Bike helmets

MEM62

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes, as long as you and your loved ones are prepared to accept a reduced compensation payment when you are left being fed through a tube because your choice is viewed by the courts as contributory negligence.

It should still be a matter of choice.

We are all adults. We can assess risk and consequences and we have the right to decide what level of risk we are prepared to accept. It is not for any legislative body to decide this for us.

I am strongly opposed to any legislation of this nature.

spadoosh

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I'm struggle to think how they cause additional issues, maybe you can evidence that?

Studies suggest that cyclists/drivers are inclined to take more risk when (cyclist is) wearing a helmet leading to a higher number of accidents.

This one suggest overtaking distances are smaller when someone is wearing a helmet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457506001540

Also seems to suggest that wearing a wig will increase overtaking distances (likely reduce accidents), maybe we should make wig wearing on a bicycle compulsory?

and this one suggest that cyclists take mroe risk when wearing a helmet.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/05/0956797615620784

So take your pick, wear a helmet and reduce the chances of serious injury in an accident or dont wear a helmet and reduce the risk of actually being in an accident.

facade

Personally, I always wear gloves/mittens, but rarely wear a helmet.

When I fall off I generally land on the palms of my hands (and I don't want gravel rash at my age), you automatically tuck your head in to protect it if you are going to roll over.

Whilst there is always the chance that I could fly off my 'bike and head butt something solid, I'm not going any faster than if I were running flat out and tripped, and no-one wears a helmet when running/jogging.

I would wear one riding in massively heavy traffic where someone could knock me off or send me flying over their bonnet with a broken wrist or something, (I want full compo- if you knock me off I'm never going to do a days work again courtesy of your insurance ) or on a mountain 'bike course.

I think a lot of these "Look I fell off and split my helmet, it would have been a vinegar & brown paper job without it" happen because the helmet is larger than your head, and you hit it whereas you wouldn't hit just your head- rather like if you wear a hard hat on a site visit you crack it into things you would have just walked under sans hat.

keith969

Same arguments were made about wearing motorcycle helmets and car seat belts. Why should cyclists be different?

MEM62

wrote: »

Yes I think cycle helmets should be compulsory.

One life saved is enough to justify this change in the law

And just how far are you prepared to take that approach? Ban bicycles altogether? How about rock climbing, hang gliding, horse-riding, motorcycling? Ban all of these and more - after all, if just one life is saved it is worth it.

bigjl I appreciate what you are saying and that I have put the extremes of the opposing view but IMO people must be allowed the freedom to make their own choice.

spadoosh

facade wrote: »

Personally, I always wear gloves/mittens, but rarely wear a helmet.

When I fall off I generally land on the palms of my hands (and I don't want gravel rash at my age), you automatically tuck your head in to protect it if you are going to roll over.

Whilst there is always the chance that I could fly off my 'bike and head butt something solid, I'm not going any faster than if I were running flat out and tripped, and no-one wears a helmet when running/jogging.

I would wear one riding in massively heavy traffic where someone could knock me off or send me flying over their bonnet with a broken wrist or something, (I want full compo- if you knock me off I'm never going to do a days work again courtesy of your insurance ) or on a mountain 'bike course.

I think a lot of these "Look I fell off and split my helmet, it would have been a vinegar & brown paper job without it" happen because the helmet is larger than your head, and you hit it whereas you wouldn't hit just your head- rather like if you wear a hard hat on a site visit you crack it into things you would have just walked under sans hat.

Just to give the other side. When i came off, my gloves got caught on my brake lever which meant my hand got stuck and ended up dislocating a couple of fingers. In the same accident my head really did slam into the floor (had just set off so no speed) the dent in my helmet was that of a good sized marble and cracked a couple of ribs to boot. As mentioned wasnt at speed 10mph tops. Shouldnt go as far to say it saved my life but it certainly saved a proper good headache!

keith969 wrote: »

Same arguments were made about wearing motorcycle helmets and car seat belts. Why should cyclists be different?

Yeh why should cyclists be different, let us ride on the motorway!?

Why are they treat differently? Because they are different. If you dont know the difference between a bicycle, a motorbike and a car i can direct you to my 3 yo niece who seems to have grasped the concept.

JP08

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I'm struggle to think how they cause additional issues, maybe you can evidence that?

There is also some argument around whether cycle helmets increase the risk of brain damage due to rotational injury : http://www.biausa.org/about-brain-injury.htm


Diffuse Axonal Injury

• A Diffuse Axonal Injury can be caused by shaking or strong rotation of the head, as with Shaken Baby Syndrome, or by rotational forces, such as with a car accident.
• Injury occurs because the unmoving brain lags behind the movement of the skull, causing brain structures to tear.
• There is extensive tearing of nerve tissue throughout the brain. This can cause brain chemicals to be released, causing additional injury.
• The tearing of the nerve tissue disrupts the brain’s regular communication and chemical processes.
• This disturbance in the brain can produce temporary or permanent widespread brain damage, coma, or death.
• A person with a diffuse axonal injury could present a variety of functional impairments depending on where the shearing (tears) occurred in the brain.

If you google "Rotational Injury Brain" a fair few of the results relate to Cycle Helmets (arguments one way or another).


But the basic premise is that is in some instances the head is rotated sharply by the polystyrene of the helmet catching, and the extra diameter of the helmet increasing the rotational torque.

Tyler119

Got to thank everyone for the comments so far, I've enjoyed them all and found the discussion rather civilised...which makes a lovely change.

In the following video, I have no opinion on driver or cyclist...I only know it made me and the other half laugh out loud for what seemed a week....

https://youtu.be/6fKof31u-2o

shaun_from_Africa

JP08 wrote: »

There is also some argument around whether cycle helmets increase the risk of brain damage due to rotational injury.

There are also a lot of people and groups who think that bringing in helmets as a legal requirement would actually lead to an increase in deaths from other causes:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/file_public/helmets-evidencebrf.pdf

By contrast, the risks of cycling are not exceptionally high, and are very small relative to the health benefits. You are in fact as likely to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking. The
Government has endorsed estimates that the health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling on Britain’s roads by a factor of 20:1 (n.b. estimates from other countries place this ratio higher still).

Based on this 20:1 ratio, it can be shown that telling people to wear helmets would result in a net increase in early deaths (due to physical inactivity etc.) if more than 1 person were deterred from
cycling for every 20 who continue, even if helmets were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. not just head-only injuries).
Once you factor in the proportion of serious and fatal cycling injuries that are not head-only injuries, and the at-best limited protection that helmets could provide (they are and only can be designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not collisions with fast-moving cars or lorries), it can be shown that it only takes a fraction of a percentage point reduction in cycle use for pro-helmet policies to shorten a lot more lives than they could possibly save

And doing a quick search on the internet shows similar thought from other countries.

bigjl

JP08 wrote: »

There is also some argument around whether cycle helmets increase the risk of brain damage due to rotational injury : http://www.biausa.org/about-brain-injury.htm


Diffuse Axonal Injury

• A Diffuse Axonal Injury can be caused by shaking or strong rotation of the head, as with Shaken Baby Syndrome, or by rotational forces, such as with a car accident.
• Injury occurs because the unmoving brain lags behind the movement of the skull, causing brain structures to tear.
• There is extensive tearing of nerve tissue throughout the brain. This can cause brain chemicals to be released, causing additional injury.
• The tearing of the nerve tissue disrupts the brain’s regular communication and chemical processes.
• This disturbance in the brain can produce temporary or permanent widespread brain damage, coma, or death.
• A person with a diffuse axonal injury could present a variety of functional impairments depending on where the shearing (tears) occurred in the brain.

If you google "Rotational Injury Brain" a fair few of the results relate to Cycle Helmets (arguments one way or another).


But the basic premise is that is in some instances the head is rotated sharply by the polystyrene of the helmet catching, and the extra diameter of the helmet increasing the rotational torque.

I have seen a 5yr old hit by a car the slid under a parked car suffer that kind of injury.

I don't read such research articles since retirement but that kind of TBI could easily happen in lots of different impacts.

There are lots of cyclists that have died that would have survived due to a cycle helmet. I will read your links though.

The way they explained it to us in training was the head stops rotating but the brain doesn't, or at least not all of it, the brain then twists.

A consultant at the RLH described it as a tortional brain injury as the brain twists.

A diffuse axonal injury is also very common, that can sometimes make any conclusions from research or analysing statistics come to varying conclusions.