You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No PP - in that by making the poly harder they have removed some of its impact reducing properties
Or maybe it was too soft before, so it's been toughened up? Whatever, it's still preferable to road/rock. I happen to know that Citroen laminated windscreens hurt less than the rear of a BMW 5 series, because they bend a bit more, but both are preferable to tarmac. 🙂
Double post
TJ - safety issues aside, are you not bothered that other mountain bikers think you look like a total noddy when you go out on your bike without a helmet?
Starlet, you wear a helmet to stop the other boys laughing at you then? 🙄
starlet - do you really think that bothers me in the slightest? I think many mtbers are utter numpties for all sorts of things.
I was out with a posse a few weeks ago on a ride I know well - 15 miles of scenic flat landrover track - I asked a couple of folk if anyone would throw a tantrum as I didn't want to wear a helmet.
One family was kids was there - they kids were told - wear a helmet or you grow up like all funny like TJ.
The insistence on wearing helmets all the time is IMO stupid and leads to all sorts of problems - making a safe pursuit look dangerous, helmets are so poorly designed that I believe from good evidence that they significantly increase the risk of neck breaks, I believe then many folk take totally unneeded risks - hence all the injuries folk suffer.
I am certain that the helmets are poorly designed and tested. Lots of good evidence about that and why do other similar sports have helmets tha perform so much better?
[i]- making a safe pursuit look dangerous[/i]
+20 !
Although it may suit some bikers to bolster their image as extreeeeeme sportsmen, and you may think that girl in the office swoons because of your manly pursuit and disregard for the danger that is modern mountain biking, the fact remains that mountain biking is a safe sport, practised by largely middle class fellas.
If it were as dangerous as some folk are making out, then two thirds of this forum wouldn't be allowed to do it by their bosses, their wives and/or girlfriends and especially by their mums.
I still dont wear one on the road
Trouble is that I am discovering more and more that some drivers love to make you brake hard in the wet hen you are on skinny tyres. At least on the trail there is a good chance of a soft landing 🙂
I have been doing this over a year and try to get out once a week for a few hours. In under 60 times out I have hit my head twice and have fallen off countless times so ovbiously I must wear a helmet; likelyhood of an accident is High ... Waiting in casualty for hours for a few stiches is just a pain in the arse that we can all do without...
nb I dont wear a helmet for walking as for the last 30 years I have walked every day and never hit my head. the risk of an accident is low
Oh and for the poster who made the point that there is nowhere for your helmet light...well that makes the most sense of all. Good on you sir.
I believe then many folk take totally unneeded risks - hence all the injuries folk suffer.
Isn't that just the "Mountain" Element of the Biking we do? 😉
Seriously though, you're right, many/most of us do perhaps take totally unnecessary risks when we're out on our bikes. BUT IT'S FUN 😀
Hence I wear a helmet, as does everyone else I know and ride with... Ergo I started this thread in the first place... I perhaps hadn't realised there were people not concerned with riding technical stuff, or taking a risk at all, such as yourself. Each to their own I suppose, I'm a bit of a thrill junkie to some extent (perhaps not to Jedi's extent granted!), so a bit of speed and danger makes me feel alive. I wear a helmet to mitigate potential damage to by head caused by being potentially over zealous out on the trails.
And before anyone asks, I suppose like TJ I do do a fair amount of risk assessment based upon the riding I'm going to be doing myself. Am I going on an XC ride? Yes, then wear an XC lid... Am I going messing about on DH tracks with a lift to the top of the hill? Yes, then wear my full face helmet, knee/shin armour my Dainese body armour too. I understand that I am creating more risks by the type of riding I am going to be doing. But perhaps it's because none of the riding I do offroad is of such low risk that I would ever consider not wearing a helmet of sorts that I always wear one? So I'll concede you do have a point there TJ.
But I will add that whilst Cannock isn't the most extreme place in the world by some margin, the ground there is pretty firm, most of the FTD trail is now armoured against the weather, and so is pretty rocky. There's a fair few trees to smack yourself on at some sort of speed too. These guys weren't just pootling along the fireroads, they were doing the same trail, albeit granted slower than me and most other people I saw there (wearing helmets) yesterday.
Anyway, can we close this thread now please. I started it, I take the responsibility for that, but in the 160 odd posts we must have seen the same old ground covered 120 times... I was asking the question as to why people don't wear them as it surprises me, TJ has answered that pretty well to be fair, whether or not I agree with his rationale. I was not making any judgement based upon the fact they weren't wearing helmets, and I would never be someone to go over and tell them they should be wearing them. Each to their own! But we're all adults, and know the risks of a rock/head interface, hence I thought it a bit silly these guys would choose not to wear them personally...
Case closed?
haven't read all the posts but here's my experience :
Several years ago I was coming down a road off the Long Mynd in Shropshire when I had a front wheel blowout - boom - next I knew was waking up a few days later in hospital having had a fractured skull etc - apparently when I came off I skidded into the kerb and hit it with my head - I wasn't wearing a helmet.
Of course it's a choice issue but as someone further up said consider the other people that have to deal with this -
I know this experience was much worse for my family and for the people riding with me (luckily) at the time to deal with - as they had to do all the clearing up and worrying.
It took a while to get to riding again.
I've always worn a helmet since....
I believe then many folk take totally unneeded risks
What like actually going out on your bike in the first place (unless specifically for commuting/getting from A to B). 🙄
I am certain that the helmets are poorly designed and tested
But you've never tested one. Those of us that have know you're talking bobbins! 🙂
(For the record, I might not agree, but I'd stand by your freedom to make the decision. I'd never want to see lids compulsary)
mboy - wot - a sensible post on this thread! are you sure you are in the right place.
thanks for understanding my point. See that picture I posted - I do a fair bit of that sort of riding.
I'll add another anecdote and maybe added to the others on here it will influence some folk reading this thread to wear a lid.
I endoed at speed on a downhill and landed on my head, back and shoulder. The impact broke five ribs in my back behind the shoulderblade where it takes a lot of force to break them. I also broke a collar bone. The A&E assessed me a major trauma and kept me in overnight for observation so I think you'll agree there was a significant amount of energy in my crash.
Once I got home and scraped the dirt of my Giro E2 I found it was split right through. I'm convinced the helmet saved me from a serious head injury, fortunately at the time all I suffered from was some dizzyness.
Wearing a helmet takes such little effort that certainly off-road (and for me on road) its a no brainer. You can brake legs, arms, back and neck and OK the consequences can be dreadful but damage your central processor and you could literally end up a different person.
However I'm fundamentally a liberterian so just as I'm prepared to accept the consequences of MTBing wearing a helmet then if TJ or anyone else prefers not to use a helmet and they're prepared to accept perhaps a more serious set of consequences then fine.
so just as I'm prepared to accept the consequences of MTBing wearing a helmet then if TJ or anyone else prefers not to use a helmet and they're prepared to accept perhaps a more serious set of consequences then fine.
It's called 'Natural Selection' 🙂
I don't get this.
If you are out doing real mtb you are going to fall off unless you are taking it very easy.
I would have thought most riders on trail centers would expect to have some sort of mishap on most rides.
If you go over the front, common on the steeps I would have thought you are quike likely to land head down.
I used to ride on an easy trail, just out for a ride without a helmet in the summer. I came over a wooden bridge and hit a tiny 2 inch stump on my front wheel. I didn't see it until I went back to look afterwards. I went straight over the front on my face. Fortunately on a plus side I didn't hit a tree (it was in a forest.)
On the road side of things my dad and his pal were mowed down by a taxi driver from behind. My dad was off work for most of a year with a badly broken leg. But he was wearing a helmet which was cracked in half in the incident. He had no head injury. In fact the police kept as an example to show kids at schools.
His pal was in hospital for 2-3 weeks cracked head and spinal problems.
He still has back problems relating to this, guess what he wasn't wearing a helmet.
Ian - hence if I am doing that sort of riding where crashes are common I wear a helmet. Not that I crash much even then - it hurts too much. I only push my limits by a little bit - as I cannot afford to get injured and take time off work
As for your anecedote - its just that - an anecdote. One thing tho - wearing helmets increases the risk of spinal injuries so yuour dads pal without the helmet may well have had a more severe spinal injury if he had had one - and a helmet cracked into two parts more than likely has failed.
IainAhh, ah, so you're the custodian of the title of 'real' mountainbiking. Please define exactly real mountain biking for us as there's been much debate as to the one true definition. 😉
TJ, just humour me here...
Would you have worn a helmet if you were riding at Cannock yesterday (bear in mind a lot of the trail is rocky, it was wet, there's lots of trees, braking bumps etc.)?
And if yes, what's your opinion on those that weren't, other than the "freedom of choice" argument... I know they have the freedom of choice, we all do, but I'd like to see where you stand on this when push comes to shove...
a helmet cracked into two parts more than likely has failed
TJ, you keep bringing this up. While I can understand where you're coming from (about compression of the polystyrene reducing the peak force/decelleration of the head), I don't really agree that cracking is a failure as snapping the helmet absorbs force too. Have you got any actual proof of this?
OK, another anecdote, I was descending a hill(road) near Haddington where its possible to exceed 90km/h .I dont know what speed I was doing as the Suzuki Vitara overtook then pulled in to avoid the oncoming car but it clipped me and I definately glanced my head and shoulder of the stone wall, before sliding a very long way on the wet road.
Should I then take this incident as proof in the miraculous power of woolly beanies to protect against head injury?
Sadly, all this is just anecdote, not evidence, and its the same for all these tales of polystyrene hats too.
I'll repeat my question ; What is the most confident claim you've read from the makers of bike helmets regarding the protective qualities of their product?
There seems to be an awful lot of pishing about in the 'not wearing a helmet today, but MAYBE tomorrow' brigade.
I just put it on and go out be it a pootle or being 'radical' or riding to work, it's much less thinking time 😀
mboy - from your description I probably would have been wearing a helmet - especially as it is a trail I don't know.
3 factors for me to think about whan chosing helmet or not.
1) speeds - fast downhills = more momentum to hit things with
2) - terrain - rocky steps / jumps - more chance of falling
3) familiarity - If I know the route I am les likely to fall than if I dont - as I would know were the hazards are.
Clubber no proof but here is some discussion on it
But my helmet broke - isn't that proof?
A helmet is a fragile piece of equipment. On seeing a damaged one, it is easy to assume that a serious injury has been prevented. Cycle helmets split very readily, and often at forces much lower than those that would lead to serious head injury. Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html
and follow the links for more.
Not the most independent of sites but a decent pulling together of the evidence
What is the most confident claim you've read from the makers of bike helmets regarding the protective qualities of their product?
That's a misleading question too. You'd have to be negligent as a company to guarantee any specific level of protection beyond to a standard as you'd open yourself up to all manner of lawsuits as it's impossible to forecast every possible outcome.
Well TJ, without proof I think you should stop quoting it as fact, in the same way that you reject pro-helmeters' claims that their helmet definitely saved their lives. Ditto with the neck/spinal injuries thing unless there's proof of that which I doubt though it sounds like a reasonable enough theory.
Exactly, clubber, so dont claim anything.
Helmets are the ideal consumer product - dirt cheap to make, retail at very high markup, and 'need replaced' if someone breathes on them too hard.
I have had a couple of crashes where I hit my head. One split the helmet open and since I was on my own in a remote location at the time, it could have been very bad for me if, had I not been wearing it, I was injured / unconscious / whatever.
The second time was on a BMX track where the full face helment I was wearing did a lot of good in reducing the effect of going over the bars onto a very hard surface.
Either way its your choice if you wear a helment, but I don't understand why people don't. I think that they have saved me from worse injury on at least two occasions, and would never ride my bike without one. Why not take a sensible precaution to protect your head? I don't understand why you wouldn't.
If you don't wear a helmet whats the reason?
clubber - you cannot prove much of this hence I said - a cracked helmet has [b] likely failed[/b] All you can do is weigh up the evidence.
as for the rotational injury that is pretty clear from many studies. POC are now designing helmets with mitigation of rotational injury as an aim. there is some discussion on rotational injury here - focussing on head injury not spinal but there is plenty of research that shows as helmet wering increses so does spinal injury
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html and a couple of links at the bottom of the page.
Helmets are the ideal consumer product - dirt cheap to make, retail at very high markup, and 'need replaced' if someone breathes on them too hard.
Agreed. I still choose to wear one as I reckon it's common sense but that's my choice...
TRL's conclusions show considerable uncertainty about the critical issue of whether bicycle helmets of current design can protect against angular acceleration and consequent injuries to the brain. Further, some of the experiments reported show that some helmets can increase angular acceleration.
TJ, you say that it has 'likely failed'. That's no different to people saying that a helmet has 'likely saved them'. The link you provided didn't seem very compelling in it's proof or research that a cracked helmet had likely failed IMO.
ddmonkey, when I was in my teens BMX was at its height, and only a few rich kids could afford helmets . Loads of us did plenty of daft things ( I have intimate knowledge of the drain at the bottom of Livingston bowl!)
There isn't, however, a lost generation of people who aren't here due to the absence of lids.
Not the most independent of sites but a decent pulling together of the evidence
Ah, the old "teach the controversy" tactic - cast as much doubt as possible on a well-researched, replicable, but not conclusive body of work in order to try and give credibility to your own crackpot argument.
There are sound arguments against wearing helmets 24/7 or making use of them compulsory, but I don't think these apply to the blokes riding around Cannock.
west kipper I'm not claiming that there is. All I'm saying is, in my opinion and from my experience, I have rung my bell very hard on two occasions and I think that had I not covered my head in a protective shell it would have been worse. Therefore, helmets have worked for me on two occations, not to mention the hitting branches thing etc.. That confirms my belief that there is no sensible reason not to wear a helmet if its available. So what are people's reasons for not wearing them?
Cost? Well you bought a shiney bike didn't you?
Can't be bothered / don't think its cool? Well that's your choice but they aren't good reasons IMHO.
[url] http://plomesgate.co.uk/newsjul09.pdf [/url]
The bottom line is that nobody gets up in the morning and decides to have an accident. The fella in the incident above had been riding all his life and was a very accomplished rider on a relatively simple road ride.
I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell me that there is no evidence to prove that a helmet would have saved his life, and the answer to that point is that you cannot prove a negative. One thing is absolutely certain though, there will be people left behind who will wish that he had put one on on that day.
Everyone has the right to make their own decisions. Personally, I would hope that most of us take the path of least selfishness and take reasonable steps to protect our loved ones from unnecessary grief.
No brainer in my opinion.
"clubber - you cannot prove much of this hence I said - a cracked helmet has likely failed All you can do is weigh up the evidence.
as for the rotational injury that is pretty clear from many studies. POC are now designing helmets with mitigation of rotational injury as an aim. there is some discussion on rotational injury here - focussing on head injury not spinal but there is plenty of research that shows as helmet wering increses so does spinal injury"
I suppose the helmet did fail in a way. It compressed and cracked hence dispersing the force.
The consultant at the hospital told me that he was fortunate that he wearing a helmet. He said it had reduced the impact greatly. He explained that in his experience he would have not been sitting up and talking to us otherwise.
Ok - a wee summary of the facts and theories as I know them - from fairly extensive reading over a number of years
Cycling remains a safe pursuit overall
The scientific evidence is contradictory, counter-intuitive and of a very poor standard
Countries where helmet use is high have a higher number of injured and killed cyclists.
Helmets can reduce some injuries but can exacerbate others.
helmets are designed for a "fall over" type situation - a direct fall from your own height onto the ground. They are not designed for oblique impacts or hitting vehicles
Helmet testing standards are low, outdated and unrealistic
There is no quality evidence that I can find about helmet use and MYBing.
helmets are much less effective than most people think.
I personally am very concerned about the rotational impact thing especially since [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6850964.ece ]seeing the number of spinal injuries from MTBing [/url] There is clear evidence that helmet wearing might increase your chances of a spinal injury.
In the end it comes down to personal choice.
i.e no lasting damage to his head
Mr Agreeable - MemberNot the most independent of sites but a decent pulling together of the evidence
Ah, the old "teach the controversy" tactic - cast as much doubt as possible on a well-researched, replicable, but not conclusive body of work in order to try and give credibility to your own crackpot argument.
Huh?
That is a decent body of research on the cyclehelmets site - including research from such people are the TRB who cast serious doubt on the effectivness of helmets. Some real good peer reviewed research.
Find me some decent evidence that helmets actually work - thats a challenge for you 'cos I have never found any.
The best you get is the after the fact statistical surveys which are serious flawed.
Live and let live. So what if someone doesnt want to wear a helmet. What next? Wrap them in bubblewrap incase they get tipsy on a night out?!!
ddmonkey, I touched on the reasons why not earlier,
Helmets are heavier ( strain on the neck on long rides)
Helmets are noisy( wind noise masks traffic)
Helmets are too warm in hot weather and too cold , due to all the weakening vents, in winter.
Helmets MAY make a neck or rotational injury worse.
If I have to put up with all this inconvenience, then I want to have some good evidence that they do some good or at least make me more attractive to the opposite sex ( or sheep, I'm not picky!) but there's none.
Quite agree Hora, I'm not fan of bubble wrap approach and think taking (calculated) risks in life is part of what life is all about. But I'm also fascinated as to why someone decides not to protect themselves when thye can.. The argument seems to be from the above that hemlets can in some cases increase the chance of neck injury. Very interesting and I'd like to know more, but for the majority of riding I do I can't see that outweighing the protection they provide in other ways.
I once saw a guy fall off his bike and hit his head on a small stone on the floor, knocked out / convulsions / day of riding over off to A&E in an ambulance. It was unlucky but you can't tell me a decent helment would not have prevented that. I don't think a helmet makes you invincible. But at the very least it can prevent annoying low level stuff that can spoil your day.
P.S. could you not also say that as cycle hement wearing increases the risk of spinal injury increases due to the style of riding undertaken? Any evidence that its the helmet itself that contributes to the injury rather than the activity?
DD - yes there is evidence that helmet wearing causes neck injury. 2 mechanisms - one is the extra weight and the other is the increased rotational force generated from an oblique impact - the larger size of the helmeted head increase the leverage and the non slip outer increases the friction.
It is far from proven and quantified tho - Lots more research needed
But at the very least it can prevent annoying low level stuff that can spoil your day.
Which is why I wear one when its a high risk
Why I don't - they are uncomfortable and sweaty in summer - and cold in winter. They get in the way all the time
Spinal injury is a feature of many sports. In my experience in cycling it is generally as a result of the infamous faceplant. The over the bars face on the deck while body keeps going is not disimilar to the scrum collapse problem in Rugby, i.e. face into ground while your body tries to overtake your head.
Unless I miss my guess by much that won't have anything to do with wearing a helmet, and if anything is more an argument for not using SPD's than anything.
Bermbandit - I would guess you are right about the type of accident - but a helmet will increase the forces on the neck in that sort of accident simply because it increases the diameter of your head. Have a look at the links I provided for some discussion on this
I would suggest its a good reason to do martial arts - learning to breakfall will reduce your risk
I personally am very concerned about the rotational impact thing especially since seeing the number of spinal injuries from MTBing There is clear evidence that helmet wearing might increase your chances of a spinal injury.
So why wear one ever if you're convinced you're better off without one?
I would suggest its a good reason to do martial arts - learning to breakfall will reduce your risk
Fair comment, I used to play a lot of Rugby when I was a kid, which also teaches you to learn how to fall without hurting yourself... As does snowboarding (again something I used to do a lot of). I would say I'm pretty accustomed to managing to make the best of a bad situation when it comes to bailing off a bike as I pretty much always come off unscathed.
But there are times when everything is happening at enough speed you haven't got the time to do anything about it. This has happened to me before, where certainly I had no time to tuck myself into a ball, or get my head out of the way of the brunt of an accident. Learning good technique is all well and good, but it's not going to make any difference in the more extreme of situations!
Yeah learning how to bail is all part of mountainbiking, but its when you are taken by surprise that there is most risk of injury.
TJ: While I disagree, I respect and defend your different opinion and your right to express it, but I fear you are defending the indefensible. A weakness of your argument is that you justify it by quoting a lot of data but without the actual references to support it. Moreover, you might put doubts in the minds of newbies who, in my opinion, should try helmets before choosing the circumstances to not wear one.
IMO the data are unclear. I have only anecdotal/experience to go by, and that tells me that head impacts are common. Despite my head being naturally armoured, it is so valuable to me that I prefer to wear a helmet to further protect it. I have broken two helmets in three years and have every reason to believe they saved me from a more severe injury.
BTW. My Giro Hex fits extremely well, is not sweaty, clingy, heavy or loose. It goes un-noticed until it is needed to save my scalp/skull from damage. I simply cannot agree with the assertion that decent XC helmets, circa £40-100, are uncomfortable or restrictive in any way.
Buzz - I have several times posted a link to a site that has collated lots of evidence - here it is again. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ Real good peer reviewed stuff. I am not basing my position on anecedote but on a good reading of the evidence. Do please take a pinch of salt when reading that sitte - but it does a good job of showing how poor th4e evidence is.
I simply have to disagree with you - I find any helmet uncomfortable restrictive and sweaty - but I am used to riding without one so notice this.
Mboy - because after looking at the evidence on balance I think they are protective for the sorts of impacts I am likely to get at a trail centre.
I note no one yet has answered me asking for real good peer reviewed evidence helmets work
I note no one yet has answered me asking for real good peer reviewed evidence helmets work
I'm sucker enough to ask, although with the caveat that I realise that there is unlikley to be any, due to the simple expedient that there is obviously no reporting of non events. (i.e. I've just fallen off my bike and cracked my helmet, I must immediately phone a statisitician who is doing research on the subject to advise him that nothing has happened to me).
[i]A weakness of your argument is that you justify it by quoting a lot of data but without the actual references to support it.[/i]
Sorry, but I can't let that pass.
Everytime one of these threads crops up the pattern is exactly the same; those who advocate helmet use turn up the same old anecdote, the same old 'common sense', the same old 'well you'll die a horrible death and don't say we didn't warn you, and by the way you are a stupid monkey for even thinking of getting on a bike without a helmet' rubbish.
As I've hinted at above, IF helmets work as some of you seem to believe, then this SHOULD be represented in the data available, and particularly so because there are people who would love to have this kind of data.
The one thing that NEVER happens in these kind of threads is a sensible, reasoned argument from those who are pro-helmet, backed up with any kind of data.
Why?
It's either because those pro-helmet types don't like to be logical and rational as opposed to emotional and irrational, or it's because the data to support said argument DOESN'T EXIST.
Why?
We've had perfect test conditions; we've had societies where helmet use has been made a legal requirement, we've had a societal change in helmet use; when I started biking no one wore a helmet, now everyone does.
So where is the data?
Both TJ and myself approach this from a sensible, rational point of view; helmets simply aren't the life-saver that they are made out to be, and cycling in general and mountain biking in particular are NOT DANGEROUS activities.
So, put up or shut up; show me the data, prove to me that helmets work, not by anecdote, not by 'my mate said', not by ' a man in the pub told me', but by sensible evidence.
Please.
As for the impressionable newbie argument; I'd rather new people understood that their helmet is useless in all but minor low speed crashes than they ride about thinking I've got my helmet on so I'll be protected...
[i]Effect of legislation on the use of bicycle helmets
LeBlanc, Beattie, Culligan. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 5th March 2002.
Also: Hats off (or not?) to helmet legislation
Chipman. In same issue of Journal.
Main article on-line
Supplementary article.
In 1997 legislation made the use of helmets mandatory for cyclists in Nova Scotia. In 3 years the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets rose from 36% to 86% and the proportion of head injuries to cyclists halved. However, there was also a drop of 40% to 60% in the number of people who cycle, with the greatest decrease amongst adolescents. In the context of reduced cycle use, those who continue to cycle but now wear helmets are no less likely to suffer a head injury than before. The number of head injuries has fallen only in line with cycle use.
However, the number of non-head injuries to cyclists over the 3 years increased by 6% in absolute terms. Relative to cycle use, those who continue to cycle are now 87% more likely to suffer injury than prior to helmet legislation.[/i]
[b]Cyclist fatalities in Canada 1975 to 1997
Burdett, 1999
Available on line
Fatality trends have been similar for cyclists and pedestrians over 22 years of study; both have fallen. Although helmet use grew from virtually zero in 1988 to over 30% in 1995 and up to 50% in 1997, there is no detectable change in the fatality trends attributable to this. Programs aimed at motorists have been effective at reducing fatalities to all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Measures are needed to improve cyclists' skills and to increase use of lights by cyclists at night. [j994][/b]
[i]Estudio sobre accidentes de ciclistas en carretera
Ministerio del Interior, Spain, March 1999
PDF file
Spanish Government investigation of non-fatal cycle accidents on road, which concludes that no advantages of helmet wearing have been found in the data set.[/i]
[b]Trends in cyclist casualties in Britain with increasing cycle helmet use
Franklin, 2000
Available on line
Examines cyclist casualties in Britain as a whole, Greater London and Cambridge, over the period when helmet use has risen from virtually zero to over 40 per cent of cyclists in some parts of the country. There is no detectable change in trends for fatalities, serious injuries or severity ratio in any of these data sets to match the increase in use of cycle helmets. Indeed, in some cases the average seriousness of cyclist casualties increased duirng the period of greatest helmet take-up.
The paper also looks at findings from research in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that have also failed to find real-world evidence of any significant reduction in cyclist head injuries in large population samples. [j][/b]
..and so on...........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/990853.stm
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/21/1361
The trouble is that like most things in life the answer is not black and white. I don't claim that helmets are life saving invicibilty cloaks, and I don't think anyone does, so why is your assertion that helmets are all but useless any more valid? Why can't people accept that there are a range of outcomes in a range of conditions in the real world, along with a big lump of luck thrown in?
TandemJeremybut a helmet will increase the forces on the neck in that sort of accident simply because it increases the diameter of your head.
I'm not disagreeing with this statement but please explain how the helmet can increase the force through increased diameter?
Harking back to my engineering days
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Ok, so potentially the mass of an unhelmeted head will be lower than that of a helmeted one.
But based on your other point above, a helmet increases friction, therefore it would reduce the rate of acceleration, potentially cancelling out the increased weight.
So how will wearing a helmet increase the force experienced during an impact?
Pressure = Force/ Area
So assuming the increased weight of the helmet is offset by the decrease in acceleration due to the increased friction of the helmet, you've stated that the wearing of a helmet increase the diameter of the head, which would therefore increase the area. Assuming no extra force is exerted upon impact by wearing a helmet, as the area has increased this surely means the pressure exerted would decrease as that impact is absorbed across a bigger area than an unhelmeted head???
...and I wear a helmet most of the time.
Because it will protect me?
No, I wear one because I can't stand having the same old tedious argument with people who've been cycling for a couple of years and who think they know everything.
Exactly! It's NOT a black and white argument, hence my frustration at those who suggest that not wearing a helmet is foolish or selfish.
It's a complex issue, and that in itself is a problem; because your average mountain biker can't be arsed to look at the evidence and so makes the easy assumption that 'my helmet will save me', when it's demonstrably NOT the case.
It's a polystyrene hat, not a life saving magic airbag for your head.
it's because the data to support said argument DOESN'T EXIST
You really are plumbing new depths of histrionic rubbishness now. For example, Thompson, Thompson and Rivara:
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001855/frame.html
And yes I know cyclehelmets.org raises doubts about the methodology used, but unless you take the view that these completely render the study worthless, and ignore all the anecdotal evidence that people out there (including me) can supply, it's still indicative that helmets are effective at reducing injury. The Cochrane review, which is an impartial organisation with no agenda, agrees, or they wouldn't have published it.
Just out of interest, what is TJ et al's solution, assuming that cycle helmets are as rubbish as you're making out? Do we stop wearing them and go back to carrying our bikes down mountains? 🙂
Crikey - the information you post seems to disprove your argument?
"In 3 years the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets rose from 36% to 86% and the proportion of head injuries to cyclists halved"
Other stuff about making helmets mandatory and the numbers of people cycling is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that helmets should be made mandatory, or trying to predict teh effect that would have.
As I posted earlier on this thread - any studies into the benefits or otherwise of helmets have to be considered on the basis of statistical evidence...
... and that really is the problem here. Stats for cycling related injuries, and more particulalry, cycle usage rates to average against, have to be at best - guesswork!!!!
If the evidence was available, and allowed a robust case to be developed, then the marketeers would be all over it. Converserly, the sceptical are equally hampered in presenting a detractors case.
FFS - as said several times - I wear one when the risk of crashing is high because I believe it will protect me from mnor injuries that are likley.
When the risk are low such as riding on tracks like the picture I posted above I am prepared to accept the miniscule risks involved.
and yes - your anecdotes are worthless as evidence and so is that cochrane review because of the flawed methodology. It does not take into account risk compensation - infact IIRC one of the studies used expressily rules it out as a possible cause. it take no account for the chances of helmets increasing injury, and worst of all it uses self selecting samples - there are no consideration of rates of helmet wearing v rates of crashing, there are 4 possible classes of people involved - helmet wearers who crash and who dont and non helmet wearers who crash and who don't. Without knowing about the people who don't crash you can get no conclusions about those who do. it is equally valid to say that helmets cause yu to crash from that fata.
if you designed a study to give a false positive you could hardly design it better.
Edit:
ddmonkey - thats a collection of all the data - has evidence both ways. Some of which is more reliable than others. After the fact statistical surveys with self selecting samples give high false positives.
My final point is that the thread was about the value of wearing helmets while riding off road. Much of the research quoted here is I would guess looking at cycling as a whole, or just road cycling in the wider population. I should think that my puny helmet will do little to protect my head when a lorry rolls over it. Off-road is another matter, and I would guess that in the majority of lower level incidents that occur off road the helmet will be of more value.
Ho hum, I still think people should do what they want, and I still see no good reason not to wear a helmet.
BoardinBob - MemberI'm not disagreeing with this statement but please explain how the helmet can increase the force through increased diameter?
Its about the torque - ( Newton metres) put a fixed force at a tangent at 20 cm from the centre of the head and the same force at 25 cm from the head - the total force is the same but the torque is greater in the second one effectively the helmet acts as a lever to multiply the force. by 25 % in that case
Ahem: Although I've been lucky enough in the past NOT to have made head contact with anything hard when falling off the bike, I have often caught tree branches at speed when not ducking low enough.
This resulted in a scratched helmet, rather than a bloody scalp that might also have resulted on getting knocked off the bike helmetless with the ensuing head/hard object interface possibility.
Wearing a helmet, therefore, seems good to me...
TJ, I'm no statistician, but clearly neither are you. For example:
It does not take into account risk compensation
Quote from the Cochrane review:
Some bicycling advocates have argued that helmeted cyclists may change their riding behavior influenced by a greater feeling of security and, thus take more risks and be more likely to crash (Hillman 1993). The converse argument has also been made that helmeted cyclists may ride more carefully and that these behaviors account for the reduction in head injury, not helmet use (Spaite 1991). We believe these arguments to be specious. The fundamental issue is whether or not when bicycle riders crash and hit their heads they are benefited by wearing a helmet. Cyclists would have to increase their risk taking four-fold to overcome the protective effect of helmets. This seems unlikely. here are no objective data to support this risk homeostasis theory
And
worst of all it uses self selecting samples
Self selecting? Did all these people deliberately try to dash their brains out? 🙄
[b]PLEASE CAN WE JUST LET THIS THREAD DIE NOW![/b]
I started it, surely that gives me the right to close it?
My original question has been pretty much answered, whether or not I agree with the reasons, I am happy that what I asked has been covered... So can we stop the arguing please (or at least take it elsewhere!)
THANK YOU! 😀
TJ - in what way do you find a helmet restrictive?
ps quick aside TJ arent your views on the whys & why nots of helmet wearing self-selective as well? You give your reasons for not wearing in the same way others give theirs for..Not a dig but you cant accuse the other side of something your guilty of.
BTW its entirely upto you what you do & dont do but sometimes you dont make a lot of sense & are not always (IMO) totally honest..
Mr agree able - yes they totally discounted the well documented effects of risk compensation
A self selecting sample is one that is not random - by using hosptial admissions in the way that they have done they have only got a part of the data set they need. they have only used the data from cyclists who required hospital admission. I have done honours degree courses in iterpretation of research and understand to some extent the methodology
With only a part of the data set then conclusions are not valid. all the people they measured might be inexperienced. Those that don't wear helmets might have much lower rates of crashing.
it really is very flawed - read the feedback pages for more critique of it.
OK mboy - I have tried to walk away from this - I promise I will now
edit - repack - I simply find them unpleasant to wear. I have attempted to be open and honest about this. I find them uncomfortable and unpleasant so only wear one when risks are high.
I do not want to wear an uncomfortable sweaty helmet for a one in billions chance.
enough!
they totally discounted the well documented effects of risk compensation
If you're asserting that the effects of risk compensation will outweigh the benefits of wearing a lid, that is just complete conjecture. There's no science behind it, just a half-baked theory you've cobbled together. No offence, like. 🙂
Mr agreeable - nope - I am saying that it is a factor that they have not taken into account. when there are a series of factors that are not accounted for then it casts real doubt on the validity.
strooth is this still going?
data:
I do not want to wear an uncomfortable sweaty helmet for a one in billions chance.
analysis: TJ still has hair
strooth is this still going?
I thought that too - and [b]L-O-N-G[/b], closely reasoned posts at that!
But risk compensation isn't necessarily a result of wearing a helmet. And even if you assert that it is, you've got no evidence to back this up. Take your pseudo-scientific stream of consciouness elsewhere please.
You never know what'll happen. A tiny mistake could render you brain damaged, even if you weren't expecting it or were "just out for a pootle".
It's not worth the risk.
(2 Giro E2s in 3 years here)
SSopponents - better wear yours every time you get out of bed if you're that worried 😕
I bet you don't wear one because you are THE riding god, right?
WOW!! I love these posts! I always wear a lid even if out of the garage around the block to check the gears! Its like puttinfg on a pair of gloves when I ride. My choice my head! if you dont want to then your choice your head (i'll think your a bit daft though!! :wink:). But I'll take my chances with my lid thank you!!
Hold on... risk compensation means you take more risks because you feel better protected...
Well, surely mountain biking is a perfect example of this. I know I have been out riding my bike sans helmet and come across something I won't ride without a helmet... and since gone back and ridden it with helmet on.
And I know I ride a damn sight faster and more techy stuff when lidded up. I actually reckon I am probably far more likely to do myself a nasty when I'm riding with a helmet on than when I am not.
Is that not risk compensation in action?
😀
Mr agree able - the point is that it [b]may[/b] have an effect on this - thus should not be discounted. There is evidence about risk compensation but nothing solid. to discount risk compensation as they have done is poor science - exactly as apportioning all their results to risk compensation would be, it is a variable that has the potential to distort their results but they discounted without any evidence to allow them to do so thus reducing the validity of their results.
No need to be offensive BTW - Its not a pseudo-scientific stream of consciouness from me - its a reasoned position from my reading of the evidence. All backed by logical and evidence.
Seriously if you are relying on something as flawed as that cochrane review then your case is week - I have seen poorer research but not often
OK OK - I know I said I will shut up - I will now
Edit - funky nick - that is exactly risk compensation in action
Recently I have hit my head on the following things:-
loft ladder
bed frame
car boot
cooker extractor hood
Amazingly I also managed to ride my bike several times and not hit my head on anything.
Actually, maybe I should just wear a helmet all the time instead!