- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
OPINION
The Great Helmet Debate
Thu, Nov 20, 2014 15:11
62
Do you wear a helmet? Who cares? Lots of people. Some of them, friends and loved ones, may have a vested interest in your head and feel a helmet is a no-brainer; others will be more interested in promoting their view of how a cyclist should present him or herself to the world. And some just like a good argument.
Although I've got my own opinions about the H word, I'm not out to convert anyone. I want to know what you think about the helmet debate itself. This is, in short, a listening post. (Previously I set one up at the site of what may be the www's longest running helmet discussion.) Are you new to cycling and still making up your mind? Has anything you've read or heard moved you one way or the other? Are you a veteran, sick of the endless fascination with helmets whether or not you wear one – or do you occasionally find yourself drawn in?
If you like polls, there's a quick one here.
More Opinion
Latest Comments
- kingleo 1 sec ago
The big danger is cyclists cycling in pedestrian zones - they sometimes nearly hit motorists doing their shopping.
- wtjs 19 min 29 sec ago
Just remember the LancsFilth Dodge! They refused to tell me what they actually DID when they claimed they would take action after a gross offence...
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 22 min ago
Those who have no connection with the area shouldn't be heeded - but the views of those who use a road as a means of getting from A to B, even if...
- pockstone 27 min 4 sec ago
Casting is completed for the remake of Scorsese's 'Last temptation of Christ':
- brooksby 4 hours 48 sec ago
Police investigate tractor that created ‘devastating’ wave in flooded UK town...
- mdavidford 4 hours 44 min ago
There's a few places clustered either end of the road that might potentially have CCTV (a few shops, garage, Orange Hall, surgery), but a much...
- joules1975 4 hours 48 min ago
Fair enough, but to describe the tool required for the lockrings as 'niche' when its a readily available in various forms from dozens of...
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 42 min ago
Disappointed that the not even in the land of the free do they shoot or jail bike thieves.
- S.E. 10 hours 18 min ago
That made me think of that "Hot Fuzz" comedy movie... so many truths in it.
Add new comment
62 comments
I see almost everyone who has responded has ignored the author's request for opinions on the helmet debate, which beautifully illustrates the point I assume he is trying to make!
I will express no opinion on helmets, but the debate itself is a complete waste of time. I've observed this "discussion" on the internet for over 15 years now. People on both sides still repeat exactly the same arguments, I have never seen anyone change their mind, and it always turns into a bad natured confrontation.
Just make your own mind up and get on with your life, but don't waste time reheating the same old discussion.
According to the Health and Safety Executive: PPE should only be used as a last resort when alternative measures cannot be deployed in order to mitigate risk.
Bike helmets were originally developed for high risk activities on a bike.
When racing collisions with other riders are likely so falls at high speed are likely.
Mountain Biking, high speeds, loose surfaces and rough terrain, therefore a high chance of a crash.
BMX/Trials etc learning and performing tricks on the bike is likely to result in fall.
Pootling to the shops at 5-15mph in dry conditions or on off road routes does not imply a high enough risk of head injury to warrant the use of PPE by an experienced cyclist.
Commuting sits in the middle, I haven't had a head impact in a fall since my first winter of commuting so now I wear a lid more out of habit than necessity.
So, before making helmets mandatory to cyclists the following measures could be considered or deployed to minimise their risk of injury:
Give vulnerable, non-pedestrian road users priority over motorised traffic in line with the "Cyclists Must Give Way to Pedestrians and Horses" rule for Bridleways and Shared Use paths.
Apply strict liability in collision resolution.
Adopt a minimum passing distance law for motorised traffic.
Make more sections of road car free, enforce this with pop-up bollards.
Improve driver awareness and rider training. e.g. hit a cyclist, pass Bikeability Level 3 before you get your license back, same for cyclists deemed to be at fault, do the course or pay a fine.
A review of the road layout at any site where near misses or accidents are reported.
A change of road 'design rules' to improve cyclist safety without reducing cyclist numbers (if anything design for more than expected) cycling speed whenever a roadway is improved or built.
A review of collision avoidance technology with a view to making some devices mandatory to new vehicles.
Provide larger, longer ASLs and delay motor traffic with respect to cycle traffic at complex and high traffic junctions.
Provide more roads for cyclists (as opposed to shared use paths).
Once all this is in place and it can be shown that the occurrence of cycling head injury in utility cycling is lower in a meaningful statistically significant way for those who wear helmets then consider making them mandatory.
What does dynamic balance mean? It's a tautology at best if used in a bio mechanical sense. Balance is an active process for cycling, running, walking and standing. A bit less for sitting in a moving car, but only a bit.
Not sure how this applies to risk related behaviours, or helmets.
A bicycle rider typically maintains their balance by moving forward...how many people can track stand? Its a property of the bicycle vs. say a tricycle.
A helmet isn't going to do anything in a crash that will cause serious injuries, e.g. when you're hit by a car.
It probably will help in less serious crashes e.g. when you fall off your bike after skidding on a manhole cover in the wet.
I'm not that worried about the second one. I am worried about the first. So the only reason I wear a helmet (which I usually do) is to carry my helmetcam, and to ensure that if I do get knocked off that there is no sharing of liability.
It may save you from a freak accident where a simple fall manages to kill you at vast odds. It's not going to help in a serious crash. Anyone who says differently is selling something (probably helmets).
the only reason I'm wearing one ATM is that it's the only way I can mount some blinkies up top on my noggin... plus it helps keep my head dry and warm... when my trips are dry and there's plenty of light, the helmet stays in the cupboard... unless taking part in anything that mandates it be worn such as a club ride or sportive...
I've never hit my head on any of the (few) times I've crashed but will still wear a helmet. Any protection for my bonce is well received in my mind.
Because it's Click Bate...
I don't really know why people care so much... live and let live.
I wear a helmet because I might fall off at low speeds and whack the pavement. I understand that at high speeds I'll be in trouble.
Also, I think my helmet looks cool! It's a Catlike Whisper so it makes me feel like I'm Valverde
Others are free to make their own choices, and shouldn't be judged for them. More people on bikes please, regardless of how they're dressed.
For road use, there's 2 issues that need resolving.
1. Is the risk of a head injury whilst cycling on the roads significantly higher than for other activities for which we consider helmets unnecessary?
2. Do bicycle helmets significantly reduce that risk compared to any adverse effects? i.e. is there an overall reduction in risk.
Anecdotal accounts ("a helmet saved my life") or thought experiments ("imagine if someone hit your head with a hammer") do not help because they do not quantify the risks.
Risk is calculated as the probability of an event multiplied by the expected damage from the event. Helmets reduce the damage (those pesky anecdotes you want to ignore) so they reduce the risk. Since this applies to all events, you can argue that helmets are the biggest single risk reducer.
As for #1: riding a bicycle relies on dynamic balance -- its natural state is to be on the ground -- so yes the probability of a cycling event (aka fall resulting in head trauma) is higher ergo the risk is higher (than walking, running, etc.)
#2 is too ridiculous for a response. Please provide some evidence that helmets increase the expected damage. (Note: this argument has been tried wrt motorcycle helmets with laughable results.)
Yes, but the amount by which it reduces the expected damage is negligible compared to the overall damage of a serious crash with a car. And it does nothing to reduce the probability of an event.
Unlike, say, providing proper separated cycling infrastructure, which doesn't reduce the expected damage at all, but massively reduces the probability of an event. The overall effect on the risk for this is much greater than for a helmet.
(Another minor point, it doesn't apply to all events, as it's not going to help you if snap your leg.)
You have completely missed the point about risk and helmets. Helmets don't have to reduce the chances of an event to reduce the risk. They significantly reduce the risk because they reduce the damage (e.g. death, brain damage, facial damage) regardless whether it was a fall on a bike path or getting hit by a car. If you seriously believe that getting hit by a car isn't likely to result in head trauma, then good luck with that mitigation strategy.
I agree that bike paths greatly reduce the chances of a car event (as do bike lanes) -- this reduces the risk by changing the environment. Wearing hi-vis, using lights, not running stop signs/lights, not riding against the traffic flow, etc. also improves the odds -- reduces risk by changing behavior.
The multi-dimensional nature of bicycle safety means all three approaches need to be considered.
The vast majority of head injuries occur when people are travelling in motorised transport, drinking alcohol or when climbing/descending stairs.
Therefore, if we are serious about reducing this 'risk', helmets should be worn first for these activities before later considering the use of helmets for cyclists.
MAss pike wrote: Risk is calculated as the probability of an event multiplied by the expected damage from the event.
The assumption that wearing a helmet can only reduce the severity and does not affect the probability of it happening is a fallacy. Plenty of studies show compensatory behaviour (both cyclists and other road users) so the probability is likely to shift.
A helmet adds mass and size to your head. In a dynamic system it is more likely to hit the road so you cannot decouple probability and severity.
The additional size of a helmet increases some injuries through increased rotational acceleration (worse for your brain than a straight impact)
My own experience in over 50 crashes (I have ridden fast and furiously for a long time), of 8 crashes with a helmet - in races I bumped my head twice. Of the other 40 plus crashes without a helmet at similar and higher speeds under many conditions (cars knocking me off, overshooting corners, head over handle bars on mountain bikes etc) I have never hit my head.
Anyone jumping up and down in certainty about this issue must have held on to the certainty of being right that normally only a teenager can hold.
Cite a study...just one study that proves wearing a helmet increases your chance of an event (the helmet is the cause).
The helmet increases damage myth has been debunked in the motorcycle helmet studies, Believe it or not in the USA, the right to not wear a helmet comes up periodically in some states (e.g. Massachusetts because New Hampshire doesn't enforce it), As a result, they have studied impact scenarios and basically for almost every impact the helmet helps. One exception is that a flying object would miss the rider if not for the extra volume.
First issue, find me a mtber who doesn't wear a helmet, basically risk compensation, the more risks you take the more protection you seek, end result nothing changes, I believe that studies have been done on Skiers.
Second, bicycle helmets are not hardshell full face motorcycle helmets, the ability to cope with crashes are not comparable. Start with the design parameters of a helmet, then look at the energy it needs to dissipate in a crash and cycle helmets are crap, and getting worse.
Third cycle helmets are the wrong debate. Consider the two cases on these pages where cyclists were driven over by cars.
Aaah...the "I've never needed a helmet argument". I am glad that you haven't and everything worked out for you. I could also reference my positive outcomes or the negative outcomes for a schoolmate (fatality), acquaintance (de-facing), and friend (permanent, relatively minor, brain damage).
Look if it wasn't for the fact that my tax dollars have to help pay for the hospital visit, rehab, etc. I wouldn't care. However, I am certain about the net benefits of wearing a helmet and don't tolerate the BS from the anti-helmet crowd. If you don't believe wearing a helmet is a cost-effective safety strategy, that is your choice.
Aggression, inaccuracy and an inability to understand facts. Have you bumped your head?
Aaah __ the old "I've known at least three cases where helmets saved my life/others/etc" ploy. Classic.
I've never worn a helmet when cycling in my life but I *always* wear a St Christopher cross and/or carry a rabbit's foot in my pocket. Not really.
I have absolutely no idea why, in nearly 50 years of cycling, I haven't been killed or suffered brain damage, from 'not wearing a helmet' whilst cycling.
Maybe it's because cycling is an inherently safe activity ... as verified by the millions of helmet-less cyclists in Holland and Denmark ... where cycling is the safest in the world.
I'll take my safety cues from our Continental counterparts thanks, rather than the embarrassingly risk-averse, helmet-wearing wimps from the UK.
UK cyclists need to grow a pair, ride appropriately to the conditions and stop handing over ridiculous sums of money for useless bits of foam that they strap to their empty heads.
Just to be clear my 3 negative outcome cases were not wearing helmets. The fatality was in the 1974 (before helmets) so that was just bad luck. The other two owned helmets but chose not to wear them that day. The de-facing would have definitely been prevented by a helmet. He went head first into a rock and it peeled his face off from the top of his forehead (you can actually survive this if your cycling buddies put it back and stem the bleeding; and they can re-attach your face with good results).
"Some of them, friends and loved ones, may have a vested interest in your head and feel a helmet is a no-brainer; others will be more interested in promoting their view of how a cyclist should present him or herself to the world"
You missed out a critical third group:
"Some want to see the peer-reviewed evidence that helmets make a difference, that they don't inadvertently cause harm through rotational injury, that they don't cause collisions through motorists applying risk compensation, and also to have it explained why in countries with helmet compliance at 95%, the number of cyclists halves whilst the danger for those remaining doubles*"
Include that group's description and I'll be less likely to look upon this as no more than clickbait
* http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/nz-injuries-participation-per-cyclist.gif
A bigger issue is stabilisers. I know people who don't use stabilisers anymore. Or rather, I knew them. I killed them all because I hated them so much. Better off dead than sending an irresponsible message to the younger generation. They deserve everything they get coming TBH. Including me killing them.
I don't get it; stabilisers stop u falling off. People get hurt when they fall off. Why not use them!? And no, u don't look cooler without them, and u don't go much faster!
The whole helmet debate is a very convenient distraction, it lets us get on with driving like idiots. Being honest many cyclists are drivers, and being really honest, how many drivers do not break the law and do things that are stupid? Often when there is a court case someone will say well what do you expect with a judge and jury composed of drivers? Or how about the comments from many who claim to be cyclists. but only ride a few times a year.
The debate has to move from THEM to ME. Could I improve MY driving. The whole debate needs from protecting them and allowing me to carry on being an idiot. To I need to change, I need to adapt my actions, if I make a mistake I need to understand why and make changes to prevent it happening again.
Does it really matter if a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not when they get hit by a car? Surely the question that needs to be asked, the question that doesn't get asked enough is what do we do to stop cars hitting cyclists?
Men should not be wearing helmets in church anyway; they count as hats.
I use one, I have had 3 separate accidents where the helmet has saved skin and bone over the last 20 years. I understand they won't always help, but when the hardshell has been shaved down 5+mm on top of your hard, you realise sometimes they're worth it.
However, in an increasingly blinded justice system, the most important function is to ensure if anything did ever happen, my family would get the full compensation, and not have some muppet judge reduce it as I wasn't wearing one!
We had this debate allready, i'm not going to comment anymore if anyone wants to have this debate, go here: http://road.cc/content/review/134947-sealskinz-belgian-cap#comments
About everything is said there.
My main point: if it would be only 1% chance that it can save u why don't wear one?! And no, u don't look cooler without one and u don't get faster!
You definitely look cooler without one. I'll take the 99 per cent chance not wearing one will not affect me, and I'll have cool hair as well.
In minor accidents fall etc then I can see the benefits to separate your head from the direct impact, BUT in major accidents with vehicles it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. I still wear one though
In minor accidents fall etc then I can see the benefits to separate your head from the direct impact, BUT in major accidents with vehicles it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. I still wear one though
Pages