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

ah, just another bloke who insist on people to wear the same thing as he did because it save his life (apparently).

Said that to Wouter Weylandt.

I post this in the video, 'comment pending', bet it won't get approved;

Ed, sometimes you are a complete tit. That's a really knooby thing to say, using the death of another cyclist to validate your viewpoint.

here we go

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8669773/Bicycle-helmets-should-not-be-compulsory-say-doctors.html

More than two thirds of the respected journal's readers said they opposed compulsory helmets for adults.

Look like voting on the BMJ's online survery does the trick.

Just to abridge the results, 2/3rds of readers are against compulsion for various reasons, but one of the main appears to be the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks of an accident and compulsion leads to a large reduction in cycling numbers with a subsequent loss of health benefits.

The survey does not ask if people should wear a helmet and many of the comments made against compulsion include a comment about their personal choice being to wear a helmet. Some even include comments about encouragement through tax breaks etc...

So compulsion = bad
Personal Choice = good
Should you wear one = you decide just don't try telling me that I am a twat when I don't wear one or a pansy when I do.

But I think it warps the issue and relies on emotions rather than data, which is what is seriously lacking in this debate.

There are far more variables that affect the outcome of a bike accident than say a car crash. Most car crashes happen in predictable ways - run into something, get hit from the side, etc, (with the speeds varying) and with passengers sitting in the same position so you can replicate what will happen in a car crash knowing that it will apply in many cases.

There is no typical bike accident - you can hit / be hit from any angle, be standing, sitting, leaning, hit the ground in a multitude of ways, land on different materials etc. Testing one thing will hardly have any relevance to other cases.

So for that reason, it's best to rely on raw emotion, hearsay and first person experience.

Me.

here we go

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8669773/Bicycle-helmets-should-not-be-compulsory-say-doctors.html

The wording really bothers me..

"It gives out the message that cycling is dangerous, which it is not. The evidence that cycling helmets work to reduce injury is not conclusive."

I agree with the first part but no one could seriously argue that helmets don't reduce injury in the event of a crash.

Another added: "Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in ** risk **to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists, why would anyone want to bring in a law for something which is clearly not effective at reducing the ** risk **to cyclists?"

Here the word risk is used carelessly. Risk isn't just a number it's a combination of the chance of being involved in an accident and the consequences of an accident.

I like reading this stuff but remarks like those are meaningless.

^ Well pointed out.

you are getting two things wrong.

People do seriously argue that helmets don't reduce injury in the event of a crash. e.g. http://cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
Myself, i'm not sure either way.

Secondly, 'reduce injury in the event of a crash' is not the same thing as 'reduce risk'. It's logically possible that helmets could do the first but not the second, if they somehow increased the probability of crashes. And the implication of the population-level stats is that somehow they do, whether through risk compensation by riders or drivers, reduction in rider awareness, or indirectly though reducing cyclist numbers and the safety-in-numbers effect.

see also: http://www.phillipshelmets.com/HOME.htm

edit: and: http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/new-helmet-could-protect-against-rotational-injuries-25081/

doesn't look like ventilation will be too good though. But maybe the technical problems of helmets can be overcome. I still think it's the wrong place to focus.

you are getting two things wrong.

People do seriously argue that helmets don't reduce injury in the event of a crash. e.g. http://cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
Myself, i'm not sure either way.

Secondly, 'reduce injury in the event of a crash' is not the same thing as 'reduce risk'. It's logically possible that helmets could do the first but not the second, if they somehow increased the probability of crashes. And the implication of the population-level stats is that somehow they do, whether through risk compensation by riders or drivers, reduction in rider awareness, or indirectly though reducing cyclist numbers and the safety-in-numbers effect.

There is also the risk that helmets themselves cause or worsen some injuries by icreasing head weight and size, by strangulation or by transmitting forces to the neck etc.

A helmet is not necessarily a benign piece of kit.

There is also the risk that helmets themselves cause or worsen some injuries by icreasing head weight and size, by strangulation or by transmitting forces to the neck etc.

The key point is that the helmet *increased *the diameter of your head, so it'll more likely to come in impact with the ground, but at the same time the helmet will offer some cushioning from the impact, it's a catch-22 after all.

^ Good points. I just think any article like that needs to spell out what is meant by "risk". Are they saying helmets are "injury neutral" in that they are as likely to make an injury more serious as less, or are they refering to aggregate statistics like weighted severity of injury per head of population in helmet-mandatory cities vs helmet-optional (hard to judge given different roads, attitudes, etc), or are they weighing the injuries against the health benefits of exercise..

One thing I wondered when I had my most recent accident, in which I gained a bi-lateral condyle fracture and a load of broken teeth, was whether that was recorded as a head injury.

I was wearing a helmet at the time, which did precisely nothing- but then I hit the deck with my jaw, and as it was not a full face job it was never going to do much.

Interesting addition to the stats if it did get recorded as "head injury, helmet worn, did nothing"

It would have been recorded as a head injury. When I broke my collarbone it got recorded as a head injury because I had a fabric graze from my cap. I pointed out that I would have had the same graze whatever I had on my head, even a helmet.

I wonder if you would have broken your jaw had you not been wearing a helmet that made hitting your chin more likely than hitting your cheek or forehead?

I wonder if you would have broken your jaw had you not been wearing a helmet that made hitting your chin more likely than hitting your cheek or forehead?

Landing on his chin broke his jaw. This had nothing to do with a helmet.

Landing on his chin broke his jaw. This had nothing to do with a helmet.

Indeed but this would still be recorded as a 'head injury'. It might well count as 'serious' if it needed a night in hospital. This serious injury occured despite the helmet.

I'm not doubdting that. What I am doubting is that he only hit his chin because he was weraing a helmet.

if we are talking about reducing risk then it would only be right for Dammit to tell us just what state he was in when he had this 'accident'.

I'm not talking about risk, that's quite a misleading little curve you've introduced Will.

I'm pointing out that the statistics are going to be misleading as I had an accident, in which I suffered an injury to my head whilst wearing a helmet.

So, in tick box terms it would be as if the helmet was not effective in any way, but the nature of the angle I hit the deck at meant that the helmet was never involved in proceedings.

I replaced it because a) well, it had been in an accident, and b) the straps were moulded into a tangled shape from all the blood that had come out of my ears, and I didn't fancy trying to get that clean.

And because Will mentioned it, I will say that wearing a helmet in no way contributed to my attitude to risk, i.e. the accident happening or not.

Having been drinking heavily for ~14 hours probably did though.

I will say that wearing a helmet in no way contributed to my attitude to risk

The thing about risk compensation is that you're bound to say that, and you're almost certainly wrong. The fact that you wear a helmet says you have already decided that there are some foreseeable accidents in which it will mitigate your injury, and since this attitude is embedded in your consciousness, you are bound to proceed more cautiously if you leave your helmet at home, ergo you ride in a way which carries a higher probability of an accident when you are wearing a helmet, assuming that your attempt at cautious riding is actually effective.

That is not relevent to the point i was making, and is therefore a distraction.

Dammit, I was just being cheeky. But there are often stories on here of 'accidents' where the victim neglects to mention that they were as pissed as a newt and anyone who has been to a forum drinks knows a great many people leave them in a less than low-risk condition.

i have yet to hit my head in an accident

i always wonder why i dont have enough time to undo my helmet and put move it in place to save which ever bit of my body is getting bumped

it reminds me of the driver who crashed into me when i was waiting at a red light. her first words to me were "you cyclists are all so dangerous, look you are not even wearing a helmet!"

like a helmet was really going to offer me any protection from her crashing into me.

Meh, that's just the driver trying to keep his 'pride' by offsetting his fault toward you.