Helmet, Yes or No?

Brixtonbiker

number9 wrote:

in most cases WILL be prevented or ameliorated by wearing a helmet.


Evidence, please.

My evidence is i had a crashed and landed on my head with a helmet.This was two weeks ago. I would be in hospital or dead if i did not wear the helmet. Fact.

Buy the way, I was attached in the street 2 years ago and hit on the head with a basball bat. I remember the force of the bat hit. I was knocked out, hospitalised and got 10 sitches.
The force on my head from my bicycle accident my much worse than the baseball bat attack. I would even bet that had i been wearing the helmet when attacked in the street with a basball bat, i would have not sustained those injurys.

number9

Fact.


The collective noun for anecdote is not data.


Helmets serve best at low impact falls sideways at 4 mph or lower. They offer zero protection against vehicle collisions ate speed, and increase rotational injuries.

biondino

Not that I'd wish anyone to have an accident, but if you do, and survive, will you come and give us an honest account of how it went and whether a helmet might have made a difference?

number9

biondino wrote:

Not that I'd wish anyone to have an accident, but if you do, and survive, will you come and give us an honest account of how it went and whether a helmet might have made a difference?

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4626.0


helmet would have made bugger all difference.

biondino

Okay, so that's a draw as you didn't land on your head. Not sure it helps your argument.

always_tyred

Okay, lets take a passage from the non-biased website, cyclehelmets.org.

In an equally non biased way, I shall highlight certain words to enable you to assess the information content and distinguish it from the rhetoric.

Why this contradiction?
These facts appear contradictory and counter-intuitive, but there are several possible explanations.

There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.

Many falls result in arm and shoulder impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit something.

Another possibility concerns so-called 'risk compensation' - the tendency or willingness of people to take greater risks when they feel better protected. There is clear evidence of this, particularly amongst children, and it is quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. If people take greater risks (such as riding in places requiring a higher level of skill) due to a misplaced belief that their helmet makes them safer, they could be more likely to experience a crash.

The movement of a helmet or the irritation to the head that many people experience might also affect balance or concentration at a crucial moment.

- one study [4] - pity I can't read it, but it does date back to 1988 and may or may not be authoritative or statistically valid. Lets get a copy and have a look. How about studies that don't show this? Do they prove the opposite? Of course not, however studies purporting to show that helmets aren't beneficial are interpreted (by some) as positively showing that they aren't. This is total nonsense.

- many falls.... just clear of the ground. Eh? How do you know? Where's the evidence?

- helmet makes your head twice as big? What on earth has this person been using as a cycle helmet?

- from "risk compensation" onwards, there's not a single citation. That's a shame, given that its such clear evidence of "risk compensation".

- quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. Jolly good, I'll just take your word for it. Since its subconscious, I won't be aware of it or be able to do anything about it, or even deny it, which is convenient. Indeed, it appears to be unquantifiable, but is must exist because its been written somewhere. And there is a god.

- the movement of a helmet....? What - so we shouldn't wear correctly fitting helmets because helmets are capable of being fitted incorrectly. Wearing a rain jacket back to front and upside down is also fairly distracting, as are sunglasses at night.

- statement after statement after statement of pure opinion.

I can't help but notice the startling similarity between the terminology employed in this passage of text and the stuff that gets parroted back on this forum. the forum points us back to the "source" and this then serves as evidence. This cycle seems to me to completely by-pass the need for fact. Actually, its a lot like journalism.

And the guy who linked to this site has the gaul to sit back and demand evidence.

2wheelzgood

what about giving factual data on instances where it causes less damage to NOT wear a lid?

facts please

W, I have to admit I have not read the figures and quite frankly don't have the time to do that right now.

I do find it hard to believe that the benefit of wearing a helmet in the event of crashes on a cycle is not greater than wearing a helmet in a car which has been through numerous rigorous safety tests.
walking// maybe if you include muggings and being hit in the face. so but the % of people hitting heads per 1000 walkers will be fewer than the cyclists I would have thought so there would seem to be a case of using head protection on a bke as the chance of hitting you nog are higher? again I have no access/knowledge of the figures.

at any rate why base this topic and debate on facts. Joe public with £90 at halfards won't be judging his decision on extended scientific studies, but a feeling of general common sense or what people whose advice he rates advise him.

So to argue wearing a lid based on anecdotes and circumstantial evidence may in fact be valid.

again, why don't the nay sayers petition the ASO to ban lids. after all we don't want the pros to go damaging their heads!

number9

Gall.

number9

again, why don't the nay sayers petition the ASO to ban lids. after all we don't want the pros to go damaging their heads!

Because I support peoples' right to wear a helmet, oppose compulsion, and choose not to do so myself because of informed opinion.

always_tyred

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1193.html

Now I'm really getting pithed off.

Here's the chain of reasoning; people getting fatter in OZ, cycling in decline in OZ, cycling an aerobic activity that can help weight management, decline in cycling the cause of obesity in OZ.

"Surprisingly, the Baker Research Institute report for the Australian Government [1] makes no reference at all to cycling or the likely connection between its decline and obesity"

No shit, really? They didn't make that link? But its so clear!

Is there a website out there called "cricket.org" citing the decline in children playing cricket as the reason for increased obesity in the UK? What about "rugbyleague.org" or "lido.org". After all, since local councils stopped maitaining the numerous lively lidos around the country, people have been getting fatter. I know, "pantaloons.org". People wear them less, so there must be a link to something.

Are you guys seriously telling me that you read this drivel and believe it? Christ, I bet you also believe in ghosts and alien visitations to remote places in the desert (just down the road from a liquor store).

number9

Now I'm really getting pithed off.

It's pretty clear to me.


Pro-helmet bods cited an 18% decline in head injuries among cyclists post compulsion.

This almost exactly matched the decline in cycling rates.

Brixtonbiker

non-biased website, cyclehelmets.org

The website is anti-helmet

Don't know why, but they're trying to refute the simple effectiveness of a bike helmet with shady numbers and facts

number9

CONCLUSIONS

By wearing helmets, cyclists are at best only marginally reducing their chances of being fatally or seriously injured in a collision with a motor vehicle which is the predominant cause of these injuries.


Even the most expensive ones provide little protection in these circumstances. Moreover, the argument in favour of helmets would have validity if there were proof that behaviour does not change in response to perceived risk.

But there is no such proof.

Safety devices encourage higher levels of risk-taking. As a result, cyclists are likely to ride less cautiously when wearing a helmet owing to their feeling of increased security. After all, the message of the advocates of helmet wearing is that such a practice will protect the cyclist's head adequately in the event of any accident, not just a minor one when cyclists are hit by very slow-moving vehicles or fall off and hit their heads on the ground. Cyclists may be less likely to have an accident if they are not wearing a helmet, and are therefore riding with greater care owing to an enhanced sense of their vulnerability.


Furthermore, people are discouraged from cycling if their perception is heightened that it is a 'dangerous' form of travel and that it is only safe to do so if a helmet is worn. The result of this is that the considerable latent demand for cycling - an ideal mode for the majority of the population for most of their journeys - continues to be suppressed. As cycling is also a convenient and routine way of maintaining fitness, a significant route to public health is prejudiced.


There remain then three questions to be answered.

First, should helmet wearing be made mandatory? The report on which this paper is based has revealed no case for such a law. In addition to the absence of proof that helmet wearing reduces the risk of head injury, such a law would represent an infringement of civil rights. Moreover, where it has been introduced, it has led to a significant reduction in cycling.


The second question to address is whether, whilst not making it mandatory, cyclists should nevertheless be encouraged to wear helmets -in effect, obliged to do so by 'moral' persuasion rather than by law.

However, other than concern on the civil rights issue, the approach to helmet wearing by this means rather than by coercion through legislation would appear to be equally invalid.


This then leads to the third question concerned with alternative and effective ways of reducing the risk of accidents, and therefore of head injury, among cyclists. The primary means of reducing serious head injury among cyclists is to create an environment in which accidents are less likely to occur.

Such a strategy based on tackling the source of accidents in which cyclists are involved has far greater scope for reducing head injuries than the questionable benefits of promoting helmet wearing among cyclists.


http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/t ... illman1991

always_tyred

I'm not going to spend the time reading something (that you pointed us to), comment on it and then, because it quite clear that its a total load of crap, have you just point to something else instead.

I'll happily comment on you next statistic once you've had the courage to respond to my critique of the two pages you previously pointed me to.

I have an idea - how about we e-mail each of the people associated with that site and ask them what they really think of the content. I wonder how many of them actually know that they are being associated with it?

number9

Brixtonbiker wrote:

non-biased website, cyclehelmets.org

The website of the anti-helmet

Don't know why, but they're trying to refute the simple effectiveness of a bike helmet with shady numbers and facts

Evidence please.

Like this:





The pro-law lobby is not noted for their veracity, and they still quote research which has been utterly discredited; from the BHIT (British Helmet Initiative Trust) website

"Properly worn bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and the risk of brain injury by almost 90%, and are effective in all forms of crashes including those involving a motor vehicle.”


And nonsensical misleading statements as "Accidents are a major cause of death and disability affecting young people. Eight out of ten children in this country ride bicycles."


The American pro-helmet zealots are no less untruthful; BHSI (Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute)

"Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent. Bicycle helmets have also been shown to offer substantial protection to the forehead and mid face."


Both of these quotes refer to a report by Rivara and Thompson, which has been torn to shreds when peer-reviewed, and compared kids cycling around parks wearing helmets with their parents, with unhelmeted kids riding in city streets.

If cycle helmets are so effective, why do they need to lie about them?

always_tyred

Seriously, can't you see a flaw in your reasoning?

"Moreover, the argument in favour of helmets would have validity if there were proof that behaviour does not change in response to perceived risk.

But there is no such proof. "

Number9, go read up on Occam's Razor. You come up with a "risk compensation" postulate then deem it to be proven unless its disproven.

How about you go off and PROVE to me that electricity does not result from electrons being pushed down wires by noiseless, massless, invisible little green men. While you are at it, PROVE to me that there aren't aliens and PROVE to me that there aren't ghosts.

Yup, behaviour does indeed generally change in response to perceived risk. Thus, a cyclist perceives that cycling is risky and gets a helmet. Another cyclist perceives that it is not risky and so does not get a helmet. Explain to me in terms that a simpleton might be able to comprehend why, on this basis, the first cyclist should take more risks than the second.

"If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit."

number9

There is a wave of pro-helmet publicity happening at the moment, and while I try not to be a conspiracy theorist, I can't help noticing that the reports are not balanced, they are happy to quote people like BHIT, but it has proved impossible to get contrary views published.

All this publicity is convincing the non-cycling public that cycling must be dangerous, otherwise you wouldn't need a helmet would you?

The fact is that the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by at least twenty-to-one, and regular cyclists live longer.

Surely, if cycling were dangerous, those most exposed to it, the regular cyclists, would have a shorter life expectation, not longer?

If helmets worked, I would be the first to support their use, but when they demonstrably don't, and their only effect is to depress levels of cycling, then any law making them mandatory must be opposed, as must misleading, inaccurate publicity.

The choice of whether to wear a helmet is an individual one: if you want to wear a helmet because you feel safer, then do so, but don't tell me that I have to do so.

number9

You come up with a "risk compensation" postulate then deem it to be proven unless its disproven.


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

boybiker

I simply do not understand why there has to be this huge debate about something which most normal people find quite simple to understand, hitting your head against something solid is going to be worse without some protection than with.
Frankly I don't care if there is no evidence that a helmet is safer I am still going to wear one because I have seen them save people from serious injury.I am quite sure that if I turned up on Sunday to my road race and said I refuse to wear a helmet because there is no evidence that says that they work they would waste no time in kicking me off the start line.
I do suspect that there are much deeper issues going on with the the anti-helmet twisty brain brigade than whether to use or not use a simple safety device, whether its because they don't want to be seen as conforming to the norm or what it is but Its not as far as i can see simply about helmets.

number9

anti-helmet twisty brain brigade
I'm not anti helmet and my brain's fine thanks.

Attack the argument, not the man, please.

Brixtonbiker

Gave you evidence last time you wanted some and you did not comment on it.

Where do these facts from this website cyclinghelmets.org come from, I trying to trace them to source.
Most are abstract views, Anyone can write these figures

ohh sciencedirect......

http://info.sciencedirect.com/

who are they??? they dont like to say

always_tyred

Oddly enough, you aren't the first to point to this article.

Its interesting that he only measured the distance of passing cars to his right in the study. Why didn't he measure his mean distance from the kerb?

Earlier, didn't you say that wearing a helmet changes the way you cycle?

So here's a guy who knowingly changes what he wears in order to conduct a study that he himself has devised to test a hypothesis that he is interested in.

Are you positive that this is a robust study? I mean, one hardly has to resort to the subconscious to identify possible sources of experimental error.

When does an anecdote become data again? Personally, I'd prefer that we stick with population studies rather than rely one one guy's experience. (If I glue a BMW badge to my Escort, its still a Ford).

number9

Gave you evidence last time you wanted some and you did not comment on it.


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


When I cycle (been doing a fifteen mile commute for 12 years, cycled Cherbourg to Corfu and the Tourmalet last year) I try ti minimise risk.

There is evidence that helmets increase risk.

Simple.

always_tyred

What do you mean simple? What, the study? Yes, it was. Very.

wgwarburton

Boybiker writes:

> I simply do not understand why there has to be this huge debate about something which most normal people find quite simple to understand, hitting your head against something solid is going to be worse without some protection than with.

Because, it appears that the commonsense, obvious result is actually wrong.

> Frankly I don't care if there is no evidence that a helmet is safer I am still going to wear one because I have seen them save people from serious injury.I am quite sure that if I turned up on Sunday to my road race and said I refuse to wear a helmet because there is no evidence that says that they work they would waste no time in kicking me off the start line.

Most competition organisers require helmets. If you want to compete you must wear one. This may or may not be appropriate but has little to do with ordinary cycling on the roads.

> I do suspect that there are much deeper issues going on with the the anti-helmet twisty brain brigade than whether to use or not use a simple safety device, whether its because they don't want to be seen as conforming to the norm or what it is but Its not as far as i can see simply about helmets.

No, it's not simply about helmets. A lot of it has to do with the shift in attitude which results in a perception that they are necessary. They arn't, and in fact they may not be desireable. It's certainly not desireable that people think that they are necessary and choose not to cycle because they hold that view. This reduces the number of cyclists on the road and increases the risk for those that remain. ie you and me.
Accordingly, it's in our interests to disabuse people of the notion that helmets should be worn whilst cycling on the road.

Do you know, that's a usefully succinct summary of what bothers me about this discussion, and I'd like to thank those who've helped me to arrive at it. It would be nice if others shared this view and sought to promulgate iit but hey, that's up to them :-)

Cheers,
W.

cjw

Best summary I have seen so far that weighs up just about all of the evidence for and against is this;

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=13 From the Dft...

And in conclusion states;

Section 9: Conclusions
What relevance does the evidence reviewed have for bicycle helmet promotion in Britain?

Unwin (1996), when considering the context of the British legislative system, has put forward four criteria which must be met before bicycle helmet wearing is enforced. These criteria are:

(1) There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists.

(2) The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists.

(3) There must be widespread agreement, ideally by a large majority, that the potential benefits of compulsory bicycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits.

(4) There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain.

Unwin has also suggested that mandatory bicycle helmets for children may be justified for their own protection.

The first of these criteria has been met. There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations (Section 3). Criterion 2 is less easy to demonstrate and must relate to a broader debate about the whole bicycling environment: bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety. The experience of countries such as Australia and New Zealand suggests that this process takes time. Barriers to helmet use can be overcome (Criterion 3). An infrastructure which promotes bicycling and provision for bicycle helmet is needed (for example employers, schools providing facilities for bicycle helmet storage).

In relation to Criterion 4 there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling (for example in Victoria, Australia) but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets.

The no helmet lobby constantly state there is no evidence... There is and it is listed in the report. Simply to keep stating there is none is bollocks. But off courese... the Dft is involved in a conspiracy :roll:

Brixtonbiker

number9 wrote:

Gave you evidence last time you wanted some and you did not comment on it.


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


When I cycle (been doing a fifteen mile commute for 12 years, cycled Cherbourg to Corfu and the Tourmalet last year) I try ti minimise risk.

There is evidence that helmets increase risk.

Simple.

Loving these figures

'drivers passed an average of 3 1/3 inches closer with the helmet than without'

3 inches difference! Wow

number9

cjw wrote:

Best summary I have seen so far that weighs up just about all of the evidence for and against is this;

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=13 From the Dft...

And in conclusion states;

Section 9: Conclusions
What relevance does the evidence reviewed have for bicycle helmet promotion in Britain?

Unwin (1996), when considering the context of the British legislative system, has put forward four criteria which must be met before bicycle helmet wearing is enforced. These criteria are:

(1) There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists.

(2) The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists.

(3) There must be widespread agreement, ideally by a large majority, that the potential benefits of compulsory bicycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits.

(4) There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain.

Unwin has also suggested that mandatory bicycle helmets for children may be justified for their own protection.

The first of these criteria has been met. There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations (Section 3). Criterion 2 is less easy to demonstrate and must relate to a broader debate about the whole bicycling environment: bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety. The experience of countries such as Australia and New Zealand suggests that this process takes time. Barriers to helmet use can be overcome (Criterion 3). An infrastructure which promotes bicycling and provision for bicycle helmet is needed (for example employers, schools providing facilities for bicycle helmet storage).

In relation to Criterion 4 there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling (for example in Victoria, Australia) but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets.

The no helmet lobby constantly state there is no evidence... There is and it is listed in the report. Simply to keep stating there is none is bollocks. But off courese... the Dft is involved in a conspiracy :roll:

I've already covered Unwin's dishonesty and flawed research.

read, absorb, understand:


http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/De ... _Report_30


Quality of the review
In Section 5 the authors review the situation in Victoria, Australia, and make the following observations: "While the increased rate of helmet wearing and reduced level of bicyclist casualties noted above is impressive, it is worth noting that it is possible that some of these changes were influenced by decreases in exposure. Following the introduction of the bicycle helmet law the estimated adult bicycling exposure increased marginally..."

In fact the measured (not estimated) level of adult cycling declined by nearly 30% in the year following compulsion, and remained suppressed a decade later according to other studies. The rate of adult head injuries remained steady in the two years following compulsion while other injuries rose and head injury rates in children rose by almost 60%. Far from an endorsement of helmet compulsion, this is an indicator for extreme caution.

If I, as a well-informed amateur, am able to spot this obvious flaw, surely there is a pressing need for the report to be peer-reviewed?

This is not the first time this issue has been raised. TRL report 286 raised the possibility that a major effect of helmet promotion is to deter cycling. It is noted that this requires further investigation. The need for such investigation, regarding the fundamental issue of the probability of a crash happening in the first place, is clearly more important than measures designed to mitigate the results once a crash has happened. Will the Department undertake to commission this vital research as a matter of urgency?

number9

Brixtonbiker wrote:

number9 wrote:

Gave you evidence last time you wanted some and you did not comment on it.


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


When I cycle (been doing a fifteen mile commute for 12 years, cycled Cherbourg to Corfu and the Tourmalet last year) I try ti minimise risk.

There is evidence that helmets increase risk.

Simple.

Loving these figures

'drivers passed an average of 3 1/3 inches closer with the helmet than without'

3 inches difference! Wow

Exactly!


Glad you finally understand- cyclists have a right enshrined in law to deviate and wobble. A very slight wobble whilst being passed wearing a helmet could well be lethal.

Thanks for coming round.

boybiker

There has to be a reason why BC rules state that if you want to compete in a race then you wear a helmet which meets certain clearly defined specifications,there is no reason to think that they are there because they make racing more dangerous and the organizers like to see people getting hurt.