Do you wear a helmet?

[Velo Dude]

Does anyone think it is foolish not to wear a helmet in the shower?

 

[knewcleardaze]

After riding many years without a helmet,(thankfully incident free), I now wear one. A girl who would become my riding bud spotted me on the road one day and couldn't believe I was riding sans helmet. I think this was when the light bulb went on in my head. Looking back, I can't believe I rode so long without one. As many have said, it only takes one incident. I appreciate all the links to papers and studies in regard to the use of helmets. For me it's a no brainer. Helmets save lives.

 

[elapid]

Thanks for providing the full papers or abstracts.

Full text here http://cycle-helmets.com/P563.pdf

This paper still does not look at head injuries as an individual group. It just looks at injuries and categorizes them according to their severity, regardless of whether it is head, limb or torso. As said previously, a helmet is not going to prevent or minimize the risk of non-head injuries.

A rational approach to pedal cyclist head protection, Depreitere B. Catholic University of Leuven. 2004. http://www.kuleuven.be/doctoraatsverdediging/0304/93e.pdf

There is no methods or results to this study. Just a report of their findings. While I acknowledge that a helmet will not prevent head and facial injuries, particularly high speed and rotational injuries, it may well minimize the risk of direct trauma, particularly to the temporal region. I would like to know the speed at which this test was done and compare this to typical speeds at which someone would fall of their bike and hit their head.

Specific patterns of bicycle accident injuries - an analysis of correlation tween level of head trauma and trauma mechanism Möllman FT, Rieger B, Wassmann H. DGNC Köln, 2004. http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2004/04dgnc0134.shtml

I wouldn't expect to see significant difference when only 11% of cyclists with head injuries were wearing a helmet. This is most likely a type II statistical error because of low statistical power: 37 cyclists wearing helmets v 300 not wearing helmets. What is interesting is the proportion of head injuries in other pursuits: leisure time (36%), housework (28%), business (15%) and non-bicycle traffic accidents (11%). May be we should be wearing helmets all the time!

Second study, did you notice that the authors worked for a goverment agency? I'm not that familiar with NZ bureaucracy, is the LTSA responsible for the helmet law? I note their findings but the LTSA have since published figures for bicycle use in NZ showing a long term decline. Official numbers here http://cycle-helmets.com/nz-ltsa-2006.pdf

Does this mean that you do not trust the report because it was a government agency published the findings? The results from this paper are in accordance with another paper from NZ, from a non-government agency and also from the same author that found no change in head injury rates when helmet use increased during non-compulsory helmet legislation in an earlier publication.

I am not familiar with either the LTSA or the NZ helmet law.

In respect of Australia, wasn't that the point? The helmet laws are claimed to have coincided with a reduction in cycling which on its own should have been expected to have produced a reduction in head injuries assuming a constant ksi per km rate. In addition the laws were introduced in tandem with measures that had been shown to be effective at reducing collisions in all road users in other jurisdictions, the helmet law being the only novelty. Therefore how can an increased proportion of cyclists wearing helmets be said to be effective if there casualty rate does not decline faster than other groups?

There is no statistical association. The authors have just stated that there is a decline but made no effort to statistically associate the two events. There may have also been a reduction in lolly consumption - does this mean that less kids are riding bikes to their local milk bar to buy lollies? The two events may be related or could be independent, but this is unknown until some sort of statistical analysis is performed. Furthermore, as other studies have shown including one mentioned in your post, many bike accidents involving head injuries are not associated with motor vehicles. The introduction and enforcement of speed and drink-driving laws may affect bike-vehicular head trauma but it will not affect the rate of non-vehicular associated head trauma.

I can also personally understand why compulsory helmet use was introduced in Australia. The TAC (at least in Victoria) are financially responsible for the medical bills of any on-road trauma, including to cyclists. Why not try to reduce their financial burden by improving the safety of cyclists, even if that means there are less cyclists on the road (which could also be a reflection of societal issues such as the separation of communities from work places, etc, etc)?

 

[TriGuy NZ]

First post yay!
When I was 16 I crashed during a descent which I rode at least once a week due to a nice combo of copious rain, poor surface and a nice dash of oil for luck. Looked down at my comp to check my speed (about 55km/h) and that little lapse of concentration was all it took for me to go down. Rider error yes, I wouldn't have crashed if I'd payed proper attention but everyone makes mistakes (stage 5 Veulta is a nice example haha)

I must have slid headfirst into the gutter because my 6month old $150 giro helmet was split in two and there must have been a bit of bouncing along the road at some point from the damage. A passing motorist found me unconcious and called the ambulance. Hospital for 2 weeks, can't remember the four months post crash.

I'm 19 now and at uni - I'm still on medication to control headaches and excessive fatigue when concentrating, I have to use the disability service there to manage due to very poor short term memory, I sit my exams in a room by myself so I can focus... but I'm still able to do well at uni, train and race pretty well normally and enjoy life. Would I be able to if I wasn't wearing a helmet? Hard to say for sure but I'm fairly certain that it would have been better than a little bit of cotton over my scalp?

IMHO there isn't really a valid reason for not wearing one - weight, airflow, price etc are negligable when you think whats potentially at stake

Sweet thats my lil rant out of the way!

 

[mherm79]

First post yay!
When I was 16 I crashed during a descent which I rode at least once a week due to a nice combo of copious rain, poor surface and a nice dash of oil for luck. Looked down at my comp to check my speed (about 55km/h) and that little lapse of concentration was all it took for me to go down. Rider error yes, I wouldn't have crashed if I'd payed proper attention but everyone makes mistakes (stage 5 Veulta is a nice example haha)

I must have slid headfirst into the gutter because my 6month old $150 giro helmet was split in two and there must have been a bit of bouncing along the road at some point from the damage. A passing motorist found me unconcious and called the ambulance. Hospital for 2 weeks, can't remember the four months post crash.

I'm 19 now and at uni - I'm still on medication to control headaches and excessive fatigue when concentrating, I have to use the disability service there to manage due to very poor short term memory, I sit my exams in a room by myself so I can focus... but I'm still able to do well at uni, train and race pretty well normally and enjoy life. Would I be able to if I wasn't wearing a helmet? Hard to say for sure but I'm fairly certain that it would have been better than a little bit of cotton over my scalp?

IMHO there isn't really a valid reason for not wearing one - weight, airflow, price etc are negligable when you think whats potentially at stake

Sweet thats my lil rant out of the way!

++ spot on. good to hear you're are doing so well.

 

[philcrisp]

This paper still does not look at head injuries as an individual group. It just looks at injuries and categorizes them according to their severity, regardless of whether it is head, limb or torso. As said previously, a helmet is not going to prevent or minimize the risk of non-head injuries.

But Thompson et al 1989 report an 89% reduction in head injuries. Surely some effect should be visible.

There is no methods or results to this study. Just a report of their findings. While I acknowledge that a helmet will not prevent head and facial injuries, particularly high speed and rotational injuries, it may well minimize the risk of direct trauma, particularly to the temporal region. I would like to know the speed at which this test was done and compare this to typical speeds at which someone would fall of their bike and hit their head.

Its a doctoral thesis, originial in Flemish here http://www.kuleuven.be/doctoraatsverdediging/0304/093.htm. What I quoted it for the statement that "there is no scientific support for the helmet’s design" Most of the methodology is here http://books.google.com/books?id=qh...ach to pedal cyclist head protection"&f=false

I wouldn't expect to see significant difference when only 11% of cyclists with head injuries were wearing a helmet. This is most likely a type II statistical error because of low statistical power: 37 cyclists wearing helmets v 300 not wearing helmets. What is interesting is the proportion of head injuries in other pursuits: leisure time (36%), housework (28%), business (15%) and non-bicycle traffic accidents (11%). May be we should be wearing helmets all the time!

Thompson et al, 1989 3% of the sample wore helmets. That doesn't seem to have prevented it being used to promote helmet use for the last 20 years.

Does this mean that you do not trust the report because it was a government agency published the findings?

Not necessarily, I work for one, but there may be a potential conflict of interest. It always pays to be slightly more sceptical of people confirming their own policy decisions and slightly less of those saying that they were wrong. Also see the number of climate change deniers who have taken money from the oil industry.

There is no statistical association. The authors have just stated that there is a decline but made no effort to statistically associate the two events. There may have also been a reduction in lolly consumption - does this mean that less kids are riding bikes to their local milk bar to buy lollies? The two events may be related or could be independent, but this is unknown until some sort of statistical analysis is performed. Furthermore, as other studies have shown including one mentioned in your post, many bike accidents involving head injuries are not associated with motor vehicles. The introduction and enforcement of speed and drink-driving laws may affect bike-vehicular head trauma but it will not affect the rate of non-vehicular associated head trauma.

Noted but both factors should be excluded as far as possible before claiming that the helmet are effective at a population level. In this case I'll bow to the statistican making the claim.

I can also personally understand why compulsory helmet use was introduced in Australia. The TAC (at least in Victoria) are financially responsible for the medical bills of any on-road trauma, including to cyclists. Why not try to reduce their financial burden by improving the safety of cyclists, even if that means there are less cyclists on the road (which could also be a reflection of societal issues such as the separation of communities from work places, etc, etc)?

Are the Victorian Health Service going to recharge TAC for increased obessity rates? Also see public choice theory. Although as I said a few posts back compulsion is a much wider argument.

 

[JDPepper]

Always

Does anyone think it is foolish not to wear a helmet in the shower?

Recently:
Local high school hockey star slipped in the shower, hit head and died - was not wearing his helmet.
National football legend fell off one story roof whilst blowing leaves out of gutters, hit head and died - was not wearing his helmet.
Local teacher had light fixture fall on his head during class - no helmet - died.
Local school bus driver stopped at KwikMart for coffee, got struck by car and head hit pave as just to enter store - no helmet - died.
Local kid fell out of tree hit head - no helmet - died.
Local running star was trail running and fell and hit head on rock- no helmet - died.
Two different circumstances in one month where hikers at park fell off trail and hit head and died.
Little leaguer hit ball back at pitcher(his dad!) in practice - dad hit in the head and died.

Stairs, ladders, balconies, roofs, roads, wet conditions, icy conditions, snowy conditions, baseball, basketball, cheerleading, auto driving,under trees, under lights, while hunting ......


Perhaps the poll should be, "Do you wear a helmet 24/7?"

 

[elapid]

Recently:
Local high school hockey star slipped in the shower, hit head and died - was not wearing his helmet.
National football legend fell off one story roof whilst blowing leaves out of gutters, hit head and died - was not wearing his helmet.
Local teacher had light fixture fall on his head during class - no helmet - died.
Local school bus driver stopped at KwikMart for coffee, got struck by car and head hit pave as just to enter store - no helmet - died.
Local kid fell out of tree hit head - no helmet - died.
Local running star was trail running and fell and hit head on rock- no helmet - died.
Two different circumstances in one month where hikers at park fell off trail and hit head and died.
Little leaguer hit ball back at pitcher(his dad!) in practice - dad hit in the head and died.

Stairs, ladders, balconies, roofs, roads, wet conditions, icy conditions, snowy conditions, baseball, basketball, cheerleading, auto driving,under trees, under lights, while hunting ......


Perhaps the poll should be, "Do you wear a helmet 24/7?"

Yep - it's dangerous out there. Philcrisp provided the following link: http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2004/04dgnc0134.shtml where only 10% of 3395 head trauma patients were cyclists. The authors state in the abstract that "other types of trauma mechanisms were related to leisure time (36%), housework (28%), business (15%) and non-bicycle traffic accidents (11%)."

 

[Steampunk]

Quick question: what is the difference between the approved but inexpensive helmets found everywhere for ~ $20 and the helmets at my LBS that cost up to $300?

Are there significant benefits in terms of 1. safety, or 2. performance (racing, etc.)?

 

[elapid]

Quick question: what is the difference between the approved but inexpensive helmets found everywhere for ~ $20 and the helmets at my LBS that cost up to $300?

Are there significant benefits in terms of 1. safety, or 2. performance (racing, etc.)?

Good question. This is from an archived thread from BikeForums:

"The price difference is primarily engineering cost. They all have to meet the same safety standards. Engineering a helmet that is lighter and cooler (more vents and vents shaped to produce greater laminar flow) while still meeting the same safety standards is much harder, requires much more time, much more testing and redesign to finally get it right."

The thread then continues into a bit of a political debate where it states that in the USA helmets are not tested by authorities to ensure that they conform to the CPSC safety standards, as they are in Australia, but rather rely on the Chinese manufacturers of most bicycle helmets to manufacture helmets according to these safety standards. The Snell Foundation does independently test helmets in the USA and hence a Snell sticker does imply a certain level of confidence in the product. Apparently, the only helmet manufacturer that allows Snell testing in the USA is Specialized. See http://www.smf.org/stds.html for more information.

 

[Steampunk]

Good question. This is from an archived thread from BikeForums:

"The price difference is primarily engineering cost. They all have to meet the same safety standards. Engineering a helmet that is lighter and cooler (more vents and vents shaped to produce greater laminar flow) while still meeting the same safety standards is much harder, requires much more time, much more testing and redesign to finally get it right."

The thread then continues into a bit of a political debate where it states that in the USA helmets are not tested by authorities to ensure that they conform to the CPSC safety standards, as they are in Australia, but rather rely on the Chinese manufacturers of most bicycle helmets to manufacture helmets according to these safety standards. The Snell Foundation does independently test helmets in the USA and hence a Snell sticker does imply a certain level of confidence in the product. Apparently, the only helmet manufacturer that allows Snell testing in the USA is Specialized. See http://www.smf.org/stds.html for more information.

Many thanks!

 

[Chris0701]

I never used to wear a helmet when I was into cycling years ago as I was never encouraged to do so. My father used to race internationally as a junior but as he never wore a helmet, nor encouraged me to do so, I never did.

In my early twenties I suffered a really bad crash in which I was knocked out for seven hours, broke my jaw and suffered facial lacerations. It took me four years to recover (partially because the national health service in the UK is absolutely useless) but if I were to cycle again (which I do want to) I would definitely wear a helmet.

The road grit still embedded in my right temple is the perfect reminder to do so.

 

[Neutron Bob]

Don that lid!!

Hey, I am all for personal freedom and the choice to wear- or not to wear- that helmet. I display my opinion every time I ride, and yes, I have the trusty Giro on my melon.

I have been wearing cycling helmets since 1985, when Bell was just about the only choice, with early versions of the sport helmet derived from motorcycle helmets. They were heavy, much cruder than today, and had a solid plastic outer shell.

Then the lightweight Giro debuted, much better when the temperatures rose. My personal choice of brand shouldn't be an indicator of what I feel you should wear, as there are plenty of great choices from Garneau and others that will protect your head equally well.

The primary mode of operation for a foam helmet in a crash is to distribute the hard surface impact throughout the shell, and to absorb energy through self-destruction of the foam if the energy is sufficient. Better that than allowing your grey matter to thump against the inside of your skull.

Cycling helmets do this by having ingenious shells integrated with the foam body, keeping it all together.

I know first-hand just how unpleasant a major head injury can be, having suffered a bad concussion in childhood. The damaged region of my brain was the area dealing with character recognition. I looked at a magazine, and recognized it as a Reader's Digest, but the individual letters looked like Cyrillic to me. I could not read them, despite their being quite sharply in focus. The nausea that follows while the body tries to reduce cranial pressure is worse than food poisoning by a significant margin.

I spent several years piloting an ambulance, plus later in the fire service, responding to accidents and injuries. Head injuries are not preventable, but the effects can be minimized significantly with head protection.

A modern helmet channels the air beautifully over my head, and is quite pleasant compared to the old days.

Bob

 

[eric.coe]

Yes, That thing I always do.

helmet is not only a rule to follow, it is for your safety. More safety is require as faster you ride,

I ride Bike crazy, So I prefer to wear helmet.

 

[bgross]

I only wear a helmet when participating in group events where helmets are required. I have little faith that these cheezy foam structures actually do much at all to help avoid major injury in a crash however as a "skid lid" it probably would be effective. I also feel the manufacturers put alot of mis-information about there effectiveness out there and most fall for it. I look at the costs of the helmets most desired by bikers and think to myself what a ripoff. Prices exceeding well above $100 is BS. I think that's why most of my friends I ride with don't wear them either. It really is insulting not to mention really ****es me off that any products targeted to bikers are priced so far out of line. It's not that I can't afford it, I can easily afford it, I'm just not that stupid. I say let the manufacturers keep it. But, that's getting into another topic so I'll stop there.

There are plenty of decent helmets in the $30-$50 range -- and they work.
Maybe not at the top of the fashion pyramid, but who cares?!

My son had a low speed fall which nearly took his life. In a coma for two weeks, long recovery, lingering deficits. A preventable injury which has limited a young man with a great brain.

I was rear-ended at a stop sign a couple weeks ago. Totaled my bike and I ended up under the front of the vehicle. On the way to the hospital, the paramedic mentioned that my helmet was also totaled. I didn't even know I'd hit my head! (When I landed, my head whipped back.) The rest of my body was complaining, but not my head.
Best $40 I've EVER spent.

 

[soOpOSMthanks!]

yes. because i dont want to end up ***, or dead.

 

[Fourier]

I personally feel completly naked on a bike without wearing a helmet. Even when I conmute to work I wear one. It has already saved my frontal lobe on a couple of ocassions.

 

[derailleur]

I see far too many johnny too fast freds with out but it is their nut.

Giro has saved my life and I dont have to eat with a straw so I am down with the helmet.

Word.

Taylor Phinney crashes out of the Cascade Lakes Road Race with a "severe concussion":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbmvxzd5yk

Taylor Phinney gives props to his lid:
http://twitter.com/taylorphinney/status/2845869941

I wear my Specialized M1 on every ride. I see hundreds of riders every week, and only a couple aren't wearing a helmet.

Pretty much, the helmet has won the war. The only people still fighting against it are those reasoning from ignorance or not using any reasoning facility at all.

 

[biker jk]

I certainly do wear a helmet, always. My wife recentylu went over the bars and landed hard on the road and would have sustained a serious head injury but for her helmet.

It's just plain irrational not to wear a helmet when cycling. I'm yet to hear an argument against wearing a helmet that's based on common sense.

 

[Anonymous]

Think of your cranium as a garden shed. If you don't have much of value in there, just an old hoe or rake why bother with the hassel and expense of locks and security. If there is anything you value and is worth keeping in there, wear a helmet like I do. When going (too) fast down hill I sometimes remind myself that the helmet will only protect me from instantaneous death by a head wound and I've got other things to do after the ride which I won't get done if I'm in a hospital bed, or ditch.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

I certainly do wear a helmet, always. My wife recentylu went over the bars and landed hard on the road and would have sustained a serious head injury but for her helmet.

It's just plain irrational not to wear a helmet when cycling. I'm yet to hear an argument against wearing a helmet that's based on common sense.

'May' help, will never hurt. I think the question is not helmet or not but helmet LAWS or not. No laws please, it's a 'nanny law', protecting you from yourself.

If they are going to make it illegal to ride w/o one, they had better start with motorcyclists(no helmet law here for them).

Gotta say, after a long ride on a summer's day, with a helmet, taking it off for those 3-4 minutes on a bike path, no helmet sure feels nice. Cooler and I have a very high end Giro.

 

[Steampunk]

'May' help, will never hurt. I think the question is not helmet or not but helmet LAWS or not. No laws please, it's a 'nanny law', protecting you from yourself.

If they are going to make it illegal to ride w/o one, they had better start with motorcyclists(no helmet law here for them).

With universal health care in Canada, my tax dollars are paying for some idiot who isn't wearing a helmet, so I've no problem with helmet laws. I may be wrong, but I think it's mandatory for people under 18 here.

As for the motorcyclists, I remember living in eastern Washington state and crossing the border to and from Idaho, which reminded people entering Washington that seat belts were the law, and motorcycle helmets, too. Idaho, if memory serves, only has four laws. Period.

 

[Gonzoburger]

Here in Seattle it is the law, but many ride without a helmet. I was in a crash with a truck a few years ago and my helmet cracked. I'm certain it would have been my skull that cracked without the helmet. Going on a ride for me without a helmet would feel the same as if I forgot my bib!!!

 

[Rock7586]

You are silly if you don't it is about the cheepest form of insurance you can get on the most valueable piece of equipment you have. We all know you know how to ride a bike, the that kid who just got their licence texting on the phone driving their friends car on unfamialr roads dosen't realize or care how much experience you have.

 

[mens03bike]

makes me think

.., I used helmet but in some instances i don't wear one... I love the soft touch of air in my face... but in mountain biking helmet is a must....