Cycle helmets debate

[Haku]

*years* ago I used to wear a helmet a lot but somehow grew out of it, partly because of the hassle and partly because I didn't like the look of the thing.

When I took an accidental trip over my handlebars last year I instinctively reached forwards with my hands and curled/rolled to one side when I landed on the road, didn't bang my head at all but did get a scrape on my back.
That happened on a very quiet road and no cars were involved, when I'm going to town or shops I try and avoid main roads whenever possible mainly because I just don't like sharing the same space with cars - too noisy & potentially dangerous if someone doesn't see you (my lights work very well at night though, cars often go to almost right to the other side of the road to pass me), and I ride on pavements a lot but with the utmost consideration for pedestrians, getting off and walking past them so I don't annoy them.

Isn't it compulsory to wear helmets when on a bicycle in Australia? how has it affected cycling there?

 

[flecc]

Isn't it compulsory to wear helmets when on a bicycle in Australia? how has it affected cycling there?

I don't know, but many of the kids there wear bike helmets that look like WW2 German army helmets only deeper, wrap-around and coming right down the sides and back of the head. Very much more protective than ours, but must be horribly hot in their climate. Then again, the Aussies have always been an odd lot.

From what I've seen, adult cyclists there are a rare breed, it seems it's mainly kids on bikes just like the USA.
.

 

[flecc]

I've found a good little site here about safety.
Worth a read to anyone !

Bicycle Safety: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

That's exactly the right approach, primary safety, don't have the accident.

There's so much emphasis in the nonsense of secondary safety, alleviating the accident, people forget that it's not necessary to have them in the first place.
.

 

[Cyclezee]

I think you all need to see some of the images that I have seen working in Hospitals and dealing with people who have suffered servere facial and skull injuries as a result of not wearing seat belts, helemts etc. You would think twice about not using protective equipment.
One image that I will never forget was the motorcyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet. He hit the back of a lorry carrying scafolding poles, one of these went right through his skull laterally. It is assumed he was taking a sideways glance, but had he been wearing a helmet he might still be alive today.

John

 

[flecc]

It wouldn't budge me John.

In the case you cited, the force which enabled a scaffold pole to go right through someone's skull could not have been resisted by any motorcycle helmet.

I'm saying that as someone very familiar with those helmets and who is very familiar with scaffold pole, it's dimensions and thicknesses, both for steel and alloy variations.

Far less of an impact results in motorcycle helmet failure, and if you saw the way they fail at testing limits and how small the force is that brings the failure, you might feel much more negative about them.

Even if a helmet was devised that would resist the penetration of such a force, the head inside would almost certainly suffer terminal trauma anyway. If it didn't, the resulting brain damage would hardly leave any quality of worthwhile life.

Sorry John, but this is typical of the many stories trotted out in support of helmet compulsion, founded on errors of mechanical judgement. And yes, I do know of your medical profession.
.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

Emphatically not.

Everyone should have a choice as to whether they wear a helmet, and when they wear one.

The same goes for seat belts and yes, even motor cycle helmets.
.

I agree with that. So long as, when a motorcycle rider, or cyclist, without a helmet suffers brain damage or when a car driver is catapulted through a windscreen face first into the boot of the car in front , they do not expect other people to pay the bill.


I think choice is a good thing, including whether or not one is prepared to have an unnecessarily shattered skull at 25mph and a life with brain damage... so long as, when that choice is made, one does not expect everyone else to pay for it if the conseuquences of that decision are unnecessarily severe. That's not unreasonable, is it? Maybe one could carry a card to that effect so that, in an accident, the choice that one has made is made clear to everyone else.

 

[Ian]

That's exactly the right approach, primary safety, don't have the accident.

There's so much emphasis in the nonsense of secondary safety, alleviating the accident, people forget that it's not necessary to have them in the first place.
.

Too right! I'm convinced much of the outrageously risky driving we see these days is because modern cars are perceived as been able to protect the occupants from almost anything, a perception not discouraged by manufacturers advertising of course.

If cyclists were wrapped in cotton wool perhaps the same false feeling of invulnerability would prevail, leading to the opposite of the desired effect.

There's nothing like a nasty looking surface to encourage safe riding, or maybe a spike instead of an airbag in the case of cars.

 

[burncycle]

Capacity regarding a choice is defined in a person when they understand to outcomes of their choice or actions, despite that choice having a negative bearing on their overall welfare.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

My guess is that hitting a post at 15mph might brake the helmet in half (it is only polystyrene) and your head would hit the post anyway.

Yes, it most probably would... and in doing so, it would protect the contents (ie one's head). Whatever force it absorbs in breaking in half is force which would not, therefore, dissipate itself in one's bonce against the post. Motorcycle helmets are designed to absorb shock by being damaged themselves. The same principle applies to an egg box.....drop the box and the box may crush and break on the corners etc but it protects the eggs in doing so. Expanded polystyrene packaging does the same thing... it absorbs force by being damaged on impact. Same with crumple zones on cars etc...

 

[Ian]

I agree with that. So long as, when a motorcycle rider, or cyclist, without a helmet suffers brain damage or when a car driver is catapulted through a windscreen face first into the boot of the car in front , they do not expect other people to pay the bill.


I think choice is a good thing, including whether or not one is prepared to have an unnecessarily shattered skull at 25mph and a life with brain damage... so long as, when that choice is made, one does not expect everyone else to pay for it if the conseuquences of that decision are unnecessarily severe. That's not unreasonable, is it? Maybe one could carry a card to that effect so that, in an accident, the choice that one has made is made clear to everyone else.

That would be fine if it applied to everyone who puts themselves in a position of risk without protective clothing.. such as pedestrians near golf courses, spectators at cricket matches and other sporting events, walkers under cliffs etc.

As it would never be accepted by the public at large why cyclists be singled out.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

It wouldn't budge me John.

In the case you cited, the force which enabled a scaffold pole to go right through someone's skull could not have been resisted by any motorcycle helmet.

This is a pretty nonsensical argument, in fact. A bike helmet, motorcycle helmet or spaceman's helmet is not primarily designed to stop penetration of anything. Cars aren't even. It's designed to absorb shock in the case of impact and reduce the amount of force exerted on a head. Yes, right, the helmet would not have stopped penetration by a pole but to use this as an argument for NOT wearing a helmet doesn't hold water

 

[mk1]

I agree with that. So long as, when a motorcycle rider, or cyclist, without a helmet suffers brain damage or when a car driver is catapulted through a windscreen face first into the boot of the car in front , they do not expect other people to pay the bill.


I think choice is a good thing, including whether or not one is prepared to have an unnecessarily shattered skull at 25mph and a life with brain damage... so long as, when that choice is made, one does not expect everyone else to pay for it if the conseuquences of that decision are unnecessarily severe. That's not unreasonable, is it? Maybe one could carry a card to that effect so that, in an accident, the choice that one has made is made clear to everyone else.

So does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for the treatment of grossly overweight people, smokers and boozers who also have a choice?

Martin

 

[jimmyengland1000]

That would be fine if it applied to everyone who puts themselves in a position of risk without protective clothing.. such as pedestrians near golf courses, spectators at cricket matches and other sporting events, walkers under cliffs etc.

As it would never be accepted by the public at large why cyclists be singled out.

It's a question of risk. I suspect that the statistics for brain damage caused by golf balls, cricket balls and walkers under cliffs compared to brain damage, death and injury in helmetless motorcycle accidents (see USA stats) and cyclists without helmets will illustrate which is vastly more dangerous.

This forum is full of postings about those terrible car drivers, reckless drivers, accidents, driving or not driving on pavements in order to reduce the risk of accident, not enough cycle paths etc etc etc........ (I don't see that sort of thing appearing on golf forums or cricket forums. Or walking forums). So, right, we all seem to agree that cycling seems to be getting more and more hazardous. I've had an idea... let's not wear protective gear! Right...

 

[jimmyengland1000]

So does that mean I shouldn't have to pay for the treatment of grossly overweight people, smokers and boozers who also have a choice?

Martin

Yes, it does, in my opinion. At present, people can overeat on anything they want, drink as much as they want, smoke as much as they want and then, when the consequences of their lifestyle choices make themselves apparent....and a heart transplant, liver transplant or heart and lung transplant become necessary, everyone else is supposed to pay for it. I don't think others should have to pay for it. It seems part of a societal belief that people have a right to do anything they want (and call it 'choice') until it all goes wrong.

 

[Cyclezee]

It wouldn't budge me John.

In the case you cited, the force which enabled a scaffold pole to go right through someone's skull could not have been resisted by any motorcycle helmet.

I'm saying that as someone very familiar with those helmets and who is very familiar with scaffold pole, it's dimensions and thicknesses, both for steel and alloy variations.

Far less of an impact results in motorcycle helmet failure, and if you saw the way they fail at testing limits and how small the force is that brings the failure, you might feel much more negative about them.

Even if a helmet was devised that would resist the penetration of such a force, the head inside would almost certainly suffer terminal trauma anyway. If it didn't, the resulting brain damage would hardly leave any quality of worthwhile life.

Sorry John, but this is typical of the many stories trotted out in support of helmet compulsion, founded on errors of mechanical judgement. And yes, I do know of your medical profession.
.

My point was, wearing a helmet might have resulted in a glancing blow rather than the skull coming into direct contact with the scaffold pole and therfore he might have survived. The rider was estimated to be traveling at less than 20 MPH on impact. I was not suggesting a crash helmet would resist penetration by a scaffold pole.

Incidentally, if the head comes to a 'dead' stop at a speed of only 18 MPH and above, you are dead! The brain slams against the inside of the skull resulting in death, a helmet can help reduce the impact by absorbing some of the force.

If anyone doesn't want to use protective equipment, that is their choice, be it legal or not. But they should at least carry a braclet saying "Please harvest as many of my organs as you want and throw what remains in a skip"

John

 

[flecc]

This is a pretty nonsensical argument, in fact. A bike helmet, motorcycle helmet or spaceman's helmet is not primarily designed to stop penetration of anything. Cars aren't even. It's designed to absorb shock in the case of impact and reduce the amount of force exerted on a head. Yes, right, the helmet would not have stopped penetration by a pole but to use this as an argument for NOT wearing a helmet doesn't hold water

Absolutely right Jimmy, but I did not use it as an argument for not wearing a helmet as it's clear to see.

I used it as an argument to refute that wearing one would protect from such a penetration injury.

I never argue that helmets should not be worn.

I always argue that it's a matter of choice.
.

 

[flecc]

Incidentally, if the head comes to a 'dead' stop at a speed of only 18 MPH and above, you are dead! The brain slams against the inside of the skull resulting in death, a helmet can help reduce the impact by absorbing some of the force.

If anyone doesn't want to use protective equipment, that is their choice, be it legal or not. But they should at least carry a braclet saying "Please harvest as many of my organs as you want and throw what remains in a skip"

John

I agree completely John. The Road Research laboratory has shown similar in various circumstances, including showing how ineffective helmets and seatbelts are against higher forces.

And I also favour the right to take organs from the dead without any permissions. As a family we do this, my mother and father both complete body donors and we don't believe in funerals either. I've no idea where their carcases ended up, and equally don't care where mine goes. My brother and two sisters feel the same, so we are in no way inconsistent with what I've posted.
.

 

[flecc]

I don't think others should have to pay for it. It seems part of a societal belief that people have a right to do anything they want (and call it 'choice') until it all goes wrong.

Suits me, simple, scrap the NHS and only have private medicine.

But I do have the right, and others don't have the right to introduce a service and then announce that it has cost me my free choice. They can get lost, I retain my choice and if they assume the cost of any outcome of that, more fool them. They've only themselves to blame.
.

 

[Jeremy]

The issue of risk, and the relative probability of death or injury, is something that needs very great care in assessing. The thing we need to remember is that our instinctive reaction to perceived risk is very often completely irrational and not based on any sound evidence.

Here is a curious example:

All pilots are required to have some form of medical certification, usually involving a fairly thorough medical examination every year or two.

A scientific analysis of the effectiveness of this screening shows that this safety requirement saves one life across the whole UK population every few years.

Statistically, about the same number of lives are lost as a consequence of many thousands of pilots travelling to medicals as are saved by them having them.

Despite the obvious logical conclusion to be drawn from this that medicals are fairly useless, few would argue that removing medical screening would be a good thing to do.

Another well-known phenomena is risk-compensation. Since the seat belt law has been enforced, the number of car accidents has increased and the number of pedestrian and other road user injuries and deaths has increased, even though death and serious injury to drivers decreased. It has been established that a part of the reason is the psychological reassurance and feeling of security that seat-belt-wearing drivers feel. When drivers feel more secure they take greater risks, drive faster etc. Risk compensation is a similar phenomena to that in the findings of Dr Ian Walker mentioned in the first post.

In my view, we should all be free to decide what we do to keep ourselves safe. We should not have irrational, and possibly risk-enhancing, measures forced upon us by a government that does not use credible evidence when creating legislation.

Jeremy

 

[flecc]

All pilots are required to have some form of medical certification, usually involving a fairly thorough medical examination every year or two.

A scientific analysis of the effectiveness of this screening shows that this safety requirement saves one life across the whole UK population every few years.

Statistically, about the same number of lives are lost as a consequence of many thousands of pilots pilots travelling to medicals as are saved by them having them.

Priceless! Reminds me of the statistic that over 80% of flight delays for technical reasons are caused by false warning light indications.

As for the risk enhancement you mention, it intrigues me that the government promotes learning to swim as a potentially life saving measure, while issuing figure showing that between 500 and over 1000 people drown in UK waters, inland and sea, every year. The great majority of them swimmers of course, which is why most were in the water in the first place. I wonder how many of those first learnt to swim on one of the government inspired initiatives.

The non-swimmers stay safely on terra firma or in their boats of course.
.