War breaks out on Twitter after police and ambulance blame cyclist for #NoHelmet

Matt eaton wrote:

What I find really peculiar about stories like this is that the emergency services allow random members of staff (i.e. people who have no specific skills or training in making public statements on behalf of a large organisations) to publish these kind of comments. In many cases this seems not only to be permitted but possitivly encouraged. This practice allows individials' opinions to be stated as fact; which is clearly unacceptable when they claim to be the view of a larger organisation.

They are the views of the organisation! You think the emergency services should not be in the business of promoting the Highway Code?

Rule 59

Clothing. You should wear:

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
   
• appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
   
• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
   
• reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

L.Willo wrote:

Wow, really reaching now ....

Schumacher would have been better off headbutting a rock with his bare head than wearing a crash helmet with a go pro attached ..... 

we'll never know, but quite possibly, yes he would have been better offer not wearing a helmet with a go=pro attached. A helmet on its own MAY have helped, but then comes in the issue of design standards. Cycle helmets are pretty crap. 

For a young child they can make some sense, height, impact loads etc. for an adult not so much.

stumps wrote:

I did a very basic survey a few months back where i simply counted the number of cyclists on both road and mtb's and noted who did and who didn't wear a helmet. If my memory serves me right it was nigh on 98% of roadies wore a helmet but a lot less for the mtb'ers.

However nearly all the mtber's were youngsters flying about the streets and estates.

Not that this means much but IF it became compulsory for helmet use it would have virtually no effect on usage around where i live and work.

 

From experience, would the people using MTBs actually be using them, or would they be using them as a means of transport. Most MTBers use helmets ime, but a lot of people ride MTBs for transport. 

The issue i have with helmets is summed up nicely by the NZ study,compulsary helmets=less cyclists. More people cycling means more people not driving which in turn reduces pollution and improves air quality. If someone chooses to wear a helmet i really i don't care either way. I do care if a change is imposed that results in less people cycling and further trashing the environment i live in. 

mrmo wrote:

stumps wrote:

I did a very basic survey a few months back where i simply counted the number of cyclists on both road and mtb's and noted who did and who didn't wear a helmet. If my memory serves me right it was nigh on 98% of roadies wore a helmet but a lot less for the mtb'ers.

However nearly all the mtber's were youngsters flying about the streets and estates.

Not that this means much but IF it became compulsory for helmet use it would have virtually no effect on usage around where i live and work.

 

From experience, would the people using MTBs actually be using them, or would they be using them as a means of transport. Most MTBers use helmets ime, but a lot of people ride MTBs for transport.

The issue i have with helmets is summed up nicely by the NZ study,compulsary helmets=less cyclists. More people cycling means more people not driving which in turn reduces pollution and improves air quality. If someone chooses to wear a helmet i really i don't care either way. I do care if a change is imposed that results in less people cycling and further trashing the environment i live in.

Totally agree with you and yes nearly all were using them as transport between A and B and not for going downhills. Compulsory helmet use may well come in but with less and less officers on the streets and more and more to do it would be way way down any cop's to do list.

LJS wrote:

A few thoughts

1) I'd be more inclined to take the view of a paramedic that deals with accidents on a regular basis than those who dont

2) I don't understand why road cyclists are so anti helmet.. Most other sports where there is a risk of falling and hitting your head have embraced helmets, I've noticed it particularly with snowsports.  Out of interest are mountain bikers anti helmet too?

3) its very easy to find studies for or against helmets, but on the most simplistic level personally I would think that a hard plastic shell is likely to offer more protection than nothing at all

4) I'd be very wary of taking two or three variables, as some of the graphs on this thread do, applying it to a population and saying a causes b

On point 2. I think you'll find that the people suggesting helmets not be compulsory are not road cyclists in the sense of sports/racing. Rather, they are people who happen to ride bikes to get from A to B / go to the shops / &c. If you are riding at speed while in a race then a helmet does make more sense. Nobody tells motorists to wear helmets to drive to B&Q (despite what some of the studies show), but they're mandatory if you're racing Formula One.

On point three: I've come off my bike a handful of times. Only once involving another vehicle (a dooring). And my head has never been the bit that hit the ground or got hurt. Going on my own injuries, I think that shoulder- and shin-pads would stop more injuries than helmets...

LJS wrote:

 

2) I don't understand why road cyclists are so anti helmet.. Most other sports where there is a risk of falling and hitting your head have embraced helmets, I've noticed it particularly with snowsports.  Out of interest are mountain bikers anti helmet too?

I am not anti helmet, in fact i wear one when I ride almost all of the time.  The objection is that the response to any head injury to a cyclist is either 'wear a helmet' or 'lucky he was wearing a helmet, it would have been worse' the first response is never 'stop driving metal boxes into people'. If pedestrians suffer head injuries in an RTA the response is not 'wear a helmet'.

Also remember the helmet is designed to protect only up to a fall from head height. i.e. falling over sideways. it is not intended to protect from high speed impact with metal box.  The emergency services might as well tweet #nosteelsafetycage whenever a cyclist is injured by a driver. 

wycombewheeler wrote:

...injury to a cyclist is either 'wear a helmet' or 'lucky he was wearing a helmet, it would have been worse' the first response is never 'stop driving metal boxes into people'.

Barring one or two absolute psychos, motorists are not driving metal boxes into people on purpose, so expecting motorists to stop doing it is as about as useful as expecting that you never stub your big toe again.

I don't wear padding at all times on my big toe, shoulder or shins because the consequences of an injury are unlikely to be serious enough to justify the inconvenience. A head injury though? While mixing it with mobile metal on a very hard surface at 15 - 20+ mph?

I would rather be wearing a helmet in the unlikely event of a collision with a motor vehicle and my bonce heading for the kerb, in the same way I would rather be wearing a helmet when facing a fast bowler or taking a blow from a thug wielding a baseball bat. There are no guarantees but it is obvious that my chances of avoiding death or a life changing brain injury are improved if some of the impact energy is absorbed by a well-designed disintegrating polystyrene hat.

They should be compulsory for under 16s on and off road but adults should be allowed to make their own choices.

L.Willo wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

...injury to a cyclist is either 'wear a helmet' or 'lucky he was wearing a helmet, it would have been worse' the first response is never 'stop driving metal boxes into people'.

Barring one or two absolute psychos, motorists are not driving metal boxes into people on purpose, so expecting motorists to stop doing it is as about as useful as expecting that you never stub your big toe again. I don't wear padding at all times on my big toe, shoulder or shins because the consequences of an injury are unlikely to be serious enough to justify the inconvenience. A head injury though? While mixing it with mobile metal on a very hard surface at 15 - 20+ mph? I would rather be wearing a helmet in the unlikely event of a collision with a motor vehicle and my bonce heading for the kerb, in the same way I would rather be wearing a helmet when facing a fast bowler or taking a blow from a thug wielding a baseball bat. There are no guarantees but it is obvious that my chances of avoiding death or a life changing brain injury are improved if some of the impact energy is absorbed by a well-designed disintegrating polystyrene hat. They should be compulsory for under 16s on and off road but adults should be allowed to make their own choices.

No it isn't, and that's the problem.

Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because 'look at the state of my helmet', but if you look in the right places they're also busy with evolution-denyers because 'the eye' and other such bollocks.

The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.

davel wrote:

No it isn't, and that's the problem.

Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because 'look at the state of my helmet', but if you look in the right places they're also busy with evolution-denyers because 'the eye' and other such bollocks.

The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.

I can actually follow you on this one, riding a bike is not an algorithmic safety assessment based on likely trauma if hit by a car.  You'll probably not be very well, helmet or not.

Far better not to hit the car in the first place but this comes down to active and passive safety measures and how a rider uses them to mitigate risk.  

As a profile analogy;

Schumacher had a helmet on skiing.  

Windydog wrote:

davel wrote:

No it isn't, and that's the problem.

Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because 'look at the state of my helmet', but if you look in the right places they're also busy with evolution-denyers because 'the eye' and other such bollocks.

The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.

 

I can actually follow you on this one, riding a bike is not an algorithmic safety assessment based on likely trauma if hit by a car.  You'll probably not be very well, helmet or not.

Far better not to hit the car in the first place but this comes down to active and passive safety measures and how a rider uses them to mitigate risk.  

As a profile analogy;

Schumacher had a helmet on skiing.  

   

Agreed, but I'd like to add a couple of extra points. Standard bike helmets (i.e. not full face MTB ones) are designed to protect the head during a low speed fall not involving any other parties. When involved in a collision, the forces are orders of magnitude greater and a bike helmet is more or less irrelevant (they aren't designed for that).

Also, Schumacher's helmet may have indirectly contributed to his injury due to the GoPro mounted on it: http://road.cc/content/news/133135-did-michael-schumacher%E2%80%99s-helmet-cam-cause-brain-injury

Windydog wrote:

 

Schumacher had a helmet on skiing.  

   

He also, i believe, had a Go-Pro on it? Force multiplier which would have created a pressure point on the helmet outside of scope. 

how many cyclists do you see with cameras and light strapped on to their helmets rendering them virtually pointless. I believe the Aus rules ban any attachment to a helmet because they invalidate the tests.

Windydog wrote:

davel wrote:

No it isn't, and that's the problem.

Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because 'look at the state of my helmet', but if you look in the right places they're also busy with evolution-denyers because 'the eye' and other such bollocks.

The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.

 

I can actually follow you on this one, riding a bike is not an algorithmic safety assessment based on likely trauma if hit by a car.  You'll probably not be very well, helmet or not.

Far better not to hit the car in the first place but this comes down to active and passive safety measures and how a rider uses them to mitigate risk.  

As a profile analogy;

Schumacher had a helmet on skiing.  

   

...and there's evidence that cyclists take more risks while wearing helmets, and drivers around them give them less space... = more risk of collision in the first place?

[/quote]

...and there's evidence that cyclists take more risks while wearing helmets, and drivers around them give them less space... = more risk of collision in the first place?

[/quote]

Yes, agree.  Comes back down to taking responsibility for your own safety.  I wear a helmet on bike because I want to take that responsibility, being forced to suddenly makes it much less appealing and am forced into a herd mentality acceptance, and suddenly we're in that New Zealand graph territory.   For a sport where we spend a lot of time hurting voluntarily, sometimes in isolation, being forced into group compliance seems at odds with the aim.  

And as an aside, a helmet skiing also because i'm a wrecklessly fast idiot when not in anyone's else's way, and I need all the help I can get.  

Windydog wrote:

 

...and there's evidence that cyclists take more risks while wearing helmets, and drivers around them give them less space... = more risk of collision in the first place?

[/quote]

Yes, agree.  Comes back down to taking responsibility for your own safety.  I wear a helmet on bike because I want to take that responsibility, being forced to suddenly makes it much less appealing and am forced into a herd mentality acceptance, and suddenly we're in that New Zealand graph territory.   For a sport where we spend a lot of time hurting voluntarily, sometimes in isolation, being forced into group compliance seems at odds with the aim.  

And as an aside, a helmet skiing also because i'm a wrecklessly fast idiot when not in anyone's else's way, and I need all the help I can get.  

[/quote]

there also needs to be more taking of responsibility for not driving into vulnerable road users.

davel wrote:

there also needs to be more taking of responsibility for not driving into vulnerable road users.

Absolutely! It never cease to amaze me when car drivers complain of RLJers and rude cyclists and I feel like saying "Look, can you just stop killing so many of us first, then we'll see about our behaviour".

[/quote]

there also needs to be more taking of responsibility for not driving into vulnerable road users.

[/quote]

Yes.  But we are in conflict and now in an arms race it seems where a helmet forms part of the armoury, and the proportion of bad drivers I would guess is similar but yet numbers are going up.

 Stab theory, a million people in a room, some will have knifes, some will be stupid, someone will get stabbed for no good reason. 

You can't legislate for stupidity, just avoid it or live with the risk.  If you feel wearing a helmet decreaases that risk, then good on you.  The inverse applies though, and I will not condemn a cyclist for not wearing one. 

davel wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

...injury to a cyclist is either 'wear a helmet' or 'lucky he was wearing a helmet, it would have been worse' the first response is never 'stop driving metal boxes into people'.

Barring one or two absolute psychos, motorists are not driving metal boxes into people on purpose, so expecting motorists to stop doing it is as about as useful as expecting that you never stub your big toe again. I don't wear padding at all times on my big toe, shoulder or shins because the consequences of an injury are unlikely to be serious enough to justify the inconvenience. A head injury though? While mixing it with mobile metal on a very hard surface at 15 - 20+ mph? I would rather be wearing a helmet in the unlikely event of a collision with a motor vehicle and my bonce heading for the kerb, in the same way I would rather be wearing a helmet when facing a fast bowler or taking a blow from a thug wielding a baseball bat. There are no guarantees but it is obvious that my chances of avoiding death or a life changing brain injury are improved if some of the impact energy is absorbed by a well-designed disintegrating polystyrene hat. They should be compulsory for under 16s on and off road but adults should be allowed to make their own choices.

No it isn't, and that's the problem.

Comments threads and Twitter and Facebook might be busy with people convinced that helmets saved their lives, because 'look at the state of my helmet', but if you look in the right places they're also busy with evolution-denyers because 'the eye' and other such bollocks.

The evidence is far from conclusive on how effective a helmet would be in your 15-20mph collision with a vehicle, and if the vehicle has driven into you, hitting the kerb is the least of your worries.

What I actually said, is obvious. If my head is going to hit the kerb, I have a choice of absorbing all of the impact or allowing the helmet to absorb some and my skull the rest. The latter is the better option for me.

If I strapped you to a chair, told you that I was going to whack the back of your head hard with a baseball bat and gave you a choice of helmet or no helmet, you would choose helmet, unless you are a liar, have a death wish or are profoundly stupid.

No one should claim that a helmet saved their lives any more than people should claim that they would not have made a difference, as in the case of the poor guy cited in the link above who died from a head injury from a low speed accident. We don't come with an identical control version of ourselves to see what would have happened in other circumstances.

What you can legitimately claim as you hold up your destroyed helmet is that your injury would have been worse without the helmet absorbing some of the impact, enough to destroy it. If you look at one of those scuffed, shredded helmets and think, mmmm I wouldn't personally have minded all that extra destructive force applied to my naked scalp, well maybe you're a masochist or a Darwin award wannabe.

I have no illusion that a helmet will reduce my chances of an accident, or guarantee protection if I am crushed by an HGV or T-boned into next week by a 4WD but I will continue to wear one and insist that my children wear them (I confiscated my son's bike for a month after I saw him riding without one) and shake my head in bewilderment at those grown adults who quite bizarrely choose not to.

PS Michael Schumacher is alive. After a significant impact with a rock. I am glad he was wearing a helmet. Who knows what medical science might be able to achieve within a decade? Which would be a moot point if his brain was still lying in pieces in the Alps ...