cyclists' injuries - I never said that at all - but it's not a good defence as to why cyclists shouldn't wear helmets.

Why should I provide a source for something that I did not say? Please try to read what is in front of you, not what you want to believe was written.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Whatabboutery of the highest order - just like the person that claims people die from falling down the stairs. Why does that matter? It's irrelevant to anything. We're talking about cyclists not motorists or stair-fallers (thank you for my award for coining that phrase)... it's just deflection on the point at hand.

It matters because if you indulge knowingly in those activities without taking precautionary measures, you haven't a leg to stand on in calling someone engaging in an activity with less justification for them "an idiot".

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I presume you're in defence of motorcyclists not wearing helmets too?

Who's indulging in whatabouttery now?

FreudianSlippers

cython wrote: »

Why should I provide a source for something that I did not say? Please try to read what is in front of you, not what you want to believe was written.

Sorry - I guess I don't know what you were trying to say by "exacerbated the damage"

Since you don't seem to know "exacerbated" means to make worse. So you're saying that helmets make injuries worse - in other words cause more injuries.

It matters because if you indulge knowingly in those activities without taking precautionary measures, you haven't a leg to stand on in calling someone engaging in an activity with less justification for them "an idiot".

You can go ahead and claim people who drive cars without helmets are idiots, people who do the dishes without helmets are idiots, etc. It doesn't make cyclists any less idiots does it?

Who's indulging in whatabouttery now?

It's not whatabouttery - it's absolutely following within your logic here.

Weepsie

Mod note: Cut it out. Nonsense roundabout arguments, nonsense personal boasts and borderline trolling occuring now in what is a mostly very informative and civil thread.

Hurrache

This report is a few weeks too late, could have saved a lot of the messing.

Of all helmeted patients, significant head trauma (head AIS>2) was seen in 35%. This was like the non-helmeted group where 34% incurred significant head trauma (pvalue=0.84). This differs from previous literature on the noncompliance of helmet use showing an increase in the amount of major trauma witnessed. Though we cannot explain this inconsistency, the absolute severities of bicycle injuries are emphasized. This paradoxical observation has also been discovered by Kett et al. [19] who found helmets do not actually reduce bicycle injuries. One explanation may come from better understanding the behavior of automobile drivers around bicyclists. Walker et al. [20] found that when driving near a helmeted bicyclist, drivers tend to drive closer than when driving near a non-helmeted bicyclist. This may have to do with the driver believing a bicyclist is more protected when wearing a helmet and may lead to more traumatic injuries for helmeted cyclists. It is important to note that other researchers such as Joseph et al. [21] have also found different conclusions. The medical literature is divided on the efficacy of helmet efficacy and this highlights the need for more study.

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite

magicbastarder

I have just scanned the report briefly, but hope do the cater for the fact that they're concentrating on people who have presented in hospital? I.e. they can't cater for people who may have avoided hospital because they were or were not helmeted?

Hurrache

The same, just skimmed before going out for lunch so can't answer that.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

I have just scanned the report briefly, but hope do the cater for the fact that they're concentrating on people who have presented in hospital? I.e. they can't cater for people who may have avoided hospital because they were or were not helmeted?

That was raised as a problem with previous hospitalisation studies in the USA: that less well-off people would only got to hospital for an injury they were really worried about, while the more well off (i.e. had insurance) would got to hospital "just in case", which would mean a relatively high incidence of more serious head injuries among the less well-off who turn up at hospital, who were also more likely not to use helmets. Another form of confounding due to socio-economic class, which seems to be a recurring problem with case-control-style studies.

I think it's probably quite hard to know anything about the relationships between "safety gear" of any kind and minor injuries, because it's hard to know how many minor injuries go unreported. Conversely, we care a lot more about serious injuries, which we do know a fair bit about.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Regarding helmets, I cannot understand why someone on a bike would not wear a helmet. I did a quick count on my commute a few weeks ago (I pass a busy train station) and more than half of cyclists were not wearing a helmet. Absolutely crazy stuff.

magicbastarder wrote: »

not a near miss for someone in ringsend today - anyone know where in ringsend the sunday times office is?

https://twitter.com/marktigheST/status/1108318315536175109

Fighting Tao

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Regarding helmets, I cannot understand why someone on a bike would not wear a helmet. I did a quick count on my commute a few weeks ago (I pass a busy train station) and more than half of cyclists were not wearing a helmet. Absolutely crazy stuff.

Have you seen Holland for example? No one wears helmets. There is also evidence somewhere in the helmet megathread that drivers pass helmet wearers closer.

If a car hits you there is very little a helmet can do. Motobike helmets would be of more use but are probably a bit on the heavy side.

Seth Brundle

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Regarding helmets, I cannot understand why someone on a bike would not wear a helmet. I did a quick count on my commute a few weeks ago (I pass a busy train station) and more than half of cyclists were not wearing a helmet. Absolutely crazy stuff.

Having been taken out by a car in the past, id always wear a helmet now.
However, I shouldn't need to wesr one if Irish local authorities, gardai and so on did their jobs properly!

magicbastarder

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Regarding helmets, I cannot understand why someone on a bike would not wear a helmet. I did a quick count on my commute a few weeks ago (I pass a busy train station) and more than half of cyclists were not wearing a helmet. Absolutely crazy stuff.

just a word of warning; this is a debate with far more nuance than most people realise. there is a dedicated thread here about it, but it'd take the patience of a saint for someone to read it from start to finish.

AndrewJRenko

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Regarding helmets, I cannot understand why someone on a bike would not wear a helmet. I did a quick count on my commute a few weeks ago (I pass a busy train station) and more than half of cyclists were not wearing a helmet. Absolutely crazy stuff.

Do you wear a helmet in the car, given that's where the vast majority of head injuries occur, even with airbags and seatbelts etc?

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I've been taken out at least twice over the years and thank fudge I've had a helmet on. The helmet did its job and saved me a more serious injury to my head.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you wear a helmet in the car, given that's where the vast majority of head injuries occur, even with airbags and seatbelts etc?

Of course the local authorities, gardai etc could do their job and it could make things safer but that'll never happen. Sure I'm blue in the face telling Fingal Co. Co. to fix up the bike lanes, there are so many in appalling condition I refuse to use them.

I sense this is a contentious topic relating to helmets, so I'll not say anymore about it in this thread.

Pinch Flat

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

I've been taken out at least twice over the years and thank fudge I've had a helmet on. The helmet did its job and saved me a more serious injury to my head.




Of course the local authorities, gardai etc could do their job and it could make things safer but that'll never happen. Sure I'm blue in the face telling Fingal Co. Co. to fix up the bike lanes, there are so many in appalling condition I refuse to use them.

Go to www.fixmystreet.ie and report problems. Fingal (my local council) are reasonably proactive.

One helmets, as others pointed out, it's a can of worms. Most of the situations where I;ve been put needlessly at risk is cars passing me fast and close. A hemlet will do diddly squat in these scenarios.....

07Lapierre

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Regarding helmets, I cannot understand why someone on a bike would not wear a helmet. I did a quick count on my commute a few weeks ago (I pass a busy train station) and more than half of cyclists were not wearing a helmet. Absolutely crazy stuff.

I have the same bike helmet for over 8 years. its still as good as the day i bought it. In that time I've crashed twice. the first time was in a club race when I went over the bars and landed on my Knee! (bizarre i know!). Not a mark on my Helmet.

The second time was about 4 years ago when i came off on a stretch of black ice and slid along the ground. I had bad road rash on my knee, hip, elbow and shoulder.

So I honestly cant understand why cyclists don't wear knee pads, elbow pads, leather bib shorts and leather full length sleeve jerseys at all times! go figure.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Aye I know about that site. I have stopped logging problems, as I've logged numerous problems on that site and most have not been fixed. At least 15 lights out on my commute since winter 2017, pot holes etc and still not fixed. Irish water dug up the local road and didn't ever come back to resurface the area they dug up. Still the temp surface and it's in bits.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Go to www.fixmystreet.ie and report problems. Fingal (my local council) are reasonably proactive.

One helmets, as others pointed out, it's a can of worms. Most of the situations where I;ve been put needlessly at risk is cars passing me fast and close. A hemlet will do diddly squat in these scenarios.....

07Lapierre wrote: »

I...
So I honestly cant understand why cyclists don't wear knee pads, elbow pads, leather bib shorts and leather full length sleeve jerseys at all times! go figure.

Perhaps they should if it's safer...:D

Anyway, perhaps I won't bother with a helmet anymore, I wouldn't want to show my kids a bad example :pac:

Pinch Flat

07Lapierre wrote: »

So I honestly cant understand why cyclists don't wear knee pads, elbow pads, leather bib shorts and leather full length sleeve jerseys at all times! go figure.

I've taken to wearing a jock strap when cycling. That time I pedalled off at the lights on a worn chain....:eek:

07Lapierre

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Perhaps they should if it's safer...:D

Anyway, perhaps I won't bother with a helmet anymore, I wouldn't want to show my kids a bad example :pac:

I did that with my son. When he was small I'd go out with him and we both wore helmets. He's 25 now and hasn't been on a bike in years! He did get into American Football ball and wore full body armour and a full face helmet, so I guess it worked!

Note: he gave up playing US football after two years because he was "sick of all the injuries"!

CramCycle

Emmet Chubby Memory wrote: »

Of course the local authorities, gardai etc could do their job and it could make things safer but that'll never happen. Sure I'm blue in the face telling Fingal Co. Co. to fix up the bike lanes, there are so many in appalling condition I refuse to use them.

I sense this is a contentious topic relating to helmets, so I'll not say anymore about it in this thread.

You seem to have responded to something else here. The question was, do you wear a helmet while travelling in a motor vehicle, considering the level of head injuries.

average_runner

CramCycle wrote: »

You seem to have responded to something else here. The question was, do you wear a helmet while travelling in a motor vehicle, considering the level of head injuries.

But how much of those head injuries are not wearing a seat belt?

My brother hit head first on a curve years ago, doctors were convince he wouldn't make it but did pull through after a long battle. Would a helmet of help? Well you got to believe it would of offered a small bit more protection than nothing?

Is there any evidence that shows a helmet doesn't offer any extra protection where a head hits head on to something?

Grassey

average_runner wrote: »

Is there any evidence that shows a helmet doesn't offer any extra protection where a head hits head on to something?

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

Plenty to trawl through here, plenty of conflicting reports to choose from

Sometimes helmets ... offer no protection against facial injuries (Hansen, Engesaeter and Viste, 2003) and, in one study, children under 9 who wore foam helmets had four times as many face injuries as non-wearers (Hansen, Engesaeter and Viste, 2003).

Most of the more serious injuries to cyclists are as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle, but case-control studies have sometimes found helmets to be ineffective in these circumstances (Larsen, 2002).

Some studies have noted how bareheaded riders not only suffer more head injuries, but also more serious non-head injuries in crashes with motor vehicles, suggesting that riding style and other factors may be more important determinants of head injury than whether or not a helmet is worn (Spaite et al, 1991).

It has been suggested that helmeted cyclists hit their heads more frequently than those without helmets (Wasserman et al, 1988). The disproportionate number of helmet wearers who believe that a helmet has saved their life is further evidence that helmet use might adversely affect crash involvement or outcome.

At least 14 young children have died world-wide through strangulation by their cycle helmets when playing off their bikes. Others have been saved only by timely intervention (BHRF, 1227).

average_runner

Grassey wrote: »

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

Plenty to trawl through here, plenty of conflicting reports to choose from

Alot of those tests are pointless, sure we all know they are not going to protect the face etc.

But what about direct impact of the head (where the helmet covers) off the ground. Surely they can use dummies with helmets on them and come up with some proper stats.

As for the kids strangulation, that can happen with a car seat belt also, so should we ban car seat belts.

Idleater

average_runner wrote: »

But how much of those head injuries are not wearing a seat belt?
:
:

Is there any evidence that shows a helmet doesn't offer any extra protection where a head hits head on to something?

Watch Senna on Netflix

Chips Lovell

Helmets probably do help mitigate injuries in some circumstances.

However, your chance of sustaining a serious head injury while cycling is quite low.

Alcohol is a factor in far more head injuries than cycling.

Folks can wear a helmet if they want to, but it's a very big stretch to suggest someone is irresponsible if they don't wear one.

AndrewJRenko

average_runner wrote: »

CramCycle wrote: »

You seem to have responded to something else here. The question was, do you wear a helmet while travelling in a motor vehicle, considering the level of head injuries.

But how much of those head injuries are not wearing a seat belt?

My brother hit head first on a curve years ago, doctors were convince he wouldn't make it but did pull through after a long battle. Would a helmet of help? Well you got to believe it would of offered a small bit more protection than nothing?

Is there any evidence that shows a helmet doesn't offer any extra protection where a head hits head on to something?

So do you wear a helmet at all times in the car to get that extra level of protection? And when you go out drinking, given the link between alcohol and head injuries?