tr42... I have heard that statement made (helmet laws don't increase safety stats) so many times and it sounds ridiculous. First, show us those stats and please have "those studies" explain how they gathered the data.

Dag on a bike stated that he had a serious accident and a lot of damage to his body but his head was fine.. thanks to his helmet. How does this info get gathered into these stats you site? In fact, just his statement alone suggests the study you cite is flawed on so many levels.

If all cyclists obeyed the helmet laws, then the rate of injury would have to go down if the stats were being gathered properly. If we can all agree that helmets don't increase damage done, then dag on a bike would be the first of many incidents where his helmet kept him from having serious injury... thus shooting down the silly position that helmet laws don't made things safer.

TR42 your conclusions re wearing helmets and accident rates aren't the real story - the way to measure the effectiveness of wearing vs not wearing to to look at injuries sustanied, not accident rates/figures.

And to say that a helmet 'failed' because it cracked, again is not the point - if in the case of our friend Dag, we wasn't wearing a helmet, imagine what would have happened to his skull? Whether or not the helmet was trashed is irrelevant - the fact that he walked away from the accident is more than enough testament that helmets are a good idea.

THANK GOD I STILL HAVE ME AMERICAN FOOTBALL HELMET.

LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT ON THE BIKE BUT ME NUT IS SAFE.

moconnor01 wrote:

`Whether or not the helmet was trashed is irrelevant - the fact that he walked away from the accident is more than enough testament that helmets are a good idea.`

Uninformed attitudes like this from `cyclists` will only hasten the day when the motor lobby finally gets it`s way and compulsory helmet wearing is finally introduced. On might as well argue that because some walked away from a crash whilst wearing a woolly hat then this somehow proves that `wooly hats save lives`.

The bottom line is that cycle helmets are only capable of absorbing a very small amount of energy, and the last time I looked the laws of physics still applies to polystyrene hats!

What would serve the interests of road safety far more than the wearing cycle helmets would be for the law to finally begin to hold the users of motor vehicles to be fully responsible for their own actions, a principle that is undermined by rulings such as this.

Bikerider99: I suggest you look into the extensive published work by people like Robinson, Hewson, Curnow, Rodgers - need I go on? - in the medical and injury prevention journals These all look at the same subject from a variety of different approaches and none of them find any safety benefit and some find worsened safety from helmets. The most detailed study of police accident statistics and hospital admissions data in the UK found no safety benefit from wearing a helmet. In fact it found that girls, who were twice as likely to wear a helmet as boys, had just the same head injury rates. You can find a summary of most of the research for and against helmets at www.cyclehelmets.org

Dag on a bike is just an anecdote and no more valid than my tongue in cheek but true story of "my cotton cycling cap saved my life". Why do you think one is valid and the other not?

Its easy to show that the vast majority of "helmet saved my life" stories are wrong because the majority of people cycle without helmets and crash just the same yet there are not masses of unhelmeted cyclists in the hospitals with the head injuries that Dag supposedly avoided thanks to his helmet. The only explanations are either helmeted cyclists have many more crashes than unhelmeted ones or else the helmets are not doing anything in reality and the stories are misplaced. There will be odd cases where they might help just as there are people who live to 100 yet are heavy smokers. Their anecdote is no good basis to take up smoking to live longer when the stats show you are more likely to die young if you smoke.

moconnor01: I suggest you read Curnow's paper on injuries sustained and the problem of helmets increasing the serious rotational brain injuries because they add mass and size to the head. Helmets are designed to protect against linear impact injuries that generally are much less serious. Remember that in the case that started this off, it was his rotational brain injuries that would have caused the major damage to his brain and every indication is they would have been worse with a helmet on.

hartle - you make claims about Auckland but how about the same trend across the rest of New Zealand and across each and all of the states of Australia and the detailed studies of the accident and hospital data from the UK? The fact that they all come to the same conclusion indicates that the Auckland Bridge cannot explain away the data as easily as you would wish.

Try all of using looking at the actual evidence, not your faiths and convictions. Consider what you would think if your GP gave you tablets for an illness on the basis he hadn't seen any of the research on their effectiveness but he was sure it would do you some good because a friend of a friend took one and thought it wonderful. Because that is how you are approaching the subject of helmets and your own safety

TR42.

Just had a look at that cyclehelmet.org site you linked. Blimey, is that related in any way to any ID sites or holocaust denial sites? I've never read such a load of biased reporting pretending to be objective, well, except on ID and holocaust denial sites of course.

before you jump on my head (not got my helmet on yet) I am anti compulsion when it comes to helmet wearing.

Give people the choice and let Darwin sort'em out

Auckland contains one third of the population of New Zealand. So it's used as most obvious area for study and statistics. I was merely (as well as stating my opinion) flagging up that people tend to read what they want into 'research' both for and against the argument no matter the circumstances or 'missing' information.

One quite common piece of 'missing information' included in studies is when an increase in global type brain injuries from cycle accidents (with helmets) is found it gets 'forgotten' how many of these injuries might have been deaths (without helmets) and therefore wouldn't have been included in the brain injury category before.

Information like the exact type of head injury - which is at best rather a blanket term - is often not included in studies as they are based on supplied data not individual research. There are 'detailed' studies which are individually researched, but can enough data really be gathered this way to prove any theory? I don't know, but it's unfortunately a limited way of researching. I certainly haven't seen large mass of detailed data in the ones I've read. I'd like to though.

I'm not trying to tell anyone to wear a helmet, or not. It's obviously an individual decision at this stage. I'm simply saying that if you have an opinion one way or another your going to look for 'evidence' to 'prove' your opinion. No individual/personal research is ever unbiased (I'm not).

No helmet/protection can protect from all types of injuries (even on building sites/horse riding/cricket/etc). But (due to the original article) most people are looking at helmets in conjunction with vehicle involved crashes. Cyclists are very quick to point the finger at motorists (same the other way around too I know), but who are you going to blame when it's purely rider error that makes you crack you head on the road? I've done it and I know (from post accident research) that my helmet DID reduce the seriousness of my injuries.

It's easy to find 'evidence' to 'prove' all sorts of things. It often doesn't mean one side or the other is right or wrong at all. Everyone's entitled to opinion and personal preference and until a true, independent study can prove or disprove the value of a lid beyond doubt or show us it's complete and true limitations (without bias) then that's the way it's going to stay. And no-one has the right to trash on anyone else if the opinions differ.

Oh, and aurelio. Have you got a motorcycle (and insurance)? Policies can have clauses etc that state the type of clothing and protection levels that must be attained for review of compensation etc.

Regardless of whether a helmet would or wouldn't stop my skull fracturing I'd far rather my helmet was scraping the tarmac on impact than my scalp. When doing trail centre on an MTB I'll often wear knee and elbow pads, I'm not expecting them to save me from broken arms/legs but for sure they'll help with cuts and bruises (and provide some protection against penetrating injuries). For me I rarely even notice a helmet when out riding so it's a small price to pay even if it's just to keep my scalp from ending up on the road instead of my skull.

Hartle: the information you claim is missing isn't. The research looks at both deaths and serious injuries so any decrease in deaths would have been detected if what you said were true. As for the rest, I started off as a helmet believer and a scientist. Then I read the research and became convinced that the evidence shows no benefit from helmets and possible disbenefits. I have since suggested to many others with research expertise that they go through the same exercise and they have, without exception, reached the same conclusion as myself. The evidence has also been tested through the Courts and no Court, including the one above, has ever found that a helmet would have reduced any head injuries. So its not closed mind bias at work.

bomberesque: Godwin's Law says you've just lost the argument. If the reliable evidence all points one way then that's what a summary will say. Or do you lump the sites that say smoking is not a good idea based on the evidence as holocaust style denial of the views of the tobacco lobby? Remember there is no money to be made from not selling helmets but lots to be made by those that can convince you to buy one.

Fair enough.

But....

How can not losing some of your scalp (as noted by nferrar) not be considered a benefit? One side of the evidence may currently shows little or no evidence of benefit in motor vehicles crashes, high speed crashes etc. That does not mean that helmets have no benefits whatsoever does it.

Hartle: People rarely hit their head naturally - thousands of years of evolution have developed it that way. However make the head much bigger by sticking a helmet on it and you start hitting it because the brain isn't used to your bigger head and your shoulders don't stick out far enough to stop it. So you hit your helmet and then you risk all the problems that are known - greater leverage on the head and neck because of the bigger size of the head plus helmet and greater rotational injuries due to the greater mass of the head and helmet, especially in higher speed accidents.

I used to cycle for years before helmets came out and I can't remember once hitting my head in all the accidents, including over the bars, that I had. When I wore a helmet I hit my head many times.

The best you can say is helmets might reduce minor bumps and scratches at the expense of exacerbating more serious injuries. You must make your own choice as to which you prefer.

I do get fed up with this pseudo-intellectualising about helmets. It's mandatory to wear seat belts and for car manufacturers to install airbags because in the majority of cases, they are better in than not. Same with helmets. The cost argument is nonsense and comparing figures with places where there is a critical mass of cyclists simply doesn't make sense. We have to deal with the reality of where we live. Personally, I'll be wearing my helmet on every ride and insist that my children do, too.

Hartle:

The NZ bicycle helmet law has not produced a reduction in head injuries across New Zealand. In fact if you compare head injury rates for the population and for bicyclists against helmet wearing rates by bicyclists there is a *greater* correlation with population HI's. In other words if helmet wearing is the cause of HI reductions then they truly are miraculous as a bicyclist wearing a helmet prevents some other person from getting a HI! As that would clearly be nonsense we know the helmet law has failed.

The law failing does not of course mean that a helmet may not prevent some injuries, just that over the population as a whole there is no benefit. However, in NZ were the benefits of helmets have been oversold many of the cases in which people believe they have been protected are false - damage to your helmet doesn't mean it saved your life.

Three things might surprise you:

* Most (all that have been asked) of the Ministers of Transport in New Zealand over the last 15 years have stated categorically that wearing a helmet in a *car* makes sense and would reduce HI's in NZ. They do this as the *theory* they use to support the bicycle helmet legislation also applies to motor vehicle occupants, and indeed the Australian Government have published research claiming savings of some A$500 if motorists wore bicycle-style helmets. Strangely despite stating full support for this *theory* none of the Ministers of Transport have *chosen* to wear helmets in their cars. "Do as I say, not as I do" seems a strange approach when it comes to protecting your own noggin'

* Off the record members of LTSA/LTNZ (for non-Kiwi's, the Government road safety arm) have stated they'd be happy if the helmet law simply faded away. Publicly they've stated that they shot themselves in the foot with the whole law campaign and they could never run such a campaign again due to its negative affect on cycling. However at the same time they will tell you that politically unacceptable to repeal the law.

* Recently the Norwegians rejected the idea of compulsory bicycle helmet wearing due to the "14% *increase* in risk per km" that resulted in NZ and Oz. Now they Norwegians are either right or wrong. Have you heard our Government protesting to the Norwegians that they have tarred us incorrectly and are denying the protection of a helmet law to Norwegian kids in the name of NZ? Thought not.

NZ's helmet law is a health and safety disaster. It would be nice if it worked, but it doesn't. We should be ashamed of what we do to our kids in the name of "safety".

Correction: of course the savings claimed are $A500 *million*

Just wear a helmet, end of.

Or don't complain when you're totally **cked up as a result of a head injury.

No brainer.. so to speak..

Just wear a helmet, end of.

Or don't complain when you're totally **cked up as a result of a head injury.

No brainer.. so to speak..

hartle wrote:

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

By the same 'logic' it should be made compulsory to wear fire-proof overalls and a full-faced helmet when driving down to shops on the grounds that racing car drivers are required to wear them...

This is what Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluations in Surrey, the principal UK test laboratory for helmets had to say on the subject of cycle helmets.

'In a recent Court case, a respected eminent materials specialist argued in court against me, that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules, his estimate, with which I was in full agreement, and the court found in favour of his argument. So in at least one case now, a high Court decided cycle helmets do not prevent injury even from when just falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, virtually without any forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other.

In every other legal case that I have studied where there is a cyclist in collision with a motorised vehicle the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present.

Briefly referring back to the Court case mentioned early, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side and the technical expert opposing me, to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not. Interestingly all three refused to so do, claiming that they had seen both severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. Thus making cycle helmets in their view too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made.'

This is what one of the doctors said at the BMA meeting which voted to support any move to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory:

RICHARD KEATINGE, North West Wales division, AGAINST the motion.

"Compared to the huge health benefits of cycling this motion may seem trivial, After all there are relatively few deaths or injuries to cyclists. It may seem harmless, after all how much harm one centimetre of expanded polystyrene actually do? It may seem a useful protection, it's been described as uncontroversial.

"None of these things is true.

"Cycling is the best buy in health. Cyclists have a death rate about 40 percent lower than non cyclists. Obese cyclists are rare.

"Helmet laws - wear a lid or get off your bike - powerfully discourage cycling, especially amoing teenagers.

"Every enforced helmet law has been followed by a steep drop, of about 30 percent, in cycling.

"Helmet laws are a grave threat to health.

"Danger? Well, it's real. The hourly rate of injury is about the same for cycling as pedestrians and motorists. That's about one serious injury per 3000 years of cycljng. Serious injuries are not that common and the majority of them are due to motor vehicles.

"One centimetre of polystyrene won't do you much good if you get hit by an HGV.

"No helmet law has shown any effect on the proportion of head injuries to cyclists.

"Helmets laws actually don't work.

"After all, we're talking about one centimetre of polystyrene intended to be crushed and absorb the energy of a one metre fall. This is hardly relevant to most serious injuries.

"I've been shown broken helmets with the comment, 'This helmet has saved a life.' In most cases the foam wasn't even crushed. Helmets are far more fragile than even children's heads. Most broken helmets have simply failed.

"To repeat, helmet laws don't work, for either adults or children.

"This motion calls for an intervention which fails to reduce head injuries, which gravely harms health by reducing cycling and which even strangles a few children on their own helmet straps.

"We have not had a thorough review of the evidence. Until we do, we as a scientific association, I suggest, have no business passing this motion.

Here is another quote from a doctor speaking at that BMA meeting, in this case one arguing in favour of the motion.

ANDREW WEST, no constituency listed, FOR the motion.

"I feel that, I take that, I accept that injury to the brain, depends how you define head injuries but injuries to the brain not affected a great deal by helmets but helmets do protect the shredding of the scalp. I feel that we should support this motion as it protects the scalp even if it doesn't protect much else."

I'm aware of the LTSA stance and the Oz goverment claims. I've seen a few articles about both. And there are indeed some very interesting points.

I'm also aware (and have been for some time) of the potential for helmets to increase injury in rotational force injuries. It think most people would agree that helmets may provide some protection against minor skull fractures and lacerations (even Curnow accepts this), but they do not always prevent major brain trauma that happens within the skull. And their potential of doing harm in a major crash must be considered. I'm pro helmets, for me, because of a range of things including personal experiences, other people in my life etc.

I also agree that the 'my helmet saved my life' is a pointless way to argue the facts about the benefits/problems of helmets.

I've tried to make sure that at no point have I claimed that one side is right or wrong. I just wanted to raise points and ideas so that the debate continues and we can all see where peoples views come from. It's interesting is all.

Helmets dont prevent crashes. Improved road and pathway conditions, driver and bicyclist education, prevent crashes. Too often government officials, health practitioners and insurance companies grasp at helmet laws as a quick and cheap solution that removes them from liability and the responsibility of providing quality provisions for bicyclists which just sucks.

Bicycle helmets themselves are also not absurd, only perhaps the deceptions that have been applied to them.

Just re-reading - the only thing I am at odds with out of all the discussions here is where TR42 speaks of how we dont generally hit out heads naturally. This I think is perhaps a little misleading.

Thousands of years of evolution have developed our heads and bodies to prevent injury when we are moving and reacting at our natural speed. Humans are generally accepted to be the only animals that can exceed their natural max speed.

We haven't yet had the thousands of years of evolution necessary for our bodies to catch up with the necessary 'modifications' to deal with the increased speed, and therefore required reaction times and forces involved. That's why we protect ourselves against harm in those situations. Helmets are part of that scene, whether good or bad.

I don't really have an issue with non helmet cyclists. Like I've said previously, it's about personal choice (and should stay that way for now). We simply can't avoid all accidents. I do however take massive issue with cyclists who put themselves into stupid and risky situations, putting themselves and other road users at risk. And giving generally responsible cyclists a bad rap. I see it too often and boy does it wind me up.

More responsible cyclists on the road will improve safety for all of us! (even if it's a slow process) Let's keep up the debate, there's some really interesting stuff coming up.

While I listen to the views of TR42 and agree that my account is anecdotal, so too is most evidence before the courts.

What cannot be denied is that my helmet hit something at the same time as the rest of me and my bike too. A series of impacts caused damage to the bike, to my upper body and to my helmet.

It is easily and persuasively argued that had I not been wearing my helmet then my head would have come into rapid contact with whatever it struck. It is fact, the helmet was damaged. It is reasonable to assert that my head would have been but for the helmet.

I choose to wear a helmet, and will continue doing so. The arguments for/against compulsion are a completely seperate issue.

It remains an inevitability that the case, the subject of this report, will be persuasive in achieving a reduction of damages paid where it can be shown that injury would have been reduced or avoided altogether had a helmet been worn.

30 years as a PI lawyer confirms that viewpoint, whether you agree with it or otherwise.

I can't help the feeling that despite all the "evidence" cited, people have all made up their own minds, basically on the grounds of ideology or simply personal preference. I sometimes wonder if the anti-helmet philosophy is just an offshoot of the anti-authority ("they're telling me to wear a helmet so stuff them"), masochistic ("I was knocked off my bike / climbed twice the height of Everest on the big ring / had ice on my testicles, it was so painful I cried, heck I love cycling"), bloody minded mentality that is traditional among cyclists.

I've heard all the arguments about why helmets don't protect you, but I've broken 2 helmets, both at speeds of over 20 if not quite 38, on one occasion I was shoved into the kerb by a car and flipped over (we're talking big air) so that my head was the first thing that hit the ground; result, a hardly sore head, along with several broken bones in other parts.

I'll keep on wearing a helmet thanks.

Where all cyclists should at least be able to agree is that anything that puts people off cycling is not a good idea. I'm fairly convinced by the "safety in numbers" argument, the only other evidence that might persuade me is if someone could actually look at vast amounts of cycliing injuries and carefully match them for mechanism of injury, then compare helmet with non-helmet. Even then, there are plenty of confounding factors you could mention.

One other thing we (at least should) agree on is a ban on the citing of Holland as at all relevant to cycling in the UK. A place where everyone cycles, almost no-one wears a helmet, or gets injured, almost all roads have off-road cycle paths, and cars give way to cyclists everywhere! Not very comparable.

Bompington: Most helmet sceptics, myself included, used to wear helmets and assumed they were a good thing. Its only when we actually read the research evidence (evaluating research is part of my job) that we suddenly found that it did not support our assumptions. That was the point at which I stopped wearing a helmet and started bringing the research evidence to the attention of other researcher cyclists I knew all of whom reached the same conclusion as I did. So most of the helmet sceptic group have changed their position based on the evidence, not made up their minds based on ideology or personal preference. I don't think the same can be said of the helmet lobby.

Your suggestion in your penultimate paragraph has effectively been done in at least two countries, NZ and Australia, where helmet laws doubled helmet wearing overnight from about 40% to almost 100%. There was no corresponding step change in injury rates which, if helmet lobby claims about injury prevention were correct, should have taken a massive dive. They didn't and if anything went up. The probability of a confounding factor kicking in over the timescales of the change in all the different states and countries so as to produce the same result is close to zero. So what we do know is helmeting all the people produced no drop in injuries but a 30% overall drop in cycling and, in people under sixteen far higher reductions in cycling.

The continual promotion of the need for helmets while cycling also sends the message that its dangerous and needs special protective equipment which puts a lot of people off cycling whether helmets are mandatory or not. Its noticeable that the level of cycling in developed countries is inversely proportional to the percentage wearing helmets. Almost nobody in Denmark or Holland wears them and its not because of cycle facilities that their injury rates are low. Do you think more or less people would fly on commercial airlines if they told you you should bring a parachute with you just in case. The reasons most non-cyclists I know give for not cycling is "Its too dangerous" and we just compound that perception by telling them they need to wear helmets for their safety

I'm with TR42 and Aurelio on this one. The evidence just doesn't support compulsion. If those who are for compulsion were to follow through their arguments, then helmets should be compulsory for pedestrians and motorists, not just cyclists.

I'll continue to ride without a helmet, as it's MY CHOICE.

It still amazes me that people ride without a lid. I and my friends have had offs that would have lined us up for a nice casket had we not worn protection.

End of story. Just wear one.

In the past when we have organised events and rides we mandate the helmet. No helmet, no ride (I feel a song in that one!) I am not bothered about idiots spilling their brains on the floor, its just very selfish to think that someone else will have to deal with the mess.

Buy a nice helmet. Some look very trick. Get out and ride.

Brilliant debate this, the points put forward by TR42 are great and excellent counter arguments by HARTLE. I ride Mountain Bikes, Road and Track and I choose to wear a helmet, however based upon all the points I have read TR42 arguments are difficult to argue against however something puzzles me.

I had a rather nasty crash at the velodrome, I was starting an individual sprint and had a pedal malfunction which throw me down onto the concrete apron, I broke my collar bone into 4 pieces, I think I was doing around 5-6 mpg when this happened my helmet broke in 2 as my head hit the floor, my head had no injury’s what so ever, no headache, external cuts or bruises, so my question is this, would I have sustained more injury’s without the helmet, I believe the answer is 100% yes.

So I have an example of a helmet saving me from extra injury, however I believe the research that they have no benefit... man I can confused !

I would perhaps suggest that wearing is better than not wearing, but some studies actually prove that it’s more dangerous, so this is really difficult decision, however bottom line for me though, I “feel” safer with wearing one, as long as this “feeling” doesn’t mean I take stupid risks for me I will continue, if wearing a helmet starts to make you feel invincible... take it off now as I am sure it will end badly.

I wear a helmet because it seems obvious that if you fall your not going to have as sore a head when it rams of the kerb. Pure and simple pain prevention technique. I also believe that when I venture out on a cycle, should I crash I have a better chance of seeing my boys again by wearing my helmet.

Another reason is that by wearing one (along with a pair of cycling glasses) is that you achieve anonymity, my non cycling mates would dis-own me if they seen me in lycra on a bike, with my helmet and glasses on you just look like a cyclist. Its a bit of a disguise.

Brufafa & Mackiej: Yawn. More proof by assertion of faith. And mackiej, if you want to be anonymous wear a blonde wig not a helmet. Drivers drive closer to anonymous helmeted cyclists but give more room to ones wearing blonde wigs (see Ian Walker's research)

Mikeprytherch: Your helmet failed if it cracked and the probability is nothing would have happened if you hadn't been wearing it. The cycling world is full of "helmet saved my head" anecdotes like yours. Yet in reality if you take the cyclists who don't wear helmets (and are therefore presumably having similar accidents in which their heads are not protected) and compare their head injury rates with those that do wear helmets you find if anything the helmeted cyclists have more head injuries. I have watched videos of cycling crashes in slo-mo and in almost all cases the head would not have hit the ground at all were it not for the helmet sticking out.