Cyclists Who Wear Helmets 'Wasting Their Time'

[Johan Bornman]

@Garyvdm - if you say that helmet wearers are wasting their time - then you should consider this:

 

Where is the evidence that helmet wearing exacerbates head injuries?

 

I don't think Gary is saying that? Is he?

 

As for evidence that helmet wearing exacerbates head injuries, you need to look at cycling injuries in general and change your view from a head injury being a brain injury to a head injury being an injury to the entire head area, including the face and all soft tissue.

 

Helmet strikes cause dangerous cuts. I've had my face cut open on two occasions by a helmet that moves forward to force the lens of my sunglasses to cut my face. These were standard, late-model helmets and sunglasses of the standard polycarbonate type that is typically non-rimmed.

 

Another anecdote - a customer of mine had her face so badly cut by her helmet visor that she lost an eye and is badly disfigured on her face.

 

These are head injuries that would not have happened without helmets. Clearly brain injury could have resulted were helmets not involved.

 

Point is, the helmet argument isn't as clearcut as it appears. DJR makes a good point above and his guidelines seem sensible.

 

I can also see different attitudes from motorists towards two cyclists at either side of the spectrum. Imagine thirty-something Joe Audi R6S coming up behind a fit, energetic cyclist in full lycra, fancy bike and of course, helmet.

 

Now imagine Joe Audi R6S coming up behind aunt Mabel on her step-through ladies bike with a basket with a handbag inside. Aunt Mabel represents nothing that he hates, envies or has to compete against. He passes with a three inch bigger margin.

 

A real-life example of the above thought-experiment: My friend Steven has two motorbikes, a Hayabusha (SP?) and a Harley. When on his Harley, the Hayabushas "buzz him" because (I imagine) he's a wannabe ponytail executive that doesn't ride a real bike and deserves a wake-up call. Riding the same speed on his Hayabusha he doesn't get buzzed.

 

Humans unconsciously change their behavior according to their perceptions of the environment and its participants and I can see helmeted cyclist being seen in a different light from aunt Mabel.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Johan Bornman

[TDK]

I came off flippin hard in Montagu two weeks back and fractured my collar bone. If I hadn't been wearing my helmet a fractured shoulder would have been the least of my worries. Helmet basically disintegrated, which meant it did its job. A waste of time?!? Not a chance.

[TheKaiser]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of safety equipment isn't to STOP damage (far too many scenarios to consider) but rather to MINIMIZE it as far as possible, more importantly prevent life threatening injury. Case in point, what would you rather have (neither obviously): detached brain or badly cut up face?

 

Every sport has risks. We accept them and try mitigate them however we feel is best. Easy.

[SwissVan]

Some valid points re motorist attitudes JB, but that reflects faulty logic on behalf of Mr Audi and not the helmet wearing requirement.

 

What about the other cycling accidents where no motorists are involved and the helmet does its job?

[Johan Bornman]

Some valid points re motorist attitudes JB, but that reflects faulty logic on behalf of Mr Audi and not the helmet wearing requirement.

 

What about the other cycling accidents where no motorists are involved and the helmet does its job?

 

Statistically it has been shown that attitude should be considered. Whether we adjust for it by not wearing helmets, or somehow brainwash drivers into better behavior...I am out of my depth on those issues. But it doesn't negate the issue. I simply wanted to show that helmets do have an influence on motorist attitudes.

 

Of course we should laud that helmets do their job but we should also aim to reduce injuries even further. Clearly visors (and those plastic rivets that hold them to the helmet) are dangerous, yet the anvil nest done by ANSI and Snell doesn't take that into account when they give a helmet a rating.

 

Further, I'd like to see sunglass manufacturers create safer sunglasses. Having the skin sliced off your cheekbone isn't fun.

[V12man]

I don't think Gary is saying that? Is he?

 

As for evidence that helmet wearing exacerbates head injuries, you need to look at cycling injuries in general and change your view from a head injury being a brain injury to a head injury being an injury to the entire head area, including the face and all soft tissue.

 

Helmet strikes cause dangerous cuts. I've had my face cut open on two occasions by a helmet that moves forward to force the lens of my sunglasses to cut my face. These were standard, late-model helmets and sunglasses of the standard polycarbonate type that is typically non-rimmed.

 

 

Gary is saying that helmet wearing should not be mandated.

 

I say it MUST be both mandated and enforced, both legally and by the cycling community via any and all types of advocacy.

 

Having spent a portion of the weekend stitching up a youngster after a faceplant off his bike in granddads garden onto some stairs, I remain completely convinced that helmet wearing is utterly mandatory, and I have asked his mum for permission to put up the picture of the damage - luckily for him, he was wearing a helmet thanks to his granddads insistence. He is going to have a nasty scar right across the middle of his forehead for the rest of his life, fortunately he will be able to largely hide it under a fringe as he grows up. Without the helmet I suspect he would have been looking at some significant frontal lobe damage at best (pretty sharp rock was still embedded in and right through the polystyrene, but held out of the skull by the helmet). His end result is pretty good in the end, all things considered, minor concussion and some facial cuts.

 

Yes - it is true that helmets can and do do some damage during an accident (ESPECIALLY IF NOT FASTENED PROPERLY) - I have never seen a case where the overall end result was worsened by the helmet.

 

I will post up a picture if his mum gives the go-ahead.

[GaryvdM]

@Garyvdm - if you say that helmet wearers are wasting their time - then you should consider this:

 

Where is the evidence that helmet wearing exacerbates head injuries?

 

Where did I say this???? Once again you are putting words in my mouth! I never said that, nor do I believe it.

 

Countless times, in threads that you have participated in, including this one, I have made my position clear - what a waste of time because you either don't read, or are incapable of comprehension.

 

 

But, lets try again....

 

My position:

 

Yes helmets provide protection for some minor head injuries, e.g. lacerations or grazes. But they provide little protection for serious injures, e.g. brain injuries from high energy impacts.

 

So are people wasting there time wearing helmets, no, because there are, although minor, benefits.

 

The thing is, there is a lot of statistical evidence that shows that when helmet usage increases (usually due to promotion of helmet use, or laws requiring helmet use,) the number of head injuries increases, while at the same time, the number of cyclists decrease. While the reasons to explain why head injuries increase, or cycling rates drop, are still only speculation and highly debatable, it does not detract from what the evidence is directly telling us.

 

There is also a lot of evidence that shows that cycling (both sporting, and utility) is very beneficial to ones health.

 

An so when we look at the balance of advantage, since the promotion of helmet use, or helmet laws cause less people to cycle, these actions have a net reduction of health benefit. And this is what I am against, and why. I particularly against the fear mongering type of helmet promotion, such as this one: http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1779425/ , or threats to refuse medical treatment to people who have accidents when not wearing helmets (like you once made.)

[GaryvdM]

Gary is saying that helmet wearing should not be mandated.

 

Only saw this reply after I posted the other.

 

This is indeed what I'm saying. If you know this, why did you claim I said "that helmet wearers are wasting their time". They are two very different point of view.

[Johan Bornman]

Gary is saying that helmet wearing should not be mandated.

 

I say it MUST be both mandated and enforced, both legally and by the cycling community via any and all types of advocacy.

 

 

Well, give the man some credit then, he didn't say it was a waste of time. There is a difference between mandated and timewasting.

 

On the face of it, mandating it sounds like a good idea. But think it through. Should toddlers with their first little bike wear a helmet?

Should a father be prosecuted if he teaches little Johnny how to ride a bike on the lawn?

Should a bike mechanic taking a bike for a ride in the carpark be fined for not putting a lid on?

Should Farmer John be hauled before the magistrate for not wearing a helmet when riding to the cowshed?

 

And ultimately, how many people will not get to learn cycling because of these laws and then ultimately, ultimately, how much more dangerous will commuting be because there are less cyclists on the roads and thus less people with empathy for cyclists out there?

 

Blanket mandating is easy to say and seems obvious when you're sewing up a facial cut, but I don't think a all-or-nothing law is sensible.

[Wuzzie]

junk

must wear helmet saved my life twice .

Hate it when i see people without helmets. So stupid!!!

[GaryvdM]

@V12man:

 

Can I just point out: in your line of work (which I understand to be some position in a ER room, please correct if wrong,) you get to see a large percentage of people who would have benefited, or who did benefit from wearing a helmet, like the boy you just told us about.

 

Do you ever consider, when treating a middle aged person for a heart attack, the possibility that might not have been there were not for helmet promotion convincing him/her that cycling is dangerous, and put them off it. (Then consider the majority of people who would have benefited from cycling, who don't visit you, but go straight to the morgue.)

Edited June 17, 2014 by GaryvdM

[Johan Bornman]

junk

must wear helmet saved my life twice .

Hate it when i see people without helmets. So stupid!!!

Hmmm. I can just see you in your red Audi approaching a non-helmet wearing cyclist: "Look at that stupid idiot there, I hate him." And subconsciously: "Let me ride a bit closer and show him why he should be wearing a helmet."

You've just admitted that your blood pressure goes up, heart starts to race and you have pre-judged the situation.

 

OK maybe you are exempt from those emotions when you drive but I'm driving home a point.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Johan Bornman

[XCnewbie]

Some interesting reading:

 

http://www.helmets.org/bicyclingmag1305.htm

 

 

And the Bicycling magazine article they are referring to (for those who missed it last year):

 

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html?cm_mmc=Google-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Story-_-helmets-senseless

[V12man]

@V12man:

 

Can I just point out: in your line of work (which I understand to be some position in a ER room, please correct if wrong,) you get to see a large percentage of people who would have benefited, or who did benefit from wearing a helmet, like the boy you just told about.

 

Do you ever consider, when treating a middle aged person for a heart attack, the possibility that might not have been there were not for helmet promotion convincing him/her that cycling is dangers, and put them off it. (Then consider the majority of people who would have benefited from cycling, who don't visit you, but go straight to the morgue.)

 

Can I just point out: in your line of work you get to see a large percentage of people who would have benefited, or who did benefit from wearing a helmet, like the boy you just told about.

 

True - from time to time I get to see what happens to those that do and don't wear a helmet - because of what I do, this is often a lot more up close and personal than to the average bystander.

 

Do you ever consider, when treating a middle aged person for a heart attack, the possibility that might not have been there were not for helmet promotion convincing him/her that cycling is dangers, and put them off it. (Then consider the majority of people who would have benefited from cycling, who don't visit you, but go straight to the morgue.)

 

Funnily enough - in 25 years odd of working trauma, I have NEVER met ANYONE who has said that they think cycling is dangerous BECAUSE they are mandated to wear a helmet - on the other hand, I have met PLENTY of people who seriously regret not forcing kids/friends to wear a helmet, and plenty who actively regret not wearing one themselves (myself included), as well as many that believe that wearing a helmet saved their lives.

 

Lets face it - cycling has risks - because of it's nature, but I for 1 do not believe that any perceived downside of being mandated to wear a helmet in any way, shape or form exceeds the upside of the protection it gives (however minimal)

 

Do I think that people should exercise to reduce the impact of a heart attack - for sure - but if they don't want to wear a helmet to cycle, they can go for a walk every day, or run, or swim, or go dancing, play golf, tennis, even lawn bowls... please don't try to convince me that being forced to wear a helmet is going to reduce the number of people who exercise in any measurable way, or even reduce the cost of healthcare because it will get more people to exercise if they aren't forced wear it.

 

There are not many downsides to wearing a helmet that are not in the same league as helmet hair, compared to what they can save you from.

 

Here is the picture I promised (an after the repair one because some people are squeamish) - let me also point out that this little fix up is over 30k in medical bills - with a skull fracture that would have been over 100k during the first 24 hours, with almost no top limit.

 

[V12man]

Where did I say this???? Once again you are putting words in my mouth! I never said that, nor do I believe it.

 

Countless times, in threads that you have participated in, including this one, I have made my position clear - what a waste of time because you either don't read, or are incapable of comprehension.

 

 

But, lets try again....

 

My position:

 

Yes helmets provide protection for some minor head injuries, e.g. lacerations or grazes. But they provide little protection for serious injures, e.g. brain injuries from high energy impacts.

 

So are people wasting there time wearing helmets, no, because there are, although minor, benefits.

 

The thing is, there is a lot of statistical evidence that shows that when helmet usage increases (usually due to promotion of helmet use, or laws requiring helmet use,) the number of head injuries increases, while at the same time, the number of cyclists decrease. While the reasons to explain why head injuries increase, or cycling rates drop, are still only speculation and highly debatable, it does not detract from what the evidence is directly telling us.

 

There is also a lot of evidence that shows that cycling (both sporting, and utility) is very beneficial to ones health.

 

An so when we look at the balance of advantage, since the promotion of helmet use, or helmet laws cause less people to cycle, these actions have a net reduction of health benefit. And this is what I am against, and why. I particularly against the fear mongering type of helmet promotion, such as this one: http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/1779425/ , or threats to refuse medical treatment to people who have accidents when not wearing helmets (like you once made.)

 

Gary - I am starting to think you can't read - READ CAREFULLY please...... I SAID "IF you believe....

 

I am concerned that you are making statements you cannot either justify, or provide evidence of - so let me point out a few...

 

"Yes helmets provide protection for some minor head injuries, e.g. lacerations or grazes. But they provide little protection for serious injures, e.g. brain injuries from high energy impacts."

 

Um... NO - they do help in high impact situations - BUT - they are not going to help when you get hit from behind by a car/truck/bus doing 30+kph.... please don't expect the impossible from 2cm of protective layer - clearly you don't understand much about physics and the engineering required to reduce brain impact injuries. Even if you made the helmet from 2cm of solid uncrushable steel that weighed nothing, that kind of impact is going to result in brain injury (amongst others)

 

"The thing is, there is a lot of statistical evidence that shows that when helmet usage increases (usually due to promotion of helmet use, or laws requiring helmet use,) the number of head injuries increases, while at the same time, the number of cyclists decrease. While the reasons to explain why head injuries increase, or cycling rates drop, are still only speculation and highly debatable, it does not detract from what the evidence is directly telling us."

 

Again - you have quoted some science that has not properly analysed cause and effect - you cannot scientifically compare injury rates between groups of people who are indulging in different activities (such as cycle racing/training and commuting by bicycle) - it's pseudo science at best.

 

"There is also a lot of evidence that shows that cycling (both sporting, and utility) is very beneficial to ones health."

 

Yes - as does any number of other activities with lower injury rates.... stair climbing too...

 

"An so when we look at the balance of advantage, since the promotion of helmet use, or helmet laws cause less people to cycle, these actions have a net reduction of health benefit. And this is what I am against, and why. I particularly against the fear mongering type of helmet promotion, such as this one: "

 

Again - this might only be true if you assume that if they don't cycle (because they are forced to wear a helmet)they do nothing health wise - and you have NOT shown that.....

 

And finally

 

"threats to refuse medical treatment to people who have accidents when not wearing helmets (like you once made."

 

I have never made a threat to not treat anyone - telling people to stay out of my emergency room is not a threat, it's a suggestion they should follow AT ALL TIMES - emergency rooms are not a place you should be - the best way to stay out of them is to stay healthy and uninjured.

 

And if you must come and visit - please do everything possible to minimise the damage you do to yourself first - like wear a helmet - at ALL times - you will make your own life, the lives of your family, friends, kids and least important of all - my life, much easier.

[Snytjie]

@V12man:

 

Do you ever consider, when treating a middle aged person for a heart attack, the possibility that might not have been there were not for helmet promotion convincing him/her that cycling is dangerous, and put them off it.

 

Jeez Dude, really...

 

There are pointers to danger in every situation in (RSA) life. People don't get put off shopping, driving, drinking, sex or walking because there are warnings against criminals, seat belts, warnings on alcohol bottles, condoms and warnings of slippery surfaces.

 

If you get put off because of the need for basic safety equipment you probably have a serious neurosis which is far more harmful than not cycling.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Snytjie