Oi! Look! Important stuff ----->

_Brun_

Blacktemplar wrote:

Oh and I came across an interesting factoid that says that approved helmets only resist impact up to 23kph (14mph) - surely a speed we all exceed daily contained in the attached link;
http://www.fiab-onlus.it/andare/helm_gb.doc

Impact speed has nothing to do with how fast you're moving.

jonny_trousers

It's a tough one. I too believe in freedom of choice, but only to a point. I just about remember when compulsory seatbelt wearing came in for cars and there were plenty of people up in arms about that. I'm sure they too used the 'what if I just want to pop down the shops' argument.

I've also read plenty of articles suggesting there are statistically no more cycling fatalities in countries who do not insist on cyclists wearing helmets as there are in those that do. But I don't really care about statistics. All I know is that if I get knocked off my bike and the back of my head hits the edge of a curb, I hope I'm wearing a helmet.

Also, if ever I am the father of a teenage girl, I will far rather she doesn't cycle at all than ride among traffic without a helmet. People are bound to think helmets look dorky for a while, but if everyone wore them then we'd soon stop caring.

Finally, there are many here who like to bang on about us setting a good example among motorists. I have to say, I've heard 'And he wasn't even wearing a helmet!' just as many times as I've heard the all-cyclists-RLJ rant.

Believe it or not I'm actually not that bothered what each cyclist chooses to wear, and I think the money spent on implementing such a law could be way better spent elsewhere, but I do think helmets are a good idea and should be encouraged among those whoo ride on even semi-urban roads.

wgwarburton

Hi,
@ Jonny_trousers

Can I ask if you've read any of the linked material on the OP's post? Your contribution appears to contain a number of misconceptions, innaccuracies and non-sequiters which suggest that you may not have a full understanding of the subject.

I would invite you to do further research on the subject, as your posting does not appear to be well-informed and IMHO, that weakens your position.

I particular, "I don't really care about statistics"- how would you propose to analyse the effectiveness of a safety measure without using statistical methods?

Cheers,
W.

CiB

JT - fair points and you're fully entitled to them. I'd suggest you spend a bit of time looking through the various links on the References page on the Wrongheaded site. Granted they have an anti slant, but so will the pro helmet wearers. What really leaps out is how compulsion has no positive effects on cycling at population level, that trends continued pretty much interrupted when laws were introduced, and that helmets don't actually have much affect at all on overall numbers. Obviously individual anecdotes can and will show anything, but it's at population level that the effects need to be investigated. From what I read last night on those referenced links and a few others, there's no indication that compulsory helmet wearing makes a positive difference to a nation's health; often the contrary is true.

The beauty of not having compulsion is that you can still choose to wear one anyway, and if / when you are the parent of a teenage girl you can inists that she does, even if it only stays on until she's out of your sight. But when you have teenage chilldren, that will be the norm.

notsoblue

Not sure if this has been posted before but I spotted it over at LFGSS and its pretty interesting.
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/91 ... e-andersen

jonginge

notsoblue wrote:

Not sure if this has been posted before but I spotted it over at LFGSS and its pretty interesting.
http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/91 ... e-andersen

Cheers, NSB. Interesting stuff

rolf_f

WGWarburton wrote:

Your contribution appears to contain a number of misconceptions, innaccuracies and non-sequiters which suggest that you may not have a full understanding of the subject.

I can't see anything he's said that you couldn't be equally accused of. Even the comment about stats isn't unreasonable given that they are almost invariable incorrectly interpreted in the press. I'd only believe the original papers they came from.

What you need is an unbiased sample set; any collation of papers that is biased is not going to give the reader the ability to make up their own mind on a scientific basis. Take Wrongheaded for example; at the top of their list of references is this statement "This is the dry bit where the claims that are made by Wrongheaded are documented".

In other words, they freely admit that their collation of scientific papers is biased (and therefore is incomplete and of limited scientific value). Anyone using sites like that should ackowledge be aware that they will not get an unbiased understanding of a complex issue but simply reinforce their own predjudices.

wgwarburton

Rolf F wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Your contribution appears to contain a number of misconceptions, innaccuracies and non-sequiters which suggest that you may not have a full understanding of the subject.

I can't see anything he's said that you couldn't be equally accused of. Even the comment about stats isn't unreasonable given that they are almost invariable incorrectly interpreted in the press. I'd only believe the original papers they came from.

I'm disappointed. I can see the non-sequiters, as I do try to include a bit of levity in my posts... Would you mind clarifying what I've said on this that's inaccurate or a misconception?

Cheers,
W.

jonny_trousers

I did click on the OP's link, but I guess I must have been misdirected as I found very little information there. I'll go take another look.

Like I say, I'm really not that fussed one way or another, but I do think helmet use - just like I think bright, reflective clothing use - is a good idea and while I don't particularly support a law to make either mandatory, neither do I feel the need to resist one.

rolf_f

WGWarburton wrote:

I'm disappointed. I can see the non-sequiters, as I do try to include a bit of levity in my posts... Would you mind clarifying what I've said on this that's inaccurate or a misconception?

Cheers,
W.

Simplest one would be that an absence of proof of a theory means that by definition the theory is wrong. Helmets can save lives - that is a fact - so wearing one isn't just a matter of faith. Whether overall you are safer with or without a lid is not exactly the same issue and much can depend on very specific aspects of a riders route etc.

I freely admit to not having read the papers; given a presumed absence of conclusive proof either way the fact that I don't even notice my lid when I'm wearing it makes it pretty pointless for me to leave it at home.

I am in any case sceptical of any internet based opinion of interpreted of scientific data. You'd never believe that there was a scientific concensus that man made global warming is occuring by reading the internet.

notsoblue

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I did click on the OP's link, but I guess I must have been misdirected as I found very little information there. I'll go take another look.

Like I say, I'm really not that fussed one way or another, but I do think helmet use - just like I think bright, reflective clothing use - is a good idea and while I don't particularly support a law to make either mandatory, neither do I feel the need to resist one.

There are two reasons why I signed the petition:

1) It reinforces the perception that cycling is a *particularly* dangerous activity that requires safety gear. As opposed to walking and driving which don't, but have higher or equivalent rates of death/injury.
2) Wearing a helmet isn't going to help with the type of accident that appears to be the cause of most cycling fatalities in London.

1 feeds back into 2, as it would mean a) Less cyclists on the road therefore more chance of not being noticed and increased risk of SMIDSY accidents and b) Other road users are less careful around you if they're already of the opinion that you're partaking in needlessly risky behaviour.

jonny_trousers

WGWarburton wrote:

Your contribution appears to contain a number of misconceptions, innaccuracies and non-sequiters which suggest that you may not have a full understanding of the subject.

My post is entirely opinion. You will have to be more specific about my misconceptions, inaccuracies and non sequiturs if you would like me to address them, but like I say, I speak with absolutely no authority on the matter so it might well be a waste of both of our times.

notsoblue

Rolf F wrote:

Simplest one would be that an absence of proof of a theory means that by definition the theory is wrong. Helmets can save lives - that is a fact - so wearing one isn't just a matter of faith. Whether overall you are safer with or without a lid is not exactly the same issue and much can depend on very specific aspects of a riders route etc.

Cyclists will reduce their chance of injury while wearing a helmet, but then so would pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and motorists.

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

Cyclists will reduce their chance of injury while wearing a helmet, but then so would pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and motorists.

So am I right in thinking you do not support the law that states motorcyclists must wear helmets?

CiB

notsoblue wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Simplest one would be that an absence of proof of a theory means that by definition the theory is wrong. Helmets can save lives - that is a fact - so wearing one isn't just a matter of faith. Whether overall you are safer with or without a lid is not exactly the same issue and much can depend on very specific aspects of a riders route etc.

Cyclists will reduce their chance of injury while wearing a helmet, but then so would pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and motorists.

And this is it, in a nutshell. Helmet wearing could potentially improve the safety of lot of diiferent 'groups' of people. It could; it might not and it doesn't take much looking to find vast numbers of what appear to be well-qualified people who are prepared to stand up and say helmets don't necessairly cure this non-existent problem of cycling-related head injuries, at population level at least.

So why make it a legal requirement to wear safety equipment for just one group, when the effect of that law be can easily shown have as many negative effects as positive ones, and why not extend compulsion to cover all vullnerable groups? Why pick on one group doing something that's just as safe as walking or driving, and not enforce safety equipment on those groups too?

So we keep coming back to this simple premise. The opposite of compulsion is not a ban. It's a choice that each individual makes in response to a set of circumstances. That's what really bugs me, London commuters who always wear one so therefore feel obliged to insist that I too should wear one - ideally under threat of criminal sanction for not doing so - for ambling along country roads with as close to zero traffic as is reasonable to achieve.

I have to say it. Pffffft.

John Stevenson

Rolf F wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Helmets can save lives - that is a fact

Well sure - anything can do anything.

Bricks can float - in a vat of mercury.

Politicians can tell the truth - usually after they've been caught fiddling their expenses or done for perjury.

Whether helmets actually do save lives is not proven, but there are reasons for skepticism.

The death rate among UK cyclists hasn't declined significantly over the last 20 years despite far more widespread use of helmets. After Australia mandated helmet use the death rates for both cyclists and pedestrians declined by the same amount because of a raft of other measures introduced at the same time (most importantly, random breath testing) - there was no discernible extra benefit to cyclists from helmet use.

jonny_trousers

John Stevenson wrote:

After Australia mandated helmet use the death rates for both cyclists and pedestrians declined by the same amount because of a raft of other measures introduced at the same time (most importantly, random breath testing) - there was no discernible extra benefit to cyclists from helmet use.

An excellent example of why it is dangerous to take statistics at face value.

One thing I do know, however, is that if I was to bang my head against a brick wall with a cycle helmet on it would hurt a hell of a lot less than if I didn't wear one.

That said, I also suspect, from reading an article or two on the subject, that we've accepted the present cycle helmet design far too quickly and that there may well be much better alternatives to be explored.

rolf_f

Dammit, a ban on no helmets just wouldn't be British!

Still, we don't help ourselves. Arguments like 'cycling is no more dangerous than being a pedestrian' make no logical sense. Even if they made statistical sense (I'll eat my lid if that can be proven ) deep down surely we know the truth? We are the ones posting Smidsy threads, threads on 'Are crashes inevitable' etc. My own statistically irrelevant experience is that in my adult life, my only significant physical injuries have been a cracked rib from go karting and an unhappy elbow from a very low speed cycle fall. Despite having spent far more of my life walking, I've never injured myself doing it and I am quite sure a far higher proportion of peds than cyclists could say that. But all you need is some disingenuous stats that relates incidents to distance travelled and the risk rate for the cyclist plummets.

Yes, we are more likely to get a head injury than a pedestrian - and the increased likelihood of that head injury may or may not make wearing a helmet an obvious precaution. The worthwhile point though should be that that overall risk is sufficiently low as not to justify the compulsion.

It's worth considering that a far more effective safety measure than wearing helmets would be to never cycle over 10mph. If the politicians really think that cycle death rates need to be reduced, they'd make big gears illegal.........

Crapaud

Rolf F wrote:

... The worthwhile point though should be that that overall risk is sufficiently low as not to justify the compulsion. ...

This, for me, is the salient point; the risk of head injury is so low that a MHL is pointless. If the risk of serious injury or death from a blow to the noggin, while cycling, is sufficiently high that either most folk would wear a lid or simply not cycle.

In all the years that I've been following cycling on various forums from around the world, I can't recall reading any incidents where an impact on the bonce has had a lasting, serious effect, never mnd causing the cyclist's death. While it's probably happened, the incidence is vanishingly small.

Blacktemplar

_Brun_ wrote:

Blacktemplar wrote:

Oh and I came across an interesting factoid that says that approved helmets only resist impact up to 23kph (14mph) - surely a speed we all exceed daily contained in the attached link;
http://www.fiab-onlus.it/andare/helm_gb.doc

Impact speed has nothing to do with how fast you're moving.

I know, but there's the little matter of "conservation of momentum"

Kieran_Burns

Blacktemplar wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

Blacktemplar wrote:

Oh and I came across an interesting factoid that says that approved helmets only resist impact up to 23kph (14mph) - surely a speed we all exceed daily contained in the attached link;
http://www.fiab-onlus.it/andare/helm_gb.doc

Impact speed has nothing to do with how fast you're moving.

I know, but there's the little matter of "conservation of momentum"

Yeah, but I can't be bothered with that


(did you see what I did there?)

CiB

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

One thing I do know, however, is that if I was to bang my head against a brick wall with a cycle helmet on it would hurt a hell of a lot less than if I didn't wear one.

Maybe, but do you want a law that forces you to wear a helmet in case you do bang your head against a brick wall? That's the issue.

wgwarburton

CiB wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

One thing I do know, however, is that if I was to bang my head against a brick wall with a cycle helmet on it would hurt a hell of a lot less than if I didn't wear one.

Maybe, but do you want a law that forces you to wear a helmet in case you do bang your head against a brick wall? That's the issue.

Surely the issue is whether he wants a law that forces us to wear helmets in case we bang our heads against a brick wall...

Cheers,
W.

ride_whenever

CiB wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

One thing I do know, however, is that if I was to bang my head against a brick wall with a cycle helmet on it would hurt a hell of a lot less than if I didn't wear one.

Maybe, but do you want a law that forces you to wear a helmet in case you do bang your head against a brick wall? That's the issue.

I think this is the critical point here, it is actually irrelevant as to the precise nature of how effective helmets are. They are certainly not wonderful super-forcefield style devices, but they are equally not entirely pointless (head vs. wall arguement) given that they're not 100% effective should they me compulsed (is this a word, somehow i think not but nevermind)?

Seatbelts on the other hand are exceeedingly effective in collisions, and helmets for motorbikers. I'd conjecture that those compulsory safety devices lie far closer to the 100% effective point than bicycle helmets in RTC's and therein lies the issue with compulsion.

fizz

I'm a firm believer in choice. I choose to wear a helmet. I would wear one whether it was compulsory to, or I was left the option of making my own mind up.

Yesterday a car turned right across my path, I hit the front wing of the car and was thrown into the air enough that I cleared the bonnet of the car and landed upside down on the top of my head. The first bit of me that hit the ground was my helmet. Which is now flat on the top and split into 4 pieces, when I say split I mean it, the helmet is deformed and you can see daylight in the gaps.

I walked away from that accident, with a few cuts, some bruises and an almight headache. I wander what the outcome would have been if I hadnt have had a helmet on.

I'm sure that many of you can find circumstances where a helmet wouldnt make much difference, so I thought I would post my experience to maybe add some balance to that.

With no helmet on the first bit of me that would have hit the road would have been my skull and I dont fancy the thought of that being cracked in the way my helmet now is.

I still think its down to individuals to make that choice to wear one or not though.

jonny_trousers

I don't particularly want a law to insist cyclists wear helmets, no. I just don't like this, if they pass this law then just think what they'll do next time, argument, I cannot believe that cycle helmets have not played their part in reducing serious injury in cycle related accidents (no matter what statistics might show), and I think anyone who cycles in and among traffic is nuts if they don't wear one. I therefore feel uncomfortable signing the petition.

Clever Pun

Mr Plum wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Signed.

...sealed, delivered, I'm yours!

*pukesinmouth*

signed

John Stevenson

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I cannot believe that cycle helmets have not played their part in reducing serious injury in cycle related accidents (no matter what statistics might show)

The problem with that position is that you can use it to justify anything. It's like government policy on drugs - ministers believe some drugs are harmful no matter what the evidence says, and so we have the current batshit insane situation where a couple of quite harmful drugs are perfectly legal, but ones demonstrated to do less harm are banned.

My personal suspicion is that helmets probably reduce concussion in low-speed collisions - they'll save you a trip to ER if you fall off at 10mph with no other vehicles involved. But I have now seen enough crashes where the rider was wearing a helmet and still sustained serious injuries to put no more faith in them than that.

wgwarburton

fizz wrote:

....Yesterday a car turned right across my path, I hit the front wing of the car and was thrown into the air enough that I cleared the bonnet of the car and landed upside down on the top of my head. The first bit of me that hit the ground was my helmet. Which is now flat on the top and split into 4 pieces, when I say split I mean it, the helmet is deformed and you can see daylight in the gaps.

I walked away from that accident, with a few cuts, some bruises and an almight headache. I wander what the outcome would have been if I hadnt have had a helmet on.

From my experience in similar situations the probability is that you would not have suffered any damage at all to your head, which you would have instinctively protected.

Usual caveats apply, sample size is one, anecdotal evidence etc... Effectively meaningless commentry.

I'm sure that many of you can find circumstances where a helmet wouldnt make much difference, so I thought I would post my experience to maybe add some balance to that.

On the contrary, it's very easy to find people who believe that "A helmet saved my life!". The problem is that if this were true it would have mitigated a flood of serious head injuries from the days before widespread helmet use. That flood was never present.

With no helmet on the first bit of me that would have hit the road would have been my skull and I dont fancy the thought of that being cracked in the way my helmet now is.

Indeed. However you may be underestimating your ability to miss the ground (which may be compromised by having a larger, heavier head due to the helmet) and the strength of your skull.

I still think its down to individuals to make that choice to wear one or not though.

Which is where we came in. Let's preserve that freedom of choice.

Cheers,
W.

fizz

I'm not so sure. Like I said I landed upside down on my head. Despite putting my hands out, they didnt touch down. I can liken it to doing a headstand in the road. the two witness' to the accident have confirmed that I flew through the air. One witness reckons I cleared the roof of the car. My Garmin shows a distinct rise in elevation at the point of impact with the car when I look back at the elevation graph.

This is what my helmet looks like now.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/DSC_0196-1.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/DSC_0197.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/DSC_0198.jpg

Now personally I'd rather my helmet cracked like that than my skull did. I dont know how thick a human skull is. But I would wager that the helmet is thicker and also the foam is designed to absorb and deflect an impact like that whereas one's skull is not.

I wont claim that it saved my life. I shall quote what the Dr told me when he examined me. "Your helmet has prevented you from suffering a serious head injury"

Of course I'm sure all what I have written will be dismissed by those of you who dont wear or dont want to wear a helmet. You can always find statistics and articles to backup claims or statements on any point that you wish to. All I am saying is that based on my own experience there are circumstances where a helmet can help you.

Its personal choice at the end of the day. I'm glad I was wearing my helmet. So is my girlfriend, so are my family and friends.