Helmet use post Richardson death

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
steve_m
Posts: 51
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 9:44am
Location: NW England

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by steve_m »

MikewsMITH2 wrote:my question is how many of you are that confident enough that they don't work, to take the risk of letting your kids ride without one?


I think they work for some types of accidents; I wear one hoping it will protect me for such cases.

How confident are you that that they don't cause more harm than good? When the bike trailer I've ordered arrives I'm going to see how much protection it might give to its occupant. For now (without seeing it) I am convinced that for my young son the safest course of action will be for him to not wear a helmet. I think the extra weight on his head could cause unnecessary strain on his neck.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Cunobelin »

gilesjuk wrote:If you have private medical insurance then by all means, take all the risks you like.

If you don't then I don't see why the someone else should go without a life saving drug or operation just because the NHS has had to scoop you up and fix you up.

It's entirely reasonable for people to expect you to do the best you can to reduce the chances of injury.


This is an extremely good argument....

Pedestrians, car drivers, car passengers all suffer more head injuries per year than cyclists.

Why should we be paying for them to be "scooped up and fixed up" when the same measures could prevent them.


Now do you support this or are you happy paying for a pedestrian head injury

60% of head injuries are alcohol related...... how appalling that we have to pay for the injuries of people who have not worn a helmet in the pub!


Surely it is just as reasonable to expectthese people to do the best they can to reduce the chances of injury?
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by drossall »

MikewsMITH2 wrote:... but my question is how many of you are that confident enough that they don't work, to take the risk of letting your kids ride without one?


I did have to face this; my kids are now reaching their 20s so it's no longer an issue for me - they must make their own decisions.

Helmets were relatively new to us when it arose; we had never even considered them, but everyone around us was insisting on them for their kids. At first, it seemed that they were beneficial for the accidents young kids have - falling off - but no so clear for those faced by older children - traffic. Therefore we used helmets at the learning to ride stage. By the time we were thinking of traffic, I had seen the kind of material that appears on cyclehelmets.org and was a lot less convinced, so we stopped putting them on by default. Once the kids were old enough to understand (early teens), I let them know that I had misgivings about whether helmets added to safety or even decreased it, and that that was why we weren't pushing it.

This wasn't really abdicating the decision to them; I genuinely wasn't sure which way it went, so they might as well know that. From a safety perspective, I was much more interested in the health side of riding to school, the route they took and their styles of riding than I was in plastic hats. I believe my daughter may even have conveyed this perspective to one teacher who questioned her bare head...

Would I blame myself constantly if one of them came off and got a head injury? Probably. Would I, knowing that the stats suggest that it is possible cause and effect, blame myself constantly if one of them wore a helmet, came off and got a torsional brain injury? Probably. So it's a lose-lose situation and you have to get on with life.
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by EdinburghFixed »

MikewsMITH2 wrote:I have been cycling for 50 years now and only bought a helmet last year. Main reason is as a parent I have always insisted my kids wear helmets. I don't know how effective they are, but I wouldn't forgive myself if they got a head injury while cycling and a helmet might've prevented it. As my son has got to the age when he believes he should decide for himself, it would be hypocritical to ask him to wear his if I didn't wear one. Cycling on the roads is much more dangerous than it was 50, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. I don't ever want to find out whether helmets work, but my question is how many of you are that confident enough that they don't work, to take the risk of letting your kids ride without one?


Actually, I have great news for you - the roads are much safer than they were 10, 20, and especially 50 years ago (believe it or not). Both pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are falling steadily from some really dire peaks in the past.

Interestingly, the pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates are very closely linked (almost a mirror image) despite the fact that cyclists have started wearing helmets, and pedestrians have not. The graphs continue to relate just as if helmets were making no difference! :?

As they are sometimes credited with preventing 85% of head injuries this seems a bit hard to reconcile.

As for your question, I'm not in that situation yet. At the moment, my other half is a dogmatic helmet insister, despite having a degree in physics she won't even consider the possibility that they might not prevent all injuries (a great frustration of mine!). However I have some time to work her around to reality. After that, I will follow the example above - use them for the learning to ride stage, but beyond that let them decide. Certainly I'd rather my kids rode twice as much without helmets, than half as much with them (and if it makes cycling look fun and safe and gets half the other kids around riding with them, they really will be much safer).

On the other hand if they want helmets and that's a requirement for riding, then I'll be equally happy to provide them.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by drossall »

gilesjuk wrote:It does point out that if helmets don't work then it's the fault of the EU standards. They do seem to be pretty poor standards.


I'm not sure that is entirely fair as a summary. The problem is that no-one wants to buy a helmet that would meet the higher standards. There's no point making things that are stronger but unsaleable.

The extreme is the suggestions on here of wearing a motorcycle helmet, but the weight of that for a cyclist leaning forward could make you bang your head on the handlebars :)
pwward
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 10:48am
Location: Newcastle u Tyne

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by pwward »

gilesjuk wrote:Cycling on the roads is much more dangerous than it was 50, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. I don't ever want to find out whether helmets work, but my question is how many of you are that confident enough that they don't work, to take the risk of letting your kids ride without one?


Hmmm. Maybe it feels more dangerous, the perception is that it is...but look at this. http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221 ... heet07.pdf

You'll notice that cycling casualties have fallen by over 50% since the late 70's and the recent increase in cycling has not resulted in an increase in casualties. You'll see that per km travelled cycling is safer than walking. Even compared with car occupancy, if one compared like with like (excluded motorway and dual carraigeway car miles and made allowance that a lot of cyclists are children or young men - higher risk takers) cycling seems extraordinarily safe. So why the paranoia over head injuries? Cyclists don't have a higher risk of them than pedestrians or car occupants.

Personally I rejoice when I see another cyclist and my joy is doubled if they have normal clothes and no helmet (and my kids aged 7,7 and 9 get to choose about the helmet).
iaincullen
Posts: 153
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 11:43am

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by iaincullen »

Over promotion of the benefits (if any) of helmets lead to articles like that in the link below. A cyclist is killed by a logging truck and comment is made that he was not wearing a helmet. Like it would have made any difference.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10562167

The computer I'm writing this on arrived surrounded by several inches of polystyrene to protect it in case it fell a few feet somewhere between the factory and here. Some people seem to believe that when formed into the shape of a helmet a quarter inch of the same polystyrene has magical properties that give worthwhile protection at speeds far in excess of the makers 12mph claim

Thankfully the chances of a cyclist being hit by a motor vehicle travelling at speed are small because if it happens a helmet is unlikely to help.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm
iaincullen
Posts: 153
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 11:43am

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by iaincullen »

Apparently despite an increase in the number of skiers wearing helmets there has been no decrease in deaths on the slopes. Sounds familiar.

http://www.ski-injury.com/latest_news/nr
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by EdinburghFixed »

iaincullen wrote:The computer I'm writing this on arrived surrounded by several inches of polystyrene to protect it in case it fell a few feet somewhere between the factory and here. Some people seem to believe that when formed into the shape of a helmet a quarter inch of the same polystyrene has magical properties that give worthwhile protection at speeds far in excess of the makers 12mph claim


Wait, I know a cyclist who came off at almost 35mph and walked away unscathed - are you saying the quarter inch of polystyrene on his head wasn't responsible for this? :P

(Yes, it was me!)

Actually at that speed, the helmet can absorb at most the top 2 or 3mph of the crash. That's assuming it crushes - many stories feature a snapped helmet which absorbed no energy at all!

So your head 'only' takes the force of a 33mph impact in a 35mph crash. In return the twisting force on your head is potentially increased by 30-40% due to the extra diameter of the helmet. And what do you suppose is the biggie when it comes to brain injuries - yep, it's rotational impact tearing something inside the skull.

Ironically do you know what I remember most about that crash - it was tumbling like a human pinwheel when I bit the ground, my head went onto my chest and my whole body cartwheeled a couple of times over itself. I now consider myself lucky that the extra bulk of the helmet didn't result in a serious injury.

I still have my 35mph crash helmet and I still wear it. Even if it has absorbed energy invisible it makes no real difference to its primary function - to hold the headcam and big light and keep the other half in happy land.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Cunobelin »

drossall wrote:
gilesjuk wrote:It does point out that if helmets don't work then it's the fault of the EU standards. They do seem to be pretty poor standards.


I'm not sure that is entirely fair as a summary. The problem is that no-one wants to buy a helmet that would meet the higher standards. There's no point making things that are stronger but unsaleable.

The extreme is the suggestions on here of wearing a motorcycle helmet, but the weight of that for a cyclist leaning forward could make you bang your head on the handlebars :)



The problem (and it is open to debate) is that modern design with light weight and vents precludes a woorking helmet!

As you decrease the amount of working energy absorbent material there is a decrease in efficiency. Now add the fact that the remaining material needs to be stiffer and harder to maintain the helmet structore (or be suported by a stiff cage, and the ability to absorb the energy of an impact decreases again.

Then add the "snag points" and straight edges that arrest motion and stop the helmet "sliding" along the ground, transferring more energy into the impact itself.

All in all you have a recipe for a poorly functioning helmet and a decline in the standards. Few helmets would pass the Snell B95 test that was the norm in the 70's and the dumbed down, less stringent standards such as EN1078 have ben introduced to meet the design and fashion criteria rather than set a sasfety standard.
steve climpson
Posts: 83
Joined: 1 Oct 2007, 3:20pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by steve climpson »

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.

I've got a bad brain injury which would have been lessened had I been wearing a helmet - any helmet! I'm aware of rotational injury being the major cause of brain injury, mine was impact injury. But does wearing a helmet increase the likelyhood of rotational injury? I very much doubt whether outside of controlled test conditions that it's possible to prove or disprove that is the case. Stuff the physics theory.

People talk like it's like a badly broken leg or serious gravel rash. That makes me laugh.
So what's a serious brain injury like? Temporary or permanent paralyses, confusion, affected cognition, poor speech, epilepsy, loss of range of movement (that's assuming you can move), pain, PTS & mood swings, loss of balance and co-ordination, hormone changes, blood pressure & heart rate change, etc, etc. - in other words it's catastrophic and it can't be fixed. You may recover but no one makes a 100% recovery.
As for the NHS: they are great but I was refused by 20 NHS hospitals before being flown back from Italy. The NHS can release you if you can walk, dress and wash yourself. I was released with one arm completely unmoving. After care consisted of 6 weeks of 1 hour per week sessions of physio. Private physio is very very expensive - I've paid about £25000 for mine and after 2.5 years it's made a huge difference to my recovery. Remember that you won't be able to work. AFAIK no insurance pays out for intensive physio unless you can sue someone. Basically you are screwed.
Believe me, you don't won't one.

If a helmet can prevent even 5% of a injury then it's worth wearing one. Don't say "I don't have serious falls" as you can't know the future. Yes we all want to be feel free but so will your partner want to feel free as they have to care for you and sacrifice their life for you.

As for skiing accidents. I'm in physio with a guy who had a head injury whilst skiing. He was a very experienced skier and didn't wear a helmet. After 4-5 years of physio he can just about get up out of his wheelchair and 2 physios walk him a few steps.
gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by gilesjuk »

Cunobelin wrote:This is an extremely good argument....

Pedestrians, car drivers, car passengers all suffer more head injuries per year than cyclists.

Why should we be paying for them to be "scooped up and fixed up" when the same measures could prevent them.

Now do you support this or are you happy paying for a pedestrian head injury

60% of head injuries are alcohol related...... how appalling that we have to pay for the injuries of people who have not worn a helmet in the pub!


Surely it is just as reasonable to expect these people to do the best they can to reduce the chances of injury?


Indeed and I advocate anything that can be done to reduce these injuries. People in the UK drink too much. The way we drink has changed, it has gone from a sociable pint in the pub to all night benders at nightclubs.

Plus the drinking at home followed by dangerous attempts at cooking.
asterix
Posts: 144
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 2:58pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by asterix »

My own head injury resulted in injury to the brain. Externally I had no bruising or other signs of the impact. I woke in hospital 24 hours after without a clue where I was or what had happened. It seemed to me that I could talk normally but apparently it didn't make a lot of sense to the audience, I could not read a line of text because my short-term memory was simply too short to keep in mind how the sentence began and in any case only one eye was focussing correctly. Memories of that time are very strange as it was hard to know whether events in hospital really happened or I dreamt them e.g at one mealtime I was convinced the view out of the window was rural Ireland whereas the hospital was in Hull.

Four years on and such problems have considerably diminished although I have so-called 'disexecutive syndrome symptoms' that mean I cannot return to the sort of work I used to do and still slight dizziness when getting up in the morning (that's my excuse anyway).

As for the helmet issue, no neuro-medical professional has ever said I'd have been better off wearing a helmet; why would they when I was the only cyclist in a ward normally filled with motorcyclists and car accident victims? Are they expected to go around telling them they should not drive or ride? Had I not been a very fit cyclist my recovery would have been slower and perhaps far less complete.

Do I now wear a helmet? Yes but not always. I am however now extra careful about the negligence of other road users, driving or cycling.
pwward
Posts: 193
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 10:48am
Location: Newcastle u Tyne

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by pwward »

Steve, speaking as a Dr I understand your strong feelings on this and the validity of your story. I can see helmet use is attractive after such an episode.

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. We surely can't strap them on at birth. If they did work (and international evidence suggests they do not) what is it about cycling or indeed skiiing that causes people to want to wear them and leads to politicians and 'Today' presenters saying cyclists are only 'responsible' if they don them? This implies the majority of cyclists in Britain are irresponsible, a hugely arrogant and insulting claim. 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, but a lot of cycling is at speeds out of the design envelope of a cycle helmet. Now walking...now you're talking.
neilob
Posts: 698
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 3:58pm
Location: Notts/Lincs borders

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by neilob »

I think we need to separate the arguments into two distinct categories; those against compulsion because it is an invasion of choice, a disruption of a pleasant activity, an attack on liberty etc etc; and those that don't believe the science or statistice that says helmets save lives.

For every expert that claims helmets are good, another rubbishes them. 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. Are those conditions representative enough to make helmets compulsory for all cyclists? Not sure, but I won't stop cycling if it happens.....
Neil
Using a car to take an adult on a three mile journey is the same as using an atomic bomb to kill a canary.
Post Reply