Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

iainment · June 2008

Why so worked up? If you don't want to wear a lid don't, if you do want to then do.
Simple as.
I wear one, maybe with a naive belief in it's qualities but it makes me feel better.

Surf-Matt · June 2008

dondare wrote:

Now try this: find a wall and don't bang your head against it.

Cyclists who wear helmets seem to bang their heads far more frequently than those who don't. Perhaps they take more risks.

Now THAT is made up codswallop.

Meanwhile - got work to do so sorry but I'm breaking off here and giving up.
There were plenty like yourself in my degree. I tended to avoid them.

meanwhile · June 2008

dondare wrote:

Now try this: find a wall and don't bang your head against it.

Cyclists who wear helmets seem to bang their heads far more frequently than those who don't. Perhaps they take more risks.

The thread is so long now that I can't blame you for having missed the link, but I couldn't find ANY evidence for the the commonly cited "risk compensation theory" - ie that helmets make riders feel safer so they do stupider things - often used by helmet advocates to explain why helmet laws don't result in fewer injuries.

What I did find is evidence that motorists are more likely to act like bastards to helmet wearers:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/arc ... 10906.html

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

“This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” said Dr Walker, from the University’s Department of Psychology.

“By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.

“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.

“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”

Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group.

“We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong,” said Dr Walker.

“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.

Btw - has a single helmet wearer actually commented on this yet?

dondare · June 2008

Usually, when a cyclist describes an accident that resulted in his head being saved from serious injury by the helmet, it only happened at all because he was doing something that I wouldn't. Rather than citing "risk compensation" I could say that those cyclists who like taking risks tend to wear a helmet. It might also be that less experienced cyclists who have not learned how to avoid dangerous situations on the road are more likely to wear a helmet; I had already been cycling for about ten years before anyone in Britain had ever heard of the things, but someone learning to ride today would be advised to wear one from the outset.

dondare · June 2008

Surf-Matt wrote:

dondare wrote:

Now try this: find a wall and don't bang your head against it.

Cyclists who wear helmets seem to bang their heads far more frequently than those who don't. Perhaps they take more risks.

Now THAT is made up codswallop.

Meanwhile - got work to do so sorry but I'm breaking off here and giving up.
There were plenty like yourself in my degree. I tended to avoid them.

I work in a University Science department and I know the difference between working safely and wearing protective clothing. When I ride I know the difference between cycling safely and wearing a helmet. Accidents are not inevitable.

jam1ec · June 2008

It is not the drivers who see me and choose to drive close that bother me.. It is the ones that don't see because they are looking at their phones, radios or falling asleep at the wheel that worry me most. It stands to reason if someone has not seen a cyclist they will also not not have noticed a helmet.

I have also heard the opinion that cyclists who 'look the part' are less likely to wobble around so you don't need to leave them as much room. Would this mean wearing any cycling specific gear makes it more dangerous? I would not trade in my shoes and gloves for this added 'safety'.

Surf-Matt · June 2008

So working safely and wearing protective clothing are mutually exclusive?!
And so is cycling safely and wearing a helmet?!

I suspect that your department is perhaps a research unit for the Ministry of Silly Walks or similar?

dondare · June 2008

Chemistry; and some protective clothing is a legal requirement. But the work is done always with the prime consideration of preventing accidents; in nearly 30 years I've never seen anyone's eyesight saved by their safety specs because experiments aren't done in a way that puts the students and researchers at risk.

Surf-Matt · June 2008

Right that's it - I'm taking all six airbags out of my car, will disable the ABS, take out the side impact bars, fill the crumple protection zones with concrete and replace the tyres with cross plys because those pesky safety devices make me drive SO badly...

unclemalc · June 2008

Its a pity that in forums such as this there is rarely a middle ground. I have ridden a variety of bikes for years and have been forced/knocked off several times which have NOT been my fault (in one case actually proven by the police...). In each case at some stage during the spill my head hit the deck. I was always wearing a helmet so no bother - in fact the last time it happened I CHOSE to use my helmet as the shock absorber in order to save my face from the point of impact.
If you have never had a spill - your 'fault' or not - then you will not appreciate the protection that a helmet offers. I reckon that those of you that have perhaps been taken out by a motorist, or had a spill in some other way (an 'accident'), will have either thanked your personal god that you were wearing a lid or will have subsequently gone out and got one.
As to the idea that motorists decide in some way that the cyclist is 'safer' to pass closely if he/she is wearing a helmet, ask yourself the question - as a motorist, what do you do?
In a car I give cyclists room to work because I use a bike so I know about holes/drain covers/glass etc where the bike tends to go, and so the bike may move out suddenly. I don't choose a wider overtaking path because they are not wearing a helmet: every bike gets the same space. BUT - I do wish they were wearing a hat.

always_tyred · June 2008

dondare wrote:

Chemistry; and some protective clothing is a legal requirement. But the work is done always with the prime consideration of preventing accidents; in nearly 30 years I've never seen anyone's eyesight saved by their safety specs because experiments aren't done in a way that puts the students and researchers at risk.

In one of the departments I worked in, there was a prominently displayed pair of safety specs with a nail half way through them. In fairness, there was a lot of dust on them!!

Interestingly, one is encouraged to wear gloves, labcoat and safety specs to REMIND you of the potential for risks. Why can it be argued to work the other way around with other activities?

always_tyred · June 2008

meanwhile wrote:

dondare wrote:

Now try this: find a wall and don't bang your head against it.

Cyclists who wear helmets seem to bang their heads far more frequently than those who don't. Perhaps they take more risks.

The thread is so long now that I can't blame you for having missed the link, but I couldn't find ANY evidence for the the commonly cited "risk compensation theory" - ie that helmets make riders feel safer so they do stupider things - often used by helmet advocates to explain why helmet laws don't result in fewer injuries.

What I did find is evidence that motorists are more likely to act like bastards to helmet wearers:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/arc ... 10906.html

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

“This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” said Dr Walker, from the University’s Department of Psychology.

“By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.

“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.

“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”

Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group.

“We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong,” said Dr Walker.

“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.

Btw - has a single helmet wearer actually commented on this yet?

Yes, many times. Its old news. Dig around on the forum a little and you'll find some comments on it.

In summary - its interesting, but hardly rigorous.

For example, as I recall, one part of his test was to dress up as a woman. He found that he got more space whilst cross dressing. He concluded that women were given more room than men. However, he only proved that men dressed as women got more room than men in his study.

Another example - he did not study accident rates. He experienced two accidents and concludes that accident rates are more likely when wearing a helmet and extends this to claim that rates are directly related to distance to the side.

All of the "anti" helmet people come down hard on folk who rely on "anecdotal evidence". You can't have it both ways. Its too small a study to make judgements of this type. If you flip a coin 4 times and get heads three times, do you conclude that heads are more likely than tails? Of course not.

For example, when did the accidents occur? Where and how did the accidents occur?
Was he wearing the same colours each time?

Take the statement "twice as likely to be particularly close". What does that mean, exactly? Well, his statistical sampling suggests that there is an average difference of 3 1/2 inches between wearing a helmet and not. I imagine that there is a bell curve of passing distance, for which if the appropriate distance is specified as "particularly close" the statement will hold true.

It would be wrong to be overly critical. For one thing, what we are reading is a press officer's summary. Read carefully and the researcher's statements are well worded but non-commital. I'd be interested to sample the tenor of the actual publication.

But lets read what he actually said to his press officer:

“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.

“In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.

“The best answer is for different types of road user to understand each other better.

“Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.

“There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive, and practical experience would be even better.

“When people try cycling, they nearly always say it changes the way they treat other road users when they get back in their cars.”

What's to disagree with? He doesn't, you'll note, say "Clearly it is safer not to wear helmets". Why doesn't he say this? Well, he's a scientist and knows that this statement would not be supported by his study.

Like I say - interesting work. I hope that EPSRC gave him some funding to wire up 100 cyclists for a year, or something like that, to get more data. For example, I'd like to know whether, if a cyclist cycles along a flat road towards the horizon for long enough, do they eventually fall off?

always_tyred · June 2008

meanwhile wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm not going to debate the flat earth thing with you. I don't think that the entirity of human civilization was less intelligent than Meanwhile up to the 15th century.

It's irrelevant, but you have a firm grasp of the Point Not Being Made there: my point was that common opinion is usually wrong. Educated people knew throughout the middle ages that the earth was round (you could see this from a ship mast, and the educated would read the work of Greek philosophers who had calculated its radius correctly). "What everyone knows" is usually wrong where it isn't based on definite testable, grudgingly accepted knowledge.

No, common opinion is often wrong. Not quite the same thing.

You have carefully avoided the considered comments by another correspondent here to the effect that "polystyrene is crap".

I take it then that you fall into the "well, I refuse to use it even though its the best thing available to us" camp? Good luck. Its not arbitrary because I get your reasons, but I disagree.

Can you provide a little more information on "rotational brain injuries". You see, your position is predicated on the increased risk of this type of injury outweighing the decreased risk of conventional impacts.

You could be right, but I am concerned at the lack of news stories over the years about poor cyclists with rotated brains. Wouldn't you expcet there to be lawsuits every week in California from cyclists with brains facing the wrong way?

How come motor cyclists don't suffer this type of injury in vast numbers? Their helmets are about as bulky, smoother but then the impact energies are vastly in excess of a cyclist's.

Again, this rotational brain injury concept is relatively new to me so I concede that it may be a huge problem that has just passed me by.

dondare · June 2008

Surf-Matt wrote:

Right that's it - I'm taking all six airbags out of my car, will disable the ABS, take out the side impact bars, fill the crumple protection zones with concrete and replace the tyres with cross plys because those pesky safety devices make me drive SO badly...

I suspect that a great many motorists would drive a lot more carefully if all the above safety features were removed. A spike coming out of the steering wheel would also help with this.
But about 20 times as many motorists (including passengers) get killed in road accidents each year as cyclists, so obviously they really need more protection. Perhaps they should wear helmets.

Olly Garth · June 2008

I don't wear a helmet when cycling on my own but do wear one on a club run as the chances of a minor collision are more likely. For the same reason I would wear a helmet if my commute took me through the streets of London where there were many cyclists riding. Inexperienced cyclists can be dangerous.

Beeblebrox · June 2008

Keeps my family happy, so yup.

meanwhile · June 2008

Surf-Matt wrote:

Right that's it - I'm taking all six airbags out of my car, will disable the ABS, take out the side impact bars, fill the crumple protection zones with concrete and replace the tyres with cross plys because those pesky safety devices make me drive SO badly...

Well, that's the argument of helmet advocates, when they explain why helmet laws don't reduce injury. As you know, I think that they're full of bs. The safety measures you refer to work effectively in engineering terms, as do motorcycle helmets - and all this is reflected in safety stats and forensic reports. Bicycle helmets don't work for protecting against car impacts - you can't pack enough cushioning into a helmet that won't distort balance and cause heat exhaustion - and this is reflected in statistical studies etc too.

You claim to be an engineer: use your basic knowledge and sense. Why should 200g of packing foam suffice to protect a cyclist when a driver at the same speed needs an airbag a couple of feet thick?

meanwhile · June 2008

Always Tyred wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

dondare wrote:

Now try this: find a wall and don't bang your head against it.

Cyclists who wear helmets seem to bang their heads far more frequently than those who don't. Perhaps they take more risks.

The thread is so long now that I can't blame you for having missed the link, but I couldn't find ANY evidence for the the commonly cited "risk compensation theory" - ie that helmets make riders feel safer so they do stupider things - often used by helmet advocates to explain why helmet laws don't result in fewer injuries.

What I did find is evidence that motorists are more likely to act like bastards to helmet wearers:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/arc ... 10906.html

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

“This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” said Dr Walker, from the University’s Department of Psychology.

“By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.

“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.

“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”

Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group.

“We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong,” said Dr Walker.

“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.

Btw - has a single helmet wearer actually commented on this yet?

Yes, many times. Its old news. Dig around on the forum a little and you'll find some comments on it.

Sorry - I though the "in this thread" was implicit.

In summary - its interesting, but hardly rigorous.

For example, as I recall, one part of his test was to dress up as a woman. He found that he got more space whilst cross dressing. He concluded that women were given more room than men. However, he only proved that men dressed as women got more room than men in his study.

Another example - he did not study accident rates. He experienced two accidents and concludes that accident rates are more likely when wearing a helmet and extends this to claim that rates are directly related to distance to the side.

All of the "anti" helmet people come down hard on folk who rely on "anecdotal evidence".

You can't have it both ways. Its too small a study to make judgements of this type. If you flip a coin 4 times and get heads three times, do you conclude that heads are more likely than tails? Of course not.

1. This isn't anecdotal evidence. The basis of the study was automatically recorded data on passing distance. In thousands of passes, drivers were found to skim closer when the rider wore a helmet.

2. As I said in this now huge thread, one of the things I object to is that laws are being passed or lobbied for without sufficient studies on the negative consequences of helmet wearing. This study needs repeating with triple blind procedures, etc.

Cunobelin · June 2008

meanwhile wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

Right that's it - I'm taking all six airbags out of my car, will disable the ABS, take out the side impact bars, fill the crumple protection zones with concrete and replace the tyres with cross plys because those pesky safety devices make me drive SO badly...

Well, that's the argument of helmet advocates, when they explain why helmet laws don't reduce injury. As you know, I think that they're full of bs. The safety measures you refer to work effectively in engineering terms, as do motorcycle helmets - and all this is reflected in safety stats and forensic reports. Bicycle helmets don't work for protecting against car impacts - you can't pack enough cushioning into a helmet that won't distort balance and cause heat exhaustion - and this is reflected in statistical studies etc too.

You claim to be an engineer: use your basic knowledge and sense. Why should 200g of packing foam suffice to protect a cyclist when a driver at the same speed needs an airbag a couple of feet thick?

Actually - here is a relevant question......If cars are safer to drive because of improved braking, better tyres and suspension, and decreased stopping distances....... Why does every corner around where I live now need into skid surfacing because the vehicles can't stop in time at the junctions?

always_tyred · June 2008

Is there such a thing as a triple blind experiment?

The anecdotal aspect of the experiment relates to the accidents the guy had. As I read the article, he had a couple of accidents in the time of the experiment (of which more later) and since both were while he was wearing a helmet, he concluded that helmet wearing increased the probability of accidents.

For such a small sample size, this is not a reasonable conclusion (and in fairness, he didn't make this conclusion, he just said he was wearing a helmet during the two accidents he'd had, and the journalist increases the significance of the statement by placing it alongside his conclusion that decreased passing distances correlate to increased accident risk).

I don't see the difference between that and "I fell and hit my head and my helmet saved me" anecdotal evidence that is frequently shot down on this thread.

Is it because the guy is a PhD? I'm a PhD and I fell and hit my head and my helmet saved me. Believe me now? (I may or may not have a PhD, I may or may not have hit my head, and my helmet may or may not have saved me - so be careful what you believe.)

Now to the accidents. This chap had 2 accidents during his study. The article states that the study was based on "more than 2500 overtaking manoevers". That's not a lot. In a rush hour commute, how many cars pass you in an hour? I'd say it was in the low 100's.

I estimate that this entire study was based on something of the order of 10-20 hours of cycling. It may have taken him a month or so of moderate daily commutes. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that he thought up a fun piece of work to do over a summer.

In that time he had two accidents with large vehicles.

This suggests to me that either:
- they were very minor incidents (although the article say he was knocked off)
- he is an inexperienced cyclist (getting into difficulties the blind spots of larger vehicles is a common beginner mistake)
- cycling really IS dangerous

The second of these raises an interesting issue. There is an argument out there which can be summarised as "cyclists wearing helmets take more risks".

I don't believe this. I stick my helmet on, I don't notice it, I don't think about it when I cycle.

However, I ALWAYS wear a helmet and I have done for years. I bet I'd cycle differently for a while if I sopped wearing one. But I think that this would be because there is a difference. I'd soon get used to it and cycle normally.

What about people who aren't used to helmets, who have taken to using them for the first time?

You see where I am going with this - the central flaw of the study is that its only single blind. Only the motorist doesn't know that a study is taking place. The cyclist was well aware that he was looking for differences in passing distances. Given the small sampling time and the possible inexperience of the cyclist, I would need convincing that the helmet didn't change how the guy was cycling, rather than the motorists' driving.

meanwhile · June 2008

Always Tyred wrote:

Is there such a thing as a triple blind experiment?

Ok... You're sitting at a computer and you still don't bother typing "triple blind" into google. Yes, there is.

The anecdotal aspect of the experiment relates to the accidents the guy had.
As I read the article, he had a couple of accidents in the time of the experiment (of which more later) and since both were while he was wearing a helmet, he concluded that helmet wearing increased the probability of accidents.

Your logic is that because a press report contains an element of anecdote, the study itself is anecdotal. Wrong. (If this was true, any study could be rendered anecdotal by writing a chatty article about it...)

I don't see the difference between that and "I fell and hit my head and my helmet saved me" anecdotal evidence that is frequently shot down on this thread.

Is it because the guy is a PhD?

No. It's because a statistical measurement was used (as I already explained to you). Anecdote is subjective and interpretative. Numbers aren't (although they are biasable and subject to sampling error, but these are different problems.)

Now to the accidents. This chap had 2 accidents during his study. The article states that the study was based on "more than 2500 overtaking manoevers". That's not a lot. In a rush hour commute, how many cars pass you in an hour? I'd say it was in the low 100's.

You're assuming that he was riding urban roads. In fact, doing so might have made the experiment pointless - passing distance is always tight in urban areas. If you want to use passing distance as an indicator of motorist attitude, you're better off picking roads where they have room to express themselves.

In that time he had two accidents with large vehicles.

This suggests to me that either:
- they were very minor incidents (although the article say he was knocked off)
- he is an inexperienced cyclist (getting into difficulties the blind spots of larger vehicles is a common beginner mistake)
- cycling really IS dangerous

If you bothered googling, you'd see the "inexperienced" explanation is unlikely. (Not impossible, because of possible misquoting in articles.) You've also neglected several explanations like "them's the cards", "black swans", etc.

The second of these raises an interesting issue. There is an argument out there which can be summarised as "cyclists wearing helmets take more risks".

It's based on a study of behaviour among child cyclists that's pretty much junk.

I don't believe this. I stick my helmet on, I don't notice it, I don't think about it when I cycle.

However, I ALWAYS wear a helmet and I have done for years. I bet I'd cycle differently for a while if I sopped wearing one. But I think that this would be because there is a difference. I'd soon get used to it and cycle normally.

What about people who aren't used to helmets, who have taken to using them for the first time?

Yes; I'm sure you're right. "I'm wearing as much packing foam as my MP3 player came in - I'm immortal now!" Makes sense that anyone donning a helmet for the first time would want to play tag with an HGV. Totally.

You see where I am going with this - the central flaw of the study is that its only single blind. Only the motorist doesn't know that a study is taking place. The cyclist was well aware that he was looking for differences in passing distances. Given the small sampling time and the possible inexperience of the cyclist, I would need convincing that the helmet didn't change how the guy was cycling, rather than the motorists' driving.

As, I said, the study should be repeated as a triple blind.

However, your explanation is still quite obviously wrong. The guy is an expert on traffic and traffic safety. He knows that a helmet is only useful in low speed accidents that don't involve cars. So it won't alter his behaviour towards cars. Although I suppose it might have made him more careless in, oh, mounting and dismounting technique.

In case there is anyone other Tyred who might be labouring under the delusion that wearing a helmet makes him even partially car proof, here's a quote from a pro helmet paper on the subject:

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P2250.htm

Dr Sheikh points out that helmets are not designed to protect the rider in a fall which involves other vehicles. Most adult accidents involve other vehicles.

"The reasoning behind this is that when a cyclist is knocked off by another vehicle, this frequently results in the head being spun and subjected to torsional effects. One consequence of this is that they tend not to hit the ground as cleanly as children who are typically involved in low-impact, non-twisting injuries," said Dr Sheikh.

This is ***besides*** the energy limit on helmet usefulness; ie even when a car-bike accident results in a fall in the 12mph region where the helmet might have been useful, this "twisting" tends to prevent that.

always_tyred · June 2008

I'm afriad that the great majority of your comments indicate that you didn't read and understand mine. I'm assuming the study was conducted on urban roads, yes. Read the article again. He was cycling in Bristol.

A "triple blind" experiment is a colloquialism for a double blind experiment, the third blind person being the person who analyses the data. Its the same as a double blind experinent. But you wouldn't know that because your brain is too large.

My comments regarding anecdotes relate to the accidents within the study, not the study in its entirity. I thought that was quite obvious.

Have you ever gone through the process of taking a piece of research, a discovery or an invention and turning it into a press release? I used to do it for a living. You must have quite a naive understanding of the journalist's role. I suggest that you try to find a copy of the article itself in order to compare them for yourself.

Mmm, what else.

Given that the experiment WAS conducted on urban roads, was it pointless in your opinion or not? You see, you cited it and challenged pro-helmet wearers to comment. You've also declared that taking measuremens in an urban environment is "pointless".

I've maintained a consistent opinion - interesting but not rigorous. You swing from believing it to be gospel or garbage. Maybe it just took you two or three reads to fully comprehend. I'll just slow down a bit for you shall I?

Again, there is information that you may have missed. The article discloses the total average lateral passing distance to be 1.33m for cars, and the deviation in that average between data acquired with and without wearing a helmet of 8.5cm. Now that I've drawn your attention to this - do you think this is significant, or not? I wonder what the standard deviation was on his measurements? With only 2500 passes (in urban traffic) I wonder if it is quite high. The std. dev. may even be higher than 8.5cm. Be a good chap and download a copy of the article will you?

The term "statistical measurement" does not make sense. Did you mean statistical analysis? Of course, statistics are what you get by analysing measurements. But you knew that.

Meanwhile, you are, I'm afraid, getting quite confused as to who has written what.

For example, I don't think that helmets cause people to cycle more recklessly - one generally put forward by people who don't wear helmets. I've generally been quite dismissive of that view. I'm toying with the concept that it might be a distraction when first worn.

I didn't vote in the poll, because it was poorly conceived.

In regard to thoses who did, your unsurpassed self confidence is leading you to assume that people who picked any of the options that you provided must have the opinion that you think that option represents.

You are wrong and you seem intent on ignoring all attempts to disabuse you of this notion, or indeed of any other notion.

always_tyred · June 2008

However, your explanation is still quite obviously wrong. The guy is an expert on traffic and traffic safety. He knows that a helmet is only useful in low speed accidents that don't involve cars. So it won't alter his behaviour towards cars. Although I suppose it might have made him more careless in, oh, mounting and dismounting technique.

What, you think the guy is a Jedi or something? By the power of his own mind, he can override unconscious human behaviours.

My hypothesis...again.... so read it carefully... is that distractions cause one to ride differently. Not take more risks, but incur more risk as a consequence of additional distractions. Are you following this, or is it too subtle?

the study doesn't shed any light on this - just tossed it out there for comment, given that several people in the past have mentioned the "helmets make you ride more dangerously" concept and is one of many potential factors that a follow up study may have to eradicate. If you don't mind, I'll restrict further comments on that to people who give me a considered response (regardless whether or not they agree with me).

always_tyred · June 2008

However, your explanation is still quite obviously wrong. The guy is an expert on traffic and traffic safety. He knows that a helmet is only useful in low speed accidents that don't involve cars. So it won't alter his behaviour towards cars. Although I suppose it might have made him more careless in, oh, mounting and dismounting technique.

You've jumped between present and past tense. Please be consistent.

Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

Comments

Categories