I’m mostly with Max as well. The benefits of cycle helmets are limited, by the very nature of the design - unlike say motorcycle helmets which can be big and heavy and pretty strong, cycle helmets are light and full of holes, and are only designed to withstand relatively low energy impacts - basically, someone falling off their bike etc.- I would imagine Aprilla’s crash was pretty much at the limit of protection it could offer - and whilst very scary, she was probably actually traveling at a relatively low speed. In impacts involving say a car traveling at typical car speeds, cycle helmets offer little protection. As has been said, they are probably are most usseful for younger kids, who are most likely to be travelling at lower speeds, are nearer the ground, are more likley to fall off, or have a crash (such as Aprilla’s) due to lack of experince. For adults, they probably are most useful for off-roading and for offering some protection to more marginal head injuries - lacerations etc. I take your last point Tbird, but in an impact where the force is enough to cause major head injuries, then a cycle helmet is probably not going to help at all anyway - it will have been destroyed long before it reduces the energy of the impact enough to be of benefit, or the wearer will suffer other major injuries.

On the topic of research - well prepare for bit of brain ache if you start to read it, as evidence is very contradictory. The are some case controlled studies (such as the one Jan quotes) that claim various amounts of injury reduction/benefit from helmets use, but a lot of it is flawed in one way or another. Population level research tends to show no benefit (in terms of serious injuries/death etc.), but again can suffer limitations. There is some evidence that helmet use is linked with increase in head injuries.

A good resource regarding cycle helmets is:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

It does have a bit of a ‘helmet sceptic’ stance (not anti helmet though), but is balanced in it’s approach (it’s roots are in the anti helmet complusion campaign). It has good links to research, critiques etc. as well as more general stuff on the helmet issue.

There is a response to the research Jan quotes here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1144

My view is that cycling is a safe activity with real health benefits - though of course not risk free, but the risk of serious head injury is small, and benefits of wearing a helmet are probably real but limited. As such it’s another area were really it comes down to personal judgment/risk assessment. It certainly isn’t a ‘no-brainer’. It’s needs considering in context, Children are much more likely to suffer head injuries when jumping or falling. There are much more likely to suffer them as pedestrians or as car occupants. We’d probably be much better wearing helmets as pedstrians and as car occupants than as cyclists.

With regard to helmet buying, the protection offered by helemets now is in general lower than they were in the 1990’s. as they are designed only to meet the EU standard (EN 1078) as opposed to the higher, unofficial standards used before. The best standard is (or was a year or so ago, I think the situation is the same) the Snell B95 one. Though it can be difficult to find them. In part because even if helmet does meet that standard, it might not have a sticker to say so when sold in the UK.

Specialized (company name) helmets were IIRC usually Snell B95 certificated, not sure if this is still the case.

There is a good article (originally published June 2005 in Cycle magazine) on this sort of aspect here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

I’m mostly with Max as well. The benefits of cycle helmets are limited, by the very nature of the design - unlike say motorcycle helmets which can be big and heavy and pretty strong, cycle helmets are light and full of holes, and are only designed to withstand relatively low energy impacts - basically, someone falling off their bike etc.- I would imagine Aprilla’s crash was pretty much at the limit of protection it could offer - and whilst very scary, she was probably actually traveling at a relatively low speed. In impacts involving say a car traveling at typical car speeds, cycle helmets offer little protection. As has been said, they are probably are most usseful for younger kids, who are most likely to be travelling at lower speeds, are nearer the ground, are more likley to fall off, or have a crash (such as Aprilla’s) due to lack of experince. For adults, they probably are most useful for off-roading and for offering some protection to more marginal head injuries - lacerations etc. I take your last point Tbird, but in an impact where the force is enough to cause major head injuries, then a cycle helmet is probably not going to help at all anyway - it will have been destroyed long before it reduces the energy of the impact enough to be of benefit, or the wearer will suffer other major injuries.

On the topic of research - well prepare for bit of brain ache if you start to read it, as evidence is very contradictory. The are some case controlled studies (such as the one Jan quotes) that claim various amounts of injury reduction/benefit from helmets use, but a lot of it is flawed in one way or another. Population level research tends to show no benefit (in terms of serious injuries/death etc.), but again can suffer limitations. There is some evidence that helmet use is linked with increase in head injuries.

A good resource regarding cycle helmets is:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

It does have a bit of a ‘helmet sceptic’ stance (not anti helmet though), but is balanced in it’s approach (it’s roots are in the anti helmet complusion campaign). It has good links to research, critiques etc. as well as more general stuff on the helmet issue.

There is a response to the research Jan quotes here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1144

My view is that cycling is a safe activity with real health benefits - though of course not risk free, but the risk of serious head injury is small, and benefits of wearing a helmet are probably real but limited. As such it’s another area were really it comes down to personal judgment/risk assessment. It certainly isn’t a ‘no-brainer’. It’s needs considering in context, Children are much more likely to suffer head injuries when jumping or falling. There are much more likely to suffer them as pedestrians or as car occupants. We’d probably be much better wearing helmets as pedstrians and as car occupants than as cyclists.

With regard to helmet buying, the protection offered by helemets now is in general lower than they were in the 1990’s. as they are designed only to meet the EU standard (EN 1078) as opposed to the higher, unofficial standards used before. The best standard is (or was a year or so ago, I think the situation is the same) the Snell B95 one. Though it can be difficult to find them. In part because even if helmet does meet that standard, it might not have a sticker to say so when sold in the UK.

Specialized (company name) helmets were IIRC usually Snell B95 certificated, not sure if this is still the case.

There is a good article (originally published June 2005 in Cycle magazine) on this sort of aspect here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

The kids use helmets here, for precisely that sort of random falling-off potential.

Helen, I sort of see what you mean about them not being so essential for adults but then to be fair, if you damage your body (unless its major) then you will usually heal up reasonably well, the same force to your head can do a lot more damage. I am probably a little towards the obsessive side with this sort of stuff because of having been a biker in my yoof and all the Red Cross stuff where I’ve ended up treating injuries that decent safety gear would have prevented.

None of us wear them. I’d like everyone to, but Max is convinced they don’t do any good so doesn’t make us.