[Closed] a different helmet debate

No, its exactly the same helmet debate; they don't work in the way that people think they do.

crikey only different because of the sport, but i tend to agree, helmets don't actually work in the way people assume.

Every time someone starts a helmet thread a puppy dies.

Every time someone starts a helmet thread a puppy dies.

i don't like dogs.....

Only because it wasnt wearing a helmet.

Or gets banned

Was the puppy on a treadmill?

Was the puppy on a treadmill?

I fear it was - a nuclear powered one.

Risk compensation for skiers as well? Feel safer ski faster and crash more often/at higher speeds negating the limited protection of a helmet.

Is it a debate about the use of helmets, or the way they are designed? I suspect the latter may be more appropriate in order to meet the needs of the modern skier and biker.

Current helmet designs were probably fine a few years ago but I think modern styles demand a re-think.

Apologies to those with genuine intentions, but FFS, a helmet debate because of a famous man that's in a coma and 'fighting for his life', on New Year's Eve? 😥

If your brain slaps the inside of your skull with any force, you are going to be in trouble.

A helmet won't prevent that sort of injury.

It will prevent injury externally, which may or may not help and it will slow an impact enough on a low speed impact.

A helmet might save your life, it might not.

All that said, a helmet won't make things worse.

All that said, a helmet won't make things worse.

I dropped mine on my toe once, if I didn't have it, I wouldn't have been injured 😉

All that said, a helmet won't make things worse.

I think it can make things worse, skill compensator and all that, false sense of security.

To be honest though with skiing though I think its the equipment that has had the biggest impact in recent years with average skiers going much faster than they used to, same with bikes.

Bear - why shouldn't some one injuring themselves start a debate. No one (yet) has said anything to criticise Schuchy as a person.
From where he had his accident, I would hardly call it off piste, but an area just outside the red run because it had so many uncovered / covered rocks in it. I bet he caught a rock just under the surface and then did a head plant

If your brain slaps the inside of your skull with any force, you are going to be in trouble.

A helmet won't prevent that sort of injury.

I don't wear a helmet to prevent that sort of injury.

Read enough accounts of Medieval battles to know it won't.

Make puppies wear helmets.

Read enough accounts of Medieval battles to know it won't.

Cannot tell if troll or social 'science' graduate. 😕

I think it can make things worse, skill compensator and all that, false sense of security.

Is there ANY evidence for this? It keeps getting trotted out, but I've never seen anything other than heresay to support it.

Is there ANY evidence for this? It keeps getting trotted out, but I've never seen anything other than heresay to support it.

would you ride an mtb without one for a start?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation[/url]

for starters

I thought we'd established it's no good making puppies wear helmets unless they wear life jackets too.

Is there ANY evidence for this? It keeps getting trotted out, but I've never seen anything other than heresay to support it.

If you're genuinely interested, then read John Adams book 'Risk'

[img] ?size=620x400s[/img]

Adams is great

Risk is one of those books that genuinely makes you go...WTF!!

He has a good blog too http://www.john-adams.co.uk/ with lots of his published essays at http://www.john-adams.co.uk/papers-reports/

I read his piece Risk in a Hypermobile world a few years ago and it is a great thought provoker

gwaelod - Member
Adams is great

Risk is one of those books that genuinely makes you go...

What is the gist?

My wife spotted Bev Turners helmet (good choice of words?!? ) piece in the Torygraph today. The article is crap but the comments section is hilarious!!!!

easier to read the blurb on the jacket

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-John-Adams/dp/1857280687

as an example of his thinking though

[url= http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Management-of-the-risks-of-transport2.pdf ]http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Management-of-the-risks-of-transport2.pdf[/url]

drives a coach and horses through most people's recieved wisdom of road safety

IanMunro said

If you're genuinely interested, then read John Adams book 'Risk'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
for starters

Many thanks for your responses.
But in answer to my original question (emphasis added)

Is there ANY EVIDENCE for this? It keeps getting trotted out, but I've never seen anything other than heresay to support it.

As a matter of interest, what would you accept as being "evidence"?

Something that demonstrates a [i]causal[/i] relationship between helmet use and changed attitude to risk. And specifically that it encouraged more risky behaviour.

You know when you open your garage door, but you're too lazy to push the door all the way up? Shortly after you turn round and WHACK head on corner of garage door.
Bloomin hurts that.

Ian Walkers study is a classic on risk compensation and helmet wearing

http://opus.bath.ac.uk/9332/

specific result was that helmet wearing results in more risky behaviour

samples, measuring and all sorts.

I've worn a helmet when on the bike as long as I've been riding mountain bikes, but the only time I've actually hit my head on the ground involved both tyres going sideways at walking speed and dumping me on to a Tarmac surface, my Xen's visor getting deep gouges in it from the rough surface. Riding off-road, the hardest impacts have been from low tree branches, my main reason for wearing a lid.

I don't think Ian Walkers study really is about risk compensation as the driver isn't the one at risk. It is also noteworthy that his study is contradicted by a later study he did which showed no difference in driver behaviour no matter what the cyclist wears ( including a helmet) unless the latter is dressed as a policeman. I also seem to remember that some statisticians produced a paper which demolished the conclusions that Walker drew from the figures he provided.

Something that demonstrates a causal relationship between helmet use and changed attitude to risk. And specifically that it encouraged more risky behaviour.

But my point is ... what could that "something" possibly be? How could one demonstrate this causal relationship to your satisfaction?

I recall seeing an experiment by a motorcycling magazine where they measured the average speed taken to do a given route by riders with and without protective clothing ( it would have been illegal to not wear a helmet). If I remember correctly there was a clear difference between the 2 groups. I'll try to dig out the reference.

I'm very dubious about the risk compensator aspect of helmets also mainly because two minutes into a ride I forget whether there's anything on my head. Unless I've got an unusual lack of sensitivity on my head I would imagine most people are the same.

Do people really change how they're riding dependant on what they're wearing? How about skiing? Like that racing driver? I wore a helmet for the first time last time I went skiing. I skied exactly the same. Except my head was a bit sweatier.

[i]Two of the observe a correlation between helmet wearing and speed on the slopes - but no causation. It might be that those that ski fastest are more likely to wear a helmet for reasons other than risk compensation. [/i]

Indeed. People wearing the appropriate gear are far more likely to be enthusiasts and therefore faster. An old lady cycling down to the shops won't wear a helmet because she simply hasn't got one. There's no link between that and the fact she only does 3mph.

At the other end, true afficiandos, people who are going to be nailing it right on the edge all the time are always going to have all the gear. And yes, they're going to be more likely to expose themselves to risk. The safety gear is a risk limitation exercise because of the very nature of their behaviour.

samuri - Member
An old lady cycling down to the shops won't wear a helmet because she simply hasn't got one. There's no link between that and the fact she only does 3mph.

I'd say there is - it's just the opposite end of your following paragraph.

Wearing safety gear because of behaviour isn't risk compensation though.

Risk compensation is behaving differently because you're wearing safety gear.

Of course what 'probably' caused Schumacher's injury was that he was inexperienced, saw a bit of virgin snow in a rock infested bit of piste, stupidly didn't think it was early so season skied through, hit a rock under the surface and did a head plant in to a rock. So lack of skill and experience 'probably' caused his accident.

Off piste I wont wear a helmet, on piste these days I think I will start wearing one because there are so many morons about

Anyon not now wearing a helmet for MTBing ? If so would you lie to send it to me ?
I appear to have cracked it on the front when face planting.
On second thoughts dont bother the two small grazes above my eyes seem to have been caused by the helmet, bloody dangerous they are

I'm genuinely interested but not to the book reading level. Having read the blurb and scanned one or two of his other bits, it looks like he's got a theory. I was looking for evidence.

Which is why you should read the book 🙂

Something that demonstrates a causal relationship between helmet use and changed attitude to risk. And specifically that it encouraged more risky behaviour.

But my point is ... what could that "something" possibly be? How could one demonstrate this causal relationship to your satisfaction?

Well a study which measured the risk appetite of skiers prior to their wearing of a helmet, followed by measuring risk appetite after they started wearing helmets. That would do, I suppose.

Which is why you should read the book

Is their evidence in there? Studies showing match cohorts of skiers - helemt wearers and non helmet wearers - and measuring and comparing the risk appetite of both?

I still am genuinely interested, but not in unsubstantiated theories.
There are plenty of other books I'd like to read before I'd get to reading this one.

Do people really change how they're riding dependant on what they're wearing? How about skiing?

One of the reasons I like wearing a helmet when snowboarding is that it means I feel I can take on tree runs that I wouldn't hit without one.

Classic risk compensation. (and I'm fine with that)

That's not risk compensation. You're taking the decision to do something that you feel requires extra risk mitigation. You apply extra controls and then do it.

Risk compensation would be you deciding to do the tree run *because* you're wearing a helmet and it's made you feel safer. There is a difference between the two.

I expect virtually everyone (sensible) does the former and very, very few do the latter. I guess the distinction is hard to clearly define though and even harder to study.

Risk compensation is behaving differently because you're wearing safety gear.

How can you possibly know that's not going on?

I'm no scientist but above say 10-12 mph, a helmet is purely cosmetic. If you slipped on ice on the way to the bus stop and fell on your head then I'm sure a helmet would provide viable protection. Hit a tree at 22mph on a trail then it's no better than a lottery.

If you're not a scientist, why make a scientific statement?

[i]How can you possibly know that's not going on?[/i]

Look where mandatory safety measures have been introduced and see whether they have impacted KSi's. If they do then people are not risk compensating.

A good way is looking at behaviours over time.

Say, seat belts. You could argue that once seat belts were made mandatory, people would automatically risk compensate and drive worse but there's no evidence to suggest that's happened. In fact the opposite is more evident. People have become safer drivers because they're more risk aware by the very introduction of the law.

Obviously this is all my opinion. I suspect there's no real evidence one way or the other. I know that I don't ride/ski any different whether I wear a helmet or not. I expect Schumaker is a very risk aware individual and doesn't change his behaviour either (although I'll accept his risk tolerance is probably a lot higher than mine).

although the report referenced here suggests people are risk compensating.
[url] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 [/url]

I'm no scientist but above say 10-12 mph, a helmet is purely cosmetic. If you slipped on ice on the way to the bus stop and fell on your head then I'm sure a helmet would provide viable protection. Hit a tree at 22mph on a trail then it's no better than a lottery.

Well since the 11mph impact is the design fall speed helmets are tests at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_1078

and a 22mph crash has 4 times the energy to cope with how good can a helmet be?

As for risk compensation the classic study is the Munich Taxi Driver Study.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/road_safetyrisk_compensation/#cite_note-0

Say, seat belts. You could argue that once seat belts were made mandatory, people would automatically risk compensate and drive worse but there's no evidence to suggest that's happened. In fact the opposite is more evident. People have become safer drivers because they're more risk aware by the very introduction of the law.

The UK 1983 seatbelt law didn't save any lives overall. Drivers lives saved cancelled by more cyclists and pedestrians killed.

"Figure 1, all road accident deaths (excluding motor cyclists), shows that a well-established downward trend was interrupted (by the seat belt law?) and replaced by a slightly rising plateau. After the seat belt law (arrow) total deaths did not fall below the 1983 level until 1991."

[img] [/img]

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/

Looks like there's some debate there then. A quick google produces a number of graphs that look entirely different,

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/a-different-helmet-debate

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/have-we-done-wiggle-backing-compulsory-helmet-laws-yet/page/2

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/wiggo-on-helmets

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/how-do-you-deal-with-folk-not-wearing-a-helmet

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bike-helmet-for-kids

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/psa-another-study-on-the-efficacy-of-bike-helmets#post-3128520

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/my-helmet-is-very-deformed-graphic-photo-content#post-2963127

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-woman-who-tragically-died-in-dent-on-the-letjog-ride#post-2956453

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/cyclist-hit-15-times-with-hammer-by-driverfor-riding-too-slow-up-a-hill#post-2943106

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/motorcyclist-protesting-helmet-laws-dies-in-bike-crash-while-not-wearing-helmet/page/3

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmet-compulsion-again

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/kids-cycling-to-school-without-helmets-is-it-me-or#post-2368335

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/anyone-else-hear-peter-thatchel-on-jeremy-vine-calling-for-compulsary-helmets/page/2

f you're not a scientist, why make a scientific statement?

How cynical-al!

A whole new debate - what constitutes a scientific statement....?

You have to love the knee jerkers. Louis Hamilton in now "arrogant" and "insensitive" because he was XC skiing without a helmet and posted pictures of himself. The world is going mad!!!!

although the report referenced here suggests people are risk compensating.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I read it more as equipment is getting better, so people can ski or board way outside their limits. This in turn is coupled with the energy drink culture. Hence more head injuries. It's not just helmets.

It does also say that head injuries that don't involve bringing your brain to a sudden decelerative stop have declined due to helmet use.

I have also read an article this morning that the people out skiing with MS have said it was an innocuous fall. He wasn't doing anything crazy, he had stopped to help someone get up, skied off, and got tripped up in such a way that he cartwheeled on to his head.