You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Isn't helmet wearing/not wearing a bit like drinking to excess/not drinking or eating to excess/eating normally? I.e. we're free to make decisions without penalty that may be considered wise/unwise by others.
Does that A&E Nurse above give grief to fatties/piss heads/druggies/Wendy ball players etc on the basis that their 'situations' are the results of their own making? Unlikely methinks.
My other half did ten years as an a & e nurse and she goes savage on people not wearing a helmet whilst cycling, she got fed up of patching people up where the helmet would have saved a lot of damage.
I know an A&E consultant who has a slightly odd perspective on risk. The things he does all the time are OK (drive cars, rock climb, drink red wine, lots of red wine), but cycling and rugby are too dangerous and a burden on the NHS.
For those that don't think you need to wear a helmet when doing anything else (running, driving etc,.) and dismiss it as silly, that is how some of us feel about wearing one when cycling - we don't see the need for it.
Wear a helmet when cycling if you want but don't dismiss your own inconsistency in not wearing one at any other time where risks are similar.
Life is full of risks, the important risks have legislation for - eg wearing seatbelts in a car.
If there isn't a law/rule then there might be guidance - eg using ladders.
If none of the above then it's entirely up to the individual ie bike helmets. I can offer an opinion but that's it hence this thread going to 10pages then a mod closing it.
Comparing helmet wearing on a bike to a when driving or running is silly. In a car there’s both a mandatory seatbelt law along with tens of safety systems to protect you in the event of a crash or situation you can’t react quickly to. In running, you’re moving slowly enough, that when you start to trip and fall, you usually have time to react and get your hands out to stop you hitting your head. in cycling, you’re often moving too quickly and fall so suddenly and completely that your head (even if it’s not the first thing to do so) hits the ground or an object at speed.
If you must equate it to driving, it’s much more akin to not wearing a seatbelt than it is to not wearing a helmet. There was a time when it wasn’t mandated…would you go back?
I know an A&E consultant who has a slightly odd perspective
I know plenty. Being a doctor doesn’t guarantee rationality.
Comparing helmet wearing on a bike to a when driving or running is silly
Thanks for proving the point I made about peoples inconsistency and inability to see actual risk.
The problem with 'the helmet debate' is that it drowns out everything else. Some people have even commented that they came here to find out what happened but were disappointed to find it's a helmet debate. That's not really surprising since the entire story is that 'the helmet saved my life'. Literally, that's the only information we get from the original story.
Helmets should be point 17 on road safety discussions. Instead they are point 1 every ****ing time.
I too would like to know how Gordon Ramsay crashed. I'd like to know what he was riding, where he was riding, whether he hit or was hit by a car, what could be done to prevent it next time, etc. Instead I get, 'always wear a helmet'. It's pathetic.
Things are gradually changing though. 10 years ago very few on here would be entertaining the idea of anyone not wearing a helmet for any type of ride. Me included.
I think many years of these debates have brought people round to the idea that maybe there are more important things to worry about. The irony of trying to convince people of that means that we are constantly talking about helmets instead of any of the 16 other points we should be talking about before we get round to the question of PPE.
And by the way, saying, 'It's up to you but you're an idiot if you don't' is not 'leaving it up to the individual' . You are encouraging the views of the victim blamers everywhere who will blame you if you are on a bike regardless. Stop trying to appease the aggressive ****s who don't even see you as being fully human. It's never going to happen.
That’s not really surprising since the entire story is that ‘the helmet saved my life’. Literally, that’s the only information we get from the original story.
It really isn't. The story is that a celebrity chef was hurt in a crash while cycling, and has suggested people should wear helmets as he feels it protected him.
Literally everything else is fluff and nonsense spouted by folks on both sides of the helmet debate, trying to out froth each other as these threads usually do.
It really isn’t. The story is that a celebrity chef was hurt in a crash while cycling, and has suggested people should wear helmets as he feels it protected him.
Guess you missed the actually headline where it is a little more than 'suggested' and as 'he feels'. Lucky to be alive thanks to helmet is how I read it.
"Gordon Ramsay says he's 'lucky to be alive' after bike accident - and thanks his helmet"
Literally everything else is fluff and nonsense spouted by folks on both sides of the helmet debate, trying to out froth each other as these threads usually do.
Curious to know what you mean by 'literally everything else'.
I think the literally everything else in terms of crashes and injuries involving bikes, particularly bikes on the road, is the important part and the effectiveness of helmets is a distraction.
we are constantly talking about helmets
Don't think that's true. I can't be bothered to do the data analysis but I remember much more discussion about LTNs, floating bus islands, streetscapes etc on here than helmets. I have the vague impression that it's been ages since there's been a good old traditional Internet punchup about helmets on here. Or maybe I've just been ignoring the "constant" helmet threads, I don't know. If so, they're apparently easy to miss.
nonsense spouted by folks on both sides of the helmet debate, trying to out froth each other
A full face helmet can protect you from froth 😉
Argh, not the “I survived a crash therefore everyone MUST wear a helmet” thing again, **** off.
Why would you not wear a helmet? Unless you are a helmet.
No wonder people hate cyclists. Even some cyclists hate other 'wrong' cyclists. All of you, get over yourselves.
Thanks for proving the point I made about peoples inconsistency and inability to see actual risk.
Help me see it, go on...use small words.
the image of a shattered helmet…pretty compelling
I'd say there's a bit more to it than a simplistic view than that - which is pretty much the flaw in the arguments of compulsion/"you're a helmet if you don't" etc.
No matter what else happened, had the helmet not been there, there would have been some head damage…right?
Maybe, maybe not. I've seen some people taking some incredible hits to the head and not die or even have any serious injury (beyond concussion which is obviously a very serious injury but not necessarily something a helmet is going to mitigate but again, it's complicated).
Most memorable one was a mate deciding he wanted a piggyback to cross the road. He jumped on mate 2's back who then lost his balance. Started running forward to try to regain balance and then finally lost it as he got to the pavement. Mate 1 goes headfirst into the corner of the kerb. Sickening thud. Thought he was dead. But he got up and seemed fine. Couldn't remember much of the rest of the night though.
Had he been on a bike and gone headfirst into the kerb in the same way I'm sure pictures of the smashed helmet and stories about how the helmet saved his life would have abounded.
A smashed helmet does not mean that had it not been there there would have been a smashed head instead. If it did none of us would have survived childhood.
But again, what is this need to make the discussion about the effectiveness of helmets?
In the grand scheme of safety on a bicycle it is irrelevant.
No wonder people hate cyclists. Even some cyclists hate other ‘wrong’ cyclists. All of you, get over yourselves.
Why do I need to get over myself if I disagree with something another person who rides a bike says?
And note disagree with rather than hate. I don't hate someone because they choose to wear a helmet when cycling, get over yourself.
Why do I need to get over myself if I disagree with something another person who rides a bike says?
Because this tit-for-tat silly bickering is bloody stupid. Take a look at yourselves.
Because this tit-for-tat silly bickering is bloody stupid. Take a look at yourselves.
I am quite happy with it but thanks Dad.
In a fight between cyclists, is a helmet likely to be a help or a hindrance?
I'll place bets on anyone wearing a full-face.
TBH this thread puts me in mind of that video of 2 hipsters "fighting" in the road that went viral a while ago. I can just picture two groups shaking mirrors at each other: "you look at yourself!" "no YOU look at yourself!" 🤣
Maybe, maybe not. I’ve seen some people taking some incredible hits to the head and not die or even have any serious injury (beyond concussion which is obviously a very serious injury but not necessarily something a helmet is going to mitigate but again, it’s complicated).
So you're agreed that a helmet might help in some situations? In which situations does a helmet not help? And don't trot out the old trope of disincentivising people. Are we going to go to rotational injuries as that's even more tenuous? BTW - stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.
I genuinely don't care if you wear a helmet - your head, your choice, but just like prostheletising, you shouldn't be going around and telling others that helmets don't help, when clearly, in some situations, they do.
Make your own choice, but keep it as your choice and be happy with that, especially in the face of evidence which supports effectiveness, even if only in some scenarios.
I've been knocked off my bike twice by ****ts in cars, and once faceplanted on the MTB, all three times needing hospital treatment, and three new helmets. Concussed on one of those occassions when hit by a car even wearing a helmet (local journeym 3 mins from home in the village high street going to meet my son from the station).
I have never been hospitalized or had a head injury, or even a close call, walking to the pub or the shops (but fairly regularly get close passed by ****ts in cars when on the bike)
I know I am an N of 1 in my very own dataset, but I'll keep on wearing a helmet cos I don't want my wife and kids spoonfeeding me cos I was too lazy to put one on when I'm out on the bike
Yes other interventions might make cycling safer on a bigger scale, but until that happens on a reliable basis I'm looking after #1
So you’re agreed that a helmet might help in some situations? In which situations does a helmet not help? And don’t trot out the old trope of disincentivising people. Are we going to go to rotational injuries as that’s even more tenuous? BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.
OK, so don't put forward any arguments you don't like is what you are saying?
I'm sure if we wore helmets all the time (not just on bikes) we could reduce the number of head injuries. However, for almost all activities we accept that people don't wear helmets.
Cycling is different in that it's not just become socially acceptable to wear a helmet but socially expected with people going so far as to suggest that if you don't wear a helmet you shouldn't expect any help (said by someone on the previous page, I think).
Helmet compulsion reduces the numbers who cycle. Promoting the idea that cycling is so dangerous that using a helmet is a no-brainer also reduces the number of people who cycle.
I genuinely don’t care if you wear a helmet – your head, your choice, but just like prostheletising, you shouldn’t be going around and telling others that helmets don’t help, when clearly, in some situations, they do
Cycling is a common every day activity. Wearing a helmet would make it safer in exactly the same way that wearing a helmet for all your everyday activities would make it safer.
Why are you fixated on persuading people that cycling is so much more dangerous than other everyday activities that they should always wear a helmet?
Whereas I have been knocked off twice and never hit my head (second one I was in hospital for a couple of nights).
I did however bang my head on a doorway the other day so based on that I should start wearing a helmet around the house but no need to on my bike.
This limited/made up risk stuff is great isn't it.
Two massively tedious things, together at last! Great thread.
This limited/made up risk stuff is great isn’t it.
But did you get hospitalized banging your head in the door frame?
It's not made up risk if it has happened......it is actual events. And it's about consequences - higher risk of higher consequences on a bike
But did you get hospitalized banging your head in the door frame?
That is irrelevant. The pertinent bit was whether I hit my head or not.
As for higher risks or higher consequences can you show me the table of activities you have with the risk and likelihood so I can see where cycling falls?
As for higher risks or higher consequences can you show me the table of activities you have with the risk and likelihood so I can see where cycling falls?
But I thought you’d already carried out a risk assessment & decided you don’t need a helmet. What data did you use?
If you are not wearing a helmet then that sugests to me that you're fine with no-one stopping to help if you do have an accident and are injured - otherwise you'd be doing the most that you can to minimise any injuries in case you did need help.
Sort of like climbing up Everest without oxygen and expecting that someone will come and rescue you if it all goes wrong...
If you are not wearing a helmet then that sugests to me that you’re fine with no-one stopping to help if you do have an accident and are injured – otherwise you’d be doing the most that you can to minimise any injuries in case you did need help.
Old people are particularly at risk of head injuries from falls.
Presumably if you found an old person in the street with a head wound you would just step over them because they should have realised they were at greater risk and worn a helmet?
It's not about risks but consequences. Bang your head on a door frame (and my house has a few candidates for just that) and the worst case is likely a sore front or top of head for a while, maybe a barely scraped scalp for those with a little less hair. Fall off a bike at even modest speeds and you can hit virtually any part of the skull with a good deal more force than the door frame incident. I'm against legal compulsion regarding helmets but wearing one falls into the category of logically compelling.
BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.
Except that's one thing that bike helmets have *virtually* no effect on.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32932191/
There are shit loads more studies if you can be bothered to look, plus documentation from the manufacturers about their products minimal effectiveness at preventing concussions...
Fall off a bike at even modest speeds and you can hit virtually any part of the skull with a good deal more force than the door frame incident.
And if you fall down the stairs?
The number of head injuries that occur in the home suggests there are at least some risks that are greater than bumping your head on a doorframe.
It’s not about risks but consequences
I had one friend and one acquaintance killed whilst cycling, both being run over. Consequence would seem to suggest not cycling on the road at all.
mertFree Member
BTW – stopping a concussion is a pretty good motivator in my book.
Except that’s one thing that bike helmets have *virtually* no effect on.
From a 2021 report based on data collected over 30y. It included none of the newer helmets (MIPS/WaveCell) which are specifically designed to try and help with concussion based largely off the reports from 1999/2004/2016 and, yes 2021. See, I could be "bothered" - could you be bothered to actually look into the data?
That is irrelevant. The pertinent bit was whether I hit my head or not.
The pertinent bit is velocity. The chance of significant traumatic brain injury increases significantly with the velocity of impact and how that impact is transmitted. When falling from standing to a flat prone position, a fall (2.3m/s) is almost 80% worse than a trip (4m/) and a fall from height (~9m/s) is almost 300% worse than a trip. A cyclist doing 30kph is travelling at ~8.5m/s which is equivalent to a fall from height if the fall from the bike is sudden. THIS is why it has more risk. The likelihood of falling from the bike may be only slightly higher than walking, but the consequences of doing so are much higher due to the velocity of the impact.
All this proves is that Gordon Ramsey should wear a helmet.
BruceWee for PM
Fight the good fight.
It included none of the newer helmets (MIPS/WaveCell) which are specifically designed to try and help with concussion based largely off the reports from 1999/2004/2016 and, yes 2021. See, I could be “bothered” – could you be bothered to actually look into the data?
Yes, actually.
MIPS is mostly pointless unless you were in the habit of gluing your non-MIPS helmet to your head and WaveCell works 73% better than not having WaveCell. 73% of what, i'm not exactly sure, they aren't forthcoming on details of the baseline. But being the bike industry, 73% of not much still isn't very good. Their modelling still assumes that everyone has no hair and glues the helmet to their head.
But I thought you’d already carried out a risk assessment & decided you don’t need a helmet. What data did you use?
Nope, I don't wear a helmet for any activity I partake in. I am admittedly not safety conscious and most of my younger years were spent doing very silly things on a BMX with no protection whatsoever and have followed that ever since.
The helmet preachers are telling me the risk of head injury is high when cycling and I am asking for the perspective against other activities - you know why don't you, because it is likely to contain activities where they don't deem it necessary to wear a helmet so I can shout hypocrite at them (i.e. who honestly wears a helmet when paying football)
Everyone seems to have a line they draw and the helmet wearers have drawn it at cycling. I am fine with that and have never stated that people should not wear one.
When falling from standing to a flat prone position, a fall (2.3m/s) is almost 80% worse than a trip (4m/) and a fall from height (~9m/s) is almost 300% worse than a trip. A cyclist doing 30kph is travelling at ~8.5m/s which is equivalent to a fall from height if the fall from the bike is sudden. THIS is why it has more risk. The likelihood of falling from the bike may be only slightly higher than walking, but the consequences of doing so are much higher due to the velocity of the impact.
You can't really translate horizontal velocity into vertical velocity. A motorcyclist who crashes at 100 mph doesn't mean they hit their head at 100 mph.
Of course, a fall at 30 kph is going to have more factors in play. But if you gave me the choice between crashing at 30 kph and falling down a full flight of stairs I think I'd take the 30 kph crash.
I really think you are overstating the dangers of cycling and also overestimating the effectiveness of bicycle helmets.
This thread pretty much sums up the futility of internet discussions/arguments.
So - I know people who work on construction sites - never needed their helmet.
Should we remove wearing helmets from construction sites?
Has anyone checked TJ hasn't fallen and hit his head? I thought he'd be all over this thread like a rash!
On relative risk......very little comparative data available showing differences between pedestrians and cyclists .What data is out there that i can find from a brief google-fu 15 minutes is from FullFact in 2012, based on 2010 data from TFL. ( https://fullfact.org/news/it-more-dangerous-be-pedestrian-cyclist/#:~:text=For%20fatalities%2C%20there%20were%2056,27%20deaths%20per%20billion%20trips.)
What it seems to show is that risk of fatality is similar for pedestrians and cyclists (perhaps no surprise if you are a similar shaped soft object being hit by a fast moving hard object). However, taking into account KSI numbers (killed and Seriously Injured) cyclist risk is almost twice that of pedestrians.
Trying to analyse other data available from DoT is difficult as they do not seem to slice total numbers in relation to miles travelled. Maybe there are some datawonks on here who are able to crunch these numbers and provide additional illumination, but I am reasonably happy to take the FullFact numbers as good evidence.
As i cycle significantly more miles per year than walk - that again is going to further increase my risk of injury on the bike versus walking to the shops. So helmet it is.
and based on Mert's reference- the conclusion of that paper was while not reducing concussion, helmets reduce severe head injury. Physiologically understandable.
"Helmeted patients involved in bicycle crashes are less likely to sustain a serious head injury, a skull fracture, or facial fractures compared to riders without helmets. The most common injury in patients with a bicycle crash is a concussion. Helmets did not prevent concussion after bicycle rider's crash in our patient population. "
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32932191/
you pays your money and you takes your choice
As i cycle significantly more miles per year than walk – that again is going to further increase my risk of injury on the bike versus walking to the shops. So helmet it is.
Probably a good choice. A lot of people walk more miles than they cycle and walk many miles a year in built up/high traffic areas but I don't think I have ever seen anyone wearing a helmet while walking.
The risk appears to be lower but still a risk so back to my comment about drawing a line somewhere which is going to differ by person. We all take different levels of risk in most things we do.
You can’t really translate horizontal velocity into vertical velocity. A motorcyclist who crashes at 100 mph doesn’t mean they hit their head at 100 mph.
Of course, a fall at 30 kph is going to have more factors in play. But if you gave me the choice between crashing at 30 kph and falling down a full flight of stairs I think I’d take the 30 kph crash.
I really think you are overstating the dangers of cycling and also overestimating the effectiveness of bicycle helmets.
Don’t be obtuse. The point was (and you know this) that speed has an effect on the likelihood of injury, even in the delta between a trip and a fall and that regardless of the actual speed of impact, a cycling fall at 30kph is going to be more severe the simply falling backwards (the +80% damage score above) and since a concussion is more likely to be caused via rotation, it’s more likely on the bike.
At no point have I made a claim as the the effectiveness of a helmet compared to not wearing one in scientific terms - I’ve simply stated that in a situation where a fall is possible, that the severity of that fall is higher on the bike and that in those circumstances, a good helmet will help. Others (Mert, inadvertently) have shown that regardless of quality, a helmet does help and help significantly.
Like I said, do what you like, but don’t anecdotally claim that helmets won’t/don’t help or that the risks associated with a cycling accident are the same as walking/running/moving around your house - these statements are simply not true and that is borne out in the evidence and facts that I and others have presented.
Sure, many of the benefits may be exaggerated, but I’m not sure that wearing a helmet disproportionately disincentivises people from riding, but I’m not for a mandatory helmet law.
but I’m not sure that wearing a helmet disproportionately disincentivises people from riding,
I think there is evidence to suggest it does (Australia?) but not sure what type of cyclists and what the impact would be. I am guessing it would be casual cyclists who may just walk, bus, car etc,. if they are really put off just because a helmet is legally required.
I have never worn a helmet in my life but if they became a legal requirement I would probably wear one but no way would it stop me from cycling, which I would imagine is the case for the what seems like a handful of recreational cyclist I see who don't wear a helmet. Key point there is that I hardly ever see anyone not wearing a helmet so any discussion around their use is pretty much a moot point anyway!
“Helmeted patients involved in bicycle crashes are less likely to sustain a serious head injury, a skull fracture, or facial fractures compared to riders without helmets. The most common injury in patients with a bicycle crash is a concussion. Helmets did not prevent concussion after bicycle rider’s crash in our patient population. ”
The biggest problem with the pedestrian and cyclist populations is the massive amount of under reporting. In an RTC, with motor vehicles involved, emergency services are physically in attendance in something like 40-50% of cases and aware/logged in something like 80% of cases, so it's a very "complete" data set. We know who got injured and how in many cases.
On the other hand there are thousands (tens of?) of pedestrian and cycling incidents with absolutely no report at all.
Has anyone checked TJ hasn’t fallen and hit his head? I thought he’d be all over this thread like a rash!
It's an unwinnable argument, the data (as a complete data set regarding health, protection in event of an accident blah blah blah) is in conflict with "common sense", marketing, anecdata and what the man down the pub says.
OK, since we're into day three let me once again try to make my position clear.
Helmets most likely reduce your chance of injury, regardless of activity. However, helmet compulsion and even helmet promotion reduces the likelihood someone is going to ride.
The goal should be to get as many people riding as possible. Getting as many people as possible cycling is the single biggest thing that will make cycling safer.
That means those who feel safer wearing helmets should be encouraged to do so. Those who don't want to should not be shamed for not doing so.
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't wear a helmet. What I'm saying is people who insist on going around making all the hilarious comments like, 'must have already hit your head' and 'guess you don't mind if we just ignore you if you have an accident' are really not helping to make things safer. The opposite, in fact, as people who might like to cycle but don't want to wear a helmet are less likely to do so.
Yes, it's probably a marginal effect. But then so is the likelihood of a helmet 'saving your life'.
Wear a helmet. Don't wear a helmet. Both are perfectly valid choices and that should be the end of the discussion.
It won't be, but it should be.
It might be off topic for this helmet thread, but apparently Gordon Ramsey had an incident.
Has anyone heard about what happened? Was he hit by a car or etc?
The reports I’ve read are so vague as to what happened that it looks deliberately so which is a bit weird.
Key point there is that I hardly ever see anyone not wearing a helmet so any discussion around their use is pretty much a moot point anyway!
Last time we had a helmet chat on here I did a rough study on cyclists I saw on one of my eight mile commutes back home from central London. The non-helmet wearers were in the majority, iirc it was something like 35-20. Lots of people on hire bikes and normal people (as opposed to people in cycling kit) going bare headed and free from the tyranny of polystyrene!!!!
..is in no way representative of the rest of the country
But that would be a hell of a commute wouldn’t it -cycling from the rest of the country to home every evening, on a fixed gear.
Of course it’s not the same, hence not drawing any great claims about it. Nowhere in the country is going to representative of the rest of the country. Central London isn’t even the same as outer London where I was heading - so what? It’s just more anecdotal bs like everything else on this thread. I saw lots of people riding without helmets one day, more than were wearing them on that day.
I have never done an actual count so maybe I will as my perception is that around 95% of people wear helmets as it is noticeable when they are not. For 'proper' cyclists I see when I am 'proper' cycling I would say it is even higher than that.
I was actually expecting it to be the other way around but there were a few hire bikes (and there’s a lot more of them now), some guys who looked like site workers commuting and just people going about their day.
The sky news article posted by the op must have been amended, as as far as I can see its just a celebrity chef offering his opinion on helmets based on his own exp. Coming to the thread late, I'd assumed he'd enacted some kind of compulsory helmet wearing law
Fortunately it appears I'm still allowed to do whatever I like when it comes to wearing one. I choose to wear one as i see zero reason not to, but I really don't care whether you do or not.
I see the squabbling continues...
My own experience says a helmet might help even just by reducing road rash on ya bonce but never having volunteered for a back to back with/without test, we'll never know.
At the very least, assuming it doesn't get broken, the polystyrene hat can be used as a handy bowl to carry bits back to a loved one expecting the return of their formerly intact significant other...
This is an argument without end. It's opinion, some informed, some disguised as fact. Whilst it's a choice, make your own and try and avoid preaching to the people who choose the opposite. It's a bit like trying to convince someone to take up (or drop) religion... Utterly pointless.