Any regular road riders not wear helmets?
Comments
-
Well, it looks to me from the graph that as the percentage of people wearing helmets increased, the percentage of head injuries fell.crikey wrote:Fail.
The graph shows helmet use in New Zealand, which increased to 90 odd % when it was made compulsory.
How did it affect the head injury rate?0 -
Look again.
Look at the trend for head injuries.
Look at the increase in helmet wearing.
Look at how there is no sudden drop in head injury.
Ask yourself why.
It's a complex and subtle issue, not a black and white obvious one, and it needs a bit more thought than most people give it.0 -
I don't understand the red line on the graph. What is the measure / scale? An absolute number? A percentage? Of what?0
-
The graph appears here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_he ... ew_Zealand
Which should help to clarify things.0 -
I've looked again! In 1990 it shows about 30% of the population wore helmets and there were about 60% of accidents with head injuries. In 1996 when about 90% wore helmets, there were only about 42% of accidents with head injuries. There is no sudden drop in head injuries but it shows that when less people were wearing helmets there was a higher percentage of head injuries.crikey wrote:Look again.
Look at the trend for head injuries.
Look at the increase in helmet wearing.
Look at how there is no sudden drop in head injury.
Ask yourself why.
It's a complex and subtle issue, not a black and white obvious one, and it needs a bit more thought than most people give it.0 -
So helmet wearing had no discernible effect on the head injury rate?
What happened to the number of people cycling?0 -
I'm with Crikey on this... between 94 and 96 the number of helmet wearers if anything drops a little, yet the number of head injuries keeps dropping... looks like the number of head injuries drops regardless of the helmets... other factors play in... type of bicycle used, brakes... who knows...left the forum March 20230
-
crikey wrote:http://cyclehelmets.org/0.html
A helmet saved your life? see above.
Let's make them compulsory? see above.
If they work so well, explain this graph please:
The helmet debate is both subtle and complex, the exact opposite of those who advocate compulsion.
explain the graph? sure...
it shows that over time % of helmet use is increasing, and that % head injuries is falling
the fact that it's plotting two completely different factors on the same scale is a blatant example of how deceptive graphical representations can be made
anyone presenting this graph as 'proof' of anything more than that is either an idiot or a malicious twuntmy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
anyone presenting this graph as 'proof' of anything more than that is either an idiot or a malicious twunt
Classy.
It's subtle and complex.
0 -
One way to explain the graph (if you believe helmets are effective) is that while helmet use may not have strongly affected the number of head injuries, it might still have strongly affected the severity of injuries. Head injury covers everything from extremely mild concussion at one extreme to death at the other. It could be the case that you are likely to get some sort of head injury whenever you hit your head falling off a bike, but that the severity is likely to be a lot less if you are wearing a helmet.
I fully realise that this partially contradicts my previous idea of mild head injuries not being reported.
It certainly is subtle and complex as crikey says. What is needed is for the helmet manufacturers to fund more research on helmet effectiveness instead of marketing the latest more aero / more-like-Mr-Whippy lid.0 -
What will help is for us, cyclists, to think more about the subject of safety, and not be sidetracked into an essentially futile debate about helmets.
Country with highest rates of helmet use?
Safest country for cycling?
Old data, but still instructive:
I wear a helmet more times than not, but I ride a lot, so my non-helmeted miles add up.0 -
I cant see the trees for the bushesArthur Scrimshaw wrote:That's a coincidence, I've seen trees as well.
Lapierre Aircode 300
Merida0 -
Talking about other countries - in the likes of Austria and Germany you see lots of people cycling on a daily basis not wearing helmets, but these are not the lycra-clad cyclists going as fast as they can or even commuters like you get here in the UK. These are men and women of all ages in ordinary clothes, on heavy comfortable upright city bikes, going to work, going to the shops or meet with friends, all at a relaxed pace. You rarely see these types of cyclists wearing helmets as I would say there is less risk of injury in view of the speed they generally go at, and that on the continent they have better cycling lanes and motorists are more respectful to cyclists. It's just a really good cycle-friendly culture in these countries and I can understand why they don't wear helmets.
However as I commute and ride in the UK, sometimes at speed (although I'm not that fast) I always wear a helmet. It's just part of my cycling gear, like putting on my padded shorts, my SPDs, my gloves etc. It just doesn't feel right for me not to have a helmet on.0 -
Following up on my comments on the graph - it appears to show a relationship between numbers of people cycling and reduction of deaths amongst cyclists. It also shows that helmet use has no clear relationship to number of deaths amongst cyclists given the (clearly present) confounding factors.
But:
1) Just because helmet use may be less important than other country-related factors (many of which we can't reasonably avoid) in avoiding death doesn't necessarily mean that helmet use doesn't significantly reduce the chance of death. It could just be that the other factors are swamping any affect that helmet wearing has on death rates.
2) You don't wear a helmet just to reduce the chance of death. It may be that helmets are more effective in preventing severe but non-fatal head injury than they are at preventing death.0 -
well I do wear one, though I accept the reasons arent entirely rational, and Id guess most people who cycle to my work do as well, but I still see a fair amount cycling/commuting around without, so its not the defacto cyclist accessory yet, it seems quite dependant on age ranges too.
course I wish Id been wearing it the other night in pedestrian mode when I stupidly managed to not pay enough attention to where I was going and walked straight into a lamp post :oops: as that blinkin hurt like you would not believe and left me with gruesome looking black eye, always a classy look...of course everyone immediately assumed Id fallen off my bike instead
0 -
My understanding of the empiricle data regarding wearing helmets is this:
1. There is anecdotal individual benefit to wearing a helmet (stops bumps, etc).
2. More widely, there is no demonstrated statistical benefit to wearing a helmet.
The reasons for this second point are complex and likely to do with social and psychological factors, e.g. Motorists are less careful around cyclists wearing a helmet or that people not wearing a helmet are unknowingly more careful.
I wear a helmet when I'm out on my bike, it's a good idea. I do get a bit fed up with the obsession with wearing a helmet though, particularly when discussing cyclist injury and death, when there are far more significant issues, such as cycle infrastructure and better driver bahiviour around cyclists.0 -
There is so much argument about cycle helmets because there is remarkably little evidence that they make any statistical difference to rates of serious injury. We have examples of helmets being made compulsory, and then we were able to look at the way rates of injury changed...
Helmets are a red herring when we talk about cycling safety.
The thing that really works to make cyclists safer is more cyclists, and one way of reducing the number of cyclists is to insist that they all wear helmets.
Insisting they all wear helmets suggests that cycling is a dangerous activity that needs some form of protection.
Look a bit further than the UK, look at societies where cycling is a sensible method of everyday transport, look at Denmark, look at the Netherlands, look at Belgium. High rates of cycling, low rates of helmet use.
Helmets are just polystyrene hats.0 -
"You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul0
-
If you haven't got the sense to wear a helmet, there's probably nothing in there worth protecting anyway.0
-
paul2718 wrote:I think it does follow. Consider playing with a piece of polystyrene and a hammer. The material a cycle helmet is made from is intended to absorb impact by crushing, and it does a very good job in that mode.
I think that where a helmet breaks it may be a consequence of a poor fit or loose strap, so it's definitely worth thinking about. If the inner surface of the helmet were touching the skull all over how could it snap first?
I think two layer helmets with a structural composite shell would be a significant improvement, separating the structural integrity from the impact absorption. I don't see why weight or ventilation would be an insuperable problem. Cost might be an issue, but I would pay significantly for significant head protection.
Christ. This was painful to read, being so full of both wrongness and guesswork.0 -
References please! This would make sense to me though.cyd190468 wrote:Meta-analyses of existing peer reviewed papers generally conclude that helmet wearing has a measurable effect on the level of head, and particularly brain injuries. They won't save everyone but they do save some.
Scientists argue with science all of the time.cyd190468 wrote:And you can't argue with science! 0 -
What he said.crikey wrote:There is so much argument about cycle helmets because there is remarkably little evidence that they make any statistical difference to rates of serious injury. We have examples of helmets being made compulsory, and then we were able to look at the way rates of injury changed...
Helmets are a red herring when we talk about cycling safety.
The thing that really works to make cyclists safer is more cyclists, and one way of reducing the number of cyclists is to insist that they all wear helmets.
Insisting they all wear helmets suggests that cycling is a dangerous activity that needs some form of protection.
Look a bit further than the UK, look at societies where cycling is a sensible method of everyday transport, look at Denmark, look at the Netherlands, look at Belgium. High rates of cycling, low rates of helmet use.
Helmets are just polystyrene hats.
Nicely put.0 -
If I was just pootling around town on segregated bike paths I probably wouldn't wear a helmet. Not really an option in this country though is it? Anyway, even in Belgium / Holland etc, a far higher proportion of cyclists who are travelling at any kind of speed on the open roads will wear helmets. That's just based on what I have seen so don't ask for references etc.0
-
This may be true in statistical/demographic terms (the best way to increase safety for cyclists as a group is to encourage more cyclists, and making helmets compulsory may have the opposite effect), but that's a different question from whether you, as an individual, are safer if you choose to wear a helmet or not.Roberto di Velo wrote:
What he said.crikey wrote:There is so much argument about cycle helmets because there is remarkably little evidence that they make any statistical difference to rates of serious injury. We have examples of helmets being made compulsory, and then we were able to look at the way rates of injury changed...
Helmets are a red herring when we talk about cycling safety.
The thing that really works to make cyclists safer is more cyclists, and one way of reducing the number of cyclists is to insist that they all wear helmets.
Insisting they all wear helmets suggests that cycling is a dangerous activity that needs some form of protection.
Look a bit further than the UK, look at societies where cycling is a sensible method of everyday transport, look at Denmark, look at the Netherlands, look at Belgium. High rates of cycling, low rates of helmet use.
Helmets are just polystyrene hats.
Nicely put.
This is the problem in this debate - there are certainly much more important things for cycling safety in the population as a whole than wearing helmets, which means that it's very difficult to get the data to prove any effectiveness of helmets. But given the way that cycle helmets work and the abundant anecdotal evidence that they do (which can't all be completely ignored on the grounds of lack of proof), something fairly odd would have to be going on if they didn't offer some protection.
Also bear in mind that when you are looking at statistics for cycling safety, most of the data is coming from commuting cyclists and non-expert cyclists. One of the biggest safety factors in cycling is simply experience, and the types of bad accidents you have in traffic are likely to be different from the ones you have as a road cyclist on quiet roads or in a race. It could be that the protection offered by a helmet is much more statistically significant for some types of cycling than for others.0 -
Could we not just have a vote added to the thread?
a) I never wear a helmet.
b) I sometimes wear a helmet.
c) I never wear a helmet.
The statistics would be interesting, as I am finding it hard to tell who does and doesn't.Specialized Allez Sport 20130 -
Looks like this is going into page 6...0
-
neeb wrote:
This may be true in statistical/demographic terms (the best way to increase safety for cyclists as a group is to encourage more cyclists, and making helmets compulsory may have the opposite effect), but that's a different question from whether you, as an individual, are safer if you choose to wear a helmet or not.Roberto di Velo wrote:
What he said.crikey wrote:There is so much argument about cycle helmets because there is remarkably little evidence that they make any statistical difference to rates of serious injury. We have examples of helmets being made compulsory, and then we were able to look at the way rates of injury changed...
Helmets are a red herring when we talk about cycling safety.
The thing that really works to make cyclists safer is more cyclists, and one way of reducing the number of cyclists is to insist that they all wear helmets.
Insisting they all wear helmets suggests that cycling is a dangerous activity that needs some form of protection.
Look a bit further than the UK, look at societies where cycling is a sensible method of everyday transport, look at Denmark, look at the Netherlands, look at Belgium. High rates of cycling, low rates of helmet use.
Helmets are just polystyrene hats.
Nicely put.
This is the problem in this debate - there are certainly much more important things for cycling safety in the population as a whole than wearing helmets, which means that it's very difficult to get the data to prove any effectiveness of helmets. But given the way that cycle helmets work and the abundant anecdotal evidence that they do (which can't all be completely ignored on the grounds of lack of proof), something fairly odd would have to be going on if they didn't offer some protection.
Also bear in mind that when you are looking at statistics for cycling safety, most of the data is coming from commuting cyclists and non-expert cyclists. One of the biggest safety factors in cycling is simply experience, and the types of bad accidents you have in traffic are likely to be different from the ones you have as a road cyclist on quiet roads or in a race. It could be that the protection offered by a helmet is much more statistically significant for some types of cycling than for others.
That's pretty much what I put in my post on the last page!
Because I'm a geek, I've had a bit of a look through many of the papers published on the subject. Even pro-helmet studies seem to admit that any improvement in safety as a result of wearing a helmet is pretty limited. Macpherson and Spinks 2008 study is often cited as evidence of the benefits of wearing a helmet, but it concludes:
"In summary, helmet legislation is just one of many interventions that may decrease head injuries to cyclists. It is most likely that a similar approach must be taken as that adopted for motor vehicle safety, that is a variety of countermeasures are necessary to increase overall safety."
I wear a helmet, but I wouldn't criticise people who don't, nor do I see helmet wearing as some kind of magic bullet to improve cycle safety.0 -
Mikey23 wrote:Looks like this is going into page 6...
It does indeed, wonder what odds Paddy Power are giving on this one seeing as they even let you bet on the pistorius case
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0
