Are cycling helmets worth wearing? Studies, research and discussion

[kyser_soze]

Like I said before, look around the bike sites or any magazine and they're all wearing them.

That's because the organisers and publishers get shit for not featuring people wearing helmets from their advertisers, who in turn get shit from pro-helmet pressure groups if they feature 'dangerous' riding.

The TdF teams actually saw compulsory helmet wearing as a huge imposition, and there was a bit of a squabble about it...besides, if anything given they're travelling at upwards of 30 MPH on their bikes, they should be wearing full face bike helmets, not piss in the wind bicycle ones!

 

[mauvais]

Oh, so it's the helmet conspiracy!

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Err.. hello? Why are you ignoring the articles I've linked to?

yes and just as there's a mountian of evidence to support the not wearing of helmets on motorbikes in the USA which lead to the protests about the helmet laws...

the good far outweifghs the bad...

seatbelts in cars usually mean you are at a disadvantaged driving position, and do not adiquately restrain you in place in the event of an accident because of their mounting points which are not optimised for this over practical comfort...

no one in their right midn would argue this is a defence for not wearing a seat belt however, the good out weighs the bad cycles like motor bikes should wear helmets compulsoryly and bugger all other considerations the generalised good outwieghs the minor bad which wearing one may cause...

good road craft is driving according to the prevailing conditions, this includes wearing appropreate safety equipment when on the road...

in this particlar case however there's a different issue at stake ultimately this will be lost on appeal as there can be no resonable justification for blaming the victim of the accident for it's cause or consiquences no one could reasonably have expected when turning right for a speeding motorcyclist to have cut accross your path as you were turning and moreover a cyclist would ordinarliy have an expectation that a motorcyclist would be all too aware of the consiquences of that action...

the motorcyclist is fully to blame in this instance; it however doesn't detract from the discussion about compulsory helmets on bikes of all kinds motorised or otherwise...

 

[Struwwelpeter]

Having skimmed this thread and many similar ones in the past on cycling forums, I am led to the conclusion that many (not all) helmet advocates are in the same league as those who believe that the earth was created in 6 days.

They seem to believe that their home grown "common sense" trumps scientific research. On balance, there is reseach in both directions:

With helmet:

Increased risk of neck injuries
Decrease in cycling (if helmets are compulsory)
Increased risk of being hit
Increased risk compensation by drivers AND cyclists
High speed - you still die or lose critical brain function
Improved survival rates from head injuries at low speed

Without helmet:

The opposite of the above except you are more likely to die rather than become a vegetable at high speeds.

I was knocked off my bike the other day and have a broken pelvis as well as 8 stitches in my head. The 8 stitches are the least of my worries. I got sick of medical staff thinking that A&E was a relevant place to lecture me on wearing a helmet. They weren't lecturing the bloke who had been involved in a drunken brawl on the evils of drink...

 

[sim667]

If its not a legal requirement to wear a helmet then there is no way an insurance company should refuse to pay out to a claim on the basis the claimant wasnt wearing a helmet....

 

[Agent Sparrow]

They seem to believe that their home grown "common sense" trumps scientific research. On balance, there is reseach in both directions:

With helmet:

Increased risk of neck injuries
Decrease in cycling (if helmets are compulsory)
Increased risk of being hit
Increased risk compensation by drivers AND cyclists
High speed - you still die or lose critical brain function
Improved survival rates from head injuries at low speed

You have research you can post to back these claims up?

Dr Walker's research posted earlier was interesting but like Crispy, I'd say the next step would have to be a further study with multiple cyclists both doing the helmet and helmet free condition. If nothing else, what's to say that Dr Walker wasn't making subtle differences in his own cycling technique in either condition due to his own biases?

 

[Struwwelpeter]

You have research you can post to back these claims up?

Yes. I'll get back to you.

I agree that some of the research is not entirely conclusive - in both directions. As far as I am concerned "common sense" and other arguments are fine for a personal decision but, until there is clear evidence that wearing a helmet will reduce the risk to an individual AND to society as a whole, it should not be made compulsory - either by civil or criminal lawmakers.

The argument is not helped when many of those who demand that I wear a helmet don't ride themselves, nor is it helped by cyclists who wear helmets but ignore safety in every other way.

Back on topic - it is completely unacceptable to blame the victim, especially if there is no action that the victim could have done to mitigate the matter. The judge has set himself up to be appealed.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

You have research you can post to back these claims up?

This should get you started:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html

Yes, the evidence is contradictory and in some cases poorly researched. But that is my point. If a clear scientific argument for wearing helmets emerges, then I will support it.

Just a few selected quotes from that site for the "common sense" brigade:

• According to CPSC assistant executive director Ronald L. Medford, "It's puzzling to me that we can't find the benefit of bike helmets here".
  
• Some evidence of increased neck injury.
  
• 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.

And you can select your own to support the counter argument...

 

[Crispy]

I'm absolutely against mandatory helmets btw

 

[Agent Sparrow]

This should get you started:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html

Yes, the evidence is contradictory and in some cases poorly researched. But that is my point. If a clear scientific argument for wearing helmets emerges, then I will support it.

Just a few selected quotes from that site for the "common sense" brigade:

• According to CPSC assistant executive director Ronald L. Medford, "It's puzzling to me that we can't find the benefit of bike helmets here".
  
• Some evidence of increased neck injury.
  
• 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.

And you can select your own to support the counter argument...

Hell, I'm very open minded about this, which is why I want to see the research findings and its methodologies. I personally choose to wear a helmet and I'm glad bf does too, but I've acknowledged that's probably due to an overestimation on my own part on the protection that gives. So I'm not actually arguing the counterargument. If you make a list of things research has found though, particularly on a subject where other posters have said that methodologies on both sides have been noted to be dodgy, then it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence to support it.

I really should get cracking on my own research methodology atm, but I'll probably be back later after having a look at some of the findings in that link.

 

[Upchuck]

Remember Upchuck, that a cycling hemet does not provide the same protection as a full or even half crash helmet. It's just a bit of covering for the top of your noggin which is not somewhere that you're likely to hit in a low speed crash anyway (believe me, I've fallen off enough bikes and not so much as scratched my head). In addition the way they are shaped at the back to reduce air resistance may in some cases increase the chance of neck injury.

How fast do you go

 

[beeboo]

I'm not sure I'm understanding the the judge's ruling here.

Am I right in thinking the judge ruled that the absence of a cycle helmet had no bearing on the injuries sustained, but the very fact that he gave consideration to the impact of the presence/absence of a cycle helmet sets a precident for this be considered in the future, when a judge may rule that this was a contributory factor to the injuries and reduce the compensation accordingly?


If this is the case, would it also work in reverse - if you were wearing a cycle helmet and that contributed to the severity of your injuries - eg a more severe neck injury - would you be judged to have contributed to these injuries?

Personally I don't have a problem with the *principle* of contributory negligence as per car seat belts, but with the evidence as inconclusive as it is around cycle helmets, I think it is a bit of a dangerous precident.

 

[beeboo]

I'm absolutely against mandatory helmets btw

regardless of the effectiveness of cycle helmets, I think there is an argument for 'safety in numbers' for cyclists, and that by putting people off cycling by making helmets compulsory, you're actually increasing the risk of injury for any given individual - they might be slightly protected against injury in the event of an accident, but their chance of having an accident might be higher.

 

[pogofish]

*baffled

Yes - I don't think I was very awake this morning!

 

[George & Bill]

You have a point. I nonetheless fail to understand why anyone would go into traffic on a pushbike without a helmet to cover their scone. TBF IMO it is irresponsible in the extreme

"I accept that there's no strong evidence that x has any effect, but I still think people who don't do x are morons"

It's a classic

 

[rubbershoes]

If this is the case, would it also work in reverse - if you were wearing a cycle helmet and that contributed to the severity of your injuries - eg a more severe neck injury - would you be judged to have contributed to these injuries?

no. wearing a helmet could never be said to be negligent.

so even through some convoluted circumstances the helmet did make the injury worse, the cyclist would not have their compensation cut

 

[Wolveryeti]

What about this piece of ressearch that suggests wearing helmets is actually more dangerous than not wearing one... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm

Look like a suicide artist and cars will give you the wide berth you deserve.

 

[maomao]

How fast do you go

20-30mph on flat road depending on wind direction. Up to 40mph downhill on A roads.

 

[George & Bill]

In the end, though, the question of whether or not helmets are beneficial to safety is a side-issue. The main issue is the simple one that cycling, in itself, is not especially dangerous, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[rubbershoes]

However, a spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents insisted: "We wouldn't recommend that people stop wearing helmets because of this research. Helmets have been shown to reduce the likelihood of head and brain injuries in a crash. .

reading the headlines is no substitute for reading the full article, or even better, the original research paper

 

[Wolveryeti]

reading the headlines is no substitute for reading the full article, or even better, the original research paper

Wow, breathtaking fail. You just quoted The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, not the authors of the research paper.

And you accused me of not reading the article. Sweet!

 

[maomao]

Wow, breathtaking fail. You just quoted The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, not the authors of the research paper.

And you accused me of not reading the article. Sweet!

ROSPA are nutters.

 

[rubbershoes]

Wow, breathtaking fail. You just quoted The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, not the authors of the research paper.

And you accused me of not reading the article. Sweet!

yeah whatever you say

 

[Spymaster]

Regardless of the relative merits and drawbacks of wearing a lid (I think cyclists should), this is the bit that I disagree with:

Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph and the judge therefore concluded that wearing a helmet would not have made any difference.

This case has parallels with that of the "texting peer" who was imprisoned despite it being accepted that the texting was not contributory to the accident, and subsequently released on appeal.

OK, one's P.I. and one's criminal but I would assume that there would be grounds for this to be appealed if the lack of helmet contributed neither to the accident nor the injury. Detective Boy would be useful here.

 

[Geri]

I did some more reading about this, and in this specific case the judge did not deduct any contributory negligence, so there is nothing to appeal against.

Link here:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180

He was making a general ruling (can't remember what that is called, rubbershoes might know).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I tell you, appeal is not a transitive verb. People using it as if it were should be required to use crash helmets.

 

[Biddlybee]

I did some more reading about this, and in this specific case the judge did not deduct any contributory negligence, so there is nothing to appeal against.

Link here:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180

He was making a general ruling (can't remember what that is called, rubbershoes might know).

Ta for that link Geri, will read it in a min.

Couldn't get my head round this either:

The judge clearly stated that the lack of a helmet did not contribute to the injury.

Why therefore is he applying contributory negligence when it is not causative of the injury?

 

[maomao]

I tell you, appeal is not a transitive verb.

Only in cricket. The legal sense is transitive according to my dictionary.

ETA: and Geri was using it as an intransative with a preposition as compliment which is even more confusing.

 

[rubbershoes]

He was making a general ruling (can't remember what that is called, rubbershoes might know).

obiter dicta

and it's not a ruling but a sort of off the cuff comment that leaves everybody confused as its not binding. we all have to wait around till the point is in issue and has a proper ruling on it (ratio decendi, dontchaknow )

 

[HackneyE9]

This case has parallels with that of the "texting peer" who was imprisoned despite it being accepted that the texting was not contributory to the accident, and subsequently released on appeal.

There you go again.

All the facts we know for sure are that Ahmed had sent five or six texts whilst driving at 70mph, but had not actually SENT a new text for 2mins before the fatal collision. The judge - in his wisdom - declared on this basis that texting was not contributory to the accident. Unless you know differently?