Helmets - yes or no?

BentMikey

cupofteacp wrote:

Bent what sort of bike do you commute on?

I have two I use regularly, a fixed wheel Specialised Langster, and a Challenge Hurricane recumbent. Up until about a year ago I also used a drop barred Specialised Sirrus Elite. Why do you ask?

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

Cycling is actually about as safe as walking, so it is only a perception.

stats, linky or something to back yourself up please because Im pretty sure peds are probably much safer off as their "infrastructure" is a hell of a lot more developed and extensive than that provided for cyclists.

Mailman

It seems a bit pointless to further debate the helmets needed for cycling equals creating a perception of danger point with you, so we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I'll just address the above.

Cross modal comparison of fatality risk for passengers - 2001
Fatalities per billion
passenger kilometres

Motor cycle/moped - 112
Foot - 48
Pedal cycle - 33
Car - 3

http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefing ... ics_uk.htm

This is comparing on a distance basis, which is a fair comparison for shorter trips such as is common for utility cycling. If you prefer to compare on hours of exposure, then walking comes out slightly safer. No matter, they are in the same ball park as to your risk of dying.

On the New Zealand data you posted before that, yes, there's a common difference. Nearly all the population level studies can't find any difference in risk between wearing helmets, and not wearing helmets. On the other hand, there are a number of selective studies, often with a small sample size, that do find advantages to helmets. Why the difference? I'm not sure, but the fact that none of the population level studies can find a positive effect would lead me to question the smaller studies. Indeed, quite a few of these sorts of studies have been found to be flawed, and with flawed assumptions.

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

Cycling is actually about as safe as walking, so it is only a perception.

stats, linky or something to back yourself up please because Im pretty sure peds are probably much safer off as their "infrastructure" is a hell of a lot more developed and extensive than that provided for cyclists.

Mailman

It seems a bit pointless to further debate the helmets needed for cycling equals creating a perception of danger point with you, so we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

You are right, we will have to agree to disagree because the notion that people view helmet use as making cycling dangerous makes about as much sense as someone saying having to wear setbelts makes driving cars look dangerous???

Mailman

BentMikey

That's not quite accurate. Helmets make cycling APPEAR to be a dangerous and extreme activity, when it isn't.

Look at the Netherlands. Almost no-one wears a helmet, and cycling is a normal everyday thing to do, and isn't perceived as dangerous. Here in the UK most people think it's some sort of urban equivalent to going sky diving.

IsledeBlanc

I choose not to wear a helmet. However, on Tuesday morning my seat post snapped clean in two while I was riding past Blackfriars. I went down pretty hard.

I'm now seriously considering wearing one on my arse.

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

That's not quite accurate. Helmets make cycling APPEAR to be a dangerous and extreme activity, when it isn't.

According to you and some propaganda site YET when you actually ask people you quickly realise that the number one deterrent to them taking up cycling the danger posed by traffic on London's streets.

Then again, as a new cyclist having just bought my bike then finding this place I was really put off by all the threads about cyclists being attacked by motorists. You see, perception!

Mailman

Big Red S

BentMikey wrote:

OK, sorry, my misinterpretation. I thought you said the helmet saved your life, which I doubted. If you're just saying it saved you from cuts and grazes, I'd completely agree with you. I don't believe there's any debate about helmets being able to protect against some minor injuries.

Are you meaning to imply that the limitation of injury is not an understandable reason to wear a helmet?
I'd be hard pressed to find any others.

On your second point, this relates to no. of people killed per billion km of walking/cycling, so is a very comparable risk.

Do you have the stats for injuries? Specifically their severity.
I've had a fair few crashes on my bike, and I've fallen over while walking a few times. Clearly, none have killed me yet. I don't think I've ever given myself anything more than a cut through any 'crash' while walking, yet I've repeatedly ended up in A+E after a fall on my bike. My personal experience is that the average cycling-related injury is more severe than the average walking-related injury. I very much doubt it's different for anyone else.

dondare

I have been cycling for several decades and have had very,very few accidents. I have had one where I actually banged my head and I wasn't wearing a helmet. The result was a grazed forehead and a headache, but no concussion. Now if I had been wearing a helmet I might be convinced that it alone saved me from serious injury. The fact is the number of "helmet saved my brain" stories is way in excess of the number of serious head injuries that you'd expect if no one wore them.

Big Red S

If I'm honest, I don't know what the outcome of any of my crashed might have been had I not been wearing a helmet. I do know they'd have been worse for me, and that's enough to convince me that the helmet's worth wearing.

Having worked in bike shops long enough to have attacked a fair few old helmets with hammers, seatposts, vices, forks etc., I like to think I'm in a fairly good position to look at the damage to my helmets and be pretty glad that my head wasn't subjected to that punishment.

(I should probably point out that the above post was about my riding in general, not purely commuting)

BentMikey

It's amazing how you guys don't get the difference between anecdote and data. Cycling and walking are such low risk activities that personal experience will never leave you with enough evidence to have any idea on what is and isn't dangerous.

Across the whole of the UK, deaths for each activity is a pretty telling statistic. I think the only reason you doubt it is because it goes against what you'd like to argue.

Mailmannz, you've mixed up cause and effect on risk perception. You, and much of the general population, *think* cycling is dangerous, but it isn't. It might be the cars that you're afraid of, but it's helmets that have caused that perception that cars/their drivers are dangerous, because actual risk in real life cycling is very low. It's because people see hundreds of cyclists wearing helmets "In case I get hit by a car" and thus start to think cycling is dangerous.

Big n Daft

How is the conclusion reached that people wear helmets because they "are afraid of cars"?

I for one certainly don't wear a helmet because of this reason.

I am aware of other traffic whilst on the road, but don't cower in fear or wet myself every time a car comes near me.

It is undeniable that an event could occur whilst cycling that will lead to cyclist and cycle parting company, the downside of this is some sort of injury is more likely than not.

A 10mph accident in a car is unlikely to cause any physical injury to the driver at all, why? Would that anything to do with the amount of external protection involved?

The same 10mph accident on a cycle......different kettle of fish isn't it? All bets are off, why? Because the amount of external protection is at best minimal and at worse non existent.

It's not about people saying "helmets will stop injury" It's imho about people realising helmets could at sometime (and it might just be the time you need it) minimise a head injury to an acceptable level. For example cuts and bruises rather than a concussion, or a concussion rather than a fracture.

Helmets don't make people take unacceptable risks, people do that all on their own.

You can take cars right out of the equation and the same injury risk's still appear from things such as road furniture and the very surface itself.

Having said that, I'm still pro-choice, I don't believe a law should be enacted to make helmet wearing compulsory, but by that same token I refute totally the thought that I am giving a poor impression of cycling in some way because of my choices.

Big Red S

BentMikey wrote:

It's amazing how you guys don't get the difference between anecdote and data. Cycling and walking are such low risk activities that personal experience will never leave you with enough evidence to have any idea on what is and isn't dangerous.

So have you got any relevant data, then?

Across the whole of the UK, deaths for each activity is a pretty telling statistic. I think the only reason you doubt it is because it goes against what you'd like to argue.

No, it's because it's incomplete.
I know that for the majority of lethal crashes on a bike, wearing a helmet wont make it a non-lethal crash. But I don't wear a helmet to avoid lethal crashes, I wear a helemt to limit personal injury.
You're saying that cycling and walking are of similar risk, since they have similar fatality levels. But death obviously isn't the only outcome of a crash, and it's not the specific outcome that most people wear helmets to avoid.

BentMikey

You've missed the point though, and that is that helmets make people PERCEIVE cycling as dangerous, when it isn't. Cars are just one example of a risk perception, there are of course many others. I simply picked that one because it's the one mailmannz raised.

Big n Daft

How can you possibly know what peoples perception are though?

Unless your now relying on anecdote's rather than statistical study?

How do you know the general perception isn't one of perhaps "Sensible rider there" Rather than the negative one you seem happy to promote?

I wonder what the difference would be if a study were carried out? Perhaps the perception may be that those who don't wear helmets are viewed more negatively than those who do?

Has there ever been a study done of non rider perceptions reference helmet use?

Besides even if the perception is that "cycling must be dangerous because you need special equipment" Who cares?

Its easy to dismiss when there is no risk to you personally.

BentMikey

Big n Daft wrote:

How do you know the general perception isn't one of perhaps "Sensible rider there" Rather than the negative one you seem happy to promote?

Yes, drivers seem to perceive helmeted riders as more experienced, and then pass them more closely. See Dr Ian Walker's study on overtaking, wigs, and helmets that was recently raised. I'm sure you're right that riders without helmets are viewed more negatively, with comments such as "irresponsible" or "stupid not to wear a helmet".

That only further proves my case that it's helmets that make cycling appear to be dangerous. You might not care about that, but having less people cycling as a result of the helmet perception has a FAR FAR greater effect on our safety than wearing or not wearing a helmet. More cyclists on the road equals more safety for all of us out there, and that's important to me.

Big n Daft

I give up.

It's an un-winnable argument.

Wear one or don't, exercise your individual choice, something that is fast disappearing over the horizon in this country.

I'll take my chance on wearing one, thanks all the same.

Shadowduck

I promised myself I wouldn't join in... *sigh*

BentMikey - the central plank in your anti-helmet platform seems to be that people see cyclists with helmets on, think "Eek - that must be dangerous!" and don't ride a bike. Conversely, you seem to believe that if none of us wore helmets a major chunk of the population at large would leap onto their cycles and pedal off into a utopian sunset.

I have a few thoughts on that.

- The majority of people already have cycling experience and their perception of danger (or lack of it) is more likely formed by their parent's attitudes to cycling and their own childhood experience than by whether they see me with a helmet on or not.

- When I started cycling into work a couple of people commented on it being dangerous but by far the majority reacted along the lines of "you're going to get wet when it rains - hurr hurr hurr" or "I couldn't do that - I get knackered walking to the car". A lot of these people have tried cycling as an adult and been put off by the lack of weather protection and the fact that, at first, it's bloody hard work. Look at the number of "only used twice" adult size Halfords mountain bikes on e-bay if you need confirmation!

- Since when has perceived risk made an activity less popular anyway? Know anyone who's into skiing? I certainly do - several of them - and they seem to revel in the risk-taking image. I don't think cycling is anywhere near as dangerous as skiing and I don't think it's perceived as being, so who exactly is being put off?

- Yes, cycling is seen as a normal everyday thing in the Netherlands, much more so than here. Are you really trying to tell us that's entirely as a result of them having a lower rate of helmet use? I think you're seeing cause and effect where there is none.

As others have said, whether you wear a helmet or not is your own decision. What I do find annoying is your implication that those of us who choose to wear one are doing irreparable damage to cycling and the country.

*climbs down off soapbox and takes ten deep breaths*

(Edited to add: Afterthought - if it's such a big concern that cycling is seen as a specialised activity requiring the wearing of specific equipment, why don't I see any rants about lycra and impossible-to-walk-in shoes? Not many folk use them in the Netherlands either - and neither do I!)

wastelander

I never used to wear one but a couple of near misses with rocks/trees while riding MTB off road made me think about the law of averages. I recently had a 1/2 mile ride without one and felt more than a little exposed. I'm not one for the yes/no argument but its my personal decision to wear one.

cntl

Haha... This thread will never end

A little experiment:

1. Put a helmet on.
2. Kneel down at a kerb and hit you head HARD at the edge of the kerb, with the frontal lobe. (WARNING: you may need to discard the helmet after this activity).
3. Now take the helmet off.
4. Repeat point 2. (WARNING: You may need to have someone around to call the ambulance).

dondare

Try this experiment instead:
Wear a helmet and bang your head against the kerb.

Take the helmet off and then don't bang your head.

Everyday cycling is more like the second test than the first.

cntl

>>Take the helmet off and then don't bang your head.

Remove the seatbelts and then do not crash the car.

zootrider1

always wear a helmet lads and laddettes
i didnt wear one for a day before thinking i'd be ok untill i hit that sea saw
down though the river and bang
left upside down knocked out
if the land owner wouldnt have found me i wouldnt be wrighting this

cntl

>>if the land owner wouldnt have found me i wouldnt be wrighting this

No. Take the helmet off and do not have accidents. It's better that way Zootrider! Haha, no, just joking...

prj45

Shadowduck wrote:

I always wear mine, but I'm 'pro-choice'.

Same here.

prj45

dondare wrote:

Try this experiment instead:
Wear a helmet and bang your head against the kerb.

Take the helmet off and then don't bang your head.

Everyday cycling is more like the second test than the first.

Al well and good.

I got to the bottom of Holland Park avenue once, and a guy who had fallen off his bike was being attended to by several people.

He was bald, was not wearing a helment, and I could see his skull bone through the two inch rip in his scalp.

tyskie

I really can't see any merit in the argument that wearing a helmet is not good because it makes other people percieve cycling is dangerous (and thus discouraging people from cycling which in turn makes the roads even more dangerous). So, in relation to my accident the other week, where wearing a helmet probably prevented me from being a full time puree food eater, should I be dissapointed that I was not a martyr to the cause?

Cunobelin

cntl wrote:

Haha... This thread will never end

A little experiment:

1. Put a helmet on.
2. Kneel down at a kerb and hit you head HARD at the edge of the kerb, with the frontal lobe. (WARNING: you may need to discard the helmet after this activity).
3. Now take the helmet off.
4. Repeat point 2. (WARNING: You may need to have someone around to call the ambulance).

Thus proving that pedestrians would benefit from wearing a helmet!

BentMikey

Shadowduck, I think you make some good points there. Weather and fitness are definitely two other things that limit cycling, but I think that the perception of danger is also an important part of why people don't ride. Out of all the skaters I teach, quite a few haven't been skiing, which shows to me, anecdotally at least, that not everyone is into risk taking all out.

Cntl's little experiment would probably only be able to show that helmets protect against minor injuries such as cuts and scrapes. There's no argument with that, I believe. OTOH I doubt you'd be able to hit your head hard enough to cause serious head injury. If you did fix the experiment so that you could, I rather suspect there'd be just as much chance of still getting serious head injury whilst wearing the helmet. I wouldn't be relying on a flimsy piece of polystyrene and putting my head in that sort of hard impact. Would you? I think not.

Otherwise, yes, I'm also getting tired of this debate.

BentMikey

You might like to read this study by Dorothy Robinson, particularly with respect to the lack of head injury reduction and the effect on reducing cycling due to mandatory helmet laws.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a

mailmannz

Cunobelin wrote:

cntl wrote:

Haha... This thread will never end

A little experiment:

1. Put a helmet on.
2. Kneel down at a kerb and hit you head HARD at the edge of the kerb, with the frontal lobe. (WARNING: you may need to discard the helmet after this activity).
3. Now take the helmet off.
4. Repeat point 2. (WARNING: You may need to have someone around to call the ambulance).

Thus proving that pedestrians would benefit from wearing a helmet!

Considering pedo's walk at a fraction of the speed of cyclists and also have dedicated infrastructure for them to use just about EVERYWHERE...I dont see the comparison?

Mailman