Geraint Thomas says cycle helmets should be compulsory

OrangeRidley wrote:

Everybody seems to focus on helmets and head injuries. Has no one thought about the cosmetic damage they can prevent? I can recall an acquaintance who is a plastic surgeon who specialises in rebuilding people's faces after accidents saying that despite more people wearing helmets than not the worst facial injuries are generally from cyclists who don't wear one. I myself had an accident earlier in the year when riding fixed and a tractor pulled out without looking from a gateway which was surprisingly well hidden. It was a completely empty, wide, smooth piece of road and thus I was riding on the tops, therefore didn't reach the brakes in time and hit the deck. Had I not had my helmet on, ignoring the fact I'd have almost certainly been concussed, I'd have probably broken my nose and skinned quite a large area of my face. And for me, that is plenty reason to wear a helmet all the time.

But everyone takes the piss out of me down the pub!

Wear a helmet.

Don't wear a helmet.

Don't evangalise the helmet wearing side, especially with anecdotal evidence. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.

landsurfer74 wrote:

Chatting with them in the bar it seems the wearing of a cycle helmet while walking in the hills and mountains is now widespread ... after all you may trip and bang your head !!

They'd be better off with a climbing hat in case of rock fall...

landsurfer74 wrote:

Mission creep has already started ...

3 years ago Jules and I where staying in a resort hotel in Cuba, well away from the tourist areas, such as they are in Cuba. At the hotel where a party of German hill walkers ... each morning while cool they would assemble and head off for 4-5 hours walking trails in the mountains behind the hotel .. with their rucksacs, walking poles and wearing their cycle helmets !!!! 

Chatting with them in the bar it seems the wearing of a cycle helmet while walking in the hills and mountains is now widespread ... after all you may trip and bang your head !!

Germans, that's all you had to say, they are obessed with them, the Dutch and Danes say how do you spot a German tourist, they're the ones wearing helmets and hi vis on cycle lanes.

wknight wrote:

There is a great statistic that we don’t know, how many people have been in an accident and walked away because they didn’t get a head injury.

 

as someone who works at cycle events where we see lots of injuries, the answer to that question is lots. I have seen many a broken helmet but the person is fine, no trip to hospital required, saving our over stretched nhs, it would definitely not be the case had the helmet not been there. 

As always your choice, but ask any A&E doctor and they will say wear head protection and that goes for many things, not just cycling. 

Sigh, there's a big difference between a cycle event and cycle commuting. For BC run cycling events, helmet use is compulsory.

As a BMX racer, I wear a lid when I'm training and competing. There's a reason for that as racing or training means by its very nature that you're riding close to the limit. And when you ride close to the limit, things go wrong. Bear in mind too that my BMX lid is a full-face MX style helmet (and is actually road legal for use on my motorbike). It offers rather a lot more protection than some crappy bit of foam and plastic.

I don't wear a lid for commuting, because it's an entirely different way of riding.

wknight wrote:

There is a great statistic that we don’t know, how many people have been in an accident and walked away because they didn’t get a head injury.

 

as someone who works at cycle events where we see lots of injuries, the answer to that question is lots. I have seen many a broken helmet but the person is fine, no trip to hospital required, saving our over stretched nhs, it would definitely not be the case had the helmet not been there. 

As always your choice, but ask any A&E doctor and they will say wear head protection and that goes for many things, not just cycling. 

You've said yourself that no one knows that statistic, yet you seem happy to base an argument on it, presumably because you assume - without evidence, as you’ve said - that it is significant. Do a real study then get back to us.

wknight wrote:

There is a great statistic that we don’t know, how many people have been in an accident and walked away because they didn’t get a head injury.

as someone who works at cycle events where we see lots of injuries, the answer to that question is lots. I have seen many a broken helmet but the person is fine, no trip to hospital required, saving our over stretched nhs, it would definitely not be the case had the helmet not been there. 

As always your choice, but ask any A&E doctor and they will say wear head protection and that goes for many things, not just cycling. 

Wow!  So many misconceptions in a single post, congratulations.

We have quite a lot of data about the difference between competitive cycling and the effects of helmets, but I'm guessing you haven't checked them, because helmets don't seem to make competitive cycling safer, with at least as many pros dying after the helmet rule as before, possibly more but the figures are so small as to make certainty impossible.

We are also well endowed with data about the death rates of non-competitive cyclists after the introduction of helmet laws, and similarly, they show no beneficial effect.  There are many thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories, but how can they be true if the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

So there are a great number of statistics that we do know about helmets, and they show clearly that helmets make no difference at best, and at worst increase risk.  Basing your argument on a non-existent statistic which is disproved by all the other long term, large scale, reliable data might look good for a minute or two, but it doesn't actually work.

A&E doctors are good at one thing: A&E.  Their experience colours their perceptions and they make invalid assumptions based on a tiny dataset and complete ignorance of the actual performance of helmets,  well documented phenomenon known as observation bias.  They know nothing about epidemiological studies which completely disprove what they believe and make statements, rather like the unfortunate Geraint, with no basis in fact.

grumpygramp wrote:

Of course, lack of helmets is the reason that Dutch and Danish hospitals are full of people with concussion and fractured skulls? This must be the case with such high rates of cycling?

The strange thing is that countries with compulsory helmet laws in some states are also the countries with the highest rates of head injuries - i.e. Australia and USA. These laws have also had a detrimental effect on the numbers of people cycling and the benefits that accrue to the individuals and society from cycling.

IMO, helmets make your head bigger and heavier and therefore more likely to hit the ground, and hit it harder. What they don't do is stop your brain rattling around in your skull (which is a pretty effective protective mechanism itself) and this is when the damage occurs.

All the above, and that helmets increase the size and radius of the head, making the most serious injury, rotational, much more likely.

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

Since this broke in the news i've done a little data collection thingy and counted how many people i saw on bikes and who were and weren't wearing a helmet. 

In the last day i've seen 97 people cycling and of those, 83 were on the road with all but one wearing a helmet. Of the 14 i saw rdiing along the pavement the vast majority were young uns on mountain bikes and none were wearing a helmet. 

Draw from it what you will but it appears that all this mumbo jumbo about what a helmet can and cant do for you is having very little effect on the road cycling public around where i live. 

As for Thomas he's allowed his view just as much as Boardman, Wiggins et al and just because you dont agree with something someone says it doesn't mean its wrong. Look at the recent horse and close pass cyclist account, people had their views whether they were right or wrong is immaterial as its their view. 

Thomas doesn't spout facts and figures he's only giving his view. Perhaps when he reads what Boardman claims he might change his mind but then again he might not. 

 

 

Rightly or wrongly top sportsman are role models, and most of their money comes from sponsorship not from prize money, because of his status as a role model. People do listen to what he says, and his words do have an impact. He should think about them, especially when given a platform like he has been. If he does not want that then he should stick to just taking the prize money and not getting paid thousands for interviews and promotional work.

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

In the last day i've seen 97 people cycling and of those, 83 were on the road with all but one wearing a helmet. Of the 14 i saw rdiing along the pavement the vast majority were young uns on mountain bikes and none were wearing a helmet. 

Draw from it what you will but it appears that all this mumbo jumbo about what a helmet can and cant do for you is having very little effect on the road cycling public around where i live. 

But unless you've run a parallel test in your neighbourhoods in a universe where helmets don't exist, and one in which they're mandated, you can't possibly say what effect they've had. You've only tested one set of conditions.

So we look to places that have mandated them, and there we see, invariably, a fall in numbers of cyclists following them being mandated. 

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

As for Thomas he's allowed his view just as much as Boardman, Wiggins et al and just because you dont agree with something someone says it doesn't mean its wrong. Look at the recent horse and close pass cyclist account, people had their views whether they were right or wrong is immaterial as its their view. 

I don't see what the point is of saying what you just said.  All it does is suggest you are confused about what the word 'disagree' means.

If you disagree with something someone says, that means you believe that it's wrong.  The usual thing is to put forward arguments and evidence as to why you believe that, then the other side responds with counter-arguments.  Just retorting 'that you've argued against it doesn't mean it's wrong' is not an argument.  It's just being irritating.

Also, what do you mean he's "allowed his view"?  Has anyone said he should be sent to prison for saying what he said?  Nobody has said he isn't "allowed his view".  They've disagreed with it and explained why it's a harmful view.  All you are doing is acting as if you can ignore all counter-arguments and cling to the original claim regardless.

Also, what have those stats you came up with have to do with the topic?  Why does it matter how many existing cyclists wear helmets?

Note I'm not arguing about helmets.  I'm arguing about arguing.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

As for Thomas he's allowed his view just as much as Boardman, Wiggins et al and just because you dont agree with something someone says it doesn't mean its wrong. Look at the recent horse and close pass cyclist account, people had their views whether they were right or wrong is immaterial as its their view. 

 

I don't see what the point is of saying what you just said.  All it does is suggest you are confused about what the word 'disagree' means.

If you disagree with something someone says, that means you believe that it's wrong.  The usual thing is to put forward arguments and evidence as to why you believe that, then the other side responds with counter-arguments.  Just retorting 'that you've argued against it doesn't mean it's wrong' is not an argument.  It's just being irritating.

Also, what do you mean he's "allowed his view"?  Has anyone said he should be sent to prison for saying what he said?  Nobody has said he isn't "allowed his view".  They've disagreed with it and explained why it's a harmful view.  All you are doing is acting as if you can ignore all counter-arguments and cling to the original claim regardless.

Also, what have those stats you came up with have to do with the topic?  Why does it matter how many existing cyclists wear helmets?

 

Note I'm not arguing about helmets.  I'm arguing about arguing.

What i'm saying about disagreeing is that just because you disagree with what Thomas said it doesn't mean he is wrong, you might think otherwise but who's to say you are the one who's not wrong, hope that clears it up. 

As for his views, there's quite a few on here who have said he should shut up and mind his own business. Whether he's right or wrong is not the point, he's allowed to make his point which is what i'm getting at. 

Personally i dont think helmets should be made compulsory as, going by my one day of looking nigh on everyone wears one in any case. 

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

As for Thomas he's allowed his view just as much as Boardman, Wiggins et al and just because you dont agree with something someone says it doesn't mean its wrong. Look at the recent horse and close pass cyclist account, people had their views whether they were right or wrong is immaterial as its their view. 

 

I don't see what the point is of saying what you just said.  All it does is suggest you are confused about what the word 'disagree' means.

If you disagree with something someone says, that means you believe that it's wrong.  The usual thing is to put forward arguments and evidence as to why you believe that, then the other side responds with counter-arguments.  Just retorting 'that you've argued against it doesn't mean it's wrong' is not an argument.  It's just being irritating.

Also, what do you mean he's "allowed his view"?  Has anyone said he should be sent to prison for saying what he said?  Nobody has said he isn't "allowed his view".  They've disagreed with it and explained why it's a harmful view.  All you are doing is acting as if you can ignore all counter-arguments and cling to the original claim regardless.

Also, what have those stats you came up with have to do with the topic?  Why does it matter how many existing cyclists wear helmets?

 

Note I'm not arguing about helmets.  I'm arguing about arguing.

What i'm saying about disagreeing is that just because you disagree with what Thomas said it doesn't mean he is wrong, you might think otherwise but who's to say you are the one who's not wrong, hope that clears it up. 

As for his views, there's quite a few on here who have said he should shut up and mind his own business. Whether he's right or wrong is not the point, he's allowed to make his point which is what i'm getting at. 

Personally i dont think helmets should be made compulsory as, going by my one day of looking nigh on everyone wears one in any case. 

People have equal right to an opinion. But the idea that all opinions are equal is utter horseshit. You don't have your car serviced by a lawyer and you don't see your pub landlord when you've got a chest infection.

Thomas strayed into an area he knows nothing about, and is being pulled up for overlooking the consistent evidence regarding the unintended consequences of helmet compulsion. I can't believe he intends to decrease cyclist numbers, and yet that's what mandating helmets does.

I think he's been careless and not malicious, and hopefully the backlash will mean that he caveats, or plain avoids, opinions on shakey topics, when he's on record in future.

But frankly, I'm glad we live in a society where wallies spouting off have the social media equivalent of rotten fruit thrown at them, because I really don't want to live in the politically correct dystopia where everyone's opinion about everything is equal. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

Welsh boy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

Hair loss, judging by the amount of caffeine shampoo that seems to be around the sport. 

Welsh boy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that's despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that's repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.

Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they've all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.

Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?

Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn't) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you're only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!

You're as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don't concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn't outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can't understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing,

You keep saying this and that the amount of deaths as gone up as a consequence - every time i've looked at the stats in professional racing i've not seen any obvious trend in the last 15 years beyond maybe an increase in collisions with support / media vehicles. The deaths look incredibly stocastic or bursty to me over several decades, and unfortunately a reasonable percentage of them appear to due to cardiac issues of some type, directly or indirectly as well as incidents with other vehicles.

I've tried over a few years looking for more detailed data related to UCI sanctioned events that might reveal more information on these injuries, crashes and deaths and perhaps any correlation between rates, causes, severity or type between them and technical changes in the UCI rules in the last 100-120 years but it's mainly slim pickings to be frank. I'd appreciate it if you could share what you have so we can all have a closer look at the full details. Cheers.

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing,

You keep saying this and that the amount of deaths as gone up as a consequence - every time i've looked at the stats in professional racing i've not seen any obvious trend in the last 15 years beyond maybe an increase in collisions with support / media vehicles. The deaths look incredibly stocastic or bursty to me over several decades, and unfortunately a reasonable percentage of them appear to due to cardiac issues of some type, directly or indirectly as well as incidents with other vehicles.

I've tried over a few years looking for more detailed data related to UCI sanctioned events that might reveal more information on these injuries, crashes and deaths and perhaps any correlation between rates, causes, severity or type between them and technical changes in the UCI rules in the last 100-120 years but it's mainly slim pickings to be frank. I'd appreciate it if you could share what you have so we can all have a closer look at the full details. Cheers.

I've looked at the data too, and it is pretty well impossible to detect a trend, but there is one thing which can be said: the risk does not appear to have reduced since the helmet rule was introduced, or at least there is no detectable effect.  If a rule isn't working and doesn't do what it is supposed to, should it exist?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Welsh boy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that's despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that's repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.

Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they've all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.

Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?

Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn't) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you're only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!

You're as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don't concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn't outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can't understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!

Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Welsh boy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that's despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that's repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.

Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they've all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.

Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?

Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn't) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you're only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!

You're as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don't concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn't outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can't understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!

Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.

2015: Barrios and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine a descriptive epidemiological study of sports injury changes over time in world-class road cyclists. This study compared two groups of male elite road cyclists (a ‘historical’ group of 65 professionals surveyed from 1983 to 1995, and a ‘contemporary’ group of 65 active elite racers reporting injuries from 2003 to 2009). The authors found that the still active group is exposed to double the risk of traumatic injuries than riders from the 80s and early 90s

Pro deaths are easy to add up for yourself but I'll grab a forum link to someone who actually spent a lot time analysing pre/post helmet death stats, it's three TIMESas many for same period of time.

Headway have the uk head injury numbers, i actually got them from the biggest study done in the UK (as did headway) you should look it up.

There are many estimates regarding cycling head injuries of a serious nature, these go from 26% to 40% based on total cycling serious injuries that's in the range of 800-1200, even compared to admissions never mind what would be classed as a serious head injury -somewhere between 160,000 & 1,300,000, it's a tiny fraction.

let's see your stats.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Welsh boy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that's despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that's repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.

Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they've all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.

Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?

Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn't) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you're only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!

You're as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don't concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn't outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can't understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!

Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.

2015: Barrios and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine a descriptive epidemiological study of sports injury changes over time in world-class road cyclists. This study compared two groups of male elite road cyclists (a ‘historical’ group of 65 professionals surveyed from 1983 to 1995, and a ‘contemporary’ group of 65 active elite racers reporting injuries from 2003 to 2009). The authors found that the still active group is exposed to double the risk of traumatic injuries than riders from the 80s and early 90s

Pro deaths are easy to add up for yourself but I'll grab a forum link to someone who actually spent a lot time analysing pre/post helmet death stats, it's three TIMESas many for same period of time.

Headway have the uk head injury numbers, i actually got them from the biggest study done in the UK (as did headway) you should look it up.

There are many estimates regarding cycling head injuries of a serious nature, these go from 26% to 40% based on total cycling serious injuries that's in the range of 800-1200, even compared to admissions never mind what would be classed as a serious head injury -somewhere between 160,000 & 1,300,000, it's a tiny fraction.

let's see your stats.

 

Stats for what, exacrly, given that I'm not the one chucking numbers around nor advocating a for/against argument for the wearing of a helmet?

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Welsh boy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

...he doesn't even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.

Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this "massive negative impact" that helmets are having on pro riding.

More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that's despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that's repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.

Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they've all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.

Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?

Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn't) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you're only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!

You're as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don't concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn't outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can't understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!

Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.

2015: Barrios and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine a descriptive epidemiological study of sports injury changes over time in world-class road cyclists. This study compared two groups of male elite road cyclists (a ‘historical’ group of 65 professionals surveyed from 1983 to 1995, and a ‘contemporary’ group of 65 active elite racers reporting injuries from 2003 to 2009). The authors found that the still active group is exposed to double the risk of traumatic injuries than riders from the 80s and early 90s

Pro deaths are easy to add up for yourself but I'll grab a forum link to someone who actually spent a lot time analysing pre/post helmet death stats, it's three TIMESas many for same period of time.

Headway have the uk head injury numbers, i actually got them from the biggest study done in the UK (as did headway) you should look it up.

There are many estimates regarding cycling head injuries of a serious nature, these go from 26% to 40% based on total cycling serious injuries that's in the range of 800-1200, even compared to admissions never mind what would be classed as a serious head injury -somewhere between 160,000 & 1,300,000, it's a tiny fraction.

let's see your stats.

 

Stats for what, exacrly, given that I'm not the one chucking numbers around nor advocating a for/against argument for the wearing of a helmet?

The way you talk about the subject matter it comes across as you being pro helmet wearing, thus I'm intrigued that someone who gives the impression they are pro helmet wearing or indeed wears a helmet (same thing in my opinion) questions the figures given and requests where the facts come from (despite them being easily available on the net) but won't make a counter argument with their own facts.

So do you wear a helmet for cycling, If so do you think it protects you? If yes, do you apply the same thinking/reasoning as to why you wear it to other more dangerous/riskier aspects of your life as I've given evidence of above and elsewhere?

Do you accept that head injury risks to people riding bikes are a miniscule 'problem' compared to everything else we do (in the UK at least) that results in head injuries?