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

There is a difficulty with Headway, when you ask them about that "clear evidence", you don't get a very clear answer.
Meanwhile in the Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3849991.ece

^ Em yes sums it up. Off to post that on FB as I got drawn into a discussion...

...with one guy posting "how does his hair look now". Ugh.

I bet it get's a tenth of the hits of that abortion of a piece in the mail.

#therealproblemwithsocietyispeople

I like my helmet. It's the same shape and colour as a giant garden pea.

I like my helmet. It's the same shape and colour as a giant garden pea.

Peas are spherical, so where does your head fit in?

peadant

obvs they mean't half a giant garden pea

although I prefer a late night giant garden pee

Peadophile

Politician caught breaking the law shock!

He doesn't need a helmet, he is a helmet

There is a difficulty with Headway, when you ask them about that "clear evidence", you don't get a very clear answer.
Meanwhile in the Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3849991.ece

That is an excellent article. Exactly right.

...[helmets] can protect you from a bad bruise, serious concussion or even a fractured skull.

Claims like the above could really do with some citation. I haven't really followed the debate for a few years, if it's been shown that helmets can prevent skull fractures that's pretty big news right? I'd buy one today.

You can fracture your skull by simply falling over from a standing position and hitting your head on a solid surface. This is basically what the helmet test replicates.

^ OK, granted, a helmet offers some protection. But why don't we wear one when walking? Or in the car? Cos nobody keeps harping on about it? ;)

Helmets in RTC collisions seem to lead to victim blaming of cyclists. No helmet, you "should have worn one". Won't help if your chest is crushed etc. etc.

There's also no clear drop in injuries/accidents where helmet laws exist, so from a country wide perspective victim blaming + cyclists/motorists doing stupid things cos "helmets are magic" may lead to more injuries, not less.

I don't wear one for commuting (where I take very little risks and cycle defensively...) I would when downhilling, racing etc. as I'd probably fall on my face. A lot.

Jeez I was really just thinking about the skull fracture part. I've always thought a helmet would prevent cuts and bruises but nothing further. Just think they could've added "we believe that.."

Anyway perhaps I'm nitpicking, it's a good article from the next paragraph on.

some people seem to think helmet-wearers are part of the problem.

The problem is when non-helmet-wearing gets equated with irresponsible cycling, like by your neighbour.

I ride a sit up and beg, hardly ever bother to filter, and indicate like Brown Owl demonstrating semaphore. Yet because a helmet is such a visible signal of "I care about my safety", and the limitations of that safety so poorly understood, many would judge me as a less safe, less responsible cyclist than the hordes of lemmings that flow past me every day taking far higher risks but wearing a helmet.

So to me, those helmet wearers, the ones who protect against the low risk of a specific low-speed head injury but not the high risk of undertaking a left turning vehicle, are a problem because they confuse the picture of what a responsible, safe cyclist looks like. And that confusion becomes a real problem when questions of accident liability and contributory negligence have to be considered.

hanged up... I am all for a reasoned, evidence based debate, but...

I am sorry, but 'common sense' says to me that falling over can result in bruises, bumps, cuts, concussion and maybe if you are very unlucky a fractured skull. Travelling on a bike means the speed is faster therefore other things being equal the injury worse.

If I knew I were to hit my head on concrete or tarmac I would certainly prefer to be wearing a cap to nothing, and a wooly hat to a cap, and a toy helmet to a wooly hat and a proper bike helmet to a toy helmet.

I am absolutely certain that *"[helmets] can protect you from a bad bruise, serious concussion or even a fractured skull" *is entirely reasonable, as is *"a wooly hat [helmets] can reduce marginally the harm from a bad bruise, serious concussion or even a fractured skull".

*There are of course numerous other things that you need to remember - many bike injuries / deaths would not be prevented by helmets; helmet use shouldn't be compulsory for numerous reasons, blah blah blah. But I'm sorry, I am certain helmets can help in all sorts of accidents, even ones they are not designed to help in - even if in many similar accidents they didn't do any good.

You need serious academic studies to justify imposing rules on society as a whole. But I'm sorry, you only need a bit of common sense to know that in many cases when head hits hard thing a helmet is going to do some good.

The thing is most people get it completely the wrong way round, the more force in an accident, the less effective a "soft" helmet has. So it may stop concussion and other soft flesh injuries, but the force required to crack a skull is enough to turn a helmet into dust. Of course if the force is spread out enough, a helmet may stop the injury, but when it comes down to it polystyrene helmets are completely ineffective in impacts over 15-20mph (there should be a warning to this effect on all new helmets).

As an example, I think we can all agree that a helmet will have no effect on a bullet, at that level of force you might as well be wearing a paper bag on your head it will afford the same level of protection.

Jeez I was really just thinking about the skull fracture part. I've always thought a helmet would prevent cuts and bruises but nothing further. Just think they could've added "we believe that.."

Anyway perhaps I'm nitpicking, it's a good article from the next paragraph on.

It may depending on how much force is needed to fracture, helmets help by dividing the impact over a bigger surface. Eg. a sharp kerb VS a helmet. But the force has to be spread, a badly fitted helmet may crack without the polystyrene being pushed in.

If there's a big force over a big area (windshield/car door) helmet may be less effective as absorbing as the surface impact gets spread (glass breaks/door dents). So data on actual accidents is needed to be sure.

But nothing wrong with wearing a helmet, I just wish I wouldn't get lectured when I don't after I nearly got hit by an idiot not looking coming out of a give way junction during broad daylight and some people see them as Magic Bullets for RTCs with cars which may lead to risk taking...

RE walking, see the UK accident statistics on pedestrians. Not being flippant here, enough people crack their skulls as pedestrians. While that's quite counter-intuitive it does happen.

Jeez in 'taking everything as personal attack' shocker.

The BB removal still cost £20.

Saying that I am absolutely adamant that if (for example) I were about to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer travelling at 25 mph I'd be sensible to put on my helmet.

You're better off with a motorcycles helmet if you really want to survived a sledgehammer hit.

You sir, are a cock. If I ever get my hands on you your retard rip off mates at evans will charge you a fuck of a lot more than £20 to remove the american BB I ram right up your arse.

I don't work for Evans, joke's on you.

guys why are you hiding the friday popcorn in the helmets thread, no one comes in here...

How do I protect my nipples.. that's the real issue.

Vaseline you tits.

ha hippy just got chafstised by ed.

they'll price match local competitors so if you live anywhere near snotters you'll be in luck.