Advocacy & Safety - Any sign that clubs might drop their helmet rule?

With the advent of extreme sports terrain parks in nearly every ski resort, it seems like the legal atmosphere in the USA has changed. These features encourage maneuvers which are overtly and patently dangerous and which result in injury to most participants. This is a HUGELY different ski resort risk climate than a few years ago! What changed? (Is it just a matter of a big enough insurance premium? Can't be. Courting injury to youth as terrain-features do is clearly negligent by previous standards, which could go beyond civil cases. Is it social winking due to mere mob pressure?)

Have there been any similar changes in terms of safety in other sports?'

...How about cycling?

I note that while helmet-wearing is common in skiing, it doesn't seem to be required.

I'm wondering if bike clubs have discovered anything interesting about their rules requiring helmets. They've had about 20 years of requirement rules. Are any legal, social, or safety verdicts in or changes in the air?

Does requiring helmets in fact help clubs avoid liability? (Must be plenty of precedence now.) Also, have they had fewer crashes/injuries and/or head injuries on their rides? (This might be a bit like how the idea of waivers seems to be questioned or verified from time to time. Do waivers work?)

I note that there has long been a hypothesis that wearing a helmet can give a false sense of security. This hypothesis would seem to say that helmet-wearing might result in more crashes as people ride beyond their skills or awareness, so that not only head-injuries should be considered when evaluating helmets or a helmet rule. So that more crashes per capita of helmet-wearing club members -- even with fewer head injuries -- would tend to support the anti-requirement side.

Also, as clubs age they become aware that the existence of a rule can actually increase liability if it's not worded right or if it's beyond necessity. It can add a burden to a club and, in short, have unintended consequences.

So I'm wondering if any bike clubs have considered getting rid of, or changing, any helmet requirements.

For instance, a small example might be if a club wanted to hold a Tweed Run or some kind of fashion show then helmets might not always be suitable.

I suppose that helmet wearing has been mostly considered synonymous with
"educated rider" and that a requirement tends to keep non-believers and "riff-raff" away from clubs. But cycling savvy is more broad-based today. And some clubs are greying and dying off. Segregation is possibly becoming passe' as a cycling value. Recruiting and widening the base might be gaining steam. Inclusiveness is big among younger people -- they tend to include biking with other activities and with the rest of their everyday life. As an example, lycra always seemed to be the "de rigueur" uniform of "real riders," but streetwear for cycling is making a huge comeback among all ages, especially younger riders. Such changes might affect clubs and their rules. Who knows! Anyone?

So, in short, I'm wondering if recent legal, social and demographic changes are affecting any club rules.

--JP

I'm wondering if bike clubs have discovered anything interesting about their rules requiring helmets. They've had about 20 years of requirement rules. Are any legal, social, or safety verdicts in or changes in the air?

Does requiring helmets in fact help clubs avoid liability? (Must be plenty of precedence now.) Also, have they had fewer crashes/injuries and/or head injuries on their rides? (This might be a bit like how the idea of waivers seems to be questioned or verified from time to time. Do waivers work?)
I'm not seeing any clubs locally relaxing their helmet requirements. In fact one local club just switched to requiring helmets on all rides a couple years ago and now, AFAIK, there's only one local club left that doesn't mandate helmets (that club leaves it up to each ride leader). My impression is that lawsuits against bike clubs are very rare - and that's confirmed by the low cost of getting insurance coverage. So there may not be very much data to go on despite the long time period you mention.

The subject of the waivers came up when our club meeting had a lawyer specializing in bike injury cases was the guest speaker. He indicated that in California the waivers are effective in cases that would be considered 'simple negligence' but not if 'gross negligence' were involved. Usually the insurance companies have a suggested wording of the waiver and it's best to use their suggested form. I also note that our club's insurance carrier takes no stand on requiring helmet use for our regular rides and that's also the case with the insurance offered in association with LAB.

It won't happen anytime soon. For the OP's sake, I hope it doesn't happen. Even a slight bump on the noggin can cause an injury.

Two things in the news the last few years will preclude any relaxation of helmet rules: the death of Natasha Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson) on a ski slope, and recent research into sports concussions (http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/sports/index.html).

Two things in the news the last few years will preclude any relaxation of helmet rules: the death of Natasha Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson) on a ski slope, and recent research into sports concussions (http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/sports/index.html).

Her accident was just like that of Sonny Bono. They both slammed into a tree on a ski slope, while not wearing a helmet.

As others have noted I don't see clubs relaxing their helmet rules. There's a new women's only bike club and on their business card they make it clear that helmets ARE required.

With the advent of extreme sports terrain parks in nearly every ski resort, it seems like the legal atmosphere in the USA has changed. These features encourage maneuvers which are overtly and patently dangerous and which result in injury to most participants. This is a HUGELY different ski resort risk climate than a few years ago! What changed? (Is it just a matter of a big enough insurance premium? Can't be. Courting injury to youth as terrain-features do is clearly negligent by previous standards, which could go beyond civil cases. Is it social winking due to mere mob pressure?)
Ski areas have some legislative protection that are fairly unique. Given the inherent risks in the activity of skiing, no one could run a ski area as a business without such protection.

There are many, many signs indicating the hazards of terrain parks and it's understood (should be) and excepted that a skier be ready for surprises (like ice/rocks/trees) that they might come across (and terrain park features are not surprises).


I note that while helmet-wearing is common in skiing, it doesn't seem to be required.


And some clubs are greying and dying off. Segregation is possibly becoming passe' as a cycling value. Recruiting and widening the base might be gaining steam. Inclusiveness is big among younger people -- they tend to include biking with other activities and with the rest of their everyday life. As an example, lycra always seemed to be the "de rigueur" uniform of "real riders," but streetwear for cycling is making a huge comeback among all ages, especially younger riders.
All sorts of clubs are "greying and dying off". I think a big reason is that there is less social need for clubs. Anyway, it seems highly unlikely that people determined to use "streetwear" for cycling are clamoring for cycling clubs to join.


Helmets in skiing are relatively recent (a bit more recent than cycling). There's also a very strong fashion/cultural resistance for wearing helmets while skiing. And there's a strong sense of skiers assuming the risks of the activity (and that the ski area management isn't responsible for those risks.

There is much less fashion/cultural resistance (now) to wearing bicycle helmets.


I'm wondering if bike clubs have discovered anything interesting about their rules requiring helmets. They've had about 20 years of requirement rules. Are any legal, social, or safety verdicts in or changes in the air?
There is no advantage for a club for dropping the helmet rule. Right or wrong, helmet use is the accepted standard of safety.


Does requiring helmets in fact help clubs avoid liability?
Helmet use (right or wrong) is the current standard for safety. It would not seem that contradicting that standard would decrease the club's liability.


Also, have they had fewer crashes/injuries and/or head injuries on their rides?
I don't see how helmets would result in fewer crashes.


I note that there has long been a hypothesis that wearing a helmet can give a false sense of security. This hypothesis would seem to say that helmet-wearing might result in more crashes as people ride beyond their skills or awareness, so that not only head-injuries should be considered when evaluating helmets or a helmet rule. So that more crashes per capita of helmet-wearing club members -- even with fewer head injuries -- would tend to support the anti-requirement side.
The evidence to support this hypothesis doesn't seem very strong. The current standard for safety (right or wrong) is still helmets. One would need a lot of contrary evidence to change that. One advantage of helmets is that their use is easy to determine.


Also, as clubs age they become aware that the existence of a rule can actually increase liability if it's not worded right or if it's beyond necessity. It can add a burden to a club and, in short, have unintended consequences.
It appears that one is better off trying to warn people of risks (and not being complete) than doing nothing.


Do waivers work?
What do you mean by "work"? There is little cost to waivers and it doesn't seem they would make things worse.

Waivers don't really keep people from suing. What they do is document that the plaintiff has been informed of the risks. That is, a waiver weakens the plaintiff's case since they can't argue that they were not informed.

Her accident was just like that of Sonny Bono. They both slammed into a tree on a ski slope, while not wearing a helmet.

No, she she fell on a beginner's slope during a lesson. She thought she was fine and only later showed symptoms before dying.

I think that NJKAYAKER has it wrong about skiing and helmets: they are recent and they are HUGELY successful there. Very popular and ZERO stigma. A huge amount of fashion and expense is going into ski helmets, too. Adoption has been very quick. This experience was totally different from the evolution of helmets among cyclists.

...At the same time I see no move to require helmets at ski areas. ...And there has been a HUGE change to HUGELY increase danger at ski areas. Interesting!

Maybe ski CLUBS or some organized ski events are requiring helmets? I suspect ski RACING requires them.

I recently had a friend wear a helmet while *xc* skiing on *flat* trails.

The general remark about the risks of skiing has always been the case. What is NEW about skiing is the ubiquitous and dangerous terrain parks. And they are especially being pushed to children. There has obviously been a HUGE and RECENT increase in the acceptance of risk AND INJURY in skiing. Anyone have any enlightening info on this?

As regards helmets and bike clubs and rules: A rule requiring a helmet might be shown to imply the provision of safety and protection which in reality it can't deliver. I would think that in law that the requirements can bring liability both in terms of omission and inclusion. That is, not wearing a helmet might result in injury -- and thus liability. Equally, wearing a helmet may well not prevent injury -- *possibly* also creating liability.

The fact that ski resorts do not require helmets -- maybe even for the use of terrain parks -- might suggest better protection against liability via a HANDS-OFF approach. ...If you say or require nothing either for or against a device then that may be the best position legally. ?? Who knows! I do know that recently ski resorts are perhaps 10X more dangerous than they were -- how did this come to happen?

Liability management might be an evolving practice. ...And it might be evolving away from Nanny Policy. ? Anyone know?

No, she she fell on a beginner's slope during a lesson. She thought she was fine and only later showed symptoms before dying.

OUCH!!! I remember that now.(go figure) NR RIP

Helmets for bike clubs are very important because that way if one sees a non helmeted head up ahead in the pack you know there is a pedestrian on the road and to urgently signal them and change your line. This of course assumes that pedestrians don't start commonly wearing helmets - there should be a law against that.

Two things in the news the last few years will preclude any relaxation of helmet rules: the death of Natasha Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson) on a ski slope, and recent research into sports concussions (http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/sports/index.html).

Recent research into sports concussions suggests that helmets do not provide protection from them, whether we're talking American football, ice hockey or cycling.

It's bloody difficult to make a helmet that prevents against concussion. (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/when-helmets-dont-help-87099227.html). Anyone claiming that their helmet does anything significant to reduce concussions is at best stretching the truth.

If insurers are actually insisting on clubs mandating helmets then it's only because fools are giving them a free pass on it. I remain skeptical however that insurers are actually doing this until I see an actual club policy. I suspect that poltroonish helmet-zealots in clubs are claiming "the insurers made us do it" when nothing of the kind has actually been demanded.



THERE is widespread opinion on helmets' ability to stop or reduce concussions. Some products are even marketed with such claims.

A good many of those opinions are wrong if they don't fall in line with this piece of knowledge shared by Bishop, but not him alone:

"Regardless of what you hear or what you read, there is no such thing as a concussion helmet."

Nevertheless, the search for better equipment, including helmets, will continue, but that alone won't solve hockey's concussion crisis.

"The NFL did a large study in early 2000," Bishop says. "Riddell had built a different football helmet, one that was supposed to intervene on concussions... Concussions (with) old helmets and new helmets are identical. They haven't done anything on cutting concussions and the reason is that the concussion is a different problem.

"It's a problem of rotational head acceleration that cannot be addressed through conventional helmets that we have."

A helmet does not eliminate the force delivered to the head, nor does it stop the brain from sloshing around inside the skull. When the blow is from the side and causes the head to twist or spin, experts fear the damage of the concussion may be greater still.

With the advent of extreme sports terrain parks in nearly every ski resort, it seems like the legal atmosphere in the USA has changed. These features encourage maneuvers which are overtly and patently dangerous and which result in injury to most participants. This is a HUGELY different ski resort risk climate than a few years ago! What changed? (Is it just a matter of a big enough insurance premium? Can't be. Courting injury to youth as terrain-features do is clearly negligent by previous standards, which could go beyond civil cases. Is it social winking due to mere mob pressure?)

lots of snipping

I--JP

Look at the back of your ski ticket....... with a magnifying lens. By buying a ticket and using as resort you are agreeing to acceptance of risk, acknowledging the hazard, waiving liablilyt etc etc. I don't think resorts are relaxing at all on legal risk mitigation. Simple things like most terrain parks having entrances and being separated from main runs are there so no one can say "i accidentally dropped in to the hallf pipe at full speed on my old time 210 gs skiis" I think your basic read of situation is not correct.

I think that NJKAYAKER has it wrong about skiing and helmets: they are recent and they are HUGELY successful there. Very popular and ZERO stigma. A huge amount of fashion and expense is going into ski helmets, too. Adoption has been very quick. This experience was totally different from the evolution of helmets among cyclists.
I said they were recent. There are many people who use them and there's a large contingent of skiers who will never use them. More skiers on the east coast might use helmets. Interestingly, skiers don't typically care what other skiers do.


Maybe ski CLUBS or some organized ski events are requiring helmets? I suspect ski RACING requires them.
I know of no ski club that requires helmets (outside of racing). They are typically required for racing.


I recently had a friend wear a helmet while *xc* skiing on *flat* trails.
That's very unusual!


As regards helmets and bike clubs and rules: A rule requiring a helmet might be shown to imply the provision of safety and protection which in reality it can't deliver. I would think that in law that the requirements can bring liability both in terms of omission and inclusion. That is, not wearing a helmet might result in injury -- and thus liability. Equally, wearing a helmet may well not prevent injury -- *possibly* also creating liability.

There's no expectation that a helmet will always prevent injury.

The assumption is that one would be generally better off wearing a helmet. That is, it isn't an "equal" choice.

Right or wrong, the generally-accepted standard for safety is for cyclists to wear helmets.


Liability management might be an evolving practice. ...And it might be evolving away from Nanny Policy. ? Anyone know?
No. Ski areas are unusual. They have special legislative protection that other businesses do not have.

The reason bicycle clubs require helmets is because:
* it is the generally-accepted standard for safety (right or wrong this may be).
* there isn't any clear downside to wearing them (right or wrong this may be).
* liability wise, it's safer to recommend them than not caring.

The assumption is that one would be generally better off wearing a helmet. That is, it isn't an "equal" choice.

Right or wrong, the generally-accepted standard for safety is for cyclists to wear helmets.

Generally accepted where? In Europe the majority of cyclists don't wear helmets. The European Cyclists Federation is skeptical of their benefits. The majority of cyclists in the world don't actually wear helmets. In the past cyclists practically never wore helmets.

Even in back-asswards N.America significant numbers of cyclists don't want to wear helmets and are starting to the flout the helmet laws even where they've been in place.

No experts in the biomechanics of concussion and helmets and no helmet manufactures will claim that helmets prevent concussion.

"Generally" is apparently not "general" in this case.

what I'd like to know is why is there a requirement of helmet use when helmets come with legal waivers stating a helmet cannot be relied upon to prevent an injury?

Generally accepted where?
In the US. In Canada. In Australia. And I'm talking about the safety standards of "health professionals".


Even in back-asswards N.America significant numbers of cyclists don't want to wear helmets and are starting to the flout the helmet laws even where they've been in place.
Your average joe does all sorts of things. So what? By this logic, because many people smoke, smoking is OK to do!

They aren't typically viewed as a good source recommendations for safety practices.


No experts in the biomechanics of concussion and helmets and no helmet manufactures will claim that helmets prevent concussion.
No one is claiming that they "prevent" concussions (ie, prevent meaning 100%). That's a straw man.

Note that I'm not arguing whether or not helmets make any sense.

There's another thread for that anyway!


"Generally" is apparently not "general" in this case.
No.

Health professionals generally (right or wrong) recommend wearing helmets while cycling. We aren't talking about what the average joe chooses to do.

what I'd like to know is why is there a requirement of helmet use when helmets come with legal waivers stating a helmet cannot be relied upon to prevent an injury?

It's scary that you need to have that basic thing explained to you.

I'm talking about the safety standards of "health professionals".

So you're talking about your average sawbones that knows eff all about the issue, whereas the people that actually know about it: engineers and statisticians are to be ignored.

That doesn't seem very general. But then I guess you "believe".



Your average joe does all sorts of things. So what? By this logic, because many people smoke, smoking is OK to do!


They aren't typically viewed as a good source recommendations for safety practices.




I wouldn't look to anyone uneducated on an issue for recommendations. For those purposes "health professionals" are as useless as Joe Average.

http://youtu.be/gCMzjJjuxQI



The commonsense view of the relationship (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470482/) between the medical establishment and the tobacco industry is that physicians offered major opposition to cigarettes, wrote scientific publications critical of cigarettes around 1950, and, by 1953, banned cigarette ads in leading medical journals. But Gardner and Brandt reveal that amid rising public and scientific anxiety in the 1930s and 1940s, medical journals happily accepted cigarette advertising, and physicians allowed themselves to be used in tobacco ads. Doctors permitted their own smoking behavior to be featured in reassuring ways, and they appeared in ads that stressed the use of individual clinical judgment in assessing the variable risks for each patient, thereby discounting the accumulating population-based scientific evidence of tobacco’s harmful effects. Physicians changed their stance in the 1950s only when overwhelming epidemiological evidence began to appear in public health literature and in the popular press.
Thus, Gardner and Brandt force us to confront the medical profession’s complicity in purveying tobacco products, and they raise vexing questions about the shifting bases of science-based practice. As in Blocker’s article, the most important insights connect with nuanced truths beneath surface appearances.

No one is claiming that they "prevent" concussions (ie, prevent meaning 100%). That's a straw man.

I'm not claiming anyone is claiming that. I'm using prevent in a more normal sense. As in "you'd be dang hard pressed to find a helmet that has a measurable impact on concussions and no one who is a professional in the field has ever made this claim including the manufacturers."

The simple fact of the matter is that as referenced, in the article about Pat Bishop, previously it is damn hard to mitigate concussions and TBI. Current bicycle helmets probably do NOTHING to that effect. They may be useful for preventing cuts and scrapes to the outside of the head (excluding the face).

The reason bicycle clubs require helmets is because:
* it is the generally-accepted standard for safety (right or wrong this may be).
* there isn't any clear downside to wearing them (right or wrong this may be).
* liability wise, it's safer to recommend them than not caring.

While your first two points are bunk, the third starts to get close to the answer. Helmets do very little, if anything, to reduce actual liability, but a helmet requirement for organized rides is often a requirement of liability insurance for cycling clubs.

A helmet requirement costs the insurance company nothing, and has no direct cost to the club, while providing both with documentation that they've attempted to mitigate risks.

In front of a sympathetic jury, having evidence that you tried to do "the right thing" can be far more important than whether "the right thing" has any meaningful impact.

Recent research into sports concussions suggests that helmets do not provide protection from them, whether we're talking American football, ice hockey or cycling.

The science doesn't matter near as much as the impression.

While your first two points are bunk, the third starts to get close to the answer. Helmets do very little, if anything, to reduce actual liability, but a helmet requirement for organized rides is often a requirement of liability insurance for cycling clubs.

AFAICT, it is not a common insurance company requirement for clubs to mandate helmets for their normal club rides. It certainly is not by our club's insurance carrier nor was it required by the company that LAB recommends when I last checked. Yet almost all the local clubs (SF Bay Area) do have such a helmet policy. So I am skeptical that liability concerns are the major driver; clubs are very rarely sued and if they are then the cost would be borne by the insurance company - yet they don't care for these normal club rides. And liability concerns were not a significant topic of discussion when these rules were adopted by clubs with which I was involved.

My feeling is that the first two points mentioned by njkayaker are of greater significance and note (as he did already), that they can influence policy regardless of whether they are factually true or not.

No one is claiming that they "prevent" concussions (ie, prevent meaning 100%). That's a straw man.Helmets don't even mitigate concussions. Helmets provide 0 protection against concussions. That's because they don't prevent your head from rotating, when hit. And only head rotation causes brain damage. (http://people.aapt.net.au/~theyan/cycling/Accident%20Analysis%20Prevention%202.pdf) The only way a helmet will prevent concussions/brain damage, is if it's bolted onto your shoulders.

Please read the following, short article, to find out more:


BICYCLE HELMETS AND THE MECHANICS OF HEAD INJURIES

It is widely accepted that a bicycle helmet will in many cases prevent or reduce skull fractures and superficial head injuries. Less clear is how effective helmets are at preventing injuries to the brain. Brain injuries can be either focal or diffuse. It is the diffuse brain injuries which are the most serious. A hospital emergency room case-control study by Thompson et al[1] found that bicycle helmets reduce brain injury by 88 percent, but this study has since been widely criticized for it’s faulty methodology. Studies of Australian statistics are lacking in evidence of any reduction in the risk of serious brain injury to cyclists after the introduction of compulsory bicycle helmet legislation[2].

It is erroneous to associate skull fracture directly with brain injury. In a study by Baker[3], of all bicyclists with head injuries, 8.5 percent had skull fractures without evidence of injury within the skull. Obviously in an impact severe enough to cause a skull fracture, other forces are likely to be present.

Holbourn[4] and others[5] studied the effect of impacts to the head. While the forces involved in head impacts can be quite complex, there are two main forces involved: linear and rotational. Holbourn used two-dimensional jelly moulds to compare the effects of these two forces. It was possible to see the damage caused to the jelly, and compare that with the autopsies of actual head injury victims. Gennarelli et al[5] followed up on Holbourn’s work using live monkeys.

Holbourn first noted the following properties of the brain:

It’s comparatively uniform density. Nerve tissue, blood and cerebrospinal fluid all have about the same density as water.
It’s extreme incompressibility. Brain substance does not appreciably change it’s size when subjected to uniform pressure.
It’s very small modulus of rigidity, ie. low resistance to a change in shape.
The high rigidity of the skull, compared with the brain.
The shape of the skull and brain are important in deciding the location of injuries.
That the brain is injured when it’s constituent particles are pulled so far apart that they can not rejoin afterwards. In a substance with the aforementioned properties of the brain, the amount of pulling apart of constituent particles is proportional to the shear strain. Hence the shear strain present at any point in the brain should be a rough measure of injury at that point. Shear strains within the brain can be either a direct result of distortion to the skull, or irrespective of distortion to the skull.Compression and rarefaction strains are not considered to be a cause of injury. Holbourn noted work by Grundfest which found that nerves continued to conduct when subjected to a compression strain due to a pure hydrostatic pressure of 10,000 lb. per sq. in. This pressure is far greater than anything which can arise in a head injury. Holbourn noted that if the pressure is not purely hydrostatic, ie there are different pressures in different directions, there will be shear strains present and a small pressure of this type may be sufficient to injure a nerve.
Linear impacts were found to cause mainly only localised (focal) injury at the point of impact. These brain injuries were the result of deformation of the skull (with or without fracture) and were found to be mostly superficial. The impact causes shock waves to emanate back and forth within the brain. Holbourn notes that these shock waves are non-injurious as they do not cause permanent displacement of brain matter.

Sudden rotation of the head was found to be the cause of most severe diffuse brain injuries such as contrecoup injuries, intracranial haemorrhages, and concussions. When rotational forces are applied, there is a change in the angular velocity of the brain and the skull. This results in diffuse shearing strains which can cause permanent displacement of matter throughout the entire brain. The irregular shape of the skull means that some parts of the brain fare worse than others.

Holbourn notes as erroneous the common misconception that the brain is loose inside the skull and that it rattles about like “a die in a box” when the head is struck, causing coup (at the point of impact) and contrecoup (remote from the point of impact) injuries. Claims that translational motion can damage brain tissue by bouncing it off the inside of the skull were therefore rejected.

It should be pointed out that Holbourn’s work was published in 1943, and Gennarelli et all in 1974, so this is hardly recent research. It is knowledge which has been around since long before bicycle helmets came into popular use, and yet it is almost never mentioned by helmet researchers who perhaps have their own agenda in promoting helmets but disguising any possible adverse consequences.

Bicycle helmets are primarily designed to reduce the effect of linear forces, by providing a soft crushing layer which reduces the peak linear acceleration to the brain during impact. The current Australian helmet standard specifies that the peak forces of acceleration shall not exceed 400g from a drop height of 1.5 metres. As has been noted however, it is doubtful that these linear forces are injurious to the brain, except through deformation of the skull.

Head impacts from bicycle crashes do not generally involve a direct square-on impact. Most commonly there is an angled impact as the head hits the ground with forward momentum; or the windshield of a motor vehicle. Such an impact is likely to impart some degree of rotational force on the head and brain.

The effect of helmets on rotational forces to the brain is not entirely clear. On the one hand, rotational forces may be reduced by virtue of the same crushing effect of the helmet which reduces linear forces; on the other hand, they may be increased due to the increased size and mass of the head. It should be noted that there are presently no helmet performance standards which monitor for the ability to affect angular acceleration.

The (Australian) National Health and Medical Research Council in a 1994 study of football injuries[6] noted that studies of cycling showed that helmets reduce soft tissue injuries but stated: “Whilst helmets may possibly reduce the incidence of scalp lacerations and other soft tissue injury, there is the risk that helmets may actually increase both the cerebral and non-cerebral injury rates. … The addition of a helmet will increase both the size and mass of the head. This means blows that would have been glancing become more solid and thus transmit increased rotational forces to the brain and may increase diffuse brain injury”.

Another consideration is the differences in friction. There is little difference between bare heads and hard shell helmets, both of which are known to slide readily on impact. However, tests of impacts of helmets on asphalt at 34km/h have shown that, unlike hard-shell helmets which slide, soft helmets grab the surface, rotating the head and producing angular accelerations of four to six times the tolerable maximum[7]. This is a matter of concern given the enormous popularity of soft-shelled helmets, although it has been claimed by some that “these concerns have been largely alleviated by the widespread use of smooth coatings on helmet shells”.

In conclusion, while it is readily accepted that bicycle helmets may reduce skull fracture and focal brain injuries, it remains highly questionable whether they can prevent serious brain injury, and there is a risk that they may actually cause increased brain injury.

References

[1] Thompson, R.S., Rivara, F.P. and Thompson, D.C., A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, The New England Journal of Medicine, 320: 21, 1989

[2] Robinson, D.L., Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws, Accident Analysis and Prevention, volume 28, number 4, pages 463-75 (1996).

[3] Baker S P, Li G Fowler C and Dannenberg A L, Injuries to Bicyclists, a National Perspective, Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention Centre, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Baltimore, Maryland, 1993.

[4] Holbourn, A.H.S., Mechanics of head injuries, The Lancet, 2, 438- 441, 1943.

[5] Ommaya, A.K. and Gennarelli, T.A., Cerebral concussion and traumatic unconsciousness: correlations of experimental and clinical observations on blunt head injuries, Brain, 97, 633-654, 1974.

[6] National Health and Medical Research Council, Football injuries of the head and neck, AGPS, 1994.

[7] Andersson, T., Larsson, P. and Sandberg, U., Chin strap forces in bicycle helmets, Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Materials & Mechanics, SP report 1993:42.

And only head rotation causes brain damage.

Although I agree with your general point this is not true. The cranium can crush and intrude into the brain. Linear acceleration can also occur. It's just that rotational seems to be more pronounced.

A helmet requirement costs the insurance company nothing, and has no direct cost to the club, while providing both with documentation that they've attempted to mitigate risks.

No direct cost possibly. Indirect costs are something that should be considered by a prudent club though. Locally we have reduced entry of young riders into our major club. Parents usually cite safety concerns as the major factor. It is definitely not possible to prove, but it seems possible that pushing helmets also pushes the message that cycling is a dangerous sport that you don't want your kids doing.



In front of a sympathetic jury, having evidence that you tried to do "the right thing" can be far more important than whether "the right thing" has any meaningful impact.
And as the converse is true, I'll have bike clubs and their helmet promotion to thank if I'm penalized in (touch wood) any future accident for not wearing a helmet. My hostility to such clubs has mounted to the extent that I'm not interested in being a member of my local.

Cycling seems to be intent on securing its own defeat.

Although I agree with your general point this is not true. The cranium can crush and intrude into the brain. Quite obviously, once a foreign object penetrates into CNT tissue, that will cause "some problems".

While your first two points are bunk,
??? Really? You don't think that health care professionals in the US are much more likely to recommend wearing helmets?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr4401.pdf
http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/3128/
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bicycle-helmet/HQ00324

I'm not arguing that they should nor am I arguing that they are correct.

But "wearing a helmet" is clearly the standard advice given by health professionals.


In front of a sympathetic jury, having evidence that you tried to do "the right thing" can be far more important than whether "the right thing" has any meaningful impact.
It's considered by many to be the "right" thing (correct or not) because of things like the above.


A helmet requirement costs the insurance company nothing, and has no direct cost to the club, while providing both with documentation that they've attempted to mitigate risks.
You'd have to look at the actual policy to see whether the insurance company is requiring it.

I'm not claiming anyone is claiming that.
But you are having difficulty staying on topic!

AFAICT, it is not a common insurance company requirement for clubs to mandate helmets for their normal club rides. It certainly is not by our club's insurance carrier nor was it required by the company that LAB recommends when I last checked. Yet almost all the local clubs (SF Bay Area) do have such a helmet policy.
Exactly what I understood.

(Note that insurance companies don't need to have that requirement because the vast majority of cycling clubs require them!)


So I am skeptical that liability concerns are the major driver; clubs are very rarely sued and if they are then the cost would be borne by the insurance company - yet they don't care for these normal club rides. And liability concerns were not a significant topic of discussion when these rules were adopted by clubs with which I was involved.
People (and clubs) are generally over-concerned about liability.

The fact that being sued is rare doesn't change people's concern. And the fact that being sued rare doesn't mean one should not take steps to avoid it.

Concerns about liability might not be the "major" drive but they reinforce the "easy" choice of requiring helmets.

Anyway, no one would admit that they are more concerned with being sued than they are with people's health.


My feeling is that the first two points mentioned by njkayaker are of greater significance and note (as he did already), that they can influence policy regardless of whether they are factually true or not.
Somebody is paying attention! (I noted this repeatedly.)

Helmets don't even mitigate concussions. Helmets provide 0 protection against concussions. That's because they don't prevent your head from rotating, when hit. And only head rotation causes brain damage. (http://people.aapt.net.au/~theyan/cycling/Accident%20Analysis%20Prevention%202.pdf) The only way a helmet will prevent concussions/brain damage, is if it's bolted onto your shoulders.

Please read the following, short article, to find out more:

That link doesn't say what you think it does.


It is concluded that: (a) the meta-analysis does not provide
scientific evidence that bicycle helmets, not being tested for capacity to mitigate the main factors that cause serious injury to the brain, do reduce it; and (b) the Australian policy of compulsory wearing of helmets lacks a basis of verified efficacy against brain injury, suggesting a need for an independent and open review taking account of relevant scientific research.

Your quote from Schalik doesn't say what you think it does either.



The effect of helmets on rotational forces to the brain is not entirely clear. On the one hand, rotational forces may be reduced by virtue of the same crushing effect of the helmet which reduces linear forces; on the other hand, they may be increased due to the increased size and mass of the head. It should be noted that there are presently no helmet performance standards which monitor for the ability to affect angular acceleration.

And neither indicates that what I said was wrong.

But you are having difficulty staying on topic!

Really? You think that when the OP asks are there any changes occuring which affect clubs' helmet rules and Doohickie cites "recent research into sports concussions" as a reason for no change that highlighting the undeniable lack of a bicycle/ski/football helmet to prevent concussions is "off topic"?

Based on your previous posts on this topic (which appeared to demonstrate an fairly ignorant position with regard to the effectiveness of helmets) I'd suggest you're being disingenuous. This interpretation is reinforced by your claims that there is no cultural resistance to wearing helmets and your overstatement of the acceptance of helmets as a prophylactic. Yes, poorly educated doctors opining outside of their limited areas of expertise are fond of them. But that's about it.

I'm hoping that the mounting awareness of the downsides of helmets leads to clubs being forced to redact these non-insurance company required helmet rules. Club officers are less likely to be able to shelter behind the "insurance company makes us do it" lie.

Hi. I'm the OP.

Someone mentioned that a helmet rule might be offputting because of expense and because it makes cycling seem dangerous.

I think it might also be socially offputting because a helmet rule also maybe goes with several other angles: a strict lycra uniform, dark shades, expensive bikes, intense/competitive pace, old-fart/macho dude dominance. Is this a recipe for growth?

I posted most of this before but what the heck... I think the following dynamic is of interest:

Part 1: Much growth in cycling today is from the inclusive, non-lycra, bike-diverse side. Maybe it's also helmet-optional. Maybe this is mostly the hip-urban thing. If so then maybe roadie clubs should welcome the hip-urban aspect to stay viable.

Part 2: Many clubs are greying and losing members. They are distinguished by the strict uniforming I mention above.

Part 3: These same clubs once were booming and growing: back when there was no strict uniforming!

Possible Solution: Welcome any move away from strict uniforming. Get rid of any extra-legal rules that might interfere with social viability. Minimal rules let a club easily change with the times. And, I strongly suspect, that getting rid of extra-legal rules makes for MUCH less liability.

Caveat: NJKAYAKER mentioned that nobody joins clubs anymore. He seemed to use this as justification of bad social policy. But I question that whole idea anyway. It's true that people don't join volunteer-service clubs as often anymore (the "bowling alone" syndrome), but other club concepts seem to still have potential. Certainly clubs do need to change with the times. If you're greying and fading it seems likely you're just doing something wrong.

That link doesn't say what you think it does.


It is concluded that: (a) the meta-analysis does not provide
scientific evidence that bicycle helmets, not being tested for capacity to mitigate the main factors that cause serious injury to the brain, do reduce it; and (b) the Australian policy of compulsory wearing of helmets lacks a basis of verified efficacy against brain injury, suggesting a need for an independent and open review taking account of relevant scientific research.What do you think the quoted text means? Actually, what do you think the gist of the Curnow article is? To help you answer these questions, I will quote from the abstract:
the Australian policy of compulsory wearing lacks a basis of verified efficacy against brain injury

I haven't seen any indication that clubs (or organized events) have discussed relaxing helmet rules.

I haven't seen any evidence that prospective club riders are outraged and offended by club rules that require helmets.

I don't recall the last time I saw anyone show up for a club ride without a helmet.

I don't view an intensification of confirmation bias among the anti-helmeters as an indication that the public at large is turning its back on bike helmets either, by the way. ;)

well, I recall a time when club riders who showed up at rides with helmets and were given the same hard treatment that the riders who show up without helmet do now.

It's all about perception and conformity. It's not about much else.

I haven't seen any evidence that prospective club riders are outraged and offended by club rules that require helmets.

I don't recall the last time I saw anyone show up for a club ride without a helmet.I found a couple of clubs in the Cleveland area that I was interested in joining. After viewing their website and reading about the requirement of helmets, I didn't even contact them. Maybe you haven't seen any evidence of prospective members being turned off is because after reading the rules, we just don't contact the clubs.

Now that I am in Cincinnati, their have been many rides and a club that I would like to have joined but didn't contact because of the helmet rule. Maybe that is why you haven't seen any riders coming to the ride without a helmet. They somehow know the rule, by word of mouth, website or flier and have decided against going.
This is one reason why I don't do organized rides. The only one that I would consider doing is RAGBRAI, since it does not have a helmet requirement.

What do you think the quoted text means? Actually, what do you think the gist of the Curnow article is? To help you answer these questions, I will quote from the abstract:

Yes, I saw that (I quoted it).

Keep in mind that the article is a criticism of a particular meta-analysis and the use of that particular meta-analysis as a basis for a mandatory helmet law.

The "lack of a basis of verified efficacy" doesn't mean it isn't effective (to some degree, at least).

There really isn't any good data either way about what helmets do or don't do in the real world.

Of course, what they are talking about is as a basis "compulsory wearing law". And, indeed, there really should be clear evidence of a benefit before anybody creates a law to make the use of anything "compulsory".


the Australian policy of compulsory wearing lacks a basis of verified efficacy against brain injury

Of course, if anyone doesn't like the culture-style of a club they can start their own.

So that, if there's a trend to a casual open style of cycling among young people then if they want a club they'll probably just make one for themselves.

At it is, there is zero overlap or contact between this new growth sector and the fading old regimented clubs. There's perhaps little reason for the grey clubs to reach out to the "casualists" and vice versa.

Maybe it's a tiny bit like the difference between the fancy road-touring motorcycle clubs and the outlaw biker clubs. ...No crossover or contact between the two groups, and no need for it, either. (I wonder if the push to get rid of the motorcycle helmet laws comes mostly from the outlaw types. I have no idea.)

(I note that this thread is NOT about helmet safety but instead about social change and its affect on clubs, with helmets maybe being an indicator topic.)

Caveat: NJKAYAKER mentioned that nobody joins clubs anymore. He seemed to use this as justification of bad social policy.
No. You are suggesting that the "bad social policy" is a reason people don't join cycling clubs.

In fact, all sorts of clubs without such a policy are having problems with declining memberships. All that I am saying is that the "bad social policy" is irrelevant.


I think it might also be socially offputting because a helmet rule also maybe goes with several other angles: a strict lycra uniform, dark shades, expensive bikes, intense/competitive pace, old-fart/macho dude dominance. Is this a recipe for growth?
??? Yep, every club is exactly like this in every detail always!

While your first two points are bunk, the third starts to get close to the answer. Helmets do very little, if anything, to reduce actual liability, but a helmet requirement for organized rides is often a requirement of liability insurance for cycling clubs.You call the first two bunk, but they aren't.


A helmet requirement costs the insurance company nothing, and has no direct cost to the club, while providing both with documentation that they've attempted to mitigate risks.

In front of a sympathetic jury, having evidence that you tried to do "the right thing" can be far more important than whether "the right thing" has any meaningful impact.Absolutely right, but the first two reasons are certainly important -- the jury will either be told that "helmets are the currently accepted standard for safety" or will already "know" that, and they'll "know" that there aren't any reasons not to wear one beyond not caring about safety.

And if an expert gets up there and correctly points out that the evidence that shows the efficacy of bicycle helmets is very weak -- the jury is quite likely to dismiss his points simply because they conflict with their own "common sense".

If it wasn't for #1 and #2, reason #3 wouldn't be true.

Maybe you haven't seen any evidence of prospective members being turned off is because after reading the rules, we just don't contact the clubs.
Yes, because no one shoots off irate emails or web posts these days. That kind of thing is Just Not Done. :D

I'm fairly confident you are decidedly in the minority, and a very small one at that. Otherwise, as JeffOYB implies, you'd have helmet-optional clubs.

Two things in the news the last few years will preclude any relaxation of helmet rules: the death of Natasha Richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson) on a ski slopeThat was certainly tragic (and the "lucid interval" she experienced made it even scarier to those reading about it), but there was no evidence that wearing a helmet (especially a typical bicycle helmet, though I don't know how skiing helmets compare to bicycling helmets. Hopefully they're stronger?) would have helped her, though of course doctors could certainly go "it would have!" or "it wouldn't have hurt!"

Ultimately, the "wear your helmet!" idea comes from a few simple concepts --

1- bicycling (or skiing) is dangerous

2- helmets must provide some protection or they wouldn't make them, or any protection is better than no protection

3- lots of stories of "I hit my helmet hard and I lived (bonus points for a broken helmet), it saved my life!"

4- Doctors also ascribe to concepts 1-3, and so they say "Wear your helmet!" and now the voice of authority is telling us to do it. They generally don't understand the issues better the layperson, but feel that since they understand the injuries better (and of course they do), they're qualified to be the voice of authority in this matter, when the reality is that they're simply using the same data and thought processes as the layperson. (So, you understand in great detail what happens in a concussion. Nice for treating it, but when it comes to preventing it, a doctor knows the same stuff as the layperson -- try to avoid hitting your head really hard!)

There's serious problems with the accuracy of concepts #1 - #3 (and #4 is based on them) but most people aren't particularly interested, as they've already made up their mind -- long enough ago that "Wear a helmet!" is now simply common sense and doesn't require any supporting evidence, and anybody who does try to convince them otherwise must be trying to trick them.

As I see it, the only thing that's going to reduce the culture of "wear your bicycle helmet!" is greatly increased bicycle ridership. If everybody does it, that means it must not be so dangerous (even if it wasn't already) and so we can dispense with the helmets.

well, I recall a time when club riders who showed up at rides with helmets and were given the same hard treatment that the riders who show up without helmet do now . . . .

Evidence, please, of a club that barred helmeted cyclists from their rides. Baring evidence, in which club and year did you observe the behavior?

there was a time when helmets were largely ineffectual. I don't doubt there were some people got harassed by their fellow riders for wearing a skid-lid at a club ride.

Helmet requirements are but one reason I won't do a club ride. The professional cyclist Halloween costume is the other.

Evidence, please, of a club that barred helmeted cyclists from their rides. Baring evidence, in which club and year did you observe the behavior?

I said the helmeted were given hard treatment, not that they were barred

The short answer is once someone wins a lawsuit, the legally prudent thing to do is change something so no one else can successfully sue. Someone has already sued a bike club for not making them wear a helmet and won, so we are stuck with it.

still not getting how liability would fall on a club, but not the manufacturer (if one was injured while it was worn or not)

can you have your cake, and eat it too?

still not getting how liability would fall on a club, but not the manufacturer (if one was injured while it was worn or not)Rule #1 of suing somebody -- sue everybody. In this case, it's the club, the manufacturer of the helmet, of the bike, the city that built the roads (if you can sue them), etc.

Throw it all at the wall and see what sticks, see who has money.