To Helmet or Not...

I recently read a report from a lawyer stating that the current legal precedent in the UK is that a helmet in useful in accidents of up to 12 miles an hour. Given that the average adult cyclist cycles at around 10 miles per hour this would indicate that helmets are only useful in accidents where there is no third party involved. i.e. the cyclist has just fallen off. Why, then, if cycle helmets are so ineffective are they worn by professional racing cyclists who move considerably faster than 10 miles per hour?

There is an increasing amount of research being done into the wearing of cycling helmets and their usefulness in reducing serious head injuries. Most of this research is commissioned by cycle helmet manufacturers who clearly have a financial interest in promoting the wearing and even legislation relating to the wearing of cycle helmets. Interestingly, despite this vested interest, the results from all the research remain far from conclusive. The problem seems to stem from the facts that 1) cycle helmets are just not very strong and 2) the design of cycle helmets is a compromise.

The development of helmets for cycling came out of the development in the use of foam as a shock absorber in motorcycle helmets in the 1970s. The intention was to decelerate the skull (and therefore also the brain) more gently than if a helmet was not worn. However, the hard shell motorcycle helmets are clearly unsuitable for a physical activity such as cycling where body temperature is regulated through the head. Cycle helmets therefore had air vents cut into them, the hard, heavy outer shell removed and over the years the volume of polystyrene foam has decreased. These alterations all made the helmet suitable for cycling but much less effective in protecting the skull.

Certainly, in countries like Australia and parts of Canada where the wearing of helmets when cycling on the road is now compulsory the reduction of serious head injuries had been underwhelming. The only clear data resulting from the introduction of legislation was the reduction in the number of people cycling (by around a third in Australia and up to 40% in parts of Canada). This was particularly the case amongst teenagers – the group which it was hoped would gain most from the introduction of the legislation.

What does seem to be clear that for young children on bikes or even scooters where the most likely accident is for them to fall off and hit the pavement a well-fitting helmet can be of benefit. “Well-fitting” being the key words here. Helmets should be a snug fit all round and worn low over the forehead. Those that that can be pushed back like a hood will do nothing to protect the head in the event of an accident and the chin strap may even then obstruct the windpipe.

So, given that the effectiveness of cycle helmets for adults is far from proven why do pro-cyclists wear them? The simple answer is that they have to; the rules of big races like the Tour de France and Giro D’Italia require it. This fairly recent addition to the rule book was sparked by the tragic death of pro-cyclist Andrei Kivilev. Previous efforts by the regulatory body (Union Cycliste Internationale), to introduce helmets had even been met with a strike. What changed in 2003 was that it was discovered that cyclists wearing a helmet had a 2% reduction in aerodynamic drag over those that didn’t. They could therefore cycle just that bit faster but there is nothing to indicate that they are any safer.

Common sense though wants to tell me that surely a helmet must be of some use. Certainly there is plenty of anecdotal evidence around. Hearing of a helmet which cracked completely in half when its wearer hit the road would surely indicate that it had taken at least some of the impact – wouldn’t it? Well, no. Cycle helmets are made from foam (usually polystyrene) with a plastic cover. The foam is intended to compress on impact to take some of the force. The fact that this helmet broke in two indicates that it didn’t do its job at all. The foam in that helmet was just too rigid or old to be of any benefit.

There is a massive price differential in the types of helmets sold in the UK from the ones sold for £15 at Halfords to the swanky branded pro-versions retailing for anything up to £200. The quality difference between the two is much less than you’d think. The price difference is usually “justified” by the manufacturer on the grounds of weight and aero-dynamic styling rather than any additional safety benefits. This is not surprising however as there is only so much you can do with a thin layer of polystyrene.

If you do chose to wear a helmet make sure you at least buy one that can do what it purports to do – protect your head within the realms of what is possible from such a product. Most helmets sold in the UK adhere to the EN1078 European standard which is unfortunately a rather low benchmark. The Snell standard (B90 and B95) is a better one and can also be found in the UK. All helmets manufactured by “Specialized” adhere to this quality mark and cost around £30.

Sadly a young man here in North Devon recently sustained very serious spinal injuries as a result of an accident in which no third party was involved. The accident involved his cycling very fast down a steep hill, he lost control of his bike and went over the side of a flyover onto the road below. Whilst his injuries are shocking and life-changing he sustained no brain damage or in fact serious head injury. Despite this though, he is still reported in the local paper as “wishing he had worn a helmet” and “encourages others to do so”. Why? Naturally he wishes the accident had never happened but the truth is the outcome would have been the same even if he had. His accident was caused by reckless cycling and pure bad luck. What could have helped him though was better road cycling technique. Which leads us onto a topic for another day…