Helmets - yes or no?

1…457910…12

Comments

  • mailmannz
    mailmannz Posts: 173
    edited October 2007
    BentMikey wrote:
    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

    Had a read, thought it was pretty much a pile of dogs bollocks...but there you go.

    First paragraph was interesting;
    Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. Consequently, the BMA recommended that the United Kingdom introduce and enforce bicycle helmet laws.1 However, regular exercise such as cycling is beneficial to health, and non-helmeted commuter cyclists have lower mortality than non-cyclists.2

    Whats with the however and how come only a comparison between non helmet wearing cyclists and non-cyclists? Why would you compare two very different groups and then try and pass them off as being very similar?
    Helmet laws would be counterproductive if they discouraged cycling and increased car use.
    Nice quote BUT nothing to back this "opinion" up.
    Wearing helmets may also encourage cyclists to take more risks, or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists.3
    Had a read of the link provided, which took me to a theory...a THEORY based on hockey players and american poof ball players BUT they didnt bother asking people who actually rode bikes if they took increased risks because of wearing a helmet...kind of important dont ya think?
    A subsequent analysis of four years' data reported that numbers of head injuries were 40% lower than before the law.11 This was cited as important evidence for legislation.1 However, the authors could not tell whether the main cause was increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the law.11
    Having been alive during the cut over to helmet use and at the time cycling 40km a day I can tell you that there were just as many people cycling the day after the law was implemented as there were the day before the law was brought in. Again your article has to resort to referring to a THEORY and wild speculation to devalue the usefulness of helmets.

    Mailman
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    edited October 2007
    Pedestrians have a higher accident rate per mile than cyclists. They get knocked down (mostly) when crossing roads.
    (Apart from anything else, this demonstrates how having a dedicated infrastructure can actually increase the likelihood of certain types of accident, which is an argument against cyclists using anything other than the road to ride on.)
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    mailmannz wrote:
    BentMikey wrote:
    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

    Had a read, thought it was pretty much a pile of dogs bollocks...but there you go.

    First paragraph was interesting;
    Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. Consequently, the BMA recommended that the United Kingdom introduce and enforce bicycle helmet laws.1 However, regular exercise such as cycling is beneficial to health, and non-helmeted commuter cyclists have lower mortality than non-cyclists.2

    Whats with the however and how come only a comparison between non helmet wearing cyclists and non-cyclists? Why would you compare two very different groups and then try and pass them off as being very similar?
    Helmet laws would be counterproductive if they discouraged cycling and increased car use.
    Nice quote BUT nothing to back this "opinion" up.
    How can you not see the connection?
    Wearing helmets may also encourage cyclists to take more risks, or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists.3
    Had a read of the link provided, which took me to a theory...a THEORY based on hockey players and american poof ball players BUT they didnt bother asking people who actually rode bikes if they took increased risks because of wearing a helmet...kind of important dont ya think?
    Risk compensation is only a theory but it's one consistant with data that cannot be explained in any other way, it certainly shouldn't be discounted entirely.

    Mailman
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • whome
    whome Posts: 167
    Considering pedo's walk at a fraction of the speed of cyclists
    ...

    Normal abbreviation is "ped" since pedo means something very different.

    It's not about the speed or any other "risk" you think exists. It is about the data that shows walking and cycling actually have about the same accident rates.
    Training, highway design and increasing cycle numbers are important to safety. Helmets are just a red herring.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    LOL at mailmannz's dislike for the study.
  • cntl
    cntl Posts: 290
    >>Pedestrians have a higher accident rate per mile than cyclists

    You need to look at hours of exposure, not #of accidents/per mile. I do not walk 25 miles in a day, but can usually cycle the distance. Accidents/per mile is NOT the indicator of how safe/dangerous an activity is. Otherwise test pilot's job might be classified as a relatively safe job (accidents per mile).

    >>having a dedicated infrastructure can actually increase the likelihood of certain types of accident

    Logic is a wonderful tool, it is just seldom used.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    And have you compared hours of exposure, cntl? You'll find that walking is then only very slightly more safe than cycling. The point is simply that the risk level of cycling is very close to that of walking. Neither are particularly dangerous at all.

    Hours of exposure isn't always the right way to measure the risk, although it might be. For example, if I was thinking about a trip to the shops, and I could choose to walk or cycle, then risk per mile is the most appropriate comparison, not time exposed.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Walking and cycling have similar risk of KSI. Accident rate per hour, mile or journey show one thing or another, but in purely scientific terms, they're as near as damnit.

    Walking to the shops is not so dangerous that you have to wear a helmet. Nor is cycling. But...
    Both cyclists and pedestrians occasionally suffer serious head injuries. I've mentioned risk compensation, shall we now talk about risk acceptance?
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • Shadowduck
    Shadowduck Posts: 845
    From a personal perspective, I often feel more at danger crossing a road on foot than I ever do on my bike. I've no reason to doubt the risks in walking and cycling are comparable from a statistical standpoint.

    From a practical standpoint, I would argue there are significant differences - partly because the subset of the population involved in each activity is different (there aren't many grannies or drunks riding bikes but everybody has to cross a road at some point) but also because the risk to pedestrians is high-ish for short periods (when crossing the road) as opposed to a lower risk for longer periods on a bike. To put it another way, the two activities may be comparable in terms of overall risk, but that doesn't mean the comparison carries over to every aspect. It's like comparing scuba diving to sky diving - the risk may be similar* but the appropriate protective measures for each are totally different.

    As an aside, it's interesting that none of the pro-helmet side are making any real effort to persuade Team Antihelmet to change their ways, it's mostly a "Meh, do what you want but I'm going to wear one" attitude. All the evangelism is from the anti-helmeteers - not what I would have predicted at all!

    *I have no idea if it actually is.
    Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • Cunobelin
    Cunobelin Posts: 11,792
    Actually let's make it very simple, and forget Hours, miles etc and look at casualties.

    A larger number of admissions due head injuries occur in pedestrians than cyclists.

    If we accept that helmets work, then more lives will be saved by pedestrian wearing helmets .

    Interestingly the biggest factor is alcohol!

    When Thornhill at al looked at all the admissions for head injuries in Glasgow, they recorded over 2,900 cases and found that alcohol was a factor in 61% of cases.

    43 % of admissions were from falls. Only 11 % were from road traffic and 28% assaults.

    The evidence is overwhelming that as alcohol is a factor in 61% of cases that we should all wear helmets when drinking alcohol!
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • Shadowduck
    Shadowduck Posts: 845
    Wandering even further from the point at hand, I read somewhere - possibly even on this forum - an excellently reasoned explanation of why helmet use in cars should be made compulsory. As I recall it, the occupants of a car (unlike cyclists or motorcyclists) are in a predictable position at the time of impact and head injuries are likely to result from contact with a limited number of pre-determinable structures, making a correctly designed helmet very likely to have a beneficial effect in reducing the huge number of car deaths resulting from head injuries.

    Of course, you're unlikely to get them to do it, but that doesn't alter the fact it makes sense.

    You're also pretty unlikely to get pedestrians, drunks or drunk pedestrians to wear a helmet - for whatever reason and regardless of how much sense it makes. None of this is a reason for me not to wear one on my bike - you are, as ever, at liberty to decide otherwise. Isn't personal freedom lovely? :mrgreen:
    Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    It might be freedom, but I hope you'll accept your choice is illogical.
  • Shadowduck
    Shadowduck Posts: 845
    BentMikey wrote:
    It might be freedom, but I hope you'll accept your choice is illogical.
    According to your own arguments, the illogical choice is in not wearing a helmet when walking down the street.

    So yes I will accept that, in that respect, my choice is illogical. :P
    Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    You think walking is dangerous? LOLOL! I don't, and neither is cycling. The risks we've been comparing here are tiny. How many miles and years do you think any one of us would need to cycle before dying in a crash to keep in line with the UK average?

    Dangerous being defined as something that is more risky than other everyday activities that the general population takes part in. If you don't wear a helmet for one safe activity, being walking, then why do you wear one for cycling? That's what's illogical.
  • jam1ec
    jam1ec Posts: 64
    Based on some of the quotes i can see in the British Medical Journal report http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a
    i am glad i fall into the group which chooses to wear a helmet:

    "Effect of helmets

    Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations, have higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility clothing and use lights at night..."

    I wouldn't say the report is a good case either for or against helmet wearing with the phrase "no clear evidence" in the title

    Therfore looking at the report and picking up on some statements in it:

    "non-helmeted commuter cyclists have lower mortality than non-cyclists"

    "Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers"

    "Road safety initiatives often yield substantial benefits" (compared to a helmet law)

    "...the main effect of legislation was to discourage cycling rather than encourage helmet wearing."

    "Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

    "helmet laws increased the risk of death or serious head injury"

    From that I draw the conclusion that it is in your personal safety interest to wear a helmet but making it the law has negative effects.
    FCN : 1
  • jam1ec
    jam1ec Posts: 64
    oh and that cycling is better than not cycling1 (which we all know anyway :)
    FCN : 1
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    You seem to have misread the report. Those comments are from other studies she's being critical of for various failures. In essence she's saying the statements you quote are not supported by the evidence.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Cunobelin wrote:
    Actually let's make it very simple, and forget Hours, miles etc and look at casualties.

    A larger number of admissions due head injuries occur in pedestrians than cyclists.

    If we accept that helmets work, then more lives will be saved by pedestrian wearing helmets .

    Interestingly the biggest factor is alcohol!

    When Thornhill at al looked at all the admissions for head injuries in Glasgow, they recorded over 2,900 cases and found that alcohol was a factor in 61% of cases.

    43 % of admissions were from falls. Only 11 % were from road traffic and 28% assaults.

    The evidence is overwhelming that as alcohol is a factor in 61% of cases that we should all wear helmets when drinking alcohol!

    If...
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • jam1ec
    jam1ec Posts: 64
    I think the phrases which i have quoted are true in the context they were made in. However Dorothy Robinson is saying is that when you look at all the facts, and relate them directly to the effects of changing legislation, there it is no clear evidence (largely due to all the 'noise factors') to say making wearing helmet's compulsory benefits cycling.
    FCN : 1
  • richardast
    richardast Posts: 273
    I could see more arguments for helmets than against in the BMJ article too, although rather contrarily, the author's tone felt a bit anti-helmet almost in spite of herself.

    Do we all see and hear what we want to?

    Most of the data quoted in all these studies are, presumably, drawn from police accident reports or A&E records - how else would the data exist. Have we considered the possibility that helmeted riders may be less likely to be injured and therefore less likely to appear in the data. No injury = no statistic. There could be 1000s of unreported accidents involving helmet-wearers that go totally unreported because they were spared a hospital visit.

    Still not getting the helmet = target line of argument. I would have thought that most injured cyclists were hit by cars driven by people who didn't see them at all rather than seeing them, assessing their level of safety equipment then accidentally hitting them.
  • Shadowduck
    Shadowduck Posts: 845
    BentMikey wrote:
    You think walking is dangerous? LOLOL! I don't, and neither is cycling.
    I refer the Honourable Member to the answer I gave the house some moments ago...
    Shadowduck wrote:
    From a practical standpoint, I would argue there are significant differences - partly because the subset of the population involved in each activity is different (there aren't many grannies or drunks riding bikes but everybody has to cross a road at some point) but also because the risk to pedestrians is high-ish for short periods (when crossing the road) as opposed to a lower risk for longer periods on a bike. To put it another way, the two activities may be comparable in terms of overall risk, but that doesn't mean the comparison carries over to every aspect. It's like comparing scuba diving to sky diving - the risk may be similar* but the appropriate protective measures for each are totally different.
    Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • Shadowduck
    Shadowduck Posts: 845
    jam1ec wrote:
    "Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"
    How does that work then? :?
    Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • Bugly
    Bugly Posts: 520
    The issue with respect to free choice is not really a valid argument. The real issue is that head injuries are expensive to society. Do you want your tax dollars to fund the medical costs incurred by a head injury that could have been avoided or mitigated by the use of a simple safety device such as a helmet.

    The most reluctant users of helmets have traditionally been the racing community now they wear them, like it or not.

    And I am alse for making helmet usage compulsary on ski slopes and skate parks

    Bugly in Oz
  • Shadowduck
    Shadowduck Posts: 845
    Bugly wrote:
    The issue with respect to free choice is not really a valid argument. The real issue is that head injuries are expensive to society. Do you want your tax dollars to fund the medical costs incurred by a head injury that could have been avoided or mitigated by the use of a simple safety device such as a helmet.
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that. My tax "dollars" are spent on lots of things that concern me a lot more* than providing medical treatment for someone who needs it, regardless of how the injury was caused.

    * Iraq, anyone? Ministerial Jags? Subsidies for road haulage?
    Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    Bugly wrote:
    The issue with respect to free choice is not really a valid argument. The real issue is that head injuries are expensive to society. Do you want your tax dollars to fund the medical costs incurred by a head injury that could have been avoided or mitigated by the use of a simple safety device such as a helmet.

    The cost to society from compulsory helmet laws is probably far higher than the cost from head injuries. Look at the big drops in cycling in your country caused by mandatory helmet laws. That'll have an associated drop in general population health, which will cost far more than head injuries would. Your argument for mandatory helmet laws would damage society far more, so it's a bad idea.

    Don't forget that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks something like 20-1, irrespective of helmet use, ninja stealth cyclist with no lights, or careful CTC rider.
  • Bugly
    Bugly Posts: 520
    :shock: Big drops in cycling in oz? not sure on your figures mate -bike sales have been increasing faster then car sales. Maybe the kids ride less (bloody cable tv, playstations etc) but cycling seems to be as popular as ever.
    :)

    People argued against helmets for motorcycles and seatbelts in cars - now its accepted that in the majority of cases they save lives.

    Society changes adapt and prosper :D

    Bugly
  • jam1ec
    jam1ec Posts: 64
    Shadowduck wrote:
    jam1ec wrote:
    "Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"
    How does that work then? :?

    It is to do with the type of people who choose to wear helmets and the accidents they are involved in. Probably due to riding in a different style, the types of roads they choose to ride on, the traffic they ride amongst, etc... than those who do wear helmets.

    It is a generalisation i'm sure but one of the points it is getting at is that direct comparisons are hard between wearing a helmet and not wearing one because the types of people involved are diffenent.
    FCN : 1
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a/TBL1

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf
    Large declines were also noted in a
    comprehensive survey of child cyclists at 122 sites covering Sydney, regional and rural areas of NSW. Before
    the law, 1910 children were observed wearing helmets. In the first and second years of the law 1019 and 569
    more children were observed wearing helmets, but 2215 (36%)
    and 2658 (44%) fewer child cyclists were counted (Table 2).
    This was not a transient decline. There is no evidence that
    cycling “recovered”.

    Quite big drops in numbers there Bugly.
  • Bugly
    Bugly Posts: 520
    :D Yep, we coddle kids much the same as in the rest of the western world- and they are getting fat and lazy - but adult cycling is on the increase and has been for years.

    The decline in childhood cycling is not related to helmet usage - just to changes in society.

    In the end if I was in an accident I would prefer to wear a helmet (be it cycle, skate or ski), if you dont that is your choice (even have that choice if the usage was mandatory) not argiung the figures just the usage. :P

    All in good spirit

    Bugs
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    That might be your opinion, but it's quite robustly shown to be the mandatory helmet laws in the report.

Categories