Helmets

custardy

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1353157765-iFBEnaYHvm3YDJ+B54MbAw

bluebeary

its personal choice for the most part, i prefer to wear a helmet, through personal experience and me feeling more safe wearing it

art_for_arts_sake

From the above link:

In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke. Cities are aggressive in helmet promotion.
But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems.

US standards for helmet testing are more rigorous than the European EN1078 standard. If there's ever a mandate for helmet use in the EC or UK, then standards need to rise, or we are allowing ourselves to be deluded into a false sense of security by people deciding on our behalf to enforce helmet use.

"if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury" says it all, really, and is the reason why I choose to wear a helmet in bad weather when road surfaces are at ther most treacherous, i.e. wet or icy weather, as I'm aware they will be of little use in an impact with a moving vehicle over 15 mph.

Shane Sutton, the GB head coach who was recently hit by a car, advocates helmet use but wearing a helmet didn't stop him suffering bruising and bleeding to the brain. He also fractured a cheekbone, if proof were needed that helmets also offer little or maxillofacial protection.

Marco_Panettone

art_for_arts_sake wrote: »

From the above link:

US standards for helmet testing are more rigorous than the European EN1078 standard. If there's ever a mandate for helmet use in the EC or UK, then standards need to rise, or we are allowing ourselves to be deluded into a false sense of security by people deciding on our behalf to enforce helmet use.

"if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury" says it all, really, and is the reason why I choose to wear a helmet in bad weather when road surfaces are at ther most treacherous, i.e. wet or icy weather, as I'm aware they will be of little use in an impact with a moving vehicle over 15 mph.

Shane Sutton, the GB head coach who was recently hit by a car, advocates helmet use but wearing a helmet didn't stop him suffering bruising and bleeding to the brain. He also fractured a cheekbone, if proof were needed that helmets also offer little or maxillofacial protection.

True, but it may well have saved his life. I'd take a broken cheekbone over death any day!

There have been studies showing that vehicles give more space to riders without helmets when overtaking, as the driver perceives the risk to be higher. I believe that helmet use should remain rider choice, although personally I ALWAYS choose to wear one.

Johnmcl7

There's been some interesting links posted here in the past on helmet use in Australia and New Zealand examining the change in figures when helmets were made mandatory, they found as the article above suggests that there wasn't any change in the number of fatalities when taking into account the reduced number of cyclists. They also claimed the main risk when wearing a helmet was that cyclists would cycle in a more risky way due to the perception that the helmet would protect them.

With that in mind there's no disadvantage to wearing a helmet, it certainly doesn't put me off cycling as you barely notice the helmet is there. So far my cycling injuries have all been minor bangs and grazes so while a helmet may not protect me from serious injury, it will likely protect it from the minor but irritating injuries I'm likely to receive. In the case of a more serious injury I'm no worse off than a rider without a helmet.

John

art_for_arts_sake

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

True, but it may well have saved his life. I'd take a broken cheekbone over death any day!

There have been studies showing that vehicles give more space to riders without helmets when overtaking, as the driver perceives the risk to be higher. I believe that helmet use should remain rider choice, although personally I ALWAYS choose to wear one.

Shane says he has absolutely no recollection of the accident so unless an independent witness comes forward we'll probably never know whether the helmet protected him from an impact with the moving vehicle or just with the ground.

Yes, the 2006 Walker study http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html suggests that drivers actually drive closer to helmeted riders, but I agree that helmet choice (even when to wear!) should remain the decision of the rider.

Marco_Panettone

art_for_arts_sake wrote: »

Shane says he has absolutely no recollection of the accident so unless an independent witness comes forward we'll probably never know whether the helmet protected him from an impact with the moving vehicle or just with the ground.

Yes, the 2006 Walker study http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html suggests that drivers actually drive closer to helmeted riders, but I agree that helmet choice (even when to wear!) should remain the decision of the rider.

I don't think that's important. The crash caused him to hit his head against something. His helmet took the impact. Job done. I'd be surprised if there wasn't impact with the ground anyway, regardless of whether or not there was contact between the head and the vehicle.

The worrying thing about the helmet issue is the way statistics are used. In Australia bike use went down, deaths per km went up, but total numbers killed went down. It can be the case that it's safer AND more dangerous, depending on how you measure it.

Dave_C_2

Two very interesting links that are a must read in any helmet debate

1. A good review of the available data, both "sides" presented. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html
2. What happened in Western Australia after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws
   http://www.cycle-helmets.com/Elvik2011_helmet_reanalysis.pdfI%27m

Personally I don't wear a helmet as the majority of my cycling is on country roads and national cycle route 67. I think that the choice of helmet wearing should be left up to the individual, as long as it is an informed choice.



Several things worry me about helmets

• The helmet manufacturers provided most of the "you must wear a helmet" evidence in the early days (can't for the life of me think why!). Later independent testing has disproved this.
• The testing is rubbish and has no relationship with falling off a bike. Even at 60+ I usually ride in excess of 12 mph
• Peter Walkers study that finds drivers give helmeted riders less room
• They don't wear helmets in the Netherlands.

But most of all, this is trying to shift the perceived safety to the cyclist wearing a helmet from where it should be - in really safe Dutch style infrastructure based around sustainable safety.


Dave

custardy

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

There's been some interesting links posted here in the past on helmet use in Australia and New Zealand examining the change in figures when helmets were made mandatory, they found as the article above suggests that there wasn't any change in the number of fatalities when taking into account the reduced number of cyclists. They also claimed the main risk when wearing a helmet was that cyclists would cycle in a more risky way due to the perception that the helmet would protect them.

With that in mind there's no disadvantage to wearing a helmet, it certainly doesn't put me off cycling as you barely notice the helmet is there. So far my cycling injuries have all been minor bangs and grazes so while a helmet may not protect me from serious injury, it will likely protect it from the minor but irritating injuries I'm likely to receive. In the case of a more serious injury I'm no worse off than a rider without a helmet.

John

isnt there?

driver attitudes?
the possibility the increased noggin circumference actually causes an impact, where a smaller noggin wouldnt
possible 'leverage' on the neck from the extra size of the helmet

just a few to ponder.
problem is theres many scenarios and what ifs yuo can throw in the mix

Johnmcl7

custardy wrote: »

isnt there?

driver attitudes?
the possibility the increased noggin circumference actually causes an impact, where a smaller noggin wouldnt
possible 'leverage' on the neck from the extra size of the helmet

just a few to ponder.
problem is theres many scenarios and what ifs yuo can throw in the mix

I based my post on the studies in areas where helmets have become mandatory, none of which you've listed is considered as a factor. Driver attitudes aren't really of any concern as they're not consistent in regards to treating cyclists with helmets and my much larger concern is those who aren't paying any attention at all, the helmet is only slightly larger so it's not going to cause an accident that wouldn't have occurred otherwise and the helmet strap does not cause issues either.

The main disadvantage listed in the article posted in the opening post and mentioned by other users is that the helmet discourages people cycling which isn't an issue for me. If there was a pedal bike version of motorbike armour that was as lightweight an uninstrusive as a cycle helmet, I'd strongly consider that too if it avoided some of the bumps and scrapes of cycling as that's where I do most of the damage at the moment when coming off the bike.

John

custardy

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I based my post on the studies in areas where helmets have become mandatory, none of which you've listed is considered as a factor. Driver attitudes aren't really of any concern as they're not consistent in regards to treating cyclists with helmets and my much larger concern is those who aren't paying any attention at all, the helmet is only slightly larger so it's not going to cause an accident that wouldn't have occurred otherwise and the helmet strap does not cause issues either.

The main disadvantage listed in the article posted in the opening post and mentioned by other users is that the helmet discourages people cycling which isn't an issue for me. If there was a pedal bike version of motorbike armour that was as lightweight an uninstrusive as a cycle helmet, I'd strongly consider that too if it avoided some of the bumps and scrapes of cycling as that's where I do most of the damage at the moment when coming off the bike.

John

slightly larger?
Do you wear one?