...to not make my 5 and 3 year old wear a cycle helmet?

[blindasabatenburg]

Am I failing to protect them sufficiently? Nobody wore helmets when we were kids and I don't recall anyonr suffering a serious head injury, though we all came off from time to time.

They could just as easily fall from a climbing frame at the park, but nobody would insist on a helmet for the park!!!

[thegirliesmam]

i live in cambridge, where bike users are as common as arms and`legs. the amount of children who commute to school etc, during rush hour, on pavements and in trailers/following behind parents/sitting in bike seats is huge. please put them in helmets. if you wear one and fall/get hit you are protected but you, quite realisitically, have the chance to have seriously injured children and by putting them in one and not yourself, you have the chance to be unconcious and children stranded. i say this from seeing it first hand, tbh it really gets my goat and my 'if i was primeminister' topic is making helmet use mandatory by law. you wouldnt not let them wear a seatbelt,when we were younger it was hardly mandatory and cant remember anyone getting seriously hurt.

[DoctorRobert]

yabvu and yes you are absolutely failing to protect them.

If you'd had experience of a loved one suffering a brain injury you wouldn't be so blase, believe me, it's not nice.

[Moominsarehippos]

It's like when DS was little and learning to walk. I spend a lot of time in the kitchen and we have a stone floor. I quickly realised that small child = falling over and bought some thick rugs to stop him braining his head off the floor.

We took him to get a helmet (for his bike) and were suprised at the range of prices. We bought the best we could afford after having a chat with the salesguy (mad keen cyclist). Thank goodness he's only had a couple of non-serious tumbles.

[DoctorRobert]

Just to add, it doesn't take much to cause a serious brain injury.

My DH fainted and hit his head on the pavement. This caused a bleed on the brain & a fractured skull in several places. He was in hospital for a fortnight and I was told there was a possibility he could die. He didn't return to work full-time for 4 months; he now has permanently impaired hearing.

He wasn't in a car accident, he wasn't attacked. He just fell and hit the pavement. Imagine what could happen to a child hitting their head at speed coming off a bike.

[Prawntoast]

I'm not convinced that helmets are that helpful and I have seen the report about drivers leaving less space to pass when overtaking a cyclist wearing a helmet, but I hope never to have to test out whether they do save a life! We all cycle in my family and we all wear helmets. in the great scheme of things compared to the bikes they don't cost much and if they are the difference between concussion and death a price worth paying frankly.

[Ilovemyself]

We are talking about 5and 3 year olds. I don't think any sane person would consider taking them on the road

[Moominsarehippos]

Even if its the difference between a sore head and a bloody sore head/cut/concussion, why not wear one?

[JenaiMorris]

Because nobody seems to have demonstrated that you are less likely to suffer a head injury if you do, moomins.

[Moominsarehippos]

There have been plenty of people on this thread reporting what they have been told by doctors, surgeons and god help us coroners. I tend to trust someone with, what 8 years of medical training/experience.

[Ilovemyself]

Jenalmorris. It is simple phyics. Hit your head on a solid floor and three will be a sudden deceleration. This can cause concussion or bleeds.

A helmet should have sufficient internal padding to allow the head to decelerate more slowly thus lessening the risk of concussion or bleed.

There is also a reduced risk of cuts/bruises/abrasions as the head is not in direct contact with the thing it hits.

It can't be that difficult to understand

[AvonCallingBarksdale]

Disclaimer - I haven't time now to RTFT.... but, I never understand the argument about people not wearing helmets years ago and never suffering any terrible injuires. Isn't that akin to saying that we didn't have to wear seatbelts years ago and X, Y, Z never had any serious injuries? It's just an additional safety measure, which, surely, has to be a good thing, doesn' it

[DottyboutDots]

Jenalmorris et all I'm banging my head on the keyboard now

[JenaiMorris]

But it's not just simple physics.

To properly understand how bodies and heads react in cycle accidents you need simulations - proper crash tests not just bashing a helmet into something at speed.

There are concerns about rotational injuries, about whether a head in a helmet is more likely to hit something than one that is not (for whatever reason) and this is quite apart from behavioural factors.

As I said upthread, I suspect we're being sold a pup, that cycle helmets are a bit rubbish. But barring a few exceptions nobody seems particularly bothered about this, perhaps because it's "simple physics" and because of all those cracked (and therefore failed!) helmets that supposedly saved lives.

WRT medics - I don't expect many of them to understand how cycle helmets do or don't work. Their main focus is on treating injuries, not preventing them. I'm sure they are more interested than most in understanding how trauma occurs but I wouldn't expect them to be experts.

[PatPig]

"If you value your head at £9.99 buy a £9.99 helmet. "

There is no reason to believe that more expensive helmets afford better protection.

Because cycle helmets are basically a whole lot of woo and not much evidence, there's precious little in the way of standards or testing. Expensive ones will look nice/have good aerodynamic/lots of holes (for ventilation) though.

[Ilovemyself]

Patpig. When I buy my motorcycle helmets I will always live by that rule and it works just the same for cycle helmets. Better quality materials, better testing, and better production techniques.

[BlackbeltinBS]

My children wear helmets on bikes and scooters to get them into the habit, not because I think they're going to need them necessarily. Then my daughter wasn't looking where she was going on her scooter on the pavement one day and thumped her helmeted head straight into a lamp post. I was very, very glad she had her helmet on.

My uncle decided to leave his helmet at home one day when he nipped five minutes up the road to the papershop on his bike. He fell off (not even hit by anything), and spent five days in intensive care after brain surgery. He's also lost his driving licence because of the epileptic fits the injury triggered. I'd rather my children just thought bike = helmet and then no one will have to wonder what would have happened in the event of an accident if they were wearing one.

[OlyRoller]

I live in Amsterdam and my 6 year old wears a helmet and so do most of his friends. Older kids less so. He rides on the road and though there are cycle lanes on the main roads, they are not always really separated from the car lanes. Most streets don't have bicycle lanes Mopeds and scooter can use the bike lanes as well so it's not that safe because they can come up so fast behind you. In fact I am always nervous about taking DS on the streets because so much can happen - cars pulling out, vans backing up, car doors opening, scooters coming the wrong way- you have be on guard all the time. But at the same time, Dutch drivers are very aware of cyclists.

And the stupidest thing is that so may people here are plugged into their MP3 players while cycling. You need to hear the traffic. It's really dangerous not to be able to hear what's going on around you.

[PatPig]

Ilovemyself we have no idea tbh.

You would assume that a branded helmet would be better than an Toys-r-us special. But who knows.

But beyond that expensive helmets boast of how many they holes they have in them - 40 for this one:

[http://www.evanscycles.com/products/louis-garneau/diamond-ii-helmet-ec049868]]

They say that they use better materials so all the holes don't matter, but it would seem to me that better materials and fewer holes would be safer still.

But because it there is so little in the way of testing or standards - the most stringent I believe is Snell B-95, and the very short list of compliant helmets is available here:

www.smf.org/cert

The brand Specialized have two helmets certified to B-95,

bikemagic.com/gear/bike-reviews/specialized-deviant-carbon-helmet.html
www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/category/protection/helmet-full-face/product/review-specialized-dissident-full-face-helmet-46786

The greatest irony is that when selling bicycle helmets, safety very very seldom comes into the selection process.

For what is a device that for 99% of people (excluding TT riders who wear ridiculous time trial helmets) purely a safety device, this is an absurdity.

[JenaiMorris]

There are tests which suggest that the protection given by expensive helmets is no better than that offered by cheap ones.

Which doesn't make them a waste of money - they'll be easier to fit properly, which would in turn make them safer, and if they're more comfortable and better looking, then cyclists are more likely to use them.

Having said that I'm not convinced that the testing is up to scratch anyway!

[PatPig]

sorry, just to note that both the Specialized helmets are in the full-face crash helmet style. AFAIK you cannot buy any B-95-certified helmet in the UK that is not a full-face style.

[IKnowWhat]

I wonder if all these anti bike helmet posters have cases on their phones

[JenaiMorris]

I don't there there are any anti-helmet posters on this thread. Just a couple who are a little cynical as to their efficacy.

I don't have a case on my phone btw. And each of the four times I've come off my bike I've been scratched, grazed, and woken the next day aching all over, but I've never hit my head. Neither fact bears much relation to whether of not people ought to wear helmets.

[JenaiMorris]

typos-ahoy there.

I'm multi-tasking

*but not on a bike. That would be silly.

[PatPig]

My phone came with a case, which enhances its grip, so I use it.

TBH I think the best time to wear a helmet would be when walking to the pub. People who go out drinking, quite rightly avoid driving, and walk and/or take public transport.

Such people are at very high risk of head injury as a result of their alcohol consumption, far, far higher than every day cycling (alcohol is a factor in around 40% of pedestrian deaths on the roads), and clearly if you were at all concerned about safety, you would wear a helmet when walking to the pub.

Anyone who doesn't do so is irrationally anti-helmet and probably a Bad Parent as well. (According to the logic in this thread.)

[Ilovemyself]

Patpig. The trouble with quoting helmet standards is the only CE standards apply in the UK. I can't legally use a snell certified helmet if it doesn't have the CE stamp