Helmets - yes or no?

dondare

I own a helmet, and there are times when wearing it would make an accident more likely. During Spring and Autumn I cycle to work and home again with the low sun right in my eyes and only a peaked baseball cap helps. The peak of the helmet does not. When it is raining a cap keeps the rain off my glasses but again, the peak of the helmet doesn't.
If I want to be able to see where I'm going and watch the road and traffic ahead, I wear a cap, not a helmet.

dondare

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 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

And for all other activities where there is a similar risk of head injury?

Clever Pun

dondare wrote:

I own a helmet, and there are times when wearing it would make an accident more likely. During Spring and Autumn I cycle to work and home again with the low sun right in my eyes and only a peaked baseball cap helps. The peak of the helmet does not. When it is raining a cap keeps the rain off my glasses but again, the peak of the helmet doesn't.
If I want to be able to see where I'm going and watch the road and traffic ahead, I wear a cap, not a helmet.

cap under a helmet?

mailmannz

dondare wrote:

Pedestrians have a higher accident rate per mile than cyclists. They get knocked down (mostly) when crossing roads.

Ah, so the accidents happen on roads...which by their nature are inhabited by cars arent they?

So perhaps the more "logical" arguement would be for people to have to wear helmets when crossing roads, not when walking on pedo footpaths.

Then again, if you are hit by a car at 30MPH a helmet is going to do sweet f8ck all for you isnt it. Therefore, wouldnt it make sense to ignore accidents like this?

Or does that sorta defeat the whole "helmets are the anti-christ" arguement?

(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.)

Actually...no it doesnt. If the majority of accidents are occuring on roads...which arent part of the pedo infrastructure then your areguement is a moot point.

Then again, anyone got stats on accidents at pedo crossings vs accidents not at pedo crossings?

Mailman

mailmannz

dondare wrote:

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.

Its a THEORY and shouldnt be passed off as fact (which is happening in this thread).

The fact those who formulated the theory didnt even bother to ask cyclists if they suddenly felt bullet proof seems a but odd dont you think?

Or do you think that cyclists themselves might realise that a helmet only covers a very small part of their body and therefore be very aware of their own mortality, whereas them american poof ball/ice hockey players pretty much have padding everywhere!

I dunno...how many people here feel bullet proof when they pull on a helmet?

Mailman

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

LOL at mailmannz's dislike for the study.

What, are you seven or summit?

Mailman

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

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.

Im assuming that stat was generated at a certain point of time (giving us our baseline I guess).

Considering a few years have passed by, do you know what the stats are today? Or would that sorta be an inconvenient fact if those stats showed cycling to be at or higher than when the original baseline was taken?

Also, as already aludded to, there are other things at play here...changes in society itself, the things people do in their spare time, other activities competing with cycling...do you not think all these things themselves would also have a hand in declinging numbers of cyclists OR, as you appear to be supporting, do you believe the ONLY reason numbers appear to drop in that study is because of helmet use?

Mailman

whome

mailmannz wrote:

Then again, if you are hit by a car at 30MPH a helmet is going to do sweet f8ck all for you isnt it. Therefore, wouldnt it make sense to ignore accidents like this?

Do we know what speed they were going? And in any case isn't that the same argument for cyclists too - ingore accidents over 30mph, or involving a car, or wherever the limit is?

If the majority of accidents are occuring on roads...which arent part of the pedo infrastructure then your areguement is a moot point.

??! I disagree completely. Where a dedicated network has to interact with another network (e.g. the road) that is part of the route. i.e. you can't fully separate the two, so the interactions are part of both networks.

So, the accident rate is especially important at the point you have to cross a road as that is where you have focussed your interaction. And that is exactly the issue isn't it! A dedicated network may be safer for part of it, but where it crosses the road and interacts with motor vehicles it can become more dangerous by virtue of that previous separation. or perhaps despite the previous separation.

I am not arguing that is true for peds (I have no info on that), but my understanding was there was ample data to show that (for instance) shared-use cycle paths represent a greater danger for cyclists than riding on the road.


And lets not forget peds are allowed on the road. It is not supposed to be the exclusive domain of motor vehicles - just a side point as some of that seem to be hinting otherwise.

mailmannz

Maybe Im looking at this wrong then.

What I am looking at is where the accidents happened, either on a footpath or a road (sort of an either or scenario if you will).

If the accident happened on a dedicated road then should that not be excluded because it didnt happen on infrastructure built specifically for pedo's?

If the accident happened at a pedo crossing, then hell yes include the data...but if it happened on a road (built for cars) then surely this data isnt that useful?

To me, you would have a better arguement if you could provide numbers around the number of pedo's involved in accidents on footpaths (with cars, bikes, elephants...).

Mailman

whome

I do think you are looking at it wrong, though I would hesitate to equate the pedestrian dedicated network situation to the cycle infrastructure 100%. The common point though, is that where a dedicated X network exists it has to interact with the road network, whether at a dedicated crossing (*) or elsewhere (e.g. side roads etc), and no matter how safe it is for the rest of it, the interactions can be it's downfall. That is my understanding of much of the research for cycle lanes (certainly shared use) and the point for peds, I assume, was if the majority of accidents are on roads, these would be the interactions.


"on a road (built for cars)" - that was my side point - pedestrians have a right to use the road. Cars may dominate, but they don't own it!

Big Red S

BentMikey wrote:

It might be freedom, but I hope you'll accept your choice is illogical.

Most people make a huge amount of illogical choices.

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.

Good point. And on that note, I'll stop riding my bike and start driving. That way I cost society even less, since I now pay road tax and fuel tax.
</sarcasm>

mailmannz wrote:

The fact those who formulated the theory didnt even bother to ask cyclists if they suddenly felt bullet proof seems a but odd dont you think?

Not really, no.
And, besides, I know that (when riding off road) I ride faster when I've got more protective gear on. Full face helmet, pads etc. and I do feel invincible. I ride noticeably faster and crash far less frequently.

dondare

mailmannz wrote:

dondare wrote:

Pedestrians have a higher accident rate per mile than cyclists. They get knocked down (mostly) when crossing roads.

Ah, so the accidents happen on roads...which by their nature are inhabited by cars arent they?

So perhaps the more "logical" arguement would be for people to have to wear helmets when crossing roads, not when walking on pedo footpaths.

Then again, if you are hit by a car at 30MPH a helmet is going to do sweet f8ck all for you isnt it. Therefore, wouldnt it make sense to ignore accidents like this?

Or does that sorta defeat the whole "helmets are the anti-christ" arguement?

(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.)

Actually...no it doesnt. If the majority of accidents are occuring on roads...which arent part of the pedo infrastructure then your areguement is a moot point.

Then again, anyone got stats on accidents at pedo crossings vs accidents not at pedo crossings?

Mailman

Pedestrians have to cross roads every few minutes so it would hardly make sense for them to carry a helmet, put it on to cross then remove it on reaching the opposite side. But not wearing a helmet at all would place them at the same risk, more or less, as a helmetless cyclist riding along the road. The most serious (not the most common) injuries suffered by both cyclists and pedestrians are head injuries, and so if you accept that helmets offer real protection against such injuries there is no case whatsoever for saying that cyclists should wear helmets and pedestrians don't need to.

Footpaths do not prevent pedestrians from getting killed or injured on the roads, so how can they prevent pavement-cyclists from being killed or injured on the roads? And if there was a seperate network for cyclists how would this be safer than riding on the footpath?
Accidents happen at conflict points and a bike-path network in addition to the footpath/road network that already exists would increase the number of conflict points between cyclists and motor vehicles, and indeed between cyclists and pedestrians. This is in addition to all the other reasons why cycle-paths are dangerous.

Helmets, cycle-paths, now let's discuss RLJing.

Big Red S

dondare wrote:

The most serious (not the most common) injuries suffered by both cyclists and pedestrians are head injuries, and so if you accept that helmets offer real protection against such injuries there is no case whatsoever for saying that cyclists should wear helmets and pedestrians don't need to.

That is presuming that if wearing a helmet is not the only way to prevent head injuries, both cyclists and pedestrians are already doing all they can to prevent them.

Which I don't think is a fair assumption.

richardast

A little more light reading...

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

We need a "falling asleep" emoticon.

cntl

>>http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

>>We need a "falling asleep" emoticon.

Thanks richardast.

Like in many fields in science (and in life in general) you will find a minority with a different view. There's quite a group of cigarette smokers who claim cigarettes are not harmful to health or the dangers are negligible. There is also some research scattered here and there claiming the same. The consensus among the scientific community overwhelmingly points the other way (obviously).

Same story with global warming. During the latest intergovernmental conference of scientists on global warming (2007) there was no single dissenting voice anymore, as the evidence is there. Again, there is still a sizable number of crackpots and pseudoscientists (and their "research") claiming the contrary.

There is a consensus (also amongst you guys, as the thread's poll seems to indicate) regarding the (obvious) safety benefits of helmets. But still...

PS. Sorry for any typos, I've just had a 8.8% Laffe beer !

dondare

Have there been any studies on the types of injuries sustained by pedestrians admitted to hospital (or the morgue)? I bet that they'd show that the most serious injuries and most fatal injuries involved the head.
And what about motorists and their passengers? Mightn't they benefit from wearing helmets?
Less than 5% of road deaths are cyclists; if all cyclists wore helmets and this saved all of their lives, there'd still be over 3000 deaths a year from traffic accidents.

cntl

>>Mightn't they benefit from wearing helmets?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about pedestrians, scaters, paragliders, surfers or whatnot. They have their own fora. Let them have their own "arguments"

>>And what about motorists and their passengers? Mightn't they benefit from wearing helmets?

To use an analogy, reducing speed limit to 5mph would ensure virtually no fatalities. But it will not happen because it is obviously impractial. There's nothing impractical or ridiculous in the idea of cyclists wering helmets (unlike the idea of peds wereing them, or folks having sex in weird positions I read once about cases of broken bones, skulls etc although frankly I don't know how people manage to pull that off ! LOL )

BentMikey

cntl wrote:

There's nothing impractical or ridiculous in the idea of cyclists wering helmets

Yes there is, when the safety aspects are considered. And comparing smoking to not wearing a cycling helmet is simply daft.

There's not a little research backing up the ineffectiveness of cycle helmets, there is LOADS of research. On the contrary, it's most of the pro helmet research that is debateable or even completely dodgy science, and yet that's what you put your faith in.

cntl

>>And comparing smoking to not wearing a cycling helmet is simply daft.

You are right. Not wearing a helmet might be more irresponsible.

BentMikey

The science proves you this: WRONG.

cntl

You may be right

Cunobelin

Irrelevant. We are not talking about pedestrians, scaters, paragliders, surfers or whatnot. They have their own fora. Let them have their own "arguments"

Excluding a group is unacceptable as the common theme is that they all suffer head injuries

For instance can I exclude myself because I ride a recumbent trike and am therefore less likely to fall over?

cntl

Hahaha, let not turn an innocuous thread into a little war, please.

cntl

>>The science proves you this: WRONG

If you run another poll: Do you think helmets have net sefety benefits? You would probably see the results of the poll above more or less duplicated.

Anyway, I am tired of "arguing". I must be "mature" enought to recognize that others have different point of view and I need to respect that.

dondare

Pedestrian dies of head injuries after being hit by a bike:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article ... 62,00.html

Supposing the cyclist's lawer argues that the pedestrian was guilty of contributary negligence because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Head injuries can kill anyone, so why are only cyclists regarded as culpable if they fail to wear protective headgear?

Shadowduck

Cognitive dissonance.

*snip* ... the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs.

I think there's an awful lot of this going on here... No doubt both sides will say it's entirely on the part of the opposition, but that's part of the filtering, isn't it? :roll:

*clicks the "Stop watching this topic" button*

BentMikey

...hence my point that I was once a pro-helmet advocate too, until I actually started reading and thinking about the evidence.

cntl

>>...hence my point that I was once a pro-helmet advocate too, until I actually started reading and thinking about the evidence.

And I promised myself I wouldn't chip in anymore...

I understand your argument BentMikey. However, to me (at least) it seems that the consensus is pointing towards net benefits of helmets. (I wrote net benefits, as sometimes wearing a helmet might make head trauma worse). I agree with some of the criticisms (e.g. insufficient sample sizes) levied by the "doubtful benefit" articles (many of them are articles, not research--these guys do not actually do their own research, they criticize others work and nothing wrong with that). But you do not have to look far, just scan the quite an exstensive list of papers submited by one of the posters:

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

This pattern pretty much repeats itself on most helmet research lists: an overwheliming majority emphsizing th benefits (and to say 'overwhelming' is actually an understatement !!!)

You wrote you read the dodgy research, surely most of them can not be dodgy? There's quite a list of seemingly high quality work up there (pro helmet) . How can you say you are basing your position on evidence is beyind me. You say there's a large body of "anti-helmet" research. For every anti-helmet research paper you put one could find 10 "pro helmet" (especially if we restrict ourselves to actual research, not articles).

cntl

And just to address some of your earlier criticisms, an excerpt from paper 54 on the above list:

"The review also stated that helmets are effective for cyclists of all ages and in accidents involving collisions with motor vehicle as well as those which do not."

And some published responses that were critical of (some of) the review’s findings:

"The authors disagreed with these arguments on the grounds that:

Dark_lord

I quite like the idea of having a nice bit of polystyrene between my noggin and the tarmac. Experience shows that crashes hurt more and increase the time spent in A&E when I don't wear it, so I carry on wearing it.

That's all the evidence I need.