Surgeons in Scotland debate the helmet issue - do they increase cyclists' safety or not?

I still say (in the main) just wear one, it's common sense, fast or slow. Comparing the risks to running etc is a pointless exercise, apples and pears in terms of control and dynamics.

Still waiting for any actual facts around this "wearing a helmet can cause certain injuries" argument....where are the examples or stats around this? If there are none, or if there are examples that are just freak accidents, then it's not even worth raising as an issue surely?

I believe it is wise to wear a helmet and if you don't want to: don't. I have suffered from a few concussions and all but one was cycling related. Even the one I did suffer from cycling was related to hitting a pot hole so having a helmet wouldn't matter.

If a helmet can do anything to minimise the force to the brain then all the better. Head injuries are serious, no matter how small.

I am not disillusioned by the protection. For me it is peace of mind as on a few occasions when I jump on the Brompton with my helmet I feel "naked" and subconscious about not having it.

Insurance companies will/may also try to minimise payments as you will be deemed partially responsible for you injuries should you not be wearing a helmet.

Everyone should wear a helmet when cycling, otherwise where would one put ones shades when not wearing them?
I guess this must be why Chris Oliver is wearing a lid in every picture of him with a bike on the web, despite the views he has published.

Commuting/Training/Racing: Helmet
tootling to the shops: no helmet

Always wear a helmet. If a motorist gets out of his car and punches you, it will offer protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG-cLftQ9Xw

Mr el bee: Perhaps a better lesson to take from your club-mates fall would be "go more slowly". I'd rather fall at low-speed without a helmet, than at high-speed with one.

Helmet can't protect the rest of your body. Injuries to which can be as traumatic as any head injury. Helmet's can't protect your head that much.

The flimsy vented road style ones are especially bad. And anyone here who says "I don't understand people who don't wear helmets", I hope you wear a good Snell certified hard-shell helmet, rather than a flimsy road style one with just EN1078 certification!

I started wearing a helmet 15+ years ago when my kids were learning to ride, easiest way to get them to do it all the time was if they saw me do it, now I feel odd riding without one. In one instance wearing a helmet has saved me from head injury, my shoulder and the helmet took the damage.

I believe I am in the majority in saying I'd encourage riders to wear one (as a Skyride leader I do just that) but I'm against compulsion (although Skyride has a compulsory policy for riders under 16). Anything that puts people off getting on a bike is bad news, better to get them on the bike then try to convince them a helmet is a good idea too.

Oh, and let's go through all the logical fallacies:

"Well, why wouldn't you wear a helmet?": Fallacious, because there are many equally risky activities where the same people saying this do not wear them.

"Wearing a helmet can't hurt": Fallacious, helmets increase certain injuries. Further, ignoring the specifics of injuries, there is reason to think that where helmets are viewed as necessary for cycling (legally or culturally) this depresses cycling rates. As cycling is overwhelmingly *good* for people and their long-term health, then those people who have been put-off by helmets have been *harmed*.

"I fell off and my helmet was cracked, it must have saved my life!". Fallacious, it only means your helmet cracked. Indeed, that's a sign your helmet *failed* - helmets absorb energy by crushing, not by cracking. To actually know whether or not it saved your life, you'd have to rerun the accident exactly - which is impossible. Indeed, there is a possibility you actually were injured *more* than otherwise.

Are helmets bad? No. Should you never wear them? No, there may well be times when it might be a good idea (e.g. cycling fast, competitive cycling, cycling on rocky terrain - I'm just guessing). However, equally so, there are times when you may not need them (e.g. utility cycling). Further, there is *definitely* a strong correlation between high rates of helmet use and *low* rates of cycling. It may well be that helmet culture is *BAD FOR CYCLING* generally, which may be bad for people's long-term health!

It may even be that helmets and the warped road-safety culture here are costing the UK a *lot* more money in healthcare for obesity related diseases than are saved in head injuries. Computer model studies suggest so at least!

oh dear...! these are those kind arguments that will never end.

do I believe they will protect me? my head, yes! but what about my neck or spinal column? what about chest injuries such as rib cage collapse. they are as fatal as head injuries but i cant see see my self wearing a full body armour like a downhill mountain biker going to work because thats just silly.

I dont believe helmets will increase a cyclist safety. however, im not saying dont wear them. all im saying is they only protect your head which is good, but thats the only part of your body it will protect.

I believe road infrastructures and cyclist/motorist attitudes will make a cyclist safe. most of the time a simple commonsense is all it takes to be safe. If cyclist and motorist lookout and care for each other, accidents will be much... much... less.

I love my helmet since moving to Australia. I keeps my head cool. Eyeballs safe from swooping crows. And see that wee plastic visor bit at the front, it actually has a purpose that only those who cycle in the sunshine will appreciate. Oh and i took my mudguards off too.

While there are some injuries a helmet will not protect against, there are occasions when a smashed helmet is a better option than a smashed skull.
This was the result of a 38mph fall of a Club mate who hit a rock in the ground at impact, lost consciousness for around 3 minutes, and broke a number of bones in his back.

He was undoubtedly a lucky chap, suffering no neurological deficit (the outcome could have been much worse) but there is no doubt in my mind, or that of the paramedics and his trauma surgeon that the helmet ameliorated the effect of the impact and his subsequent injuries

I really can't see that they are debating. They both seem (IMO) to be saying the same thing.

I know it's semantics but I would argue that helmets/seat belts/air bags don't "improve safety" - they decrease the occurrence of serious injury.

That aside.

Lynn isn't advocating compulsion - fine.

Acknowledges that survival in "hi speed impacts" won't be greatly affected - fine.

She treats a lot of brain/head injuries from low speed or stationary cycle accidents. This is the bone of contention for me (there may well be others can't be bothered too get too wrapped up in this). Has she done an analyse of head surgery required by pedestrians who "fall". Low or stationary accidents in the home?

My overall problem with these debates is that when it appears that "experts" are taking the side of a given cause my fear is that reactionary groups/politicians see it as confirmation of their bias.

Mr Andrew:

Do you wear a helmet when you walk or run? After all, a bit of padding can only help should you fall.

A colleague of mine once got smacked on the head by the wing mirror of a bus pulling into a bus stop, as he was waiting near it. He got a pretty good concussion from it. A helmet might have reduced that.

Basically, if you have the "I can't see why people wouldn't wear them!" attitude, then why aren't you applying the same logic to other activities in your life? I really want to know.

Many cyclists, utility ones particularly, do not cycle faster than a person would when running, perhaps even jogging. My wife cycles at about 12 to 15 km/h generally, and might just hit 20 km/h. If you wouldn't wear a helmet jogging or walking, why should she wear one when cycling slowly?

I am fascinated by the bizarre, inconsistent attitude to risk & safety in this country. People get all concerned by the extremely tiny risks of KSI in cycling (in the main it has overwhelmingly positive effects), but are quite happy to completely ignore the very *certain* and deadly risks of lack of exercise.

Further, then rather than address the primary cause of KSI amongst cyclists and pedestrians (high energy motor traffic), the culture here instead is to place the onus on the victims, the vulnerable, to wear mostly ineffectual safety garments. Nothing is done about the real cause.

This twisted culture surely is a major factor in the UK being right up there in overweight and obesity rates (twice that of NL).

Mad.

I'm pro-helmet, but against compulsion. It should be common sense.

How about a simple warning, like with cigarette packets:

"Banging your head into tarmac at 30mph can cause potentially fatal injuries. Wearing a helmet reduces that risk"

I'd really like to see in any news story about a cyclist being injured or killed, when head injuries are the main factor, whether or not they were wearing a helmet.

I fell on a snowy commute last year which left a large fracture and a puncture in my helmet from some debris on the road. That impact would otherwise have been directly taken by my skull. There were no rotational-force or whiplash-type injuries at all, just a broken collar-bone and grazes.

I will personally never understand the argument against helmet wearing, it's counter-intuitive for commuting at the very least.

I still don't get the helmet-snagging argument either, are there really any cases where that aspect would override the impact-absorption benfits that a helmet provides?

I fail to see why this is such a contentious issue. I would never advocate making it law, but common sense and personal experience say that they can't be all bad. There are times when you simply come off, no traffic involved. Surely having a bit of extra padding round the head can't hurt?

Looks like they may need helmets on if they are going to bashing heads over the subject