Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

As far as I can tell, a person says to you, "cycling is 4 or 5 times more dangerous than walking, so I wear a helmet for cycling but not walking"

and you come back to them and say, "exactly my point! so we should obviously wear helmets for walking"

NO what I am saying is that you should consider both - In my experience more pedestrian head injuries come through our A/E doors than cyclists

ALL the admission based studies repeatedly show that pedestrians are the more common admission. Yet you seem to find these injuries acceptable and of no consequence... they should be allowed, yet the same injury in a cyclist is unacceptable and needs action despite being less frequent as a cause of head injury.

Someone says to you "there are millions of pedestrians and each year 10 deaths might be prevented, whereas there are 10 lion tamers and each year 10 deaths might be prevented, therefore lion taming is more dangerous and thus one might consider extra safety precautions as compared to being a pedestrian"

you come back and say, "exactly my point! just as many pedestrians die as lion tamers, so pedestrians should also carry around protective chairs".

Again you are mistaken I am suggesting that we should prevent all 20 deaths not take an attitude that Lion Tamer deaths are in some way acceptable. I suspect the "Chalk and Cheese" scenario you have chosen is to avoid the similarities in pedestrian and cycling activities. So we will use your example to explain to you the simplicity of this...

A closer analogy is to say that we accept ten deaths and refuse to discuss them because it is inconvenient - it is acceptable for 10 Lion Tamers to die,and if you want to discuss their safety - tough


The logical progression is that as cyclists and pedestrians are suffering the same injury from falls and RTAs then we must also look at the Lion Tamer and Pedestrian in the same environment. - Again you will find this inconvenient.

If we have proven that protective chairs save lives when attacked by lions, then both groups should carry chairs when attacked by lions as the mechanism of the injury is the same. Or do we accept cycists being eaten by lions because we refse to discuss chairs?

If we have proven that helmets save lives when suffering head injuries when exposed to head impacts then both groups should wear helmets, or do we accept Lion Tamer Deaths on the road because we refuse to discuss helmets?

I can think of several possibilities to explain this odd behaviour:

- you are mad
- your computer screen is upside down
- your computer has a virus
- you can't count
- you are winding me up

Descent to personal insults is not a constructive form of debate - please stick to the subject and refrain.

always_tyred

Don't take yourself too seriously. It causes premature ageing.

Here's my concession - during debates such as this, some people recite their own personal experiences that lead them to wear helmet. Actually, I'm one of them. A couple of aerial manoevers and expereince suggested that I ought to wear one.

A common reposte is that there are isolated incidents but on average, risks don't justify their use and/or their is no evidence. While I love a good statistical barney, I find dismissing people's personal and perfectly justified reasons for wearing a helmet, or not, most annoying.

So, I will agree that for the 10 pedestrians admitted to A&E and for the 10 cyclists admitted to A&E, their experiences and injuruies are equally important. Any one of those 20 people would be more than justified in taking any mitigating action to avoid finding themselves in the same position.

I would not seek to dismiss any given number of injuries to any subset of people, however I had thought we were discussing risks not totals.

Uncontestably, your chosen data indicate that if you are a pedestrian you have a lower risk of head injury than if you are a cyclist.

By my understanding of the word, risk is a normalised probability. Perhaps you interpret it as equivalent to "total", in which case may I propose instead working in units of banana.

My judgement, based on the premise that you take safety measures roughly approximating to the risk then the evaluation of risk would lead you to wear less PPE for walking than for cycling.

You may disagree, however your arguments for disagreeing make no sense (and I think from your eloquence indicate that you know this and are, indeed, winding me up). Don't take that personally. I'd say that to anyone eloquently not making any sense.

Take antelope. Is an antelope safer from predation in a herd or alone?

According to your reasoning, in the event of attack by lion (and/or any other carnivorous charismatic megafauna) one lion catches and kills one antelope in either instance, therefore it makes no difference to its safety if the animal is in a herd.

Clearly antelope disagree.

Cunobelin

Unless all antelope either in a herd or alone had a machine gun?

I work in a situation where we deal with head injuries daily and we see so few cyclists all the real traumas and serious head injuries tend to happen with pedestrians and car occupants.

Whatever the "risk" is measured at is absolutely pointless if you are the "one" of the one in 10,000 that is injured.

Cycle helmets are potentially more effective in these groups and if worn would cut down the number of patients we deal with..... simple, incontrovertible fact.

always_tyred

Okay, I think I know where you are coming from.

You have a bizzare way of making the point. You must appreciate that the people you are interacting with are, sadly, pretty much interested in their own safety. I'm a cyclist. I want to be safe when I cycle. When I cycle, for the most part I haven't got the time to give a sh1t about anyone else's safety.

In quieter moments, of course I/we give a sh1t, but you are interlacing incompatible arguments and this does not, in my opinion, do any justice to your point.

boybiker

So basically the vast majority of people on this forum wear a helmet because it might save their lives in the event of a crash. the rest are going to be calculating the odds of their heads being split open and their brains being spread all over the road as they are heading for the tree.
Hmmmm.... something tells me that the people who argue against wearing a helmet are doing so simply because they want to be 'individual' rather than for any rational reason.

Tom Butcher

I don't wear one because I don't want to be like you.

boybiker

Tom Butcher wrote:

I don't wear one because I don't want to be like you.

So.... that's a rational argument? I don't think so, all this bollocks about head injury statistics is just that, bollocks.

hambones

Such an emotive subject!!! Hilarious too - it's been a good read. I think the only thing worth noting from the poll is that the majority of BR contributors (who have an opinion on helmets and make the effort to vote of course!) wear one. This is not surprising because to have even have bothered to be using this site suggests they have a serious interest in cycling (even if their cycling may be recreational). The result however simply does not equate to the real world situation where the majority of people do not wear helmets. If people have this idea that all kiddies are wearing helmets because we live in a more cocooned protective age then they are wrong thankfully. Cycling, as with anything, is about risk assessment and choice. Neither side of the argument is remotely compelling on an individual basis and all the stats thrown at it only reinforce that it is a safe activity, albeit not for a few individuals at a given time who suffer. No more no less - the same as anything else within reason.

biondino

Here's a big difference between being a pedestrian and being a cyclist:

In the act of being a pedestrian, it's extremely hard to conceive of a situation where a head injury is caused by an event that is not caused by a 3rd party - it's possible you could trip and hurtle into a concrete bollard, say, but very unlikely.

Conversely, the mere act of cycling means that an accident involving a head injury is many magnitudes more likely even when a 3rd party isn't involved, even at speeds considered low for cycling, which means almost any cyclist can suffer mechanical failure,, hit a kerb, overbrake, skid, or crash into the back of a parked car. All of these possibilities could cause accidents which are specifically catered for by helmets.

When there are 3rd parties involved then it's possible for a pedestrian's injuries to be more severe in some cases - hit by a car, say - but the difference here is that while a pedestrain is likely to be crossing a road maybe 5% of the time, a cyclist is almost almost sharing space with other road users.

So, in essence, helmets on pedestrians are near useless except when they're crossing the road, and if they do get hit when crossing the road the accident will often be severe enough for helmets to not be sufficient. So there's no point whatsoever for pedestrians to wear helmets. A cyclist spends near enough 100% of their time in a situation where any of a number of entirely possible events could result in head injuries.

I wonder if, when cunobelin says that far more pedestrians come in to A&E with ehad injuries than cyclists, he actually means "non-cyclists". If I take a tumble on my stairs at home, does that make me a pedestrian?

meanwhile

Always Tyred wrote:

Don't take yourself too seriously. It causes premature ageing.

Given your previous posts this seems a snide way of trying to say "I can be rude or pompous, but you can't be make factual or logical arguments without may criticizing you for doing so."

Here's my concession - during debates such as this, some people recite their own personal experiences that lead them to wear helmet. Actually, I'm one of them. A couple of aerial manoevers and expereince suggested that I ought to wear one.

This assumes that a helmet will do any good if situation is repeated. What you're actually saying by assuming that a helmet must do so is that you're not willing to make a logical assessment of risk and take appropriate measures - you're indulging in pure superstition and assuming that a device marketed as being protective must have a sufficient protective effect.

A common reposte is that there are isolated incidents but on average, risks don't justify their use and/or their is no evidence. While I love a good statistical barney, I find dismissing people's personal and perfectly justified reasons for wearing a helmet, or not, most annoying.

You simply don't have any relevant experience unless you have crashed with and without a helmet under the same conditions - you simply have fear and an illogical but comforting response. Which is fair enough (that I should care because you ride under a truck because you've not taken any of the much more effective safety measures you could have done..) but if you're going to whine when other people discuss the subject logically, expect a big "So what?"

Take antelope. Is an antelope safer from predation in a herd or alone?

According to your reasoning, in the event of attack by lion (and/or any other carnivorous charismatic megafauna) one lion catches and kills one antelope in either instance, therefore it makes no difference to its safety if the animal is in a herd.

Clearly antelope disagree.

The reason that antelope are safer in a herd is that the optical pattern created by a manouvering herd can confuse a predator's "lock on" (this is why zebra's have the particular pattern they do - to increase this effect.) I strongly doubt that the argument you're "disproving" had anything to do the effect of wearing a helmet or not on deliberately attacking driver's eyesight - you're simply arguing by an imagined analogy between two subjects you know nothing about.

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

Here's a big difference between being a pedestrian and being a cyclist:

Yes: it's called a bicycle.

In the act of being a pedestrian, it's extremely hard to conceive of a situation where a head injury is caused by an event that is not caused by a 3rd party - it's possible you could trip and hurtle into a concrete bollard, say, but very unlikely.

All these things are indeed unlikely.

Conversely, the mere act of cycling means that an accident involving a head injury is many magnitudes more likely even when a 3rd party isn't involved, even at speeds considered low for cycling, which means almost any cyclist can suffer mechanical failure,

What sort of likely mechanical failure are you thinking about? Do you fall off your bike when the you get a puncture for instance? Or if your wheel is slightly out of true or chain needs tightening?

hit a kerb,

Why would you just hit a kerb? Very dark sunglasses? Attack by killer bees?

overbrake,

I don't even know what this means, but it sounds as if the overbraker should practice braking until he can do it right so that he doesn't get run over by a semi, rather than putting 300g of foam on his head.

or crash into the back of a parked car.

How the f**k would you do that? Do you crash into walls and bridges as well? And when you do, don't you find that the main risk at a helmet friendly 12mph is to your groin and your top tube rather than your head?

By comparison with these, tripping while walking sounds MUCH more likely.

...Are you the guy who was asking whether he needed disc brakes because he takes 30 metres on his expensive racing bike to stop from 30mph?

I have to admit, for a certain sort of cyclist helmets probably ARE somewhat useful, although staying off a bicycle might be a much effective safety measure.

No, wait: I forgot the forensic evidence - helmets recovered from crash sites show that helmets very, very rarely work. (Link given in the wikipedia bike helmets article.) They're usually found with uncompressed foam or split, showing that they failed to absorb shock. So even if you are one of life's serial kerb-hitters and car-attackers (and really, I'm beginning to understand why so many motorists are anti-bicycle - that rear bumper damage must add up) they'll just give you a false sense of security.

To repeat my position:

- I would gladly wear an effective helmet if I could find one.

- All the evidence, however, indicates that helmets are of no use what so ever in the type of crashes that I'm at risk of, and that there is a safety cost - an increased risk of those more serious accidents - for wearing one.

- That virtually every rider who wears a helmet has bought an ineffective one and wears it incorrectly, so that he gets none of the benefits and most of the likely drawbacks.

Cunobelin

In the act of being a pedestrian, it's extremely hard to conceive of a situation where a head injury is caused by an event that is not caused by a 3rd party - it's possible you could trip and hurtle into a concrete bollard, say, but very unlikely.

Falls (no 3rd party) are the single largest cause of head injuries in pedestrians!!!!!

Hard to concieve maybe, bit for a lot of people not hard to perform.

always_tyred

Actually, I'm saying that personal experience, whether it leads you to choose to wear a helmet or not (i.e. you have experiences that tell you that it wouldn't have helped anyway) are perfectly valid and should not be dismissed.

As to the rest of your post.

Thanks, yes, I get the evolutionary basis for herd behaviour.

Just, again, pointing out the difference between absolute and normalised values.

Not taking yourself too seriously, I think, means not taking offence to the list of possible explanations to deliberately and quite imaginatively avoiding the implications of the sheer number of pedestrians giving rise to the set of statistics in question.

Its a shame really, because the sobering point was that as preoccupied as we are with this debate, there's a bigger picture and far more important things to be worried about.

I feel a bit annoyed with myself for not twigging a bit sooner, to be honest.

I'm sorry if you find my posts pompous. I find this an entertaining debate - one person at least found reading it all entertaining. I enjoy pitting arguments against people on the forum. I try to make the posts marginally amusing, sometimes flippant. Sometimes as flippant as I can possibly muster.

But its a web forum, its anonymous. I don't know you guys personally. Don't take it personally - I don't. Its a bunch of words, usually well thought out, often clever and well informed, words with some banter thrown in. Sorry if its a bit heated, or interpreted as such. I'll use more of these : :twisted: :P :shock: 8) :?

meanwhile

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm sorry if you find my posts pompous.

Not enough so to be offensive until you criticize someone else's posting style. Just stick to the argument rather than playing literary critic, is my suggestion.

boybiker

Of course people crash into parked cars and hit curbs, it happens all the time, maybe it doesn't happen to you because you are just soooo wonderful but it does happen to other people who not quite as perfect.
I find this argument which says 'oh I am never going to need a helmet because I can see into the future and thereby avoid all possible accidents' is just stupid beyond belief

boybiker

I don't like to say I told you so, but when you do crash and regret not wearing your helmet can I have your bike?

always_tyred

Says he...

Not criticising the style - loved it in fact - wouldn't bother to read it otherwise. Didn't agree with the arguments, thought some were nonsense, but always worth the effort of replying.

Funnily enough, I've had an alarming number of the freak non-3rd party induced accidents that you think are unlikely.

- I've been parked at the side of the road and had somoene smash into the back of my car. I had to drive him to A&E to have his finger put in a splint and get some stiches. He said he'd never used aerobars before. No sh1t!
- I've cycled into a kerb. I was sightseeing in a really jolly atmospheric civil war cemetary, on a rented bike. Karma sucked me on to a kerb and I then felt compelled to throw myself from the bike and knock myself out on a tree. It would have been rude not to.
- I've been cycling on a lovely open descent in Dartmoor and suffered a blowout at about 60kph and come down.
- I have snapped a chain whilst attempting to look a bit "pro" dancing on the pedals up a well known hill in Edinburgh in an extremely vain attempt to look cool to all the cute female joggers. Nuts and chest crashing down on top tube and stem, rolling around on tarmac in pain looking like a sad and slightly overweight fool who should have stayed at home.
- Fallen on ice a few times.
- Run over a fence post which had been considerately left in my lane one night. Soft landing, though.
- Run over a pine cone. It was windy. I was about 10, the pine cone was about the size of my head. Knocked myself out.
- when mountain biking, unknowingly snapped the fork bridge, next time I applied the brakes, the fork legs rotated, wedged the brakes very firmly into the tyre and enabled me to get a view of the forest canopy from above as I sailed into the undergrowth.

But

I do not consider that as "overbraking"

AndyManc

As far as I can remember cycle helmets are tested by dropping them 1 metre at 10 mph , how is that going to save your life when you get hit by a w****** in a BMW doing 50mph.

BTW , I do wear one ... cos I look sweet in them

biondino

Dear meanwhile,

I have:

1) had a serious accident when a rear sprocket failed as I was standing on my pedals to accelerate.

2) hit many kerbs through lack of concentration or misjudgement, two of which have caused me to fall off my bike

3) squeezed my front brake sufficiently hard to end up over the handlebars

4) I haven't run into the back of a parked car, but I have run into the back of a car in traffic when the car was stationary.

Oh, and I've thought of 5) fallen over sideways when I was unable to extract my foot from the pedal, and 6) skidded on diesel in adverse weather conditions.

Of the 6, only number 3 happened when I was young enough to not know better. It's certainly something that happens, mostly to inexperienced cyclists and mostly (by extension) at fairly low speeds. I'm a decent cyclist, but accidents happen. You are either preternaturally lucky or some kind of superman if none of these have happened to you. And you're either blinkered or pushing your own warped agenda if you refuse to believe they happen to others.

switchback18

biondino...

Hmm. Did 3) when I was 9, 6) when I was 18 & 4) when I was 19. Now 36 & haven't managed any of those in the mean time. The only time I've ever hit my head was hitting the back of a Range Rover which did me no damage. I've honestly never damaged a helmet in 17 or so years of mountain biking, but I wear one because it only takes 1 time...
Also, the times I've ridden without one have always been about 80% of flat out. With a helmet on I don't worry about feeling like an idiot for pushing it too far once in a while.

Anyway, although I'd tell everyone to wear a lid, bike skill is just as important as it cuts down the number of offs by a huge amount. Learning how to fall (mentioned in MBUK every so often) also helps minimise breakages.

Link to our skills courses:

http://www.chasingtrails.com/mountain-bike-skills-courses/

We do groups & 1 to 1

dondare

Cycling is less dangerous than walking, so if you don't think it's necessary to don a lid just to cross the road, why wear one when you're riding on it?

always_tyred

I think this might have been covered already...

CyclingBantam

I'm still only halfway through reading but to me it seems a quite simple discussion. I see Meanwhile has some stats and reading to support his case but seems to fail to understand that just because someone else have produced this evidence, you can't just take it as fact. There was nothing conclusive I have seen so far (I'm only on page 4!).

To me the simple fact is (and I was hit by a car on Wednesday) is, if you knew you were going to take a spill (of an unknown scale) would you choose to do this with a load of Plastic and foam strapped to your head, or just your skull to take the impact.

I know a helmet will not save my life in a crash. I am not sure that realistically anyone thinks that however, the most common spills are not that servear however can result in a crack of the head on the road. It is unarguable a helmet will help./

always_tyred

BenBlyth wrote:

I know a helmet will not save my life in a crash. I am not sure that realistically anyone thinks that however, the most common spills are not that servear however can result in a crack of the head on the road. It is unarguable a helmet will help./

Well, clearly I agree with you.

There is a point of view (and this is my interpretation, an opinon I don't really agree with, but which I increasingly have to recognise and understand) that seems to be to object to wearing something that is a bit uncomfortable and which, for that discomfort, doesn't do anything.

There are a number of interesting and partially valid justifications for this - such as contending that cycling is not dangerous anyway. Since I've not had a big off for several years, I get that. Since I've got into the habit of wearing a helmet, I don't see the need to tempt fate and stop. But, hey, you get some good debates over the statistics.

But mixed up in there is the category of people who take that view but also say that the helmet is a useless piece of foam (I'd love to enter a debate about the amazing material properties of expanded polystyrene, for example that there is a floating causeway built from it on the I5 in Seattle, so its got to be pretty tough stuff) and that is why they don't bother.

It seems to me that these people kind of recognise that in theory its a good idea, but simply don't believe that the current incarnations can do any good. All I can think is that no one wears them, there's no impetus for improvement.

But that is common ground. There are far more efficient, but expensive, energy absorbing foams available. The extent and composition of the outer shell could be greatly improved. I think that new construction techniques are along the right lines, but of course are directed towards getting away with less and less mass and more vents. Personally, I don't think we need any more vents and 300g is hardly noticable already. Wishfully, I hope that other properties of helmets - such as their strength - can now incrementally improve.

To be critical of present helmets isn't incompatible with using them, though.

redddraggon

Helmet's make you go faster - FACT:

Cunobelin

redddraggon wrote:

Helmet's make you go faster - FACT:

Which is known in non-cycling termas as "Risk compensation" !

redddraggon

Cunobelin wrote:

Which is known in non-cycling termas as "Risk compensation" !

What's risk compensation got to do with speed in a TT? Surely you'll be going as fast as you can whether you wear a helmet or not?

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

Dear meanwhile,

I have:

1) had a serious accident when a rear sprocket failed as I was standing on my pedals to accelerate.

Really? I met someone who been hit by lightning. He's careful not to stand under isolated trees in a storm, but he doesn't carry a lightning rod.

2) hit many kerbs through lack of concentration or misjudgement, two of which have caused me to fall off my bike

If you can't avoid a kerb through lack of concentration, the answer is to concentrate, not wear a helmet. Kerbs are god's way of telling you to ride with your eyes open before you end up under an HGV.

3) squeezed my front brake sufficiently hard to end up over the handlebars

If this was on the flat, you need to learn how to hold your arms taut while breaking. If it wasn't, you still have skills to learn.

4) I haven't run into the back of a parked car, but I have run into the back of a car in traffic when the car was stationary.

...I remember a more experienced colleague telling me when I was a messenger to put more effort into staying away from "civilian" cyclists than cars. Possibly the two of you had met?

I admire your moral courage in confessing these incidents, and I can see how in your case a helmet would be somewhat useful, but I don't think that even for you it's the most effective remedy.

Oh, and I've thought of 5) fallen over sideways when I was unable to extract my foot from the pedal, and 6) skidded on diesel in adverse weather conditions.

Re. the pedals.. you have two feet (I presume): what happened to the other one? As for diesel... almost died that way in Sidney, but kept my balance (and thank you, fates, for the superb bike I was riding that week and not the one before). If I hadn't, I'd have dumped in the path of the 10 ton truck right behind me. By a horrible coincidence I saw a similar truck run a VOLVO over shortly afterwards: it crumpled like a coke can. So I don't think a helmet would have helped me.

Of the 6, only number 3 happened when I was young enough to not know better. It's certainly something that happens, mostly to inexperienced cyclists and mostly (by extension) at fairly low speeds. I'm a decent cyclist, but accidents happen. You are either preternaturally lucky or some kind of superman if none of these have happened to you.

I've ridden inner city traffic for years: if this sort of thing happened to me I'd have been squished by a bus. And my safety record is pretty consistent with stats on CTC members, or even working couriers, when you allow for the massive amount of time they spend on dangerous roads.

The point you're missing here is that I'm not saying that helmets aren't of use in a trivial accident. I'm saying that in a serious one they're almost certainly no use, and I'm concerned that they make serious accidents more likely. This needs considering on an individual and *informed* basis.

meanwhile

BenBlyth wrote:

I'm still only halfway through reading but to me it seems a quite simple discussion. I see Meanwhile has some stats and reading to support his case but seems to fail to understand that just because someone else have produced this evidence, you can't just take it as fact.

Tripe. You're applying a double standard to pro and anti helmet research.

There was nothing conclusive I have seen so far (I'm only on page 4!).

To me the simple fact is (and I was hit by a car on Wednesday) is, if you knew you were going to take a spill (of an unknown scale) would you choose to do this with a load of Plastic and foam strapped to your head, or just your skull to take the impact.

Tripe - you're assuming that the helmet will take the impact - ie that it WILL be effective. In fact, the evidence seems to be that a typical bike-car collision it won't - a 60kg rider moving at 30mph after being hit by a car will have over 4000 joules of kinetic energy. The British standard for a helmet is about 200 joules total energy absorbtion. Yes, that's a difference of 20 times. "

Interesting that none of the "my helmet makes me safe" voters seem aware of this difference...

I'll put this way: you're asking "If you knew you were going to be hit by a flamethrower, wouldn't you want to be covered in tin foil?" And my answer is "I really wouldn't care. Moreover, in the circumstances which I actually anticipate as being at all likely, flamethrower evasion seems a much more profitable option, and there is some reason to believe that wearing tinfoil may contribute negatively to this. So I think I'll opt for running shoes and camouflage instead.

Double tripe - you're talking about case where a collision is certain. In fact, my point is that if helmets provide only marginal protection this can easily be outweighed if they make collisions more likely, which does seem to be the case.

I know a helmet will not save my life in a crash. I am not sure that realistically anyone thinks that however, the most common spills are not that servear however can result in a crack of the head on the road. It is unarguable a helmet will help./

It is inarguable that there ARE crashes in which a helmet will help. It is by no means certain however that this benefit outweighs the negatives, even if a good helmet is correctly worn, which is rarely the case.

I suppose what I'm really concerned with is that a large number of people - as shown by the poll - are wearing helmets not for the benefit they can give, but one they definitely can't. And one would suppose that this is a relatively informed group...

Cunobelin

redddraggon wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Which is known in non-cycling termas as "Risk compensation" !

What's risk compensation got to do with speed in a TT? Surely you'll be going as fast as you can whether you wear a helmet or not?

Risk compensation - you slow down the riders to ensure greater safety, or provide protective equipment theoretically allowing them to continue fast riding (i.e. compensate for the percieved safety increase)