Helmet - newbie question

Eugenio Mastroviti <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

1) makes me feel safer; feeling safe is a fundamental requirement to be able to ride with
confidence, and you can't ride safely without confidence

It could also give you the confidence to try something that's much too dangerous, with tragic
results. This is the risk 'compensation' which has been debated here at length.

Quoted message said:

2) it's a bit like having a circuit breaker: most times it won't be enough to save my life, but
it's better than not having it

Quoted message said:

Now, I understand that reason 2), which is after all the main reason for reason 1), is or may be
flawed: there may be cases in which NOT wearing a helmet is actually safer. Am I reading the posts
correctly, or did I misunderstand something?

Helmets make your head larger. This means there is the possibility of increased rotational injury
to the brain should your head strike an object. By making your head bigger, it is more likely to
hit *anything* which it would otherwise miss. They also make your head heavier so any impact will
be harder.

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

After reading a few hundred posts in the big argument about helmet/no helmet, I would appreciate
if some good souls could point out the faults in my reasoning

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And in case I got it right, in what cases NOT having a helmet could be safer?

Does anyone feel like me that there could be an organised conspiracy out there to clog up this ng
with helmet threads?

John B

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

After reading a few hundred posts in the big argument about helmet/no helmet, I would appreciate
if some good souls could point out the faults in my reasoning

I've always worn a helmet when cycling, even in my country of origin, where it would immediately
qualify me as a wuss/wimp/coward.

I did that on the basis of a few assumptions which I seem to understand were at least
partially wrong:

1) makes me feel safer; feeling safe is a fundamental requirement to be able to ride with
confidence, and you can't ride safely without confidence

2) it's a bit like having a circuit breaker: most times it won't be enough to save my life, but
it's better than not having it

Now, I understand that reason 2), which is after all the main reason for reason 1), is or may be
flawed: there may be cases in which NOT wearing a helmet is actually safer. Am I reading the posts
correctly, or did I misunderstand something?

And in case I got it right, in what cases NOT having a helmet could be safer?

Ride how you personally feel most comfortable. The object is to enjoy the cycling. The risks,
whether or not you wear a helmet, are miniscule and the difference in risk between the two options
smaller still. At the end of the day it comes down to what makes _you_ feel happiest when riding.

Tony

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

1) makes me feel safer; feeling safe is a fundamental requirement to be able to ride with
confidence, and you can't ride safely without confidence

This is so, but OTOH in terms of serious injury and death the figures suggest that such a feeling of
safety from kit that is only if use in an accident amounts to kidding yourself. If you're not happy
on a bike without a helmet, you shouldn't be happy with one as far as serious injuries are
concerned.

Confidence should come from your track record of not being in accidents, not from a feeling that
you'll be okay if you *are* in one.

Quoted message said:

2) it's a bit like having a circuit breaker: most times it won't be enough to save my life, but
it's better than not having it

Now, I understand that reason 2), which is after all the main reason for reason 1), is or may be
flawed: there may be cases in which NOT wearing a helmet is actually safer. Am I reading the posts
correctly, or did I misunderstand something?

The jury is out on how much use a hat is in an accident, to be honest. Some studies indicate the
greater size of the helmet means you're more likely to bang your head in the first place, and in
some circumstances the extra chance of catching your head at all can contribute to your head/neck
being levered (and the greater extent of the helmet beyond the head even gives a lever to help)
around which could increase severity. But, like I said, the jury really is out on the specifics, and
outside of specifics whole population data suggests that the wearing of a helmet makes no major
difference to the incidence of serious and fatal injuries, which is what "safety" really boils down
to. We are part of the whole population, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the whole
population data will be reflected in us.

If a helmet changes the rider's behaviour such that they're more likely to indulge in relatively
risky behaviour with it on than without it, given an inch of expanded polystyrene isn't *that* much
use in a 30 mph collision (they're designed for ca. 12 mph), you could actually be upping your
chance of having an accident in the first place, and one which the helmet isn't actually designed to
help you in. This is called "risk compensation". Do you do it? It's hard to tell for sure in any
given case, but if you're happy mixing it with 40 tonne lorries when you're wearing a rather thin
polystyrene hat and not happy without it, it looks quite possible.

Again, derive confidence in your cycling ability from the way you aren't regularly in accidents.
That is a lot more useful to your safety than anything you might wear in an accident, because
prevention is better than cure.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Eugenio Mastroviti <[email hidden]> wrote:

: 1) makes me feel safer; feeling safe is a fundamental requirement to be able to ride with
: confidence, and you can't ride safely without confidence

You can't ride safely without confidence. Yup. And if wearing a helmet is what it takes to make you
feel confident, then you'll probably be safer. Just remember that what is making you less likely to
crash (and that's what matters) is the confidence, not the helmet per se.

: 2) it's a bit like having a circuit breaker: most times it won't be enough to save my life, but
: it's better than not having it

See 1)

Some people say that a helmet might make some accidents worse by causing twisting injuries to the
brain/head. I've yet to see any detailed evidence of this, but it seems at least possible especially
with more tear-shaped helmets.

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

JohnB said:

Does anyone feel like me that there could be an organised conspiracy out there to clog up this ng
with helmet threads?

Whoops.

Apologies for the less-than-original question

--
Interesting facts about languages, n. 32 The Eskimos have over 40 words for "snow" The English have
over 20 words for "rain"

Quoted message said:

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

I get cross when this tripe is trundled out time and again.

the only cases of this have been children weaing cycle helmets on climbing frames or other play
equipment.

To put it here in response to a qurey about the effeectivenss of helmets is delibertase distortion

pk

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Eugenio Mastroviti <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

1) makes me feel safer; feeling safe is a fundamental requirement to be able to ride with
confidence, and you can't ride safely without confidence

It could also give you the confidence to try something that's much too dangerous, with tragic
results. This is the risk 'compensation' which has been debated here at length.

Um, yes, you're perfectly right there. I should have extended the circuit breaker analogy and
specified that having one doesn't make me feel like sticking screwdrivers in electricity plugs, or
using hairdryers in the bathtub 🙂

Eugenio

--
Q: How many supply-siders does it take to change a light bulb?
R: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:37:38 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

I get cross when this tripe is trundled out time and again.

Why? Unless cycle helmets are fitted with a weak link (which would make them fly off in many
crashes) then it is a possibility that needs to be considered.

Quoted message said:

the only cases of this have been children weaing cycle helmets on climbing frames or other play
equipment.

From memory the cases reported upon were of this sort, which is rather different. Given the sort of
distortion trotted out by the helmeteers (see for example "Bicycle Helmets - A review of their
effectiveness: A critical review of the literature Towner, Dowswell, Burkes, Dickinson & Hayes.
Department for Transport, London, November 2002."😉 and their control of "official" sources of
information I doubt that they would present any information that shows their case to be anything but
overwhelming.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

PK said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

I get cross when this tripe is trundled out time and again.

the only cases of this have been children weaing cycle helmets on climbing frames or other play
equipment.

To put it here in response to a qurey about the effeectivenss of helmets is delibertase distortion

I believe there have been cases where improperly fitted helmets have slid off the back of a rider's
head and the chin strap has strangled them. Sorry, no URLs.

"PK" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

Quoted message said:

I get cross when this tripe is trundled out time and again.

Quoted message said:

the only cases of this have been children weaing cycle helmets on climbing frames or other play
equipment.

Quoted message said:

To put it here in response to a qurey about the effeectivenss of helmets is delibertase distortion

Quoted message said:

pk

When did you last treat a patient with a fractured larynx? When I did, it was not a child on a
climbing frame.

NEXT!

Quite a few helmets, even well-fitting ones, can tip back and garrotte the rider should the brow be
struck. This is especially true for riders with short faces and round heads - mostly kids and women.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:37:38 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

I get cross when this tripe is trundled out time and again.

Why? Unless cycle helmets are fitted with a weak link (which would make them fly off in many
crashes) then it is a possibility that needs to be considered.

Quoted message said:

the only cases of this have been children weaing cycle helmets on climbing frames or other play
equipment.

Its not a trivial issue - if children wear helmets they will play wearing helmets and that's where
accidents happen. To quote from Anderson et al, "Chin Strap forces in Bicycle Helmets" Swedish
National Testing and Research Institute, SP REPORT 1993:42

"In the years to come the use of helmets will probably increase. This will benefit the safety of the
individual bicycle rider. However, with more helmets involved in accidents and everyday use, the
weak points of today's helmet design will be revealed. One such weak point has been proved to be the
hazard of chin strap suffocation.

The purpose of a chin strap is to keep the helmet on the wearer's head (especially during
accidents), and thus the design is normally intended to give the straps strength and durability.
However, it could be an advantage if the helmet can release automatically from the head in certain
situations. Five fatal accidents have occurred in Sweden and one in Norway when playing children
have been caught by the chin strap."

I don't have the figures for Sweden but on a pro-rata population basis with the UK one would expect
one child death a year from cycling head injuries. So five killed by being strangled by their
bicycle helmets (along with a further 20 non-fatal hanging incidents) over ten years is 50% of the
number of fatal cycling head injuries. Even accepting the optimistic figures for the numbers that
would be saved by helmets in cycling accidents, on balance almost as many would be killed by
strangulation as are saved by wearing the helmet cycling. The relevance is therefore real and is
another example of the law of unintended consequences - something which current simple single stage
risk analysis does not handle.

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't have the figures for Sweden but on a pro-rata population basis

with

Quoted message said:

the UK one would expect one child death a year from cycling head injuries.

So

Quoted message said:

five killed by being strangled by their bicycle helmets (along with a

further

Quoted message said:

20 non-fatal hanging incidents) over ten years is 50% of the number of

fatal

Quoted message said:

cycling head injuries. Even accepting the optimistic figures for the

numbers

Quoted message said:

that would be saved by helmets in cycling accidents, on balance almost as

many

Quoted message said:

would be killed by strangulation as are saved by wearing the helmet

cycling.

Quoted message said:

The relevance is therefore real and is another example of the law of unintended consequences -
something which current simple single stage risk analysis does not handle.

This makes sense to me. We arte, after all, talking about very small numbers of deaths and injuries
per year. The current child cyclist head injury rate sees one serious head injury every 2-3 months
in the average A&E department, with I think something around one per four months requiring an
overnight stay - of which most (waiting for a proper figure) are released the following day with no
further treatment.

In the context of a very large solution to a very small problem, effects even as small as that noted
in the Swedish study must undoubtedly be taken into account.

I will have to get the calculator out, but if we remove road traffic fatalities from the equation
(not many climbing frames on the road) it is quite possible that the number of lives forecast to be
saved by the parks and gardens part of the Martlew bill would be wiped out by the lives cost due to
strangulation. That's so hard to credit that I'm going to work it all out again, but I have a
sneaking suspicion the answer will be the same.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

PK said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet straps can strangle the wearer.

I get cross when this tripe is trundled out time and again.

the only cases of this have been children weaing cycle helmets on climbing frames or other play
equipment.

To put it here in response to a qurey about the effeectivenss of helmets is delibertase
distortion

You are asserting that it is impossible to be strangled by helmet straps?

If you take them off the helmet, is that still teh case, or is it the attached polystyrene which
confers this property?

How do they do that then?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Just zis Guy said:

This makes sense to me. We arte, after all, talking about very small numbers of deaths and
injuries per year. The current child cyclist head injury rate sees one serious head injury every
2-3 months in the average A&E department, with I think something around one per four months
requiring an overnight stay - of which most (waiting for a proper figure) are released the
following day with no further treatment.

The figures are about one death a month from "head injuries" (in 2002) and ten admissions to
hospital a day - see the bottom of tinyurl.com2b9n7Open ↗

The other useful data is the DoH Hospital Episode Statistics -
doh.gov.uktb01102e.xlsOpen ↗

Tony

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

After reading a few hundred posts in the big argument about helmet/no helmet, I would appreciate
if some good souls could point out the faults in my reasoning

I've always worn a helmet when cycling, even in my country of origin, where it would immediately
qualify me as a wuss/wimp/coward.

I did that on the basis of a few assumptions which I seem to understand were at least
partially wrong:

1) makes me feel safer; feeling safe is a fundamental requirement to be able to ride with
confidence, and you can't ride safely without confidence

I think that's fair enough. I do it too on really tricky descents.

Quoted message said:

2) it's a bit like having a circuit breaker: most times it won't be enough to save my life, but
it's better than not having it

This is a bit dodgy. Provided you don't hit (or aren't hit by) another moving vehicle, and aren't
engaging in lunatic downhilling, you're right. In low speed bicycle accidents, helmets tend to
mitigate the sorts of injuries to the head which are likely to occur. So there's a certain amount of
sense wearing a helmet for off road cross country cycling, and the people who do the lunatic
downhilling usually wear much stronger helmets anyway - more like motorcycle helmets.

The problem is riding on the road. If you're struck by another moving vehicle at speed, you get much
bigger impacts. So it would be not particularly surprising if helmets didn't do much good in on-road
accidents. But statistically it's worse than that. Consequently, either in some circumstances
helmets are aggravating injuries (which is what I believe) or something very odd is happening,
possibly through risk compensation behaviour (which is what Guy believes, and which makes sense
given that as we all recognise that wearing a helmet makes you feel safer).

Quoted message said:

Now, I understand that reason 2), which is after all the main reason for reason 1), is or may be
flawed: there may be cases in which NOT wearing a helmet is actually safer. Am I reading the posts
correctly, or did I misunderstand something?

And in case I got it right, in what cases NOT having a helmet could be safer?

Statistically, it is a fact that you are safer not wearing a helmet when riding on the road. It is
_why_ this is a fact that we don't know. More study would be useful. It may be that there are
particular road conditions under which wearing a helmet is particularly dangerous, but we don't
currently know what these are.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14? -- user 'Tackhead', in /.
discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02

Simon Brooke said:

Statistically, it is a fact that you are safer not wearing a helmet when riding on the road. It is
_why_ this is a fact that we don't know. More study would be useful. It may be that there are
particular road conditions under which wearing a helmet is particularly dangerous, but we don't
currently know what these are.

Well, purely by chance, this evening's personal experience seems to contradict your statement...

Riding downhill (don't know what you mean by "lunatic downhilling", I was doing something like 20-25
mph) on Archway Road towards East Finchley (London), a white Transit overtook me and the passenger
threw a large paper cup filled with ice and what i think was milkshake at me. He hit me on the head
(on the helmet) and in part on the right side of my face. Thanks to the helmet, I survived the
experience with a small cut near my right ear - I also lost my balance while braking, due to the
milkshake on my face and in my eyes, and fell off the bike, but at that point I was slow enough to
escape with a minor bruise to a knee. Judging from the strength of the impact, which turned my head
with enough force to cause me some pain in the neck, I can safely say that if the cup had hit my
head instead of the helmet, I'd be considerably worse off.

So there

Eugenio

P.S. I know: anedoctal (sp.?) evidence has no place in a discussion that should be based on
scientific facts. It's just that I am rather p***ed off and I had to tell it to someone

P.P. General apologies for the quality of my English

--
Dyslexia means never having to say yrros

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

P.P.S. General apologies for the quality of my English

Because it's better than mine?

Simon

Eugenio Mastroviti said:

And in case I got it right, in what cases NOT having a helmet could be safer?

If buying one leaves no money for lights (which appears to happen frequently...)

Quoted message said:

Thanks

Eugenio