Helmet use post Richardson death

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Post Reply
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by kwackers »

steve climpson wrote:Posters seem to think that a helmet will save you from any major head injury. They won't but they may lessen the severity of one.
<snip>


But then if as evidence may suggest wearing an helmet increases your chance of having the accident in the first place - what then?

Individual stories of woe are excellent at pulling emotional strings - but emotional strings aren't even close to being scientific.

Sadly any benefits or not that helmets produce are so small as to be practically unquantifiable and so we'll continue to have threads like these. If the evidence was black and white they wouldn't exist.

Having said that I wear an helmet (most but not all) of the time. It *may* help in an accident and it will definitely help in an argument with insurers, so in lieu of any hard evidence I'm prepared to give it a shot but I think the choice should be an individuals. However the day I'm told I *have* to wear it is the day I start to ride without...
steve climpson
Posts: 83
Joined: 1 Oct 2007, 3:20pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by steve climpson »

pwward wrote:However if the case for helmets rests on personal anecdote and nothing else then the case for them is weak. We know most brain injuries are simple falls and road crashes involving car occupants and pedestrians. ..... My own professional body, the BMA thinks they should be compulsory as does the Royal College of Surgeons and Royal College of Paediatricians. But cycling is statistically as safe as car occupancy and walking and does not have a higher rate of head injuries among those injured.

It is well known they are designed for about a 12 mph blunt impact,

Anecdotal evidence is OK by me. Surely if they are effective at low speed collisions then those people don't go to hospital and don't appear on the statistics. The only time I've fallen quite badly off my bike since my injury the helmet certainly saved me from worse injury. I whacked down on the front corner of my head, slid along the ground and hit the top of the helmet on a wooden post. I didn't go to hospital and I can't prove the helmet "saved me" but this anecdotal evidence feels right to me.
I know that the statistics don't lie but they don't tell the whole story either and I'm not repeating my "experiment" to find out.
I believe that the BMA, etc are correct even if the statistics don't prove that.

It's just impossible say for certain whether or not helmets work but I believe that they can and do protect your head to some degree. As I said even a 5% reduction in my injury would be of great benefit.

BTW I believe that re-learning to ride a bike literally saved my life. Period suicidal depression almost claimed me (my GP wanted to put me in hospital) but I cheered up immensely when I could ride 50 feet even though I couldn't steer or brake - it took me a while to learn to do that. It was real progress and gave me some control over my life.
My physios tell me that I'm the only one that they have seen who from such a low starting point has learnt to ride a bike. Everyone else arrives there in a car as walking / wheelchair wounded. I arrive by bike. :)
gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by gilesjuk »

Plus if you want helmets to be properly tested they would probably get monkeys and bash them on the head (with or without helmets) to prove if they work or not. I've certainly seen videos where this sort of thing has been done to research treatments for head injuries and brain damage. Not very nice.

It's best to let people who want to wear them wear them, those that don't can not wear them.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Flinders »

Steve- you have a good point there about depression. Getting cycling again helped me get out of a pretty crippling state of PTSD. I can't say I'm 100% even now, but being able to get out away from everything in the fresh air right through the winter helped me claw my way back to a reasonably normal life.
Perhaps it should be on prescription?

As for helmets- even if they only help in some collisions/accidents, that's good enough for me. Until anyone proves to me that they make injuries worse, I'll be wearing one. I don't get on a horse without one, or a bike, and that's that. In my case, I know that wearing one doesn't affect my risk-taking.

I don't absolutely always wear a body protector on a horse. In the school, with no fences or obstructions to fall on, on the flat, on a horse I know, I occasionally leave it off when doing particular slow work, as body protectors are stiff and hot, and can make balancing more difficult. But the lid stays on (and riding hats are a lot more uncomfortable that cycling helmets) . I have had concussion from a fall from a horse even with a helmet- nothing protects you from everything. But if I hadn't been wearing the hat..... ugh.
pwward
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 10:48am
Location: Newcastle u Tyne

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by pwward »

"A doctor challenging the findings of his own professional bodies is a disturbing trend that does nothing to answer the fundamental question. So lets reset the questions.......Does a helmet cause you harm if you choose to wear one? Almost certainly not. Does a helmet protect you from harm is some conditions? Almost certainly."

In a roomful of Drs you'll hardly find 2 that agree. Disagreeing with our professional bodies is the norm. They are political organisations and the BMA's decision to move from being supportive of voluntary helmet wearing to it's present position that lidless cycling should be banned is hugely political. A group of helmeteer drs found themselves in a position of influence on the right committee at the right time, just as the BMA needed a campaign. They misjudged the strength of opposition to compulsion and the campaign was dropped but their policy of compulsion is yet to be overturned.

There is a good argument that helmets are in fact doing harm. They create an image problem for cycling that is hard to get around. How can one claim that cycling is a healthy and good way of getting around while also saying it is so dangerous one should don special clothing and headgear? Usually an activity has to be particularly hazardous to warrant helmets. Around the world we see high wearing rates in places with little cycling and low wearing rates where cycling is popular. We can not know for sure how many people are being put off cycling and how many kids are being told 'It's too dangerous' by their parents due to the helmet issue but studies from the Transport Research Lab in Britain and research in Denmark points towards even the promotion of voluntary wearing putting people off cycling. We know cycling gets safer the more people cycle.

These days my surgeries and the A+E departments are full of sedentary, obese people having strokes, heart attacks and getting diabetes but countries like Denmark and Holland, with more and safer cycling and lower helmet use have the lowest obesity rates in the western world. Holland came close to banning helmet use on cycle lanes 2 years ago, when the ruling CDU party proposed a law to that effect and the government there believes helmets have no part to play in their cycle strategy. No country in the world has combined high cycle use with high helmet use.
Ron
Posts: 1384
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Ron »

neilob wrote: So lets reset the questions.......Does a helmet cause you harm if you choose to wear one? Almost certainly not.

Proof please?
Since being required to wear a helmet at work in confined spaces, I find I bang my helmet a lot more frequently than I used to bang my head, and with each helmet bang comes a sickening feel as my neck/spine gets twisted or compressed.
There could be two reasons for the increased collisions, I take less care when wearing a helmet, and/or the helmet makes my head "bigger" and more likely to collide with adjacent objects.
I would suggest then that wearing a cycle helmet could well cause harm due to risk compensation and rotational injury as it hits objects which my head would normally pass by.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Cunobelin »

Of course the real question is the validity of an individual's assessment of their risk and whether to wear a helmet.

But this is not the only element......

Is a cyclist who knowingly cycles at above 12 mph irresponsible for deciding to operate outside the functional limits of their helmet?
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by kwackers »

Cunobelin wrote:Of course the real question is the validity of an individual's assessment of their risk and whether to wear a helmet.

But this is not the only element......

Is a cyclist who knowingly cycles at above 12 mph irresponsible for deciding to operate outside the functional limits of their helmet?



:shock: Cycling above 12mph puts the subject at risk of suffocation!


Mind you cycling at close to 12mph is the reason some of us cyclists are still youthful and good looking! Thanks to the magic of relativity and time dilation...
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Cunobelin »

So........................................... if an eminent surgeon specialising in head injurues and backed by a reputable organisation were to ask that present helmet design was dangerous and should be unacceptable, would that be proof that helmets needed a drastic rethink?

Subject: streamlined helmet ejection

To: ASTM F08.53 Chairman: P. David Halstead

From: Hugh H. Hurt, Jr, Head Protection Research Laboratory


During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell.

The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.

Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily, and even break the [occipital--Prof. Hurt used a trademarked name] retention devices.

We request that F08.53 committee study this problem and develop advisory information for both manufacturers of these streamlined helmets and consumer bicyclists who now own and wear such helmets. There is a definite hazard for displacement or ejection from impact on the rear wedge of these helmets, and bicyclists should be warned of this danger by an authority such as ASTM.

s/Hugh H. Hurt, Jr
Professor Emeritus-USC
President, Head Protection Research Laboratory

s/Christopher B. Swanson
Laboratory Manager, Head Protection Research Laboratory
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Flinders »

Unless I misunderstand this, it just suggests that helmets in this style may not protect in the case of some collisions, not that they actually make the effects of those collisions worse than if a helmet had not been worn. It still seems in the majority of cases that wearing a helmet is better than nothing- even in some rear-collisions.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Cunobelin »

If you read the details....

This email suggests that poor design exposes the rider as the helmet rotates and may come off...

However the email also says that the helmet is subject to arrest and rotation. This is not the subject of the email, but are the forces that may in some opinions cause neck and head injuries, in particular thise caused by movement of the brain within the skull as opoosed to direct trauma.
Bill D
Posts: 131
Joined: 6 Nov 2008, 5:41am
Location: sunny mid Wales

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Bill D »

Interesting discussion. I choose to wear a helmet because I don't want to get injured while out enjoying myself, but I don't want to be compelled to do so thanks.

I do have a parallel worry though, typified by the Sustrans NCN: for the best of motives someone provides a network of cycle routes which use safer, quieter roads. But how long will it be before we are guilty of contributory negligence if we have an accident whilst travelling between two places linked by the NCN but not following that route? What about if we are travelling on the roads in a town and not following an available cycle route (with all the associated gates and barriers to negotiate)? I don't know the answer to this: nobody surely wants to deter the provision of safer cycle facilities, but in the present nannying cultural and legal background I do worry about where it could take us. I do think however that it's important not to overlook the real problem, which in my opinion is much more about the driving standards and attitudes of motor vehicle users.

Bill
rogerzilla
Posts: 2887
Joined: 9 Jun 2008, 8:06pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by rogerzilla »

And that is why I pay my CTC subscription.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Simon L6 »

it's sad that the gutter press (and I include the Today Programme in this category) goes ape over helmets when 2500 old ladies die each year after falling in their homes.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by thirdcrank »

Simon L6 wrote:it's sad that the gutter press (and I include the Today Programme in this category) goes ape over helmets when 2500 old ladies die each year after falling in their homes.


You'd think that at that time of life, they'd have the common sense to wear helmets (and let's not have any back-chat about hewlmets not protecting against fractures of the pelvis, or long bones.)
Post Reply