"pros" in helmets

Bunneh

It's a one post person so I suspect troll, likely an alternate account for another forum member.

Let's say this did happen for the sake of argument; the police would have to stop every scally, every kid, every old fella, which I would assume have a pile of paper work to write up. Also what about those of us who are on a strict budget? If I bought a helmet I would want to buy one that would di its job, not one that would just placate the enforcers of such a law - some helmets are crap, they do about as much protecting as a shredded condom.

Would we have a cycle to work style scheme for helmets? I would buy a helmet, but I'd not be eating well for a few weeks after.

softlad

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

utter bollox - fact....

even if it was ever going to happen, legislation would not be drafted without first going through a lengthy and nationwide consultation process, and it's possible we might have heard about that.....

If you're going to be a troll, at least try to make it sound convincing.....

tarquin_foxglove

greasedscotsman wrote:

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present ...

So what would people do if this happens? Not suggesting it's going to or that it should...

I'm really not sure.

I'd resent the compulsion but eventually I guess I'd wear a helmet. I enjoy cycling too much.

greasedscotsman

Bunneh wrote:

Let's say this did happen for the sake of argument; the police would have to stop every scally, every kid, every old fella, which I would assume have a pile of paper work to write up.

So how does it work in Australia and Spain? Aren't helmets compulsory in those countries or have I got that completely wrong?

on the road

greasedscotsman wrote:

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

So what would people do if this happens?

I'd be a martyr :twisted:

notsoblue

greasedscotsman wrote:

Bunneh wrote:

Let's say this did happen for the sake of argument; the police would have to stop every scally, every kid, every old fella, which I would assume have a pile of paper work to write up.

So how does it work in Australia and Spain? Aren't helmets compulsory in those countries or have I got that completely wrong?

It works badly in Australia.... http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helme ... 10my2.html

Helmet use is a personal choice, should stay that way imo. Personally I do wear one most of the time because I like to go fast. If I was on a slower town bike I probably wouldn't bother...

amaferanga

Not that I believe there's any fear of compulsion, but anyway....

The Government should be (and probably is) looking at the cost to the NHS of treating obesity-related illness. The cost to the NHS of treating diabetes-related illness alone is an estimated £8.76 billion per year (Diabetes UK) and as I'm sure most people know, obesity is linked to Type-2 diabetes. The number of people with Type -2 diabetes is expected to double in the next 15 years (Diabetes UK). If you have Type-2 diabetes you are up to 5 times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease.

My point: the Government should be looking at how best to reduce the number of obese people in the country, not trying to legislate something that may discourage people from living a more active lifestyle.

CiB

softlad wrote:

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

utter bollox - fact....

even if it was ever going to happen, legislation would not be drafted without first going through a lengthy and nationwide consultation process, and it's possible we might have heard about that.....

If you're going to be a troll, at least try to make it sound convincing.....

I recently wrote to my MP on this very subject, and received a reply that pretty much excluded any possibility of compulsion beign introduced. Never say never, but it just ain't on the agenda.

Anyway, here's somethign that was posted duirng the same debate recently on the same subject. I like it. It's written by a bloke from NZ, where compulsion was introduced.

Bloke From NZ wrote:

Coming from New Zealand, I can speak with first-hand experience of a 100% compliance regime of helmet wearing.

It makes no difference whatsoever to the KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) rate. At all. What it did do is overnight drastically reduce the numbers of people riding, particularly among teenagers and for trips to the shops etc. Exactly the sort of trip the government needs to be promoting by bike. Weekend long rides are good for our overall health as a nation but do nothing to reduce traffic, carbon emissions or balance of payments to oil-producing nations.

But explaining 20 years of evidence with a 3M+ size statistical survey pales into nothing compared to anecdote. "My mate had a crash and his head would have been ripped clean orf if not for his £100 Giro" is much easier to sell down the pub than the evidence-based fact that KSI rates per million km cycled across 3m people did not change at all following 100% helmet uptake.

Risk transference, rotational brain injury, reduction of Safety In Numbers all have some part to play in making helmets a bad idea when viewed at a population level. Anecdote is a ***** to argue against because it's so personal.

What is absolutely not an argument is comparison with M/C helmets. MC helmets are rock-hard, so they deflect and slide on the road. Modern bike helmets are full of holes for cooling, are very soft (you can dent them with your thumb) and don't slide at all. When you hit tarmac they grip the surface and twist. Hello rotational brain / neck injury. BMX lids are hard-shell, because they don't need the cooling and thus are acceptable to riders, and therefore do a good job in a very risky sport. 20 years ago all bike helmets were like BMX lids, but consumers didn't buy them. So Bell / Giro et al lobbied to have the standards lowered to the point where 200gm of Swiss cheese foam gets an ANSI/CE mark as being 'safe'. But 'safe' means adequately decelerating a 5KG mass dropped from 2m onto a flat smooth surface. The idea that a 6' cyclist weighing 80kg going over the bars at 30MPH equates to 5kg dropped from 2m is so laughable as to be, er, laughable. THAT is why so many helmets break in very minor crashes - because the standard is a joke tailored by manufacturers to fit what consumers will spend £80 on.

I'll wear a helmet for a trip to the shops or the ride to work when I start wearing one in the shower or at the swimming pool, or in the car. That should be the rebuttal to anyone who thinks helmets on bikes are A Good Thing: straight back atcha – Do you wear one in the bath too? In a taxi? When it's a bit snowy outside? Why not eh?

People advocating helmet use based on the fact that some aspects of cycling are risky don't extend the analogy to other pursuits. Why not wear one in your car - after all, F1 racers do. Or wear a helmet while walking up Ben Nevis - after all, mountain climbers wear helmets.

Cycling encompasses a hugely varying spectrum of pursuits and participants. From world-cup DH racing to my Nan coasting to church on Sunday at 8am.

Riddle me this, helmet champions:

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

All 3 must align to justify wearing a lid. Thankfully you'd have to ride 8hrs a day, 365 days a year for around 3,000 years before statistically being likely to suffer a KSI cropper, and almost all of the time a helmet would not have stopped that HGV or TV celeb chef doing you in.

This is why in the 60's / 70's / 80's there was no epidemic of cycling deaths. Why our mums were fine with us disappearing for a day with our BMX mates. This is why when helmets became compulsory or prevalent, there was no noticeable decline in KSI.

Because CYCLING IS SAFE. Safer than being in a car. Just as if not safer than walking.




<nails colours to mast> I actually do take issue with people wearing helmets for everyday cycling. It is not harmless. It sends out a highly visible message to everyone that cycling IS dangerous - why else do you need a flipping huge, expensive helmet? That alone discourages people from cycling, or letting their children cycle. It tells motorists that they need take less care around you, because, y'know, you are wearing a helmet. You're safe. You'll be OK if something goes wrong. Because of herd mentality it means the parents who don't insist their children wear them are seen as not caring about their kids. When in fact forcing children to wear helmets is teaching them to take silly risks - they think they will be OK because mum says I need to wear my helmet to be safe.

Nothing has done cycling more harm than helmets. Governments love them because they can then abdicate responsibility to the cyclist. The media almost always report that the dead cyclist "was not wearing a helmet" - cue tut-tutting and 'he brought it on himself' from the uninformed public. The fact that he suffered other massive injuries and would have died regardless is just too hard to convey and doesn't invoke any sense of moral judgment on the reader's behalf.

The helmet manufacturers should be heartily ashamed of themselves, as should bike shops profiting from the fear-mongering used to sell them. How screwed-up is the logic of a sales person saying "Here, buy this health-benefit inducing bike, but wear this or you will die".

Gaa. Nothing annoys me more than basic science and evidence being ignored. And anyone advocating helmets as A Good Thing for day-to-day cycling ignores all the evidence to the contrary.

outofbreath2

Souds almost like he's lobbying for a change in the law to make compulsory to not wear a helmet. Now there's another option to add to the mix. See if voluntary helmet wearers get as hot under the collar when told to do something they really don't want to do.

Pross

That's a good post and I would agree with pretty much all he says up until the point where he starts trotting out the "anti's" version of 'the helmet saved my life' i.e. it encourages motorists to take less care around you. Having criticised the anecdote argument from pro helmet wearers and put together a very thoughtful response I'm surprised he then opted to justify his own personal choice with that statement for whcih I have never seen any actual evidence.

outofbreath2

Agreed.

Also I don't know why the anecdotal level of evidence is so maligned.
a) 'I've been riding all my life without and never had a problem' is anecdotal.
b) Anecdotal evidence does appear on that pyramid diagram thingy of the hierarchy of how good evidence is. OK, it's at the bottom, but you've got to start somewhere.

NB - I am aware of what evidence says that is higher up the scale regards helmets/cycling. I'm just saying.

greasedscotsman

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

All 3 must align to justify wearing a lid.

Think I would change this to...

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause injury
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

bompington

Pross wrote:

That's a good post and I would agree with pretty much all he says up until the point where he starts trotting out the "anti's" version of 'the helmet saved my life' i.e. it encourages motorists to take less care around you. Having criticised the anecdote argument from pro helmet wearers and put together a very thoughtful response I'm surprised he then opted to justify his own personal choice with that statement for whcih I have never seen any actual evidence.

+1
The Kiwi bloke certainly has a point about the lack of evidence that helmet compulsion is beneficial, and there is a strong case that it has a negative impact.
But he completely loses the plot in his rant about why wearing a helmet at all is dangerous, citing more or less plausible but completely speculative reasons that have no more evidence behind them than the compulsion case. Cyclist KSI figures in the UK are down significantly in the last 20 years or so, there is a case that this isn't down to increased helmet use but it certainly doesn't suggest that helmets cause (or worsen) accidents.

Interesting that anyone who thinks it's a good idea to wear a helmet is characterised as belonging to the "Pro-helmet brigade" - the word brigade is a nice touch with its overtones of militaristic fascism. Essentially, it's straw man time, because almost no cyclist is suggesting compulsion.

I still find it very hard to understand why helmets make people so hot under the collar. It certainly raises some very interesting points about real as opposed to perceived risk, and the things that people think can and can't be justified by "personal choice".

I'm still waiting for crash test dummy evidence to demonstrate to what extent a helmet protects from injury - until there's some quantifiable evidence on that, statements like "some people wearing helmets die from head injuries, and some people not wearing helmets die from head injuries" are essentially meaningless.

CiB

greasedscotsman wrote:

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

All 3 must align to justify wearing a lid.

Think I would change this to...

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause injury
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

You've missed the point. SHI (which I take to be Serious Head Injury) is all that helmets can prevent. Wearing a helmet won't prevent a badly scraped elbow, ergo SHI is correct in this instance.

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death by head injury, or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

fnegroni

bompington wrote:

I still find it very hard to understand why helmets make people so hot under the collar.

Can't speak for others, but for me, the reason it makes me insist against "helmet compulsion" (the act of making helmet compulsory whether thorough legislation or simple instigation), is that it brings two things to my attention:

a) That the person suggesting I should wear a helmet has the incorrect scale of risks in mind
b) that the person has obviously done no research on the subject.
c) it then makes more important matters less important to the untrained eye.


Let me explain:

Point b) means that someone who is not qualified and has no data to back up his recommendation, is judging me or imposing his/her opinion on me or my children and that is in itself a problem. It is the easist issue to deal with, but obviously means lots of potential cyclists out there have been misinformed, and it angers me.

Point a) highlights that the person has not taken into account the myriad of factors that influence risk when cycling (location, speed, awareness, positioning, the list is quite long) and which involve 'active' safety rather than passive safety. This advice also usually (in my case at least) come from cyclists and non-cyclists who cover far fewer miles than me, in locations far less risky than mines, and who have never even taken it upon themselves to educate themselves about safe cycling, relying instead on marketing pamphlets from helmet making companies.
Nothing against helmet making companies, at least the ones like MET who really put thought into their helmet: they have a product to sell.

Point c) is the most interesting though: in the public eye, making helmets compulsory is seen as a way to make cycling safer, when in fact is not even a risk mitigator: it is an injury lessener, and a limited one at that.
The helmet brigade (for lack of a better term) see head injuries as 'inevitable', when in fact they are avoidable given proper training.
It is as if some people are more concerned with the medical bill than with the fact that proper training costs money and/or time, but should be available in order to really make a difference.

I wear a helmet, but making it compulsory is what I really am against: it is just a way to sweep the real issue under the carpet, which is that some cyclists put themselves in danger, and some drivers put cyclists in danger, and that could be avoided.

CiB

fnegroni wrote:

An excellent precis.

Wish I was as succint and articulate.

I dislike helmets intensely, just because I get fed up with well-meaning friends etc treating me like some kind of nutcase for not wearing one. I'm in the 'been riding for 40 years & more, had plenty of accidents but never a SHI (at least not one that a helmet would have stopped)" school. Also happens that I grew up not wearing one, and also not wearing seat belts. It's still a concious decision to put a SB on, FWIW.

When the evidence on helmet wearing is ropey to day the least, and pretty much all of my miles are done on roads where there is little traffic, the roads are in good nick and the existence of street furniture & kerb stones etc is virtually nil, I reckon on a risk assesment / perception balance I don't need one.

Being lectured by non-cyclists, 10 year olds who know that cycling is dangerous, and officious bossy types on internet forums only serves to turn me against the idea even further.

outofbreath2

[quote="fnegroni
Can't speak for others, but for me, the reason it makes me insist against "helmet compulsion" (the act of making helmet compulsory whether thorough legislation or simple instigation), is that it brings THREE things to my attention:

a) That the person suggesting I should wear a helmet has the incorrect scale of risks in mind
b) that the person has obviously done no research on the subject.
c) it then makes more important matters less important to the untrained eye.
[/quote]
FTFY

Pertaining to points a and b from a legislation standpoint.
Is legislation really implemented by people totally ignorant, devoid of facts, research and experience. And I'm sure the shouts at pc screens throughout the land is a resounding YES to that one - and I take your point.

Let's assume, just fleetingly, that there's a sensible person in charge. I mean it's not just the Minister for XYZ who's got the job until the next reshuffle that just ticks off jobs from the 'laws to be passed today' list.

Does the fact that there is no legislation regarding helment wearing indicate that there is someone who wants to see some evidence first.

greasedscotsman

CiB wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

All 3 must align to justify wearing a lid.

Think I would change this to...

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause injury
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

You've missed the point. SHI (which I take to be Serious Head Injury) is all that helmets can prevent. Wearing a helmet won't prevent a badly scraped elbow, ergo SHI is correct in this instance.

a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death by head injury, or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference

Oops, what I mean to say was...

b) That accident being likely to cause head injury

What I'm getting at is I don't see why it just has to prevent death or serious head injury to be considered useful. I'd rather avoid any head injury if I can. OK, I could dress like a downhill mountain biker in a full armour suit or maybe like a motorcyclist in full face helmet and leathers, but it's not going to be great to ride in. There is a risk in anything you do, you can't prevent every accident, but a helmet does interfere in me riding a bike, seems perfectly normal to me, so I'll wear one on the chance that it "might" help me someday.

cougie

By that logic - you should wear a helmet round the house and out walking, and also banging my head on low branches out running.

I've banged my head many times round the house but nobody suggests that helmets are essential there ?

Bunneh

Yeah but Cougie, where there's no sense

/hug

sub55

i stopped reading this thread on page 3.
so if someone can tell me what the conclusion is , i`d be most greatful.

greasedscotsman

cougie wrote:

By that logic - you should wear a helmet round the house and out walking, and also banging my head on low branches out running.

I've banged my head many times round the house but nobody suggests that helmets are essential there ?

Who says logic has got anything to do with it

Anyway, I'd rather not make my decision on helmet use based on statistics. As most cycle crashes and injuries go unreported, I don't see how anyone can state that cycling is more dangerous than walking or running. I've come off my bike several times and I didn't report it as none of my injuries were very serious.

Think it comes back to anecdotes and I know people don't like them, but it does it for me. I've seen people come off their bikes with and without helmets and I know given the choice which I'd rather do. Haven't seen too many people falling over whilst walking, but I'll keep an eye out for it now

But what does concern me is after reading up on this a bit, I didn't realise that testing standards have been lowered over the years. I think this was touched upon in a previous post here where the Snell standard was mentioned. Looks like a helmet from the early 90's meets a hgher standard than one avaliable today. Have to be honest, I didn't know that. Maybe time to look at a Specialized.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

itchieritchie

i stopped reading this thread on page 3.
so if someone can tell me what the conclusion is , i`d be most greatful (sic).


+1 to that sub55

fnegroni

greasedscotsman wrote:

Think it comes back to anecdotes and I know people don't like them, but it does it for me. I've seen people come off their bikes with and without helmets and I know given the choice which I'd rather do. Haven't seen too many people falling over whilst walking, but I'll keep an eye out for it now

Quite right: statistics do not prove anything, they are just evidence, sometimes very limited.

In the news a few months ago, the story of a child who fell from his bike near some road works and a metal pipe went straight through his eye... makes me want to wear a full motorbike helmet? no, it makes me want to go to the f'ing idiot who left that pipe there and break *his* head instead!

But what does concern me is after reading up on this a bit, I didn't realise that testing standards have been lowered over the years. I think this was touched upon in a previous post here where the Snell standard was mentioned. Looks like a helmet from the early 90's meets a hgher standard than one avaliable today. Have to be honest, I didn't know that. Maybe time to look at a Specialized.

The standards had to be lowered due to the requirement for lighter and more vented helmets.
After all, all the Pro's have to wear them now, and somehow I don't think they would like to wear something that makes them faint on a climb...

Incidentally, HCS (head contact surface), a factor which is higher in safer helmets, is lower in top of the range helmets, to help CF (cooling factor).

So essentially the more you spend on a helmet the less protection you get... go figure!

Cunobelin

Pross wrote:

That's a good post and I would agree with pretty much all he says up until the point where he starts trotting out the "anti's" version of 'the helmet saved my life' i.e. it encourages motorists to take less care around you. Having criticised the anecdote argument from pro helmet wearers and put together a very thoughtful response I'm surprised he then opted to justify his own personal choice with that statement for whcih I have never seen any actual evidence.

Supported by evidence though!

There are two studies, one that shows drivers will drive closer to helmeted cyclists and the second that showed drivers considered helmeted cyclists were more experienced therefore you did not need to slow down or allow extra space when overtaking.

Cunobelin

greasedscotsman wrote:

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

So what would people do if this happens? Not suggesting it's going to or that it should, but a question to those who don't currently wear helmets for whatever reason, would you start to wear one, run the risk of not wearing one and be fined or just stop riding?

Evidence is the latter... In New Zealand secondary school children showed a 91% decrease in cycling when compulsory helmets were introduced!

outofbreath2

[quote="Cunobelin
There are two studies, one that shows drivers will drive closer to helmeted cyclists and the second that showed drivers considered helmeted cyclists were more experienced therefore you did not need to slow down or allow extra space when overtaking.[/quote]

You'd think it would be other way round wouldn't you...that helmeted cycles were perceived to be less experienced.

The results of those type of study are just bizarre aren't they :? Ride close to the kerb or in a cycle lane and wear a helmet and you might as well just shoot yourself.

cougie

Anyone remember the snow we had this year - there were people falling on their bums on almost every street corner. Very entertaining - but none of them was wearing a SNELL approved helmet. V remiss of them. I didnt see any cyclists falling over though - far too slippy for any to be out.

freddiegrubb

:oops: Possibly to finish the discussion!!! Once upon a time I knew 3 cyclists, ( and many more ) , these 3 all died of head injuries in differant accidents. Now my daughter was giving me stick about not wearing a helmet, she's an ICU. nurse & was nursing 2 cyclists with head injuries. I visited the doctor & casually asked him "how thick is your skull"? he answered "it's not the thickness that counts it's the quality of the bone" . Needless to say I now wear a helmet, times have changed & I've seen enough of life to know that you don't bounce when you hit the deck, you may like to think you do. End of !!!!!!!!!!

on the road

sub55 wrote:

i stopped reading this thread on page 3.
so if someone can tell me what the conclusion is , i`d be most greatful.

You'll be lucky

It's a bit like searching for the holy grail