UKC

Of interest to anyone?

http://news.uk.msn.com/cycling-helmets-useless-says-neurosurgeon394888

In reply to AndrewW:

Even as a cycle helmet wearing sceptic I think he needs some studies to back up his claim. Unfortunately there are very few such studies and the conclusion of most is basically "we can't say one way or the other".

I do wear a helmet when cycling BTW but not convinced that it would do much good in any accident other than a comedy style forgetting to unclip foul up.

In reply to AndrewW:

It's hard to know how to arrive at an informed opinion: expert A says one thing, expert B another. As with coffee, or cheese. I cycled for 20 years without a helmet, now I always wear one. I would imagine, tho, if I slid off and hit a hard thing that wearing a helmet has got to be better than wearing no helmet at all. Stands to reason. Of course, if going at sufficient speed I can see why it might not be of much use... The stuff about drivers passing closer to helmet wearers is as interesting as when I heard it before. One of these modern imponderables.

In reply to Bob:


Yes, didn't Camilla P-B's brother die from just falling over and hitting his head on the pavement?

In reply to AndrewW:

Of course they're useless, show me one helmet maker that claims they could save you from even a mild concussion. Wonder why.

Regarding research, I could do some actual testing and research based on this but I'm fairly sure of the results I'd get but who would fund it? The helmet companies who can charge 200 pounds for a racing model?

They do the job they're designed for poorly which is to protect the outside of your skull from cuts and scrapes which is why I wear one, so I'll look pretty in my box in the event of a serious spill.

Thankfully if you ignore the statistics and choose to worry about a minor risk above other bigger ones these recent cardboard helmets that crumple soak up about 3-4time the energy of the useless ones and are getting more vocal about the poor designs.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to AndrewW:

Would it have been too much effort for the journalists to cite the research studies? Was the Bath study based on observation of one road or is it skewed by the fact people cycling on narrow roads are more likely to wear helmets? What are the injury and severity rates of accidents from drivers overtaking too close compared to other accidents? Do countries implement obligatory helmet policies when numbers of cyclists are on the increase, if so is that factored into the findings on accident rates?

Meaningless articles, might as well have said 'some guy that wears a cowboy hat reckons cycling helmets aren't that important'

In reply to felt:


Depends where you hit it really. Head on is one thing, off to the side is another. Think about moments - why do you use a long spanner instead of a short one? Because the torque exerted is the force applied multiplied by the length of the lever arm. A helmet increases the size of the lever attached to your spine. Plenty of evidence that that is a Bad Thing. Stands to reason.

This is the problem - reason and evidence aren't the same thing, and there is plenty of evidence both ways, but none of it seems to be used by legislators...

In reply to AndrewW:

Well in my youth I had a bad crash on my bike and fractured my skull and put myself in a coma (I didn't have a helmet on at the time). My consultant and neurologist said if I had I would have sustained far less major injuries. From personal experience mtbing since then a helmet has most definitely saved me from some potentially severe head injuries

It's all personal choice but I would never ride without one, even if I were just popping down the road

In reply to AndrewW:

I know it's rare to whack your head when you fall off, but a now discarded helmet of mine had a ding from a rock on an MTB descent that went wrong which was enough to convince me that a similar ding above my ear without a helmet wouldn't have been nice. It's not a particularly big deal to clip one on after all, is it?

In reply to Bob:


I know you mean pedals, but not removing cycle helmets is tragic, not comic.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

In reply to wintertree:

Good spot!

In reply to AndrewW:

"A leading neurosurgeon has branded cycle helmets useless, saying they are "too flimsy" to protect the heads of people he treats after bike accidents"

That might be because he only treats the people he needs to see. Could be thousands he never needs to treat because they were wearing a cycle helmet. They just picked themselves up brushed themselves down and carried on having fun.

In reply to AndrewW:
I've destroyed about 5 helmets in various accidents ranging from the stupid to the ridiculous and every time I've looked at the cracked and dented wrecks I've thought that would have been a lot worse had it not been for the helmet. One of my helmets was broken into 8 pieces and another had a ~2x1 cm lump of stone embedded flush into the side of it and despite not being a neurosurgeon trying to flog a few books at a literature festeval I'm quite sure that this would smart a bit and probably have some serious medical impact. This is enough to convince me to continue using a helmet and people who think this is just a big conspiracy by helmet manufacturers need to remove their tin foil hats .

I'll add that none of the crashes resulted in anything more serious than a minor broken bone and I walked away from most with superficial bumps and scrapes.

In reply to AndrewW:
You haven't spotted the opening flaw.

"A leading neurosurgeon has branded cycle helmets useless, saying they are "too flimsy" to protect the heads of people he treats after bike accident".

THE HEADS OF PEOPLE HE TREATS. He is a surgeon, he doesn't think they help people who are treated by neurosurgery.

But what about the poeple who don't need surgery? His statement has no impact on whether helmets help people with lesser injuries who don't need surgery.

This kind of bullshit "expert opinion" really needs to be read with an ounce of intelligent thought applied to see beyond it.

Sure, he may be a neurosurgeon, but that diesn't mean his argument stands up to simple scrutiny. And as for the headline grabbing "leading" neurosurgeon to sound more impressive.....FFS...

In reply to AndrewW:

I should have thought that the best place to start getting some data would be the road racers. I accept that this might only look at a certain type of crash and not others but the volume might help with some statistical relevance.

I'm not sure how you would test the null hypothesis that there is no difference between wearing a bike helmet and not as I can't see too many riders lining up for the non wearing sample but perhaps a before/after test of historical data might do it?

In reply to AndrewW:

"An expert doctor in lower limb fractures has recently said that bouldering mats do absolutely nothing to prevent broken ankles. He has come to this conclusion because he sees people who have used bouldering mats and have still managed to break their ankles. Therefore everyone is encouraged to never use a bouldering mat again as they are considered useless."

In reply to AndrewW:

I was quite glad I was wearing mine when I was catapulted off the bike last year. Plenty of scratches on the helmet, none on my head. Shame about all the missing skin on my right shoulder, (broken) elbow and hip. And where would I attach the Dogcam if I ditched the helmet?

In reply to AndrewW:

The article seems to be carefully worded to hide the obvious flaw others have pointed out about him only seeing the more serious cases,

My Mum was a nurse at the time it became compulsory to wear a motorbike helmet, I remember her telling me for ages in A&E they couldn't work why forcing people to wear helmets resulted in more cases of head injury at the hospital, it was only after a couple of months they realised it was because more people were surviving the initial impact and not just dying at the side of the road, maybe we could draw a similar conclusion from the article above.

In reply to Jonshef:

hmm, I'm one of those survivors

still don't get how I got two big dings in the helmet on opposite sides

surely anything soft between your head and the tarmac is a bonus

though there is also the problem of riders feeling safer and therefore increasing the risk, just like what happened with seat belts

In reply to AndrewW:

This is a classic example of trying to use someone's credentials as evidence for something. This sort of article annoys me.
I'm all for choice in wearing helmets but these stories are worrying when not backed up with nothing other than letters after a name.

In reply to Removed User:

In my experience road and mtb crashes are very different when it comes to helmet smashing; in road crashes it's been blunt impacts with big smooth surfaces like the floor (although I did crash into a tree once) and on the mtb I hit pointy rocks. The the first of these probably result in higher forces to the head but the second would deform and break the helmet more and would have resulted in deep cuts without the helmet.

Someone above summed it up nicely that the doc sees people with the sort of injuries helmets don't protect against but he won't see all the minor stuff.

I'm pleased that a lot of you are so secure in your helmets, as climbers who are aware of breaking strains of our various bits of gear and what they will and won't hold I am a little lost as to where this comes from unless I am mis-understanding you all and like me you wear one in the hope it will stop a nasty head wound rather than a serious brain injury??

Helmets won't get better in terms of protection unless there is a desire for it, which it seems there isn't. This is perhaps fine as (unless you keep falling off your bike on your head,) statistically cycling is very safe.

Beyond the things I mentioned in my first post which I think are worth giving some thought to I can't really add anything new so will bow out

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Toby_W:

remember the swedish invisible cyle helmet!
http://jalopnik.com/swedes-develop-invisible-bike-helmet-1460189477

In reply to AndrewW:

I agree with the posts above...I wear a cycle helmet. However, the standard that bike helmets have to pass is not that great (apologies for the wiki link below), the speeds that the test represent (approx 12mph) probably cover the majority of short distance cyclists (trip to the shops or out with the kids) but not mtb or road cycle users.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_1078

In reply to wintertree:


This. Every bloody time.

One of the key innovations in the European Enlightenment was the change towards trying to understand the world on the basis of evidence rather than just thought. And yet apparently intelligent, educated people in the 21st century still offer "stands to reason" as a justification for their viewpoint. It might work in politics, where evidence is often sadly lacking (whether because it is impossible to obtain, or simply inconvenient to seek out may be a matter for debate) but when discussing the real world of physical objects we should know better.

Sometimes it seems as if Kant never existed.

In reply to Martin W:




That's just a paradigm waiting to be adopted.

In reply to Martin W:

To pinch something from Dara O'Briain

And then they turn away from the neurosurgeon to Barry who can't seem to ride his bike without stabilisers and has smashed 8 cycle helmets with his head.

Barry, what do you think of all this?

Well it's clearly nonsense I'd be dead 8 times or at least some sort of idiot vegetable without mine.....

Cheers

Toby

In reply to AndrewW:

well sod it they may be crap or not crap but either way ill be wearing mine all the time.
Having said that I managed to miss my helmet and use my face to absorb the impact last time I crashed..

In reply to Removed User:

Ditto & Ouch.

Mend well.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:






And what about the ones who are dead--he won't be treating them either, now will he?

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Not quite sure how to interpret that reply? It reads as sarcasm. My point was the same as expressed by ashuk, that loads of cycle head injuries are not so bad as to require neurosurgery, and this neurosurgoen has not produced any evidence that helmets have not benefited those people.

But I may have misinterpreted your post.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

It wasn't sarcasm. I am not a sarcastic soul... I meant what I said--that if his sample is the ones he treated, then it's skewed not just in one way, as you pointed out, but in two ways.

In reply to AndrewW:
They provide *some* protection. I think anyone who suggests they make no difference at all is a bit wide of the mark. That said, it depends on the magnitude of the accident; they are tested for a fall from a bicycle with no forward motion onto the kerb. They will provide full protection in such a case, but just because that is the test case I can't see why they wouldn't provide *some* protection in other, more serious accidents.

Neil

In reply to ben.phillips:


As a related comment about the behavioural differences which such things can make:

I remember being very surprised - about the time that bouldering mats came into vogue - when I saw a group of people with such mats repeatedly trying to climb 'The Chant' at Burbage North, failing on the top moves, and blithely jumping off onto mats. Yet that's a soloing route which I never would previously have considered jumping off.

So, in that way, the mats didn't help overall 'safety' (as you seem to be implying); rather, they just allowed the overall level of acceptable (or desired) risk to be transferred to different situations.

In reply to AndrewW:
I wear my helmet to help protect my skull from pointy things, after breaking my helmet on the drystone wall at Surprise View ten years ago, there was a six inch wide scuff on the side of the helmet where it hit the wall, and it predictably split right through.

I don't know how effective it was at stopping my brain from being shaken up, as I was concussed for two and a bit weeks, the Thursday of the third week I felt a bit dumb still at Spanish classes, but given my neck ache and the amount of bruising* I had from hitting the ground, it 'possibly' saved my skull from being broken.

Perhaps only getting tired of hitting the ground can stop people from taking bigger risks if they're wearing a helmet?

*A nurse with 25 years A+E experienced seemed to think I had a lot from falling off my bike.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Yes that's called risk compensation.

Give car drivers ABS, they drive faster and closer.
Give rock climbers ropes and they try harder routes.

Give riders helmets...

People are happy to control their own perceived risks.

In reply to AndrewW:



The neurosurgeon is an idiot and an accident waiting to happen. He admits to:

IMr Marsh, who also admitted regularly crossing red lights on his bike, made the comments during a conversation with novelist Ian McEwan

When he eventually bashes his brains out no doubt we will hear all about it.

In reply to AndrewW:



The neurosurgeon is an idiot and an accident waiting to happen. He admits to:

IMr Marsh, who also admitted regularly crossing red lights on his bike, made the comments during a conversation with novelist Ian McEwan

When he eventually bashes his brains out no doubt we will hear all about it.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

If you look at the possible group of cyclists involved in an accident within his area you have two dimensions.

Wearing Helmet (Y/N)
Head Injury Severity (None, Minor, Major (requires neurosurgeon), Fatal)

So we have 8 groups of which he observes only 2. But that doesn't matter as he is nominally an expert in a field which seems relevant (but in fact is not particularly).

In reply to Toby_W:

I really cannot agree with you. Even small tumbles onto hard surfaces can cause serious head injuries and there is no doubt in my mind that current helmets can protect heads in these situations. 4 or 5 years ago I fell sideways off a trail in the lakes and tumbled down into a stream. I hit a large rock, falling almost vertically, landing on my head. My helmet, a Giro Xen, was a right off but I got back on my bike and rode down. I have absolutely no doubt that I would not have ridden away had I not been wearing a decent helmet. To suggest they do know good is simply irresponsible.

In reply to AndrewW:

They're definitely useless!

Somebody crashed just in front of us on this year's Tour of Pembrokeshire and her helmet was smashed in bits.
If I'd been her I'd have complained to the manufacturer!

In reply to AndrewW:

It should be fairly simple to collate all the data for cyclists who survive accidents but require hospital treatment.

From there you can obtain a good picture of the severity and type of impacts that people are experiencing and the outcome.

Discounting the extreme where someone dies or the other extremes where people don't seek medical attention should give a fairly good indication of whether helmets are any good in particular situations. You should, for example, be able to compare two very similar incidents one with helmet and one without.

I think there are two reasons for wearing a helmet.
1. to prevent superficial cuts and scrapes in a low speed spill.
2. To prevent brain injury in a high speed impact.

It should be fairly simple to see how effective they are in each situation.

If only 1. You have to question what is the likelyhood of a spill and can you live with a few stitches and gravel rash on your face/head for a few days.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

That's fine and I get why (it's only my view and by no means correct), to me this is an interesting question/problem and being a cyclist I've researched this carefully and have read the majority of the published articles. As an academic I'm tempted to do some physical testing (it would be an interesting little challenge/problem) to see if the point you and many others raise could be significant (That the small amount of protection offered by a helmet would make a difference in an impact hard enough to cause a brain injury). I feel not, partly due to the structure of our heads and partly due to the amount of force a helmet can soak up but we would all feel better if it turned out yes.

Either way would I publish any of this, not a chance and here's why:
1. This seems for some reason to be so emotive with people being very abusive and judgmental to those who don't wear helmets of might suggest they're not very good.
2. I can't bear when the first thing someone says is I fell off & my helmet broke... you know the rest. It's like talking about a book and someone saying they haven't read it but have looked at the cover, end of any worthwhile discussion in my eyes.
3. I would get nothing but grief and it doesn't really matter as cycling is statistically very safe so they don't really need improving.
4 There is no need, you are perfectly happy with your helmet and the protection you think it offers as am I.

I didn't mean to be mean earlier it's the way this is always debated by all points of view that grates horribly. I normally avoid at all costs but had a stupid moment, clearly nothing in my head to protect today.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

sorry, spell check error (or me) no good not know good.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


But as stated repeatedly above you'll only have people involved in more serious accidents being admitted to hospital if the helmet has prevented a head injury.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

>Even small tumbles onto hard surfaces can cause serious head injuries.

Totally, all the time you hear about people who get killed in fights, to as a direct result of being hit but because they are knocked over and hit their head on the floor, a fall from a massive ~6 foot

In reply to gethin_allen:

So, the point he made is that people with a serious brain injury he treats received no benefit from having a helmet on.

He is also not the first neurosurgeon to make this statement, there were two in a court case some time back who made the same observation quite forcibly and under considerable cross examination.

How about this everyone the Dermatologist sees who's worn the new sun cream has serious burns and appears to have received no benefit or protection from it?

Yet you dismiss this because you've fallen on your head and a friend who's a nurse (actually a skin specialist) said you'd be dead now without your helmet.

This is why this winds me up and I'm letting go, I'm stepping back and breath..

Cheers

Toby

In reply to AndrewW:

I've had two big biking accidents, once over the handlebars when a car left-turned without signalling and once came off cornering fast hitting an oily patch, both times my helmet literally broke in two with the impact... that would have been my head otherwise... nuff said!

For the record though I often don't wear a helmet when just pootling about.

In reply to AndrewW:

Sorry I feel I need to apologise again this discussion just winds me up

Cheers

Toby

In reply to AndrewW:

Helmet/No-Helmet decision is based on velocity for me. Downhill I will, popping around town I won't. Wouldn't want to loose any skin on my head now would I, I have the hair of a post Edwardian cherub, gotta protect my only redeeming feature. Stay safe.

In reply to ashuk:

Rather like saying climbing helmets are useless because they rarely prevent fatal injuries when a climber takes a ground fall, conveniently forgetting all the small bumps and scrapes that would have been much worse without a helmet.

If I had been wearing a helmet when I came off in 1990, I don't expect that I would have needed 14 stitches to my forehead.

In reply to Toby_W:


The point is he treats the absolute worse cases and I somewhat doubt he does a full analysis of what caused an accident, since he wouldnt have the training for that.
That said its not exactly a secret only offer limited protection. Anyone who has compare one to a motorbike helmet will be able to say that. Likewise anyone who has worn a motorbike helmet when cycling will know why the additional risk is considered acceptable.

In reply to dissonance:

Thanks for the reply which is well considered but I shouldn't have replied in the first place.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to gethin_allen:

No. Any serious accident would probably involve a hospital visit.

If people are coming into a+e after being hit by a car doing 30 and all the ones wearing helmets only have mild concussion but the same severity of broken collar bones and fractured wrists, compared to the others who also have cuts and grazes and brain injury. You strategy build a picture.

You don't need to worry about the other injuries as the groups are still comparable. If you have an accident where your helmet is smashed to smitherines and no other injuries, you'll also see your opposite where the skull is crushed but there are no other injuries.

In reply to Toby_W:


I'm not sure why you seem so convinced there are only two possible outcomes from a crash, the 'dinged helmet prevents scrapes' one that motivates you and the 'helmet shattering brain scrambler' this chap is bemoaning. In between those two there's a continuum with some people getting lucky and some not, some saved by their helmets and some harmed by them but in general it seems counterintuitive to suggest those people would be better or no worse off if their broken helmets had not absorbed some of the crash energy. Yes, helmets could be better but they could also be worse or not worn at all. For an ordinarily sensible poster it's a very strange point you're trying to make!


There are much tougher designs available for those users that regularly test them. What most people seem to want is lightweight, cool and adequate.

jk

In reply to Toby_W:

Understand your frustration overall. For me, I don't really care about the physics. I know that it is possible for me to smack my head when riding my bike and it really, really hurt and a helmet will definitely eliminate that pain. That's why I wear one and as a mountain bike guide, would never take anyone out without one. That and the fact that I would have my arse seriously sued if anyone had an accident and they weren't wearing one.

In reply to jkarran:

You are very likely spot on with your observation. Ordinarily sensible poster gets too het up to discuss topic. I think some of the claims rather polarize the points I choose to make. I do accept it's not a two outcome result but where the mid points lies is interesting.

I think it would be fairly easy to measure some results to tie to the level of protection they provide beyond their design parameters. 2 times medical gel heads on torsos with the results matched against brain injury research. Not sure if it would bring any money in or that I'd want to publish anything on this but there would be pr and no pr is bad pr right.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to blackmountainbiker: You're very kind. I've wound down now. I don't know what it is, time of the year, funny weather, who knows. Thank you.

Toby

In reply to AndrewW:

This site is quite interesting: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/0.html (& I appreciate that it's mentioned above)

Cycling helmets in the UK (& Europe) are only designed to deal with quite modest impacts, as said before they're best for preventing cuts and abrasions. Interestingly, before the Standard was harmonised by the EU, the UK Standard was more onerous (hence why 80's cycle helmets were big piss-pot affairs, rather than the rather svelte lids we all use these days.

I think the surgeon in the OP had a bit of an agenda myself. The Bath Uni study he refers to was interesting, but not what you'd call a controlled study (A chap cycled/ commuted to work over a couple of years both with and without a helmet. He had a device on his bike to measure how close over-taking traffic was away from him. They passed him more closely when he was wearing a helmet)

In reply to blurty:



I think it was a bit more controlled than that - it was accepted as statistically valid research for some accident and safety journal, and he also added in other variables such as wearing a long wig so drivers might think it was a woman (although the beard was a bit of a give-away).

The interesting conclusion they drew was not that drivers are more aggressive toward helmet-wearers, but that they assume they're more competent and therefore less likely to wobble about!