I saw a great child crocodile when I was cycling home this week. Primary school kids had harnesses on with dog lead clips. The clips were attached to a long plastic beam with 4 kids per side. It looked like something out of Spartacus.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
THE Helmet Thread
(895 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
@wingpig ta :-)
@weefolding bike eh? are you replying to me? If so, what are you on about? Never mentioned experiments. Never mentioned decrease in miles.Never mentioned any colour or species of fish.
"I said compulsion correlates with increased injury. Do you accept that it does or do you want to dispute that? Have you an explanation for the correlation?"
I'm not disputing that nor accepting it. Its something you have drawn from statistics you clearly trust and thats fine.
For everyday things I tend to go with my gut instinct and my version of common sense than statistics when trying to mitigate risk.
Some activities carry risk, things that mitigate risk are good IMHO, particularly when the participants are kids.
I don't think you replied to my previous question. Do you believe wearing a helmet puts young cyclists at a greater risk of injury than not wearing one?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Bald,
The same drop in miles cycled is found where ever and whenever helmets are made compulsory. In Australia it was 1990 and the drop was 25-30% depending on who counted. Even I know there were no X Boxes in 1990. We had Pong but I didn't play it then either.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Cycle miles in the UK dropped from 4Bn to 2.5Bn miles between 1984 and 2000. I don't recall any helmet legislation here, must have been another reason?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Bikeability,
Check a reply from 1 hr ago.
Increased rate of injury is correlated with helmet compulsion so yes I don't see wearing a helmet as a zero risk option it's worse than not wearing one.
Gut instinct doesn't seem like a logical approach if there is an alternative.
Were you not aware of the decrease in miles cycled when helmets are made mandatory? Is this new and refreshing fruit as far as you are concerned? Not disputing or accepting seems an odd position to take. Would you consider using something like Google to find out more about it?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Bald,
That's over 16 years.
Do you dispute a correlation with helmet compulsion and decrease in miles cycled?
Posted 11 years ago # -
By 2011 it had increased to 3.1 billion miles. Must have been another reason…
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes, and no.
It is not the reason kids have stopped cycling.
If you look at the data from Australia (on cyclehelmets), it drops sharply over a short period, but over the longer term it normalises again. Go find data for Australia now, rates are above those before compulsion.
This seems like a fairly normal (and expected by Govt) reaction to something that isn't popular. You implement, you know people will object, but over the longer term people will forget, and it will eventually become normal behaviour.
This isn't an argument for or against, just what happens. The same sort of pattern might occur for say implementing congestion charging in Edinburgh. People will object, stop coming, and in 20 years the change will be normal.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And again Bald I didn't start with that as a major thing. I don't see evidence that they work but there is an increased rate of injury.
Yes and no is cheating a bit but you do accept that compulsion caused a drop. How about the bike hire scheme?
And you have missed a bit of information on the Australia thing. Yes the number of people cycling increased by just over 20% from '85 to '11 but the population increased by 43%.
Posted 11 years ago # -
do accept that compulsion caused a drop
In adults, yes, for the reasons I mentioned above:
Implement something unpopular > initial revolt > medium term acceptance > long term seen as normal behaviour.Incidentally I'm agnostic about compulsion here. I accept helmets don't have much impact against serious injury, but for the job they are designed to do, protect against slow lower impact falling off potential injuries they do that well. And actually, you are more likely to have that type of incident than one the helmet will not protect against.
Posted 11 years ago # -
They are designed to deal with a threat which evolution has already equipped you to cope with.
If anecdotes are to be believed they also seem to make people much more prone to this kind of non threatening incident. If I had a penny for every time I read about someone falling off their bike and having their life saved by their hat I'd have already ordered a new SON-XS hub. The last time I had any ground-head contact was 1996 and you would never guess what I was wearing at the time… but that's just an anecdote.
They introduce a whole different kind of threat and result in higher rates of serous injury.
And yes, I saw what you did with that impact thing.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@weefoldingbike that wasn't the question i asked. I asked a question in relation to helmet wearing, not helmet compulsion.
I don't think my position is odd at all, I just don't trust peoples interpretation of stats at face value.
gov'ts make helmets compulsory, miles cycled goes down. Thats interesting and worth looking at. To say one is the direct result of the other without any corroborating evidence however....
As for helmets making the risk of injury greater, I love to see that evidence because frankly, I find it dificult to believe that is the case.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And which bit of
I don't see wearing a helmet as a zero risk option it's worse than not wearing one.
means that I don't think helmets are a bad thing?
If you don't trust other people's interpretation then present your own but that's different from gut feeling which was what you put forward earlier. Do you have an interpretation which contradicts anything I've said?
Miles cycled goes down when governments make helmets mandatory. There, I said it again and its easy to find the numbers.
Can you tell me what kind of corroborating evidence you would want to support that? I'd be interested in the detail of what you would accept because at the moment it looks like you're sticking your metaphorical fingers in your ears and shouting no, no, it can't be true.
What you find difficult to believe is neither here nor there. That is argument from personal incredulity. A hundred years ago people would have found what we are doing now hard to believe and yet it happens.
I can't do this all for you. You have to put in a little effort by yourself. Here is a gentle start for you. It's a CTC paper. If you'd love to see some evidence then step up to the plate and have a read.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf
Posted 11 years ago # -
So the conclusion of that paper is that:
"
From the evidence available, it is possible that helmets might perhaps provide some limited protection in the event of certain types of impact occurring (e.g. minor falls).
"Ie what they are designed for. They won't save you from death (in most cases), but fall off and smack your head against a tree, some benefit. Exactly the sort of accident a child might have.
"
What is clear is that enforced helmet legislation would suppress cycle use, and that the lost health benefits alone would be a serious net cost to society.
"As I mentioned above, and I'm not arguing for or against, what is less clear is the long term effect after 'normalisation'. Govt's who have decided to implement compulsion will likely have taken this effect into account in their decision making and decided that the short term fall, is worth any minimal long term overall gain (perceived or not).
Posted 11 years ago # -
And those are also incidents which you have evolved to deal with. They are low risk events.
There doesn't appear to be a long term gain. Even if some minimal benefit is assumed the overall drop in cycling swamps it.
For most people plastic cycling hats already are normalized which why the assumpttions must be challenged.
Posted 11 years ago # -
When people include two conditionals in their conclusions you have to see that even they know they're on shaky ground. "might perhaps provide some limited protection" is the most qualified statement of benefit I've ever seen. Would you buy a used car that might perhaps provide you with some limited protection in the event of accident? Short of desperation, would you take a drug that might perhaps offer some limited benefit?
Still, if you read stuff on cyclehelmets.org it's well worth going back to the sources to see how they systematically manipulate the data they cite.
I don't wear a helmet and I don't make my kids wear a helmet (although they do own them to wear if they choose to) but cyclehelmets.org is an embarrassment of dishonesty. It's an object lesson in why you should reflexively distrust other people's interpretation of statistics.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Although I promised to never get drawn in to this again... It's worth noting there was a drop in cycle miles in the UK during the time that compulsion was introduced in the antipodes. Make of that what you will.
Source dft statistics.
Posted 11 years ago # -
In my experience, Bikeability has increased the number of kids cycling whilst at school and the number of kids cycling to school.
Helmets are compulsory for bikeability. Bikeability is not compulsory to partake in.
Compulsory helmet wearing, yet increased participation in cycling!
BTW is this just a cycling thing? Are kids doing rock climbing, kayaking, roller skating and skateboarding more likely to be hurt if they wear helmets too? Are motorcyclists safer if they don't wear helmets? What about policeman or soldiers? Wouldn't it be strange if cycling was the only activity/profession where helmet wearing increased your risk of injury?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Of the same magnitude? Elsewhere in the world? How about when other MHLs were introduced?
Tyres blown up on Pashley and Longstaff. Batteries in Pashley back light replaced. Brakes and transmission working on both. That sort of thing impinges on safety. Polystyrene foam on the other hand…
Also mended the relay by pass bodge for the memsahib''s car. I might get time to wash the salt off the Brompton M6L.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ability,
So you have moved to something else. Are you telling me that letting kids ride their bike during the school day increases the number of kids who bring their bike to school? I heard that miles cycled was a red herring…
Did you read the CTC document?
Have you thought up a way to corroborate the fall in miles cycled when helmets are made mandatory? You did want that didn't you?
You have no idea what the uptake of Bikeability would be like if you did not insist on helmets. I have three kids who would not go to Bikeability with helmets. I don't get involved in it because helmets are required. It's possible I might know a bit about cycling in traffic but I'm not going to promote helmets. It's a view shared by Spokes.
I don't do the other activities you mention so I haven't looked into them. Feel free to do so if you like. You could try reading the CTC report too.
Military helmets and hill climbing helmets work in a completely different way. They deflect or absorb energy from small objects moving towards you. Do you know what plastic cycling hats are designed to do.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You need to distinguish between the risk of injury to an individual as a direct consequence of wearing a helmet and the risk of an increase in the rate of cycling injuries caused by a combination of changes in the cycling population and changes in behaviour that arise because of helmet compulsion (including the semi-compulsion of helmet wearing becoming normalised).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Bike
Yes i am saying that, because its fact. Of the many hundreds i have taught bikeability, i have only known of one whose bike was brought to school rather than cycled. In some schools, they only bikes in that day were cycled there by kids doing bikeability, thats 100% of the bikes there, only because of bikeability.
Actualy I want you to corroborate your belief that wearing a cycling helmet increases the chance of the wearer being injured.
I don't believe that, you are asserting it. If you want to convince me I am wrong you will need to do more than throw some stats that may or may not be corroborated and a link to a search engine.
Of course, if you you are not about convincing people of the danger they are putting them and their kids in, and quite happy to sit back and let them find out the hard way, thats fair enough too.
In my near 50 years I have seen no evidence, none, that suggests in any way wearing a helmet is likely to result in injury more than not wearing one. I have seen plenty arguments and evidence that wearing one is unlikely to save a life and thats an argument I personally accept.
This thread here is in fact the first time i have heard the argument that wearing a helmet is more likely to get you injured though.
To be honest, its one that flabbergasts me. Hence I'd be interested in hearing you back up that claim. Its so wacky to me though that whilst i am happy to give time to any case you wish to put, i'd rather not waste my time trying to research your case for you.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yes Insto, that's one of things I found interesting about the Canadian paper on kids cycling outcomes. Adults didn't suffer the same effect.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Bikeability: risk compensation is wonderfully wacky and counter-intuitive. My favourite example being that parachutes make it more dangerous to go skydiving.
Try it out at drinks parties when there's a lull in conversation.
The trick is of course that skydiving is a voluntary sport and without a parachute, everyone refuses to jump, so the ~99.9999% death rate is offset by the 0% uptake.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sorry, I might have been too subtle with the kids cycling to school thing. You offered them time out of class if they brought a bike. Were you really surprised that they brought a bike?
I don't see how I can convince you other than using the available data on what happens when you enforce helmet wearing. I can't ask people to let me crash into them while they wear a plastic hat.
Are you looking for mechanisms by which helmets can cause increased injury and you're just phrasing it badly?
Try this. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(96)00016-4
Cycling in Aus dropped by 25-30%. Serious injuries dropped by 13%.
We've moved on a little in that you accept they will not save your life.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Insto,
And taking a bomb on a plane makes you safer.
Posted 11 years ago # -
thanks @uberuce, I was contemplating using skydiving to illustrate my point so you have saved me having to think that up.
Also prefer think about mitigating risks for cyclists rather than compensating for them.
Last week during a class, a young lad fell off his bike (whilst we were all stationary!) Poor soul hurt his groin on his own bike and his head off his pal's handlebar.
Hands up, I have no formal medical qualifications. However, his head would have been hurt more had he not been wearing his helmet. I think we'd all agree with that, no? I think we'd all agree too that if not cycling that day, he'd probably not fallen off his bike and hurt his groin? Is there any other way to explain all of this except his helmet helped him from experiencing a more serious injury rather than put him at an increased risk of injury?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ability,
No, we don't know that. I know when did wear one I hit it on the up and over garage door a lot. When I don't wear one I don't hit my head on the door. They increase the size of your head. People who still wear them seem to hit their head on the ground a lot.
Read Thompson/Rivera and see what their data says about the effect of helmets was on other body parts.
Posted 11 years ago # -
For the poor chap who clipped his head on the handlebars, it's very easy to imagine a situation where if he'd not had a helmet on his head would have narrowly missed the handlebars and he would have fallen to the ground (and saved himself with his hands [and his groin, obviously]), but if he'd had a helmet on, the edge of it would have caught the handlebars as it went past and given his neck a nasty twist and he'd have still hit the ground and hurt his hands. (This is an example, I don't of course know how he actually hit the handlebars)
...and that's where I think this recent re-ignition of this thread started from...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
