Where does it stop? What about a broken arm but not wearing arm protection?!

Or, I have a car but chose to ride...

Dr Chinn - the helmet expert!

I'm puzzled - apart from generating profits for the lucrative helmet industry, what good do they do then? Prevent injury from head impacts at sub-12mph speeds? What about the type of accident where you can imagine serious head trauma occurring, ie head-on car impacts, coming off the road into a stationary object (street furniture) - can we only assume protection if we're going at walking or jogging speed?

I've worn a helmet for years though suspicious of its actual safety value - it's uncomfortable and sweaty all year round; if it's truly doing me no good but feeding the bank balances of fat helmet company CEOs, why should I bother?

Look, I'm fully in support of universal helmet wearing, but what is this about?

how about a motorist who gets whiplash but wasn't wearing a neck brace?

Should I wear a helmet when driving my car?

Or as tpher9 says; shuold i wear full body armour commuting because I own it for DHing?

What's the principle here? Is it "readily available and commonly used protection" or somesuch? Who decides and where is the list?

jim; I've broken enough helmets and ended up with minor injuries that could / would otherwise have been major ones enough to believe that yes, the helmet is worth the extra perspiration. If you don't Darwin will get you! ;-)

Looks like most people aren't reading the article closely. From what is written - I understand it that because the cyclist's injuries were on the BACK OF THE HEAD - no modern helmet could offer protection to that area.

The article isn't saying not to bother wearing a helmet or not to wear a helmet if you're going more than 12MPH - but rather that - IN THIS CASE - a helmet probably wouldn't have made a difference.

There are many places in the world where it is mandatory to wear a helmet while biking - and those that tell you that it won't help prevent injury in the case of an accident are the same people that are telling you that seatbelts and airbags won't help you if you crash your car.

bomberesque - I think the principle here is that it's based on the Highway Code, which says cyclists SHOULD wear helmets. So, if you're not, and you sustain injuries that a helmet would have prevented/reduced, then you're liable for contributory negligence as the HC recommends a helmet should be worn.

Obviously there's nothing in the HC that says cyclists SHOULD wear body armour, or that motorists SHOULD where neckbraces (yet!) so it wouldn't be taken into consideration.

This 12mph thing is confusing, surely it's the speed your 'head' hits the ground and your heads weight, not what's showing on your speedo at the time of the accident. To be honest the helmet industry needs to come out and show results with figures.

Given the health and safety paranoia and the nanny state that we live in. It won't be too long before we have to wear full face helmets, hi-viz jackets and "sorry officer but my bell fell off"!

Wearing a helmet should be a legal requirement whilst riding a bicycle. Why wouldn’t anybody want to minimise the risk of injury. Do they place such little emphasis or value on their own life? Presumably anyone against such legislation refuses to wear a seat belt whilst driving or sun block whilst on holiday? Of course you could take this to the end degree and argue where does it end? Arm protection, leg protection, body protection. Too suggest such is pure lunacy. But it’s about what’s practicable and sensible. There just isn’t a valid argument against wearing one

Everyone gets really hung up on the 12mph stat but thats just the speed of impact isn't it? You could be rising down hill at 60mph but if you fall off your head won't neccessarily be doing that when it hilts the floor, and then it depends on angles of attack and other physics stuff that I don't understand.

There was something similar in MCN in the autum now they're sharp testing motorbike helmets, I don't see this being apllied to cars with a lower than 5 star ncap rating, why should people not be negligent if they drive a shoddy car? Bike's always get a rough deal motorbikes included (not in the above case though, that motorcyclist appears to be a tool)

Pokerface, there are indeed 'many places in the world' where helmets are mandatory (Australia, New Zealand, most US states)... but not that many, and the benefits of compulsion are hotly disputed.

There are far more places in the world where helmets are not mandatory (the vast majority of Europe, India, China) and these include the countries with the best cyclist safety, such as Denmark and the Netherlands.

And as for the HC... Remember its last iteration, when they tried to say we 'should' use cycle paths instead of the road, thus implying that any road accident when a cycle path was available was partly the cyclist's fault for not being out of the way?

Surely hardly "news"? Contributory negligence is a long established legai concept in cases of liability/damages. I'm pretty sure e.g. that before seat belts were compulsory, NOT wearing them if fitted would have led to reduced damages where appropriate. Or failing to have lights on a bike in the hours of darkness!

Based on the logic of taking reasonable care, everyone should wear helmets all the time, but especially when walking, driving and doing stuff around the house. Cycling, in terms of danger statistics, comes somewhere further down the list, although my perception of danger encourages me to ride helmeted most of the time.

Without reading the full transcript it's difficult to know what was actually decided, but there can't be a 'ruling' (i.e. a binding, precedent-setting decision) which doesn't apply to the facts of the case. Courts don't make rulings on hypothetical situations. If on the facts of the case a helmet would not have made any difference, observations about what might have been the situation if it had can only be obiter dicta, i.e. an observation made in passing. The last poster has it right - contributory negligence is well established, and this case doesn't seem to change anything.

The judge's comments in this case are absurd and completely unjustified, and not based on the facts. Nowhere with a helmet law or massive helmet promotion has been able to demonstrate any reduction in risk to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists. The effects are therefore; increase in risk to those cyclists left, increase in road danger, increase in pollution, congestion and global warming. And the manufacturers make a very handsome profit.

Like the recent article about novice cyclists, following a press release from LV insurance, this is deliberate bias by the insurance industry, who are looking to reduce compensation payouts to cyclists run down by car drivers.

For the clearest analysis of situation regarding cycle helmets and contributary negligence, see Julian Fulbrook's paper at http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/files/fullbrook.pdf

It leaves me saddened that I have a choice that really is no choice if I am to protect myself and my dependants from the wrongful decisions of the High Court I must wear every safety device ever made before I embark on any activity. Skateboarders, joggers when the weather turns a bit misty in the morning, beware this sue everyone and let lawyers and Judges Sort out the amounts, is a dangerous place to be. Will it come down to if your not wearing a helmet make sure it is not in a place were you could be injured by another person or keep to boring away from traffic circuits and don't dare to get in the way of the almighty motorist.

I am a cyclist, car driver, motorcyclist, I wear a helmet because I choose, my kids ware one because I want them to see it as normal, do not legislate, as choice is my right and everyone looses when bad law is made to appease the small minded who think they know best and use statistics to make every risk appear higher than it really is.

Off to put the soap box back under the stairs.

I do hope someone stops this insane lurch towards compulsion.

GG

Oddly, his injuries were described as being caused by rotation of his head. Wearing a polystyrene hat (aka cycle helmet) would almost certainly increased the severity of such rotation. Motorcycle helmets are hard and shiny so that they slide along the road, minimising head rotation. Cycle helmets are soft and have many vents, making rotation of the head almost inevitable (and increasing the likelihood of nasty diffuse brain injury and neck injuries).

To chubbos - the Highway Code also says you SHOULD wear light coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight... do we really want a society where you are liable for negligence if you did not put on a fluorescent jacket in broad daylight?

Please, don't make helmets compulsory. It would put off a whole category of casual cyclists and make the roads in the end less safe for cyclists. It's in general the presence and behaviour of cars, and infrastructure completely adapted to a car-driving- society that makes cycling dangerous. Making cycling even more of a marginalised oddity is the last we should do.

Another reason why you should always wear a helmet, but surely it's just common sense!!!

In plain English, the court is simply saying: "If wearing basic equipment could have minimised your injuries, it's not the other party's fault, mate."

I can't say I understand why a helmet can't protect the back of the head, on all three of mine it's the thickest part of the helmet. I can see how it might make things worse in some situations in that it could force the head to rotate forward even further on impact (and cause neck/spinal injury) but surely it still cushions the actual blow of the impact?

This ruling is typical of Britain`s motor-centric legal system which has always tried to minimise the degree of responsibility carried by motor vehicle users and to blame the victims of the irresponsible behaviour of others wherever this is possible, especially if the victim is a cyclist.

Quite apart from the fact that a helmet offers a very minimal level of protection which rapidly becomes an irrelevance as the speed of a collision increases, I very much doubt that a similar ruling will ever be passed in relation to the proven secondary safety benefits available to the users of modern cars. For example, a judge ruling that someone seriously injured by another motorist who was speeding, drunk, using a mobile phone or whatever was not entitled to full compensation because they chose to drive a car with a low ENCAP rating or which was not fitted with all-round airbags.

How about denying compensation to motorcyclists who had failed to wear full leathers and body armour? After all, like cycle helmets, such equipment is considered to be normal by those involved in racing, even if their use by casual and commuter bikers is quite rightly seen as being unnecessary.

topher... don't sue and it won't be an issue.

jimdonnel... if you are in a head on collision with an auto and you aren't wearing a helmet, do you really think you would be around to consider whether having a helmet would have been better?

I can understand the logic of reduction of damages in such circumstances where there is reliable evidence that those injuries suffered would be reduced by the wearing of a helmet. The same logic applies to the wearing (or not) of a seatbelt, which was the case before that became compulsory.

Every case will turn on its merits.

As for the compulsion to wear a helmet, that's a seperate issue. At the moment I choose to.

Having come off recently, at 38mph, the majority of my injuries were insignificant in relative terms, mainly hand/shoulder/back. However, my Giro Ionos helmet was wrecked, with no exaggeration. Obviously I did hit my head hard enough to completely fracture the helmet's core, but I did not have so much as a headache. Did my wearing a helmet prevent injury? In my opinion, without a doubt.

Lots of misconceptions here. No country that has introduced and enforced helmet wearing laws has seen an increase in cyclist safety. What happened is the number of head injuries did drop but by much less than the drop in the number of cyclists. So at best the helmets made no difference to safety but succeeded in putting lots of people off cycling. Meanwhile the Netherlands has the lowest head injury rate and the lowest helmet wearing rate in the world. Go figure.

12mph is the design limit of the helmet standards (and the helmets don't exceed the standards to any significant amount). Its equivalent to hitting you head when falling from a seated position on a stationary bike (which is how the compliance test is specified). As an aside the energy needed to fracture the skull is about 7 - 10 times higher.

And Bomberesque, if it really was true that your helmet saved you from serious injury in all those accidents, then the hospitals would be full to overflowing with all the cyclists like you who had had accidents while not wearing helmets. The fact that they aren't means the overwhelming probability is that your helmet made no difference to the outcome. In overall risk, cycling head injury is a tiny fraction of hospital head injury admissions. Trips and falls is by far the largest but head injuries from even physical assaults are about double those from cycling accidents. Helmets for clubbing anyone?

There is evidence that cyclists wearing helmets take more risks than those without because they think they are safer. Imagine rock climbing with and without a rope. You are far more likely to try that risky move if you know the rope is there to save you than if you know if you slip you will fall.

So make your own choice about wearing a helmet but do so with the assumption that in most accidents other than preventing minor bumps and scrapes, it will probably not make any difference.

DAG on a bike: If your helmet fractured then it didn't work. It failed. A helmet is designed to work by compressing the polystyrene, not by fracturing. If it fractured that is brittle failure which absorbs almost no energy.

As for your anecdote it is just that. You will never repeat the experiment without the helmet so there is no way of knowing what might have happened. But 38mph was 10 times the helmet's design limit. I have a friend with a similar anecdote who crashed at over 50mph into a boulder field and broke his back. His head was, like yours, completely unscathed. He puts it down to the remarkable properties of the cotton cycling cap he was wearing at the time.

Seems to me its 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. The jury has long been out on whether helmets prevent injuries or not. Personally I only wear one when racing or if the road conditions are really bad. Its each to their own. Maybe they help protect you and maybe they don't. From personal experience you could also believe in fate. One evening last year I had that uncertain feeling in my stomach before going out training and put on my helmet. One of the very few times I've worn one. Went round a corner on a descent to be greeted by one of my buddies bouncing off a Range Rover resulting in me hitting him, going over the bars and cracking my helmet. Who knows what the result would have been without it but I am sure someone was looking out for me that night

Hi all i ride a downhill/hardtail off road and to work i also ware a full face helmet and every day i fined my self being bullied buy motor vehicles.

i have been pushed in to the back off a bus buy a flat bed truck and have been hit buy car wing mirrors wile i am in the cycle lane a few times my handle bar has been hit so hard it as pushed me in to parked cars and the public but it is hard to get up and get the car reg to give to the police by the time you get up they are gone i have thought off carrying heavy nuts and bolts to throw at them but that would make me just as bad as them so i am happy to ware a full face helmet it has saved me head injury's plus i think there should be more tufer rules between cyclists and motor vehicles

To FJS - ..."do we really want a society where you are liable for negligence if you did not put on a fluorescent jacket in broad daylight?

I don't, no! I was just saying how (I think) the law has been interpreted in this case, which is actually completely in the cyclist's favour. I wasn't passing comment on whether I think this is a good thing or not.

And to Champs - "In plain English, the court is simply saying: "If wearing basic equipment could have minimised your injuries, it's not the other party's fault, mate."

That's not what has been said at all. They're saying IF the cyclist sustained injuries that could have been prevented by a helmet, then he wouldn't be able to claim FULL compensation from the motorcyclist, who was still at fault.

It's just worth bearing in mind as another factor to consider when you make a decision over whether or not to wear a helmet which, thankfully, is still everyone's choice to make.

Just seems that this is another ranty helmet vs no helmet argument, where people haven't read the flippin article!

Why can't people seem to see the common sense value of wearing a helmet.

If running into walls was a common past-time wouldn't you rather do it with a helmet on than without one?

All the statistics about countries that have not seen increases in cyclist safety while having helmet laws don't take into account many of the other contributing factors. For example in NZ one or the major studies was undertaken in the North Shore (of Auckland) where they found a significant drop in the number of cyclists between '90 and '98. Helmet law became compulsory in '94. And yes, injuries went down, but not as much as the reduction in cyclists. HA, PROOF, all the anti-helmet brigade shout.

Well, sorry. But unless you live there what you wont realise is that the North Shore has expanded massively over the last two decades and is a major commuter area into Auckland city. All commuters have to cross the Auckland Harbour Bridge which you can not cycle on as it is motorway. So the huge number of commuters are now attached to their cars. The commute distances in NZ are also on average (esp in Auckland) rather large due to the spread out nature of the city. None of this information seems to be taken into account when looking for 'proof' that helmets don't work.

Well, I say from vivid (and some not so vivid) experience that they do work. No, they're not going to work in every single situation (but neither do your brakes, do they). But I'd rather wear one than risk even splitting the flesh on my head (which I can assure you is a messy experience).

If so many professional cycling bodies have made it mandatory there might just be something to it.

Common sense? Take your own stance, but personally, I can't see how it can't be.