Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

spindrift

It is easy to forget that bicycle helmets are only designed to protect
in minor impacts:

“In cases of high impact, such as most crashes that involve a motor
vehicle, the initial forces absorbed by a cycle helmet before breaking
are only a small part of the total force and the protection provided
by a helmet is likely to be minimal in this context. In cases where
serious injury is likely, the impact energy potentials are commonly of
a level that would overwhelm even Grand Prix motor racing helmets.
Cycle helmets provide best protection in situations involving simple,
low-speed falls with no other party involved. They are unlikely to
offer adequate protection in life-threatening situations.“

Dr Carwyn Hooper from St George’s University in London reports:

“Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a
helmet or not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them”

Helmets increase the volume of the head, thus the chance of the head
hitting the ground in an accident. Helmets also increase the risk of
neck injuries, and can aggravate brain injuries. There is no guarantee
that a fall with a helmet will result in less severe head, neck or
brain injuries.

It is natural to assume a helmet saved us. But that doesn’t mean it is
true. We don’t know what would have happened without it. Cyclists,
with and without helmets, get hit by cars; the survival rates are
identical. Most bicycle accidents do not result in serious head
injuries, with or without helmets. We tend to overlook this, and
attribute a lack of head injury to the helmet:

https://crag.asn.au/the-fallacy-of-the-cracked-helmet/

•

deleted in reply to @spindrift

I'm done.

•

Charlie_L in reply to @deleted

Every now and then it does us good to exercise our “helmets and the law” debating skills. Sadly it seems that @eyebrows has left the discussion and is “no longer active” on lfgss.
Presumably he/she has gone back to MRCP revision. Nevertheless I will try to examine some of research links posted by @eyebrows (in separate postings here) in case he/she is looking.

There is a lot to learnt from examining helmet related questions further. I agree with the view of Prof. David Spiegelhalter and Dr. Ben Goldacre that such an examination provides a perfect teaching case for epidemiology. I think their BMJ article is essential reading for anyone seriously interested in the academic research.
http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/989799/1/bmj.f3817.full.pdf

Their short paper highlights what I think are a couple of fundamental truths:

Even if helmets do have an effect on head injury rates,it would not necessarily follow that legislation would have public health benefits overall.

and:

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

About

LFGSS