Bike helmets (lighthearted!)

[micemicebabies]

I was in a shop today and had the following unwanted conversation:

Nosey lady (NS): "were you in an accident?"
Me: "excuse me?"
NS: "we're you in an accident?"
Me: "pardon?"
NS indicates with her eyes to my bike helmet I was holding
NS: "They're stupid things. Do you were it all the time"
Me: "eh, when I'm on my bike, yeah..."
NS: "what!? I have a child and SHE doesn't even wear one! They look so stupid! Hahaha! Even my child doesn't wear one!"
I turn away a bit, still smiling politely.
NS: "why do you wear it? Were you in an accident? They look so stupid!"

Would I have been unreasonable to whack her in the head and then yell "SHOULDA WORN A HELMET!!!!"

I once got flamed on here several years ago for starting a thread asking why they weren't a legal requirement.

acasualobserver & fulltimeyummy - with all due respect, that is bollocks. The studies to which you are referring looked at the cross section of head injuries treated by doctors and found little difference. It however failed to take into account the huge number of people who didn't need treatment either because the helmet had protected them, or the lack of helmet had killed them outright....

I'd be a widow right now if it wasn't for bike helmets and I think I would have trouble holding my tongue if someone has approached me in a shop and said something so utterly stupid!

But genuinely, I'm curious as to what the argument is for not wearing one. I mean, surely it's worth wearing one even if you don't believe they are efficient just in case?

Would I have been unreasonable to whack her in the head and then yell "SHOULDA WORN A HELMET!!!!

This made me giggle.

I wear a helmet every time I put foot to pedal. It's just part of the outfit, and I have long since given up worrying about how stupid it may look when there is the rest of me looking far, far more ridiculous!

The theory is that people give non-helmeters a wider berth than helmet-wearers, so that particular cause of injury is reduced. Not relevant to the effect of hitting a pothole and coming off at all.

(Similar research about cycle lanes too - people driver far closer to cyclists who are in marked lanes because they perceive the lane to be the "official" distance marker, rather than rely on their own eyes and instincts when passing)

Fenella. I didnt refer to a particular study, so not sure where you were going with that comment.

If anybody can find a study that shows that an adult wearing a cycle helmet for cycling on the road, reduces their chances of being killed or seriously injured, then I am all ears.

Every single study that I'm aware of shows that on average there is no net benefit to wearing a helmet , or that there is a slight disbenefit.

The theory is that a helmet makes you slightly better off in an accident but makes you slightly more likely to have an accident in the first place (risk compensation), and the two effects cancel out. This may fly in the face of gut feel, but that's the reality.

Like I said, if anybody can find a study (as opposed to anecdotes) which shows helmets to be beneficial, then please do share.

To those who are pro-helmet: if you don't believe wearing a helmet makes you behave in a slightly riskier manner, try cycling without your helmet one day and see how careful you are

Fulltimeyummy - I didn't refer to a particular study either, not imply you had. I mentioned 'studies' and pointed out that the ones which uphold your view have inaccurate data, and told you the reason why.

This review is an amalgam of 5 major studies: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/

This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists.

To say cycle helmets make you take more risks is ridiculous. I presume you wear a seatbelt whilst driving? Does that encourage you to speed or deliberately drive into things...?

I'm not sure you've understood my point.

As the the data you've quoted, yes helmets reduce injuries....... ..... If you bang your head. The chances of banging your head and affected by a great number of factors, one of which is the presence or absence of a helmet.

So the situation is clearly more complex than your quote implies. Again, find me a study that shows that helmeted riders have a lower KSI figure.

As for the seatbelt comparison, if can be readily observed that people can drive like idiots when surround by two tonnes of Range Rover and 15 airbags. Fortunately the safety benefit of seatbelt, airbags etc. significantly outweighs the risk compensation factor.

The benefit of cycle helmets are more marginal (there are a great number of accidents in which they don't come play, or are simply not effective) hence the benefits are balanced by the disbenefits of behavioural effect.

Just to be clear, I'm not against helmets, I'm simply pointing out that there is no strong case for wearing one.

If there were as useful as common sense would have us believe, you'd think it'd be pretty easy to find a study showing that cycle deaths are related to helmet usage. I've yet to find such a study.

Apologies for the typos and auto corrects

Teenager on the local news a couple of years ago refused to wear a helmet as he was obsessed with his hair. Had a severe accident and now very badly brain damaged due to a head injury.

fulltime that surely depends how carefully/ carelessly you cycle. I've had a couple of bad falls on my bike and have been advised that if I have another I may end up with real problems. I'm super careful. I've also cycled around recently without a helmet, just testing out my bike after making some adjustments, and .........nope, no difference!

If you're already a careful cyclist I don't think it makes much difference but no one can prevent some accidents, and I'd rather have my head protected in case of a sudden unexpected fall.

Revolting, yes of course you are right, it will depend on the individual. The problem is, figuring out which individual you are.

On average people as a whole take more risks when they feel safer, if that isn't you, then great.

Although, in the nicest possible way, how careful are you being if you've had two bad crashes?

If you're already a careful cyclist I don't think it makes much difference but no one can prevent some accidents, and I'd rather have my head protected in case of a sudden unexpected fall.

Yup. We can be as careful as we like, but we don't exist in a vacuum. It takes one other road user not being careful to render all our care useless.

So your not required by law to wear bicycle helmets in the UK then? Wow.. just wow.

DP has a work colleague who was in a bicycle accident, wearing a helmet.

He had a head injury but was told he would have died if he wasn't wearing a helmet.

I realise this is anecdotal but certainly makes me even more pro-helmet.

Yes, I'm not sure this is about reports and statistics, more common sense. If you are going to ride a bike, surely it's more sensible to have a helmet on than not. It wasn't a car that nearly did for my DP, it was a hidden hole and, frankly, a short flight and hard landing.....

I accept that a helmet only protects one part of you, but it's a fairly important part. I'd hate for anyone to have to receive the call I did.

Can I point out that comparisons with horse riding are not relevant. Horse riding is many times more dangerous than cycling - more comparable with riding a motorbike in terms of risk. Also horse riding helmets (and motorbike helmets) are much more robust than cycle helmets and offer greater protection. Cycle helmets cannot be as robust without increasing the risk of heat exhaustion (itself a fatality risk).

Cyclists in competition are riding at the limit of their capacity at a much higher speed than casual cyclists and will take risks to win. The marginal protection a helmet offers may be worth it to them - racing drivers also wear a helmet in their cars where ordinary motorists do not, so again not a fair comparison.

Helmets are only tested up to 12 mph in a straight on impact. Some accidents fall into this category.

However many cycling related head injuries are due to rotational forces which are worsened by the extra weight of a helmet. Plus the fact that your head is 2 inches bigger makes it more likely that you will bang it harder.

As someone said above, motorbike helmets would be safer - but not practical for cycling. Cycle helmets are a fragile piece of polystyrene. Useful if you fall off on your own perhaps - but not in a collision with a car as the forces are much greater.

Pedestrians and car passengers are more likely to get head injuries per mile travelled than cyclists.

And finally the reason helmets should not be made compulsory (apart from the fact that they do not work in preventing injuries per mile travelled) is that it puts people off cycling meaning there are fewer cyclists on the road meaning that the risk is higher for those remaining, and at the same time the health benefits of cycling without or with a helmet far outweigh the small risk of injury.

But the woman was still very rude.

Some links here from Cycling UK

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets

and the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation

www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html