One thing Im always infuriated about is the seemingly complete ignorance about neck injuries when the subject of helmets comes up. Absolutely, a helmet will reduce direct head injuries (like being shot at by a hockey puck), but can result in more neck/spine injuries. The forces have to go somewhere!
Leaving aside the (quite valid) argument that people generally take more risks when they feel safer, unless the sport is ridiculously dangerous to start with (like fencing used to be), its a tradeoff, which many are not aware of. The human head and spine are very well balanced in terms of robustness.
Interesting that the subject of bicycle helmets comes up too. Ive seen results from one study that was particularly detailed (and ususually, seemingly bias-free), that suggested helmets could cause more spine injuries. This was mainly due to the rotational effect they are more likely to induce. Something the braincase does not deal well with. Without a helmet, not only is the head slighly narrower, therefore increasing (very, very slightly) the chance of missing an object entirely, but the hair and skin tears off, whereas the plastic of a helmet does not and tends to ‘catch’, causing rotation. I thought it odd that plastic is less slippery that skin, but, eh… that’s what they found. Dont ask me who ripped all their skin off to find this out.
It seems only the motor racing industry has figured this out with the widespread use of the Hahns device (not sure I spell it right); basically a neck brace.
Anyway, rant over. The point is, I think this argument should have been presented as well (instead?), since a helmet only makes you feel safer. At least in sports that have incredible forces to contend with (like motor racing). It just trades one kind of potential injury for another. This is a far too common ignorance, apparently fueled by helmet makers? It’s not that big an industry is it? In the case of cycles, it most definately is fueled by someone, although I’m guessing its auto makers. Understandable. Pathetic, but understandable.
I don’t know about football, Dutch bicycle associations generally advise against the use of helmets. Because:
The only studies that show helmets to be effective are studies by the helmets manufacturers. An oft-cited study is of Australia, where at some point the helmet was made mandatory. There was apparently a significant reduction in serious head injuries. However, this reduction correlated strongly with the overall reduction in cyclists as a result of the discomfort of having to use a helmet.
Helmets are statistically slightly more dangerous. As mentioned in the OP & column, this is mainly because people feel safer, when actually a helmet offers little protection. Cars pass about 30% closer to cyclists wearing helmets.
Helmets only protect against very specific accidents, most of which are not particularly likely to happen when cycling to and from work. They are basically made to protect your head if you fall directly off your bike onto the ground. Anyone who cycles knows that this doesn’t really happen. If you fall like that you scrape your knee. Danger in cycling lies in being hit by a car, from which a helmet does not protect you. Although they prevent skull fractures, your skull is actually pretty good at preventing skull fractures anyway. The danger is concussion, which again the helmets don’t adequately prevent.
Helmets are a form of victim blaming, and they shift the responsibility away from motorists. The goal is to create a safe environment for cyclists, to encourage healthy and environmentally friendly cycling and to encourage motorists to act responsibly.
Mandating use of helmets results in a net health loss, as fewer people cycle while no real health problem is being solved.
That’s OK. Google translate would probably be good enough to assess the basic quality of your cites, because otherwise you’re just tossing out a few very authoratative-sounding numbers that you may have just as well rolled dice for.
Some of your points are well-taken, particularly in the relationship of motorists and cyclists. Frankly, anyone driving a car really only worries about other cars on the road. The particular road blindness that makes a car driving motorist overlook bicycles or even motorcyclists is well-documented. Nothing other than improving the quality of motorists will help that, and I despair of that particular goal.
But don’t forget that a fairly common bicycle accident is the “header”… something catches the front wheel (like drainage grates) and tumbles the rider over the handlebars. In my experience, that can wind up with a head impact. More so if it’s a frontal collision header, where the bicycle hits a solid vertical obstruction, pitching the rider head-first into the obstruction. The helmet would help the possible external-impact head injury, and if it had sufficient energy absorption in its padding structure it might mitigate the internal impact head injury as well (concussion). However, you’re right that much of the collision energy would just transfer to the neck, so possibly not much help there.
All that aside, your assessment of a net safety loss from helmet wearing looks suspiciously like your off-the-cuff guess without good staticistical-analysis-based citations.
It makes sense there are going to be incidents of riders taking greater risks when wearing a helmet than without. Some motorists may provide less leeway on roadways for helmeted riders, perhaps thinking them more able handlers, or more protected, driving faster or nearer the cyclist than otherwise, thinking them more protected than helmetless riders. These are exceptions, do not outweigh the overall benefits of wearing a helmet. Ride after ride, you’ll be better off wearing your helmet than go without. And if you ride enough for enough years like me, you’ll have friends who have been saved by their helmets, and you yourself will likely have a “helmet experience” to share.
It’s considerably overall safer to wear a helmet when bicycling than not wear one and anyone who says it’s safer to go without a helmet when riding a bicycle, either on trail or road, is full of shit. ETA: generally the better rider you are, the more you’ll respect wearing a helmet. Helmets are for experienced and smart riders. Only fools go without.
Forgot to add that many cycling professionals opt to train without their helmets because they’re hot to wear, esp on a hot day. Those pros that go helmet-less are accepting the greater risk factor in favor of comfort; they know it would be safer to wear the helmet.
It is so easy to bump your head when riding a bike, so many ways this can happen and even low speed impacts can be a disaster.
Here’s what Greg LeMond had to say about helmets, from his Compete Book of Cycling. And keep in mind this is 25 yrs old, helmets have improved since 1987.
..from book, pg 110..
Here’s an article in The Times, inspired by a heated debate on Twitter which arose in light of comments made by Olympic champion and Tour de France winner Bradley Wiggins that all cyclists should be forced by law to wear helmets on the road.
from article:
Neurosurgeon (article):
I mean it’s obvious if a car crushes a cyclist, a bike helmet is unlikely to save their life. A huge number of cyclists are killed from crush-type injuries to the pelvis, legs and chest, and the forces involved in a collision with a large motor vehicle is often far greater than the force a helmet can bear before failing, thus doing little to prevent the head injury. I also admit that although helmets provide excellent protection against bumps, knocks and scrapes, they’re far less effective against high-impact smashes. Helmets have their limitations, this cannot be denied.
The bottom line is that although a helmet has limitations, can only protect to a certain point, it’s still overall much safer to wear one.
Four professional ice hockey players worldwide since 1896. Hardly compelling considering the vast numbers who have played the game. Don Sanderson was wearing a helmet but it came off in the fight that preceded his fall. Fendley was also wearing one, but it fell off as he was trying to maintain his balance.
I have retired thee bicycle helmets after crashes that damaged them. I am quite sure the helmet reduced my injuries in all cases. In one case the helmet had a deep crease where it struck a piece of angle iron along the edge of a bike/ped bridge over the freeway. Pretty sure the result was a light bruise on my temple instead of a fractured skull.
For anyone who’s interested, a study has been published which shows that CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) can be and has been diagnosed in living NFL players. Formerly it was only possible via autopsy.
Screw 'em. They’re already being compensated for the dangerous aspects of their job. There are many who put their lives in peril more often than the two dozen times a year that a football player faces. Start paying them four million a year and then we’ll talk.
It’s not just pro-athletes – student athletes are suffering as well.
Actually, back when helmets weren’t worn, or weren’t as effective, players weren’t paid much, (in fact, many had to take second jobs to make ends meet), and the risks weren’t as well known. You went right back out there, again and again and again. It wasn’t the fact that they didn’t wear helmets – it was that they ignored the injuries, shrugging them off as no big deal. “You just got your bell rung, that’s all.”
And if you think Masterson was the only example, think again. Look up Mike Webster. Or Muhammed Ali. It’s no secret that his Parkinson’s is related to multiple head injuries suffered in his career.
Hockey HOF goaltender Ken Dryden wrote a series of articles on concussions:
I have long known that this is absolutely true.
I love football and have played contact football since age 11. While the article is extensive and correct, the main point is not addressed. THE SHOCK WAVE. It has done widespread damage in the form of concussion, especially in a cumulative fashion. Just because the fans (players also) want to hear the games loud pops. STOP THIS. My beloved football is NOT some Roman gladiator games. Many NFL players careers AND health have been cut short.
breezelow.
There are major differences between football safety equipment and bicycle safety equipment. In football, I am looking to run into someone, and I want to do this as hard as possible. When I bike, I do my best not to run into things whether or not I’m wearing a helmet.
It’s very possible that bike safety equipment does reduce injuries, but that football safety equipment actually causes more injuries. People who wear a helmet when they bike still don’t purposefully run into trees, and they don’t try to see how close to trees they can come before hitting them.
On the other hand, a football player with a hard plastic helmet and shoulder pads may hit harder because they’re better protected and the harder they hit, the more likely they’ll tackle the person holding the ball in order to stop the play. They may also hit harder because the other person is wearing safety equipment, so they don’t worry as much about injuring the other player. And, finally they may hit harder because the equipment itself has certain offensive capabilities. Broad hard shoulder pads and helmet are probably more effective in taking a body down.