Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Comedian]

https://cyclingindustry.news/discussion ... -revision/
Unsurprisingly, helmets don't help in collisions with motor vehicles...

It is my belief that having helmet standards has significantly hindered the development of bike helmets. There is no point in manufacturers exceeding the standards. Nor is there any way for them to take a new look at what's best. It stifles innovation.

Plus.. I'm going to go out here on a limb. Most facets of cycling have different requirements. A one standard fits all is stupid.

Ultimately there is no point making bike riders wear a helmet that will protect us significantly in an accident with a car, because other injuries are likely to be what gets you.

[RobertL]

Hmmm...I think that there is a little bit of innovation.

Helmets are designed to work best in a single bike crash, and to protect the head in that situation. Those recent innovations like MIPS and the like are designed to improve head safety in those crashes.

[Comedian]

Hmmm...I think that there is a little bit of innovation.

Helmets are designed to work best in a single bike crash, and to protect the head in that situation. Those recent innovations like MIPS and the like are designed to improve head safety in those crashes.

For a standard that has been largely in place for 30 years.. while welcome.. that's not a cracking (groan) pace.

[queequeg]

Ultimately there is no point making bike riders wear a helmet that will protect us significantly in an accident with a car, because other injuries are likely to be what gets you.

The standard for bicycle helmets does not even include collisions with motor vehicles. It's designed to protect the head when a cyclist falls off their bike at low speed (~24km/h if I recall correctly). A bicycle helmet standard that required it to protect a rider from a collision with a motor vehicle at 60km/h would look substantially different, and even then it's likely that it wouldn't save you. You only need to look at motorcycle collisions with motor vehicles to see that.

[BobtheBuilder]

One of those strange misconceptions still very prevalent, de-bunked, yet again.

"Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... k6RqMrku3Y

[opik_bidin]

One of those strange misconceptions still very prevalent, de-bunked, yet again.

"Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... k6RqMrku3Y

https://mobile.twitter.com/A_W_Gordon/s ... 4775828482

I did not know some of the most popular bicycle helmet companies are owned by the same conglomerate "Giro is owned by Vista Outdoor which also owns the helmet brands Bell, Bollé, Cébé, Raskulls, and Krash.

[Thoglette]

https://cyclingindustry.news/discussion ... -revision/
Unsurprisingly, helmets don't help in collisions with motor vehicles...

Which leads the usual suspect to quip

Therefore, using the same facile reasoning, the answer to the eternal “Will a helmet save my life in New York City?” question is, quite simply, “Nope.”

As usual the key word is facile. But still funny.
BTW He’s linked through to Carlton Reid’s article in Forbes on the same report

[warthog1]

Given the choice between contacting a hard surface/object wearing a helmet or sans helmet, I'll take the helmet every time. (I would rather avoid it altogether obviously).
However that is my choice and it is heavily influenced by my type of cycling.
It should be my choice.

[jasonc]

Agree with warthog. My choice. But if you choose not to wear one, it doesn't impact my safety. You have made that risk assessment

[Thoglette]

Agree with warthog. My choice. But if you choose not to wear one, it doesn't impact my safety. You have made that risk assessment

The literature suggests that cyclists, on the whole, are pretty good at making that risk assessment. Another reason the law is an ass.

[Thoglette]

Bicycle Helmet Laws: The Cat Toy Of Choice For The Frisky Legislator

BSNYC is

irritated to learn that some doofus lawmaker up there is apparently floating a bicycle helmet law

[Comedian]

So all this talk about a vaccine and making it compulsory has got me thinking. The prime minister has said it won't be mandatory. Yet clearly a vaccine gives protection to the individual, and the community.

Meanwhile we can mandate that people wear helmets while riding a bike. Yet they are of dubious protection for the individual, and of no benefit to the community.

[warthog1]

Meanwhile we can mandate that people wear helmets while riding a bike. Yet they are of dubious protection for the individual, and of no benefit to the community.

I don't disagree that it shouldn't be mandated.

The repeated suggestion in this thread that it provides no protection to the user is counterintuitive imo.
Smash your head into the bitumen at 40kmh with one on and then without one.
I know from experience which I would choose.
Significant damage on the helmet and a small ICH.
I am not at all confident I'd be here typing without that helmet being worn.

However the type of cycling being undertaken massively affects the risk profile of the activity and the likelihood of a higher impact headstrike.
It is unfair that cyclists are not able to make the risk assessment themselves.

[Comedian]

Meanwhile we can mandate that people wear helmets while riding a bike. Yet they are of dubious protection for the individual, and of no benefit to the community.

I don't disagree that it shouldn't be mandated.

The repeated suggestion in this thread that it provides no protection to the user is counterintuitive imo.
Smash your head into the bitumen at 40kmh with one on and then without one.
I know from experience which I would choose.
Significant damage on the helmet and a small ICH.
I am not at all confident I'd be here typing without that helmet being worn.

However the type of cycling being undertaken massively affects the risk profile of the activity and the likelihood of a higher impact headstrike.
It is unfair that cyclists are not able to make the risk assessment themselves.

Exactly. Even if it wasn't mandatory I'd continue to wear one on the roadie, commuting, or MTB. To the shops .. not so much. Like I'm intending riding the e-bike to the fruit shop at lunch time.. I'd rather not wear one.. but I probably will because I can't be bothered with the argument. It's a 2k round trip.. I should just take the car like everyone else...

[Comedian]

Meanwhile we can mandate that people wear helmets while riding a bike. Yet they are of dubious protection for the individual, and of no benefit to the community.

I don't disagree that it shouldn't be mandated.

The repeated suggestion in this thread that it provides no protection to the user is counterintuitive imo.
Smash your head into the bitumen at 40kmh with one on and then without one.
I know from experience which I would choose.
Significant damage on the helmet and a small ICH.
I am not at all confident I'd be here typing without that helmet being worn.

However the type of cycling being undertaken massively affects the risk profile of the activity and the likelihood of a higher impact headstrike.
It is unfair that cyclists are not able to make the risk assessment themselves.

I should have qualified.. there is no actual evidence that helmets reduce actual brain injury for any activity. (sorry). But I don't think there is any doubt they offer protection from superficial scalp injuries which are painful and unpleasant (but not usually life threatening). That's why you'll hear it said that helmets reduce head injury (not brain injury). It's for this reason I would wear one on the roadie regardless of the law.

[warthog1]

Meanwhile we can mandate that people wear helmets while riding a bike. Yet they are of dubious protection for the individual, and of no benefit to the community.

I don't disagree that it shouldn't be mandated.

The repeated suggestion in this thread that it provides no protection to the user is counterintuitive imo.
Smash your head into the bitumen at 40kmh with one on and then without one.
I know from experience which I would choose.
Significant damage on the helmet and a small ICH.
I am not at all confident I'd be here typing without that helmet being worn.

However the type of cycling being undertaken massively affects the risk profile of the activity and the likelihood of a higher impact headstrike.
It is unfair that cyclists are not able to make the risk assessment themselves.

I should have qualified.. there is no actual evidence that helmets reduce actual brain injury for any activity. (sorry). But I don't think there is any doubt they offer protection from superficial scalp injuries which are painful and unpleasant (but not usually life threatening). That's why you'll hear it said that helmets reduce head injury (not brain injury). It's for this reason I would wear one on the roadie regardless of the law.

How would you suggest any such evidence would be gathered?
The supposition from that statement is that wearing a helmet will provide no protection from lasting injury.
My incident is an n=1 study however I did receive multiple fractures in addition to the ICH.
The skull was not one.
Given the helmet damage I think it was entirely possible without it as was a worse ICH
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DA9DRrA5x3JybnEV8
Is it hard evidence of injury reduction?
No.
Is it likely there was a level of protection that reduced injury?
Yes imo.

I'd suggest your earlier post suggests you believe it offers some protection also;

Even if it wasn't mandatory I'd continue to wear one on the roadie, commuting, or MTB.

[warthog1]

I should have qualified.. there is no actual evidence that helmets reduce actual brain injury for any activity. (sorry). But I don't think there is any doubt they offer protection from superficial scalp injuries which are painful and unpleasant (but not usually life threatening). That's why you'll hear it said that helmets reduce head injury (not brain injury). It's for this reason I would wear one on the roadie regardless of the law.

Dunno what you think of this one.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27450862/
I am sure someone has attempted to pull it apart somewhere.

The purpose of the cranial vault is largely to protect the fragile brain matter within.
Anything that protects injury to the cranial vault it would stand to reason is likely to also reduce injury to the brain within.

Anyway here I am sucked into this stupid thread again despite the fact I disagree with mandating helmet use.
I just disagee there is no injury reduction from them

Edit;
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31519669/
Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%-20.4%) versus 47.6% (1211, 45.6%-49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6% (797, 18.4%-20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%-28.9%) (p<0.001) and neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%-3.1%) versus 8.5% (217, 7.5%-9.7%) (p<0.001).

[DavidS]

Yeah, I headbutted concrete in a car park last year, no helmet, some stitches but I'm fine.

We can all come up with examples, we could all come up with plenty of examples where people might have been protected by a helmet in a context not involving a bike.

Cycling is healthy, not dangerous, we shouldn't have to wear a helmet if we don't want to. I wouldn't.

DS

[Comedian]

I should have qualified.. there is no actual evidence that helmets reduce actual brain injury for any activity. (sorry). But I don't think there is any doubt they offer protection from superficial scalp injuries which are painful and unpleasant (but not usually life threatening). That's why you'll hear it said that helmets reduce head injury (not brain injury). It's for this reason I would wear one on the roadie regardless of the law.

Dunno what you think of this one.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27450862/
I am sure someone has attempted to pull it apart somewhere.

The purpose of the cranial vault is largely to protect the fragile brain matter within.
Anything that protects injury to the cranial vault it would stand to reason is likely to also reduce injury to the brain within.

Anyway here I am sucked into this stupid thread again despite the fact I disagree with mandating helmet use.
I just disagee there is no injury reduction from them

Edit;
And another
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31519669/
Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%-20.4%) versus 47.6% (1211, 45.6%-49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6% (797, 18.4%-20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%-28.9%) (p<0.001) and neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%-3.1%) versus 8.5% (217, 7.5%-9.7%) (p<0.001).

I'm sorry... I didn't mean to drag you into it.

To the first study.. I know there has been criticism of it. There have been several controversies with aspects of it. None the less .. lets look at the conclusion.

Conclusions: Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.

Can you see anywhere in there where it says reduction in brain injury? I can't. That's because helmets don't really help with that. They do protect you from all sorts of other scuffs and cuts which are unpleasant but rarely life threatening. That is what they call "head injuries". Those injuries are also probably much more common in sports cycling too.

Why don't they actually reduce brain injury? Well.. million dollar question but my belief is that the helmets that meet the regulations.. due to their nature don't compress. It's just EPS.. and the grade they have to use is hard and brittle for durability. So since they don't absorb shocks, the only function they actually perform in relation to the brain would be in the case of impact with a pointed object where thy might spread the load and stop the object puncturing the skull.

There is good evidence that motorcycle helmets reduce brain injury - but they are a solid outer shell with soft shock absorbing interior. But even if you could bear to wear one they wouldn't be legal for bicycle riding either so you would could get a fine just like not wearing one.

Like I say regardless of the law I'd wear one for sports cycling, commuting etc. I would try and get one with "mips" and that doesn't have protrusions that might exacerbate DAI.

I will try and look at the English study next week.

[warthog1]

I'm sorry... I didn't mean to drag you into it.

To the first study.. I know there has been criticism of it. There have been several controversies with aspects of it. None the less .. lets look at the conclusion.

Conclusions: Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.

Can you see anywhere in there where it says reduction in brain injury? I can't. That's because helmets don't really help with that. They do protect you from all sorts of other scuffs and cuts which are unpleasant but rarely life threatening. That is what they call "head injuries". Those injuries are also probably much more common in sports cycling too.

Why don't they actually reduce brain injury? Well.. million dollar question but my belief is that the helmets that meet the regulations.. due to their nature don't compress. It's just EPS.. and the grade they have to use is hard and brittle for durability. So since they don't absorb shocks, the only function they actually perform in relation to the brain would be in the case of impact with a pointed object where thy might spread the load and stop the object puncturing the skull.

There is good evidence that motorcycle helmets reduce brain injury - but they are a solid outer shell with soft shock absorbing interior. But even if you could bear to wear one they wouldn't be legal for bicycle riding either so you would could get a fine just like not wearing one.

Like I say regardless of the law I'd wear one for sports cycling, commuting etc. I would try and get one with "mips" and that doesn't have protrusions that might exacerbate DAI.

I will try and look at the English study next week.

What organ do you propose is being damaged in a "serious or fatal head injury" if not the brain?

https://www.health.harvard.edu/a_to_z/h ... lts-a-to-z

The purpose of a helmet is to increase the protection offered by the cranial vault in the event of a hard blow.
By spreading load and providing shock absorption.
The lighter shell and reduced foam in a bicycle helmet is of course not as good as a motorcycle helmet.
It doesn't mean there is no protection provided however.
The analysis undertaken by those 2 studies I found on my short google search appears to show there is injury reduction. The second one specifically says brain injury but given the head contains the brain I am tipping a fatal or serious head injury, despite not specifically saying "brain," very often involves the brain.

Given a choice between not wearing and wearing one, if slamming my head into the road at 40kmh, I would have one on.
I would therefore choose to wear one on my roadie, particularly on fast bunch rides.
It should be my choice however.

[tpcycle]

There is no doubt bicycle helmets offer protection. The level of protection is a topic for debate and obviously the topic of a huge number of conflicting studies.

Brain injuries are the result of your brain hitting the inside of your skull (ignoring the more complex injuries and the supposedly more debilitating injuries caused by your brain ripping due to internal rotational forces). Your head is in motion, you hit an object, your skull stops moving but your brain still has momentum and crashes into the inside of your skull. Whether or not you are wearing a helmet your skull is still having an impact and experiencing a sudden deceleration. It's just hitting the helmet instead of the object.

To reduce injury the point is to attenuate the forces on the brain by increasing the time it takes to decelerate your skull.

A helmet has a compressible liner designed to augment the one that naturally exists between your skull and your brain.

A hard non compressible helmet will do nothing to attenuate the forces on the brain as it won't increase the duration of the deceleration of the brain against the skull.

A soft compressible helmet will attenuate the forces on the brain because it increases the duration of the deceleration of the brain against the skull due to the compression of the helmet material.

Broken bicycle helmets that have shattered rather than compressed most likely didn't work as well as intended when it comes to the amount of additional time they afforded the skull for its deceleration.

I guess I've always wondered how it works in a large population - do some of the people who would have ended up dead instead end up as comatose vegetables? If so what percentage is it? It seems pretty incontrovertible that some people must fall into this category - a la Michael Schumacher.

I think that many people put too much faith in their helmets. It makes you feel safer but are you safe?

[BobtheBuilder]

slamming my head into the road at 40kmh

... and for the 99% of cyclists who don't travel at 40 km/h this is irrelevant.

[warthog1]

slamming my head into the road at 40kmh

... and for the 99% of cyclists who don't travel at 40 km/h this is irrelevant.

And for me >99% of the time it has been irrelevant too.
However the single time it has happened I am glad the helmet was worn.
My risk assessment is that for fast bunch rides it is worthwhile.
For many other cycling activities not really.

[Thoglette]

Can we get back on topic?

The efficacy of helmets is as relevant to this topic as the efficacy of, say, protective eyewear.

Particularly as cyclists, on the whole, pick the appropriate PPE for the sort of riding they have planned.

(And, yes I’m to lazy to requote the relevant articles I cited last time this was discussed )

[outnabike]

Hi BobtheBuilder,
I know it is popular to simply write off disagreeable views.but I can tell you that I would love to not have to wear a helmet and mostly I go slow. But honestly I t is no trouble at all to do 40 t0 50 klm going around a lot of places.

My doing this occurs on downhill runs where 50 is easily attainable, and then some yobbo does a left turn completely not even noticing the rider on his left.
I can't count the occasions but that is a good reason to have a helmet on. Just in case.....

I saw this very thing happen as a child, to my brother who was riding in front of me and a farmer coming into town left hooked him sending him over the bonnet. Amazingly no harm don but just a bent bike. It was pure luck I suppose but old bones are not as resilient as younger ones.
I know that helmets in an accident over 20 klm are not much but they do mace great mushroom bag collection devices and sitting on one resting keeps the bum off the ground as well. That alone is protecting the brain.