Clifton CC

Last year I started a thread about helmets, and the general concensus was "if you wanna wear one, wear one, if it will stop you cycling then don't, but be careful"... I mellowed quickly... I'm not one to tell others what to do.

Tonight though, I had a head on collision and instead of being in hospital now with a cracked skull I have a helmet with a dint in it and a slightly sore neck. I am generally a careful cyclist, I made a stupid mistake tonight and it could happen to any of us.

Please, if you don't already, wear a helmet, it could save your life.

Michael

MichaelCarter wrote:I'm not one to tell others what to do.

MichaelCarter wrote: Please, if you don't already, wear a helmet, it could save your life.

Now I'm confused!

Seriously though this is one of those debates that gets folk hot under the collar and for which unquivocal evidence is unfortunately lacking. Plenty of anecdotal stories about people put off cycling by the need to wear 'em and also anecdotal evidence about what would have happened had someone not beeen wearing one.

IMO cycling with is better than cycling without which is better than not cycling at all.....

Youre right Dave, I was slightly contradictory, but I had just had a whack on the head! Basically, I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm just passing on my experience.

Dr Dave wrote:IMO cycling with is better than cycling without which is better than not cycling at all.....

I like that, it's quite snappy. Sums up an exhausting debate in one sentence.

In the meantime Michael, what we all really want to know is: how's your bike??!

I totally Back Helmets!

But hate wearing them, they make my head to warm! I have just got back into cycling so maybe been out of shape aint helping, I do have a good one and intend to wear it, I just never puit it on!

BTW Dr Dave, whats your last name?

I'm sure I go faster with a helmet on so I wear one on all my rides apart from when I go to college.

Hi Timj here
what idont understand is is it the fact that people dont like the helmets look or is it the feel or is it uncomfortable?
Surely just a feint chance of it saving youre life without evidence it must be worth it .I always wear one and would feel wierd without one .
cheers

timj wrote:Hi Timj here
what idont understand is is it the fact that people dont like the helmets look or is it the feel or is it uncomfortable?
Surely just a feint chance of it saving youre life without evidence it must be worth it .I always wear one and would feel wierd without one .
cheers

Sometimes I forget to put my helmet on and wonder what I've forgot, it feels very weird, so weird I cannot move another meter. I think it's partly because peole think they look "ugly", when I was a kid my parents always used to tell me to wear my helmet, well make me put it on, so I put it on go round corner take it off and have it hanging on handlebars. Cause I thought it looked stupid and ugly.

My helmet has saved me from serious injury while mountain biking 3 times, this year...

I would never go mountain biking without wearing one.

I agree on the heat issue - but people sweat anyway, helmets, I don't think contribute much to it. The pro out weight the cons...

All I will say, from two people who have played 'crash test dummies' 3 times in the last year. Both times Stacey came off she would have been at least brain damaged without her helmet. The first time all the padding disintergrated, the second time a superb crack in it.

Mine cracked in two places when I got clobbered, that would have been my head. The only reason no really firm eveidence exist to support them is that riders who come off with helmets on often don't need to go to the hospital.

I have never been knocked off by a car in 12 years until 7 weeks ago, I have come off a road bike twice in that time with no injuries, so I could have said I did't need one. What a fool I would have been.

Stacey & Brian

I must agree wholeheartedly with Stacey and Brian and everyone else here.
I'm sure there is no research to show that cycling down hill with brakes is safer than without - would an ethics committee pass such a research proposal?
This reminds me of the silly arguments against car seat belts all those years ago.
I'm a fan of the CTC in general, but their stance on helmets is wrong.
My only quibble is why cycle helmets sit so high on the head. Mountaineers, Kayakers and others have them coming down much lower and I'm sure are safer with side impact. Cycle helmets do need to be firmly in place to be fully effective, but sometimes one sees helmets perched high on the head, sadly often on children.

While I generally agree with the idea of wearing helmets, when I came off last year the helmet stopped me from being scraped but as to how much of the actual impact energy is being absorbed I am not sure. I also have a few gripes:

Why is my new helmet tested to a lower standard (EN) than my orginal helmet (SNELL) other than the new test is cheaper. To my knowledge only Specialized helmets are still tested to Snell standards.

Poor finishing of the polystyrene inner leading to potential point loading of the skull which is more dangerous than if the load is distributed.

Helmets should be replaced approx every three years if they are to remain an effective protection.

I for one find I am prone to overheating when wearing a helmet though here I have to admit my new helmet is better than the old one.

Lastly remember that helmets are only currently tested for head on impacts.

trevorj wrote:I must agree wholeheartedly with Stacey and Brian and everyone else here.
I'm sure there is no research to show that cycling down hill with brakes is safer than without - would an ethics committee pass such a research proposal?
This reminds me of the silly arguments against car seat belts all those years ago.
I'm a fan of the CTC in general, but their stance on helmets is wrong.
My only quibble is why cycle helmets sit so high on the head. Mountaineers, Kayakers and others have them coming down much lower and I'm sure are safer with side impact. Cycle helmets do need to be firmly in place to be fully effective, but sometimes one sees helmets perched high on the head, sadly often on children.

Are you aware of the research that has been done? There is a reasonably methologically sound study which seems to show that young people in particular associate helmet wearing with 'looking like a total numpty'. Thus they see cyclists as uncool and not to be emulated, thereby depriving themselves of the proven health benefits of regular exercise.

There is also data to show that pedestrians are at risk of head injury should they be involved in an RTA with a car - as many hundreds are each year. Should pedestrains also be advised to reduce helmets which would - if every pedestrian wore one - reduce pedestrian deaths?

I'm sure there is no research to show that cycling down hill with brakes is safer than without - would an ethics committee pass such a research proposal?

With respect Trevor this is a straw man argument as I'm sure you realise.

cycle helmets sit so high on the head. Mountaineers, Kayakers and others have them coming down much lower and I'm sure are safer with side impact

Certainly if you made cycling helmets more unpleasant to wear you'd reduce usage rates which isn't desirable. Also an emotionally based 'I'm sure' doesn't make anything actually true. For every complex problem there is a simple, obvious, solution that is.......wrong!

Don't get me wrong - I wear and support helmet use but also feel that it's a complex issue and that both 'sides' have equal validity.

Not sure what your saying?

If you say that making young people wear helmets will stop them riding a bike then I think it is better that they don't. Even the RTTC insist that juniors wear a helmet to race, why because they could be accused of negligence if they didn't.

To suggest that people walking not wearing helmets as they get hit by cars is just being silly and trying to muddy the water.

Brian

justsweat wrote: If you say that making young people wear helmets will stop them riding a bike then I think it is better that they don't.

We'll have to agree to differ on that Brian

To suggest that people walking not wearing helmets as they get hit by cars is just being silly and trying to muddy the water.

Brian

No it isn't - it reflects the reality that many more pedestrians are killed - via head injuries - than cyclists annually. The only difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

What is comes down to is 'what reduction in percentage risk are you - the individual - willing to accept for the 'penalty' of wearing a helmet'. This applies equally to cyclists and pedestrians as both run the risk of head injury - only the numbers vary. Most pedestrians - correctly in my view - take the view that the risk of being struck is too small. Cyclists have a similar calculation to make......