Apparently driver are more cautious with cyclist without helmet.

 

And crossing red light gives you head room.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html

 

Looks good to me

the study has since been disproven and the article states 1 Dr view as opposed to thousands in assorted reports concluding the opposite.

Edited May 31, 201411 yr by Geebee

i think you can discount any thing that man says when you read the final statement that he goes through red lights ; because its his life he,s risking;

WHAT!

by running a red light he could collide with another vulnerable road user ie child/pedestrian , motor cyclist.

he could cause a motorvehicle to swerve and crash.

and also even if he does get away with it he puts all cyclist in a bad light and at risk.

i have frequently stopped at red lights and witnessed bikes run the red light but they anger other road users and consequently they are less courteous towards myself imediatley after witnessing such behaviour because i,m tarred with the same brush and they take out their anger and frustration on me whilst the red light runner is long gone leaving me to deal with the consequences of their actions.

another example is filtering through almost stationary lines of cars.

i do this carefully and consideratley and find a lot of motorists will actually move to allow me more room to get through.

when this happens i wave and acknowledge their actions, but when following an inconsiderate cyclist who filters aggressivley , missing cars by inches at speed and causing cars to brake etc then some motorists will then spot me comming through in their mirrors and activley close the gaps to prevent me getting through .

on the flip side the attitude from mototists are completely different if a group of cyclists wait at the red light .

they give you more room and are generally more considerate.

its just human nature to act differently when they wtness good or bad behaviour.

As I recall the literature shows that cycle helmets slightly increase the risk of a neck injury but decrease the risk/severity of a significant traumatic brain injury.

Citing mortality figures alone is misleading. In my experience a fatal head injury sustained whilst wearing a helmet would have been just as fatal if not wearing one.

The effect of a helmet on mitigating long term brain damage needs to be considered in this debate.

PS I wear a helmet (and usually don't jump red lights)

I don't wear a helmet but never jumped a red light.

Article from the Telegraph mentioned on BBC News.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html

Trex. I have no problem with cyclists not wearing a helmet. However decisions should be made with a knowledge of the risks involved not some ex-cathedra comments from ill informed experts.

Life is risky after all.

Never jumped a red light? not even at an empty pelican crossing

He's right on helmets, almost all are practically useless.

 

Government surveys show that only just over a quarter (27%) of cyclists wear them in the UK, but almost all the cyclists killed each year in London are wearing them. Some years it's been every one. Even nationally, of the a little over 100 cyclists killed each year, far higher than a quarter are wearing them.

 

It's as though wearing one provokes more risk of an accident happening, and there is come evidence that may be true.

 

Like Trex, I don't wear one but don't jump red lights.

Like all good journalism, the whole article is based on a 'misquote' - deliberate or otherwise. The good Doctor actually said cycle helmets were insufficient, not useless.

And I modified it again to "practically useless"!

 

They are good protection against minor scrapes and bumps, but mostly useless against life threatening impacts.

And I modified it again to "practically useless"!

 

They are good protection against minor scrapes and bumps, but mostly useless against life threatening impacts.

Not going there...again:p

Trex. I have no problem with cyclists not wearing a helmet. However decisions should be made with a knowledge of the risks involved not some ex-cathedra comments from ill informed experts.

Life is risky after all.

Never jumped a red light? not even at an empty pelican crossing

That the price I pay for peace at home. My wife is a stickler. At empty pelican, she'd allow me to cross if I dismount first.

i can speak from personal experience

i have had 2 crashes on a bicycle which damaged my helmet beyond repair.

i was left with nothing more than a bit of a sore head .

i showed the damaged helmets to an a and e consultant friend who told me that the helmets are designed to take the impact with resulting effect that they are damaged beyond repair but better that than your head taking the impact.

he told me after examining my helmets that i would definatatley end up in hospital if i hadn,t worn one.

one of the problems apparently is people not wearing the helmets correctly or ill fitting

i,m sure we have all seen them worn so far back on the head that foreheads are unprotected.

to say that helmets are not effective under severe conditions may be true in the same way car seatbelts are not effective if you are involved in a head on collision with a lorry but that doesn,t mean you shouldn,t bother wearing a seat belt because in a lot of crashes they save lives.

my son works at a bmx skatepark and has seen first hand the effect of not wearing a helmet as opposed to wearing one

i know that a skatepark may be bit more dangerous than commuting but he has witnessed some bad head injuries with people just falling off at walking pace whilst not doing anything risky.

i can,t see any justification for not wearing a helmet.

to say that helmets are not effective under severe conditions may be true in the same way car seatbelts are not effective if you are involved in a head on collision with a lorry but that doesn,t mean you shouldn,t bother wearing a seat belt because in a lot of crashes they save lives. i can,t see any justification for not wearing a helmet.

 

Well said. I wear one, it is a legal requirement here, but I would still wear one anyway. Cannot see the disadvantages outweighing the advantages.

 

Andrew

I don't think I've contributed to a bicycle helmet discussion before, so here goes:

 

I wear a cycle helmet and I would not like to say if others should wear one or not, it's just my choice and it keeps my head warm.

 

However, I am also aware that brain injuries are caused by high g forces acting on the head. In other words, when the head, travelling at a nominal velocity, hits a stationary object (road, car, lamp post etc) it will come to rest very rapidly and thus the brain will experience very high g forces which will damage it.

 

In addition to a head, a motor cycle contains thick padding, many times thicker than a cycle helmet, so when the helmet strikes a stationary object, the helmet shell comes to rest very rapidly. But this time the padding inside the helmet will compress slowing the head down more gently, thus reducing the g force and also the likelihood of the brain being injured.

 

A bike helmet has very little or no padding inside it, so when the bike helmet strikes a stationary object, the shell again comes to rest very rapidly, but so will the head because there is nothing to compress. The head is virtually at one with the shell. This will result in a very similar g force to that experienced by the non helmet wearer. The likelihood of brain injury will be the same regardless of whether a helmet is being worn.

 

What a cycle helmet will do is to protect against superficial abrasions and cuts to the scalp, but that is all.

 

The cycle helmet industry will have you believe that their products cocoon you in some sort of safety shell. It's nonsense, Isaac Newton says so, they simply want some of the cash in your pocket.

The foam is designed to compress therefore allowing your head to decelerate over the entire thickness of the helmet as opposed to stopping instantly on the ground.

http://www.helmets.org/general.htm

A bike helmet has very little or no padding inside it, so when the bike helmet strikes a stationary object, the shell again comes to rest very rapidly, but so will the head because there is nothing to compress. The head is virtually at one with the shell. This will result in a very similar g force to that experienced by the non helmet wearer. The likelihood of brain injury will be the same regardless of whether a helmet is being worn.

 

Can you point to any credible research that support this? It does not from what I can gather come close to reflecting the Australian Standard on bicycle helmets (or motor cycle helmets) nor does it reflect the findings of research such as:

 

Cripton, P. A., Dressler, D. M., Stuart, C. A., Dennison, D. R. (2014). Bicycle helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury during head impact: Head-form accelerations and injury criteria for helmeted and unhelmeted impacts. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 70, 1-7.

 

so very interested in what evidence you have to support your view.

 

Thanks

Andrew

have to agree with GeeBee and Aushiker

my helmets protected my head by sacrifising themselves on impact.

a cycle helmet most definatley compresess on impact and slows down the impact / g force.

i can remember taking my post accident damaged helmet to a bike shop to buy a new one and going on about it being sods law that i had only had it for a few weeks.

the shop assistant put a stop to my moaning by saying " just as well you were wearing it then and are able to come here and buy a new one"

Although I'm pro helmet I have no problem others not wearing one. I do however have a problem with the media pushing this somewhat eccentric view.

This potential conversation does worry me.

"Mum it says on the news that I don't need to wear my helmet"

 

As an aside this 2009 paper from the Cochrane Collaboration seems to strongly support helmet use as a useful way of reducing head/facial injury severity.

 

"Main results

We found no randomized controlled trials, but five well conducted case-control studies met our inclusion criteria. Helmets provide a 63

to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection

for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are

reduced 65%."

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/Safety_on_the_road/CD001855.pdf

 

Of course helmets will do nothing to reduce mortality in some incidents especially in urban areas as the injury is to the thorax, abdomen or pelvis

 

Sorry to rabbit on, I'm off to enjoy the sunshine on my bike in the Lee Valley Park

Government surveys show that only just over a quarter (27%) of cyclists wear them in the UK, but almost all the cyclists killed each year in London are wearing them. Some years it's been every one. Even nationally, of the a little over 100 cyclists killed each year, far higher than a quarter are wearing them.

 

I'm not a statistician, but I don't think we can extrapolate from that data that helmets make no difference. Even if all cyclists killed on the road in the UK are wearing one, it does not take into account the cyclists who were involved in an accident but survived, nor the types of injuries that were sustained in fatal cases.

 

Like Aushiker, I think peer-reviewed scientific research is the way forward in this discussion - since anecdotes and personal experience aren't statistically significant.

Can you point to any credible research that support this? It does not from what I can gather come close to reflecting the Australian Standard on bicycle helmets (or motor cycle helmets) nor does it reflect the findings of research such as:

 

Cripton, P. A., Dressler, D. M., Stuart, C. A., Dennison, D. R. (2014). Bicycle helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury during head impact: Head-form accelerations and injury criteria for helmeted and unhelmeted impacts. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 70, 1-7.

 

so very interested in what evidence you have to support your view.

 

Thanks

Andrew

 

I can point you in the direction of Newtonian Mechanics and the laws of physics:

 

For example,

 

a = ((v1*v1) - (v0*v0)) / 2d

 

Where:

 

a = acceleration (a high value of (a) on the brain is what does the damage)

 

v1 = final velocity (ie 0 when the head has come to rest)

 

V0 = initial velocity (ie the velocity the head is travelling just prior to it or the helmet striking a solid immovable object such as the ground or piece of street furniture.)

 

d = the distance over which the head stops. This will be the amount of compression in the helmet foam.

 

As you can see, if (d) is small (ie very little compression) then (a) is high which is dangerous. With a motorcycle helmet, (d) is many times the value of that of a bicycle helmet because it has much thicker padding and this is why it offers a sensible level of protection.

 

A bicycle helmet is usually constructed from polystyrene which has very little compressibility. On the inside, you usually find thin strips of sponge which again hardly compress any distance before your skull is hard up against the incompressible shell of the helmet. The sponge is mainly there so that the shell sits nicely on your head, nothing to do with protection.

 

Sometimes the bicycle helmet will fracture and this may have the effect of slightly increasing (d) in the equation of motion quoted above, but no where near to the levels of (d) found in a motorcycle helmet.

 

The above is simple Newtonian Mechanics and requires no further reference or proof. The only point open for discussion is the relative values of (d) between wearing a helmet and not wearing one. My position is that (d) is about the same in the two cases. I do accept that a bicycle helmet offers some protection agains abrasions.

The above is simple Newtonian Mechanics and requires no further reference or proof.

 

Your Newtonian mechanics may be sound (I'm not qualified to say) but the scientific method specifically requires claims to be peer-reviewed. If the science is as obvious as you say, there simply must be papers out there that support this view, and contradict the others. This is how non-scientists (i.e. most of us) can be able to decide between two contradicting claims requiring expert knowledge.

No helmet d=0 , a cycle helmet d=1cm or more.

divide something by 0 and you get infinity. the difference between infinity and any other number is.......

I'm not a statistician, but I don't think we can extrapolate from that data that helmets make no difference. Even if all cyclists killed on the road in the UK are wearing one, it does not take into account the cyclists who were involved in an accident but survived, nor the types of injuries that were sustained in fatal cases.

 

Like Aushiker, I think peer-reviewed scientific research is the way forward in this discussion - since anecdotes and personal experience aren't statistically significant.

 

True Halfer, I would never say they make no difference, nor did I, drawing attention to what they could do. But the stats serve to balance the opposite extreme views on helmet efficacy. In particular they show that they are nothing like effective enough for the introduction of enforced wearing.

For those interested in being informed, there is a monograph published in 2010 which whilst tending to focus on mandatory helmet laws, also looks at the research to 2010 on the effectiveness of helmets and in particular hospital data. If nothing else it is a good starting point to the literature in the area.

 

Haworth, N., Schraman, A., King, M. & Steinhardt, D. (2010). Bicycle helmets research.CARRS-Q Monograph Series – Monograph 5. Kelvin Grove, Qld: Queensland University of Technology Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety – Queensland.

 

Andrew