Helmets! « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Helmets!

(91 posts)

Started 14 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from wee folding bike

No tags yet.

12…4 Next »

chdot
Admin

This is not intended to be a 'for or against'.

As gembo has said elsewhere "What I note is that people are biased and therefore look for evidence which suits them [when I say people I mean me and you and everyone else]"

I hope helmets will always be a personal choice. Most people wear them when riding off-road, because they perceive the dangers to be greater than riding on road (obviously many people wear helmets on-road too).

There are people whose quality of life is better because they were wearing a helmet when they came off their bike. There are people who are/aren't alive because they were/weren't wearing seat belts (etc.)

My problem with the 'helmet debate' is the polarisation/'certainties' - usually based on statistics which are not easy to absolutely quantify/verify.

E.g. life expectancy increase due to regular exercise (e.g. cycling) v death/injury due to not wearing helmets. This is periodically debated in the BMJ and often refers to the results of Australian helmet compulsion.

There are parents who somehow imagine that if their child wears a helmet they are 'safe' - irrespective of a) whether it fits properly, b) the road sense of the child c) the state of their bike...

DEBATE!

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

chdot,

You seem to be making an assumption that wearing a helmet improves the outcome of a collision. The opposite has been found to happen.

There are people whose quality of life is better because they were wearing a helmet when they came off their bike. (etc.)

One could equally well say that there are people whose quality of life is better because they were not wearing a helmet.

You repeat the same assumption here:

E.g. life expectancy increase due to regular exercise (e.g. cycling) v death/injury due to not wearing helmets.

There is good evidence of injury due to wearing a helmet.

Posted 14 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

I'd quite like to see the evidence that some people survived an accident better when not wearing a helmet and/or 'good evidence of injury due to wearing helmet'. Can you tell me where to find it? Thanks

Posted 14 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"You seem to be making an assumption that wearing a helmet improves the outcome of a collision"

NO

I am merely stating something I believe to be a fact.

You are making the assumption that I believe that helmets always "improves the outcome of a collision".

I DON'T believe that - I'm sure that people have had different/worse accidents due to helmets. I believe there is firm evidence in respect of (heavier) motorcycle helmets. However I'm not aware that there is as much dissent in motorcycle circles about helmet use. (I may be wrong).

My point is not the merit or otherwise of helmets, but the fact that 'the debate' often 'obscures the issues'.

In general in places where cycling is 'normal' few people wear helmets. In the UK there is a perception that cycling is dangerous which puts some people off and has been a reason for some people to try to make helmet use compulsory.

This has the effect of reinforcing the 'fear' without addressing/reducing genuine dangers, or improving education of road users, traffic engineers, lawyers, insurance companies etc. etc.

MY argument is that 'helmets' can be a distraction...

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

Well both times you slanted the comment in favour of helmets. The quote function doesn't seem to be working in Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

And yes, cycling is a normal thing. It's a safe thing.

Helmets make cycling look dangerous so fewer people cycle. Politicians bring in rules which enforce their use. Lawyers argue that not wearing one is contributory negligence when a car hits and injures you. Even when not using one helmets have a detrimental effect on me.

Australians have painted themselves into a corner with them and are having a problem implementing a bike sharing scheme now. I read recently that they over took the USA in fatness and that can't be easy.

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

SRD,

The usual place to start this is here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

And the biggest experiment was in Aus. Serious head injuries per mile increased after they made helmets mandatory.

Got to feed kids.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

Normal and safe are not the same thing, driving is normal but its amongst the most dangerous things one can do in day to day life though it is one that most people are happy to life with, but thats is of course beside the point.

Or is it, Cycling is dangerous some thing could happen to kill or seriously injure you through no fault of your own, not just from cars or buses though these are the most obvious dangers. It is a small risk and one that (presumably) every one here is happy with

Which leads us round to the point i made in the locked thread, drivers wear seatbelts to protect them as best possible, to mitigate some of the risk. Why then do some cyclist seem to think that some thing to mitigate some of the worst injuries likely to be sustained should be brushed off as a "magic hat"?

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

Steveo,

Have you checked the chance of serious injury while riding a bike?

You could die walking down the stairs but most people would not class that as dangerous. Are you using the word to mean an activity which could result in death or injury? If so I can't think of many things which are not dangerous. I would think that a better definition would be likely to cause serious injury. By this metric cycling is not dangerous. It is not likely to cause serious injury.

You also appear to assume that a magic hat will reduce your chance of serious injury. This has not been demonstrated. Can you back it up? Helmets have been found to increase serious injury, not mitigate it.

Magic hat is the perfect description:

cycle helmets and other religious symbols

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

The cyclehelmets site seems to be terribly bias to the point where it reads more like it has an axe to grind rather than being the peer reviewd basitions of the truth it preports to be. Especially this section,
"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."
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html
Honestly if that isn't a distortion of statistics then i would really like to meet the sample group.

A peer reviewed journal suggests there is not as much to the risk compensation theory as helmet detractors would have people believe.

" It is important to distinguish between evidence for risk compensation in general—which is overwhelming, and evidence relating to cycle helmets—which is limited."
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.extract

Interestingly the above rebuttal is from the people who publish a the "Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation" though its language is less Daily Mail and more BMJ.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

"You also appear to assume that a magic hat will reduce your chance of serious injury. This has not been demonstrated. Can you back it up? Helmets have been found to increase serious injury, not mitigate it."

This really depends on who you ask both sides of the argument distort the statistics to prove their point.

Honestly i don't care if people want to wear helmets nor do i care if they want to wear seat belts, your life your risks you weigh them and take them as you see them.

Posted 14 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Moving sideways -

One (unexpected?) consequence of the compulsory seatbelt legislation was an increase in pedestrian casualties.

Drivers felt safer and were less cautious.

Don't forget the old 'joke' that the way to make cars safer is to have a sharp spike in the centre of the steering wheel...

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

Steveo,

That particular web page is largely based on work by John Franklin.

Can you present some evidence in favour of helmets?

Most people dig this one up:

Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England Journal of Medicine 1989, Vol 320 No 21 p1361-7.

but I would suggest that you don't use it or any work by Rivara and either Thompson.

Have you looked into the relative risk of cycling and not cycling or the danger involved in walking?

Helmet use does impinge on me for reasons I outlined earlier.

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

chdot,

That certainly works in my VW where the gas tank is in front of you and when I didn't have viable brakes (Weinman side pulls on steel rims) I was a lot more cautious.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

Wee folding bike, sorry i missed where the Helmet use impinges on you, was it this thread?

Posted 14 years ago #
gembo
Member

Glad to see we are trying to weigh up quality of evidence rather than prejudices.

Did anyone see the guy on telly saying that there should be two lines for queueing at airports - one line for potential terrorists and another for non-threatening travellers (little old caucasian grandmothers?).

At times I feel the helmet debate gets a bit fraught with opinion presented as fact. Life is a calculated risk and you are taking some degree of risk when cycling. Obviously John Franklin who is big expert on how to cycle takes less risk than me (never learnt to drive, my directions always end in one way streets that I nip down pushing the bike but where drivers can't go etc etc). If you are a very good driver/cyclist /pedestrian then most of your risk comes from other people. It is hard to do much about them.

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

steveo,

It's higher up this page. People saying they help makes politicians think they are good idea. Mandatory cycle helmets means that fewer people will cycle. Fewer cyclists makes it more dangerous for those of us who cycle.

Hillman M., 1994, Cycling: Towards health and safety. BMA, London (can't find it on the web)

CTC Safety in Numbers

The last MP to try the legislation route in Westminster, Eric Martlew, had been hit on the head when he was a kid. He wasn't on a bike, he was walking and a tanker truck ran into him. As far as I have been able to find out he doesn't ride a bike.

An assumption that helmets reduce injury means that lawyers have argued that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence:

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-law
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/cyclist-victims-lack-of-helmet-affects-guilty-drivers-sentence-21674

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

gembo,

Obviously the best thing to do on a plane is carry your own bomb.

You're not going to set yours off and there is a very small chance of there being two bombs on the same plane.

I usually find Google's walking route instructions work OK for a bike too. My GPS is from 1998 so it doesn't have maps and things. The last time I cycled in Edinburgh I was all over the place because of the tram works. I just wanted to get from the train to the airport. I thought I knew where I was going. I ended up cheating my way round a junction. Then MacDonald's in Corstorphine wouldn't sell me an egg MacMuffin at the drive thru because I didn't have a car.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

Equally i wouldn't advocate for compulsory seat belt wearing for the driver or front passenger or any other thing which only directly effects ones own safety. Mandatory helmets probably would reduce the number of cyclists on the road but from my anecdotal evidence not by much since most of the riders i see coming along Corstorphine are wearing lids.

Yeah i read that contributory negligence some where else it was an interesting article on the car focused nature of the legal system, i can't find it now but maybe some one else has read it and could find the link.

Though from the conclusion your link its not as clear cut as implied
"et. It should, however, be noted that the Judgment only refers to an 80:20 liability split and the Defendant’s wish to argue for a higher degree of contributory negligence because the claimant had not been wearing a helmet (paragraph 3). It is not clear if the 20% reduction originally agreed was on the basis of the failure to wear a helmet or for other reasons. No further facts of the accident are given. One should therefore be wary of drawing any conclusions on likely awards of contributory negligence from this case."
"As a litigator, however, you should not assume that failure to wear a helmet will carry with it a finding of contributory negligence."

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-law

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

This paper:

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/hpja_2005_1_robinson.pdf

says that Aus cycling levels fell to 57% of what they were before the law came in.

If a law came in here I'd probably find the 1990 or 1993 helmet in the garage and keep riding but not everyone would. Even with the increased risk of wearing a helmet cycling beats not cycling. The 20 fold health benefit is fairly substantial. The 1993 helmet has a more butch name so I'd be better using that one.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

The Auzie law was introduced in the early 90's when helmet use was far from wide spread the technology of the time was terrible by comparison, i dare say that if the choice was not to cycle or to use the helmet i had from that era i'd probably be in the 57%.

However things have moved on and most people i see on my route to/from work have helmets and when i'm out for a longer ride out side the city virtually every one i pass (or more likely passes me) is lidded from which i would draw that madated helmet wearing would make a negligible difference to the current population.

Though i would agree, in part, with the point your about to make, that it may put people off from starting out in the first place. This however would likely be just another excuse people would use to continue the driving momentum they've built up over the years.

Which brings me to another point the studies presented for debate all seem to be horribly out of date, i wonder if the cycling population of Australia has recovered now nearly twenty years since the introduction of the law?

The reduction in Australian cycle traffic is often cited as a good reason for not mandating cycle helmets however the UK saw a reduction in the volume of "Pedal Cycle Travel" over that same period from 53 (100 million vehicle kilometres) in 1990 to 40 in 1993. Could this indicate a different reasoning for the Australian blip? Perhaps the end of the recession in the Early 90's either way its again not as simple as is often fronted.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008

On a related note am i reading this correctly 47 100 million vehicle km is that 4.7 billion km in 2008?

Posted 14 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

Thanks folks. this is all very interesting. I looked at some of the Canadian data, and am struck by one thing - they compare provinces with legislation to those without, but not actual rates of helmet wearing. When i spent a month this summer in one province w/out legislation, I didn't ever see a cyclist without a helmet. In other words, they are not necessarily comparing 'high' levels of helmet wearing to lower ones, although they are presuming this to be so. In fact, I thought (erroneously) that it was mandatory to wear helmets in all Canadian provinces. But will try to find time to read and look at the data further.

Posted 14 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

Oh, and on helmets being dangerous, the one thing i remember from the 1980s/early 90s, was the idea that 'softshell' helmets could 'stick' on an asphalt surface, and, if your body kept going, give you a nasty neck injury. Don't know if there's any evidence for that, but softshells seem to have pretty much disappeared.

Posted 14 years ago #
Min
Member

I think is it rather regretful that the movement in recent years has been towards swathing oneself from head to foot in protective clothing before setting out on the bike. Having said that I wear a helmet and have been doing so for years ever since falling and hitting my head once. It wasn't so much the hitting as the scraping that I never want to experience again (I slid along the road for a bit)and the helmet will prevent that so I am cool with it. Of course I have fallen many times since and have never hit my head. I'm cool with that too. It should be up to the individual whether they wear one or not.

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

Steveo,

Australian obesity has overtaken the US so I'm not sure cycling has recovered.

In the UK there was an increase in cycling as a result of the subway bombs and the congestion charge in London. The subway might actually be safer on a day to day basis if you ignore the cardiovascular benefit of cycling but people don't want to be under ground with a bomb.

I was the only person cycling to teaching college long ago, in most schools I'm the only member of staff who cycles in. At the moment there are two of us but that's unusual. Kids ask me why I don't use a car and I list all the benefits to me, the environment but I have to admit that it's mainly because I like riding a bike. Eventually they get used to the idea that their teacher has a Brompton under the desk.

Posted 14 years ago #
gembo
Member

Magic Hats I like. Unfortunately, I have supported Dundee United for 26 years. In 1992 we had a manager from Serbia Ivan Golac. He inspired us to our only ever victory in the Scottish Cup and then he got us relegated the next season (leaving only Rangers, Celtic and Aberdeen as the teams never to have been relegated). We used to sing the following words (well these were the words I sang):-

Ivan Golac's barmy
He wears a Magic Hat
He punched the blue nose in the pus
And now they're on their back

Sorry for lowering the tone

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

SRD,

Neck injuries are a known problem. Newer designs with a pointy bit at the back might make this worse.

The shell is not that hard, the reason for it is to spread the load over more of the foam. Impact should cause compression of a cone of foam. A shell doesn't increase the energy dissipation capacity as that is set by the standards and only has to be capable of dealing with a 12 mph impact. My old 1990s helmets might actually be better than new ones as the EU standards are lower now than the old Snell spec.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

"Might make this worse"...

This is the problem with the entire argument (both sides).

The argument is delivered from a position that makes it appear to be completely factual but in reality its a matter of opinion and manipulated statistics. I see no reason why "the pointy bit at the back" would "make this worse" i see no reason why torn muscles in the neck would be worse than a hard thump to the head.

SRD didn't suggest that the hard shell has better force dissipation i read his post as the hard shell doesn't stick to the road the way a soft one might. If your lid were to stick that would cause the kind of rotational mentioned but i can't see how a modern helmet would cause the kind of neck injuries attributed to it.

Posted 14 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

steveo,

It's difficult to do double blind tests on this which is why we have to use things like Australia's experiment but I do notice you have yet to produce anything which supports use of helmets.

I used to be a scientist, not a politician, so I would tend to phrase things in a cautious manner.

Serious injuries per mile increase after helmet legislation. If there is a level of helmet wearing before the law then this would dilute the deleterious effect of legislation since it wouldn't be starting from zero. The people who do continue to cycle will be the more committed cyclists and will have a higher skill level. Since these cyclists are safer in the first place this will also reduce the negative effect of helmets. The casual cyclist who would be more likely to have an accident on a per mile cycled basis will no longer be riding. Nonetheless we see an increase in serious injuries per mile.

Pointy bits make the effective radius even greater in that area. If you have a look at 1990s designs like an old Bell or a UK made Centurion they are roughly spherical so the increase in radius is fairly uniform. Apply the law of the lever to the increase in radius and see what you get. Rotational injuries are more serious than straight line impact.

Not everyone will be aware of the reason for having a shell on the outside of the foam.

I am not aware of any reason for a pointy shaped helmet rather than the old Bell shape. Well outwith marketing I'm not aware of any reason.

Posted 14 years ago #
steveo
Member

You are making a simple logic leap/error i have already stated on several occasions I don't care if you ride lidded or other wise i have also stated that while i don't think it would be the end of the world for helmets to be mandated i don't agree they should be and wouldn't petition for it.

I'm not here to provide a reason or argument for riding with a helmet I'm only looking at the "evidence" provided by both sides and finding it fallacious. My only reason for the continuation of this thread (beside some interesting conversation) is that I belive that leaving some of what the anti helmet group post uncontested is wrong, it is what i would call fud.

In my opinion the risk of long term brain damage from a cycle fall (even at low speed) is one which is easily (if only partially) mitigated by wearing a 400g £50 bit of kit neither or which are any real inconvenience where as a serious brain injury would be really quite inconvenient, no?. Even J Adams2 and M Hillman accept
"The Cochrane review by Rivara and the Thompsons found evidence that if you bang your head the consequences will be less severe if you are wearing a protective helmet"
(emphasis added)

You used to be scientist, i did some biology at uni so I'm not completely in the luddite camp ;). Surely this is obvious to you that there is not any real evidence for either "side" both are just manipulated statistics and conclusion leapt at and ran with.

The Aus study is useless its nearly twenty years old for a start so many things have moved on. Equally there has been no follow up study to prove/disprove its findings. Its conclusion to the drop in cycling miles can't be ratified since a huge drop in cycling miles happened over the same period in a fair control group (the UK). The pro studies oft trotted out are equally rubbish for reasons well documented.

Does the head not get a little pointy at the back any way? IMO there is no way the addition of a couple of mm from the radius would cause any noticeable leverage. Besides that it adds a little extra protection (superfluous perhaps) to the back of skull.

Posted 14 years ago #
chdot
Admin

WELL

Been a lively day of debate!

'Proves' there is no simple answer. A lot of yes, but, no, buts.

I don't think that it is possible/necessary for those who 'believe' in helmets to show that they should be required/normal/compulsory.

Likewise I think it's hard to really demonstrate that helmets cause more problems (in an injury sense) than they prevent.

I'm slightly surprised that no-one seems keen on advocating that 'it's important that children should wear helmets'.

It's interesting that no-one has found convincing/reliable/up to date evidence from Australia or North America to show what the effects of helmet compulsion really are on cycle numbers, accident numbers/percentages - per person/mile etc. and also on general population health/longevity/obesity etc. etc. (Simple reason - it's complicated).

HOWEVER

"The people who do continue to cycle will be the more committed cyclists and will have a higher skill level. Since these cyclists are safer in the first place this will also reduce the negative effect of helmets."

Personally, without any evidence, I think there are a lot of assumptions there open to question.

"Committed" yes, "more skill" perhaps, "safer in the first place" mmm. More adventurous?, more 'confident'?, more willing to take risks? fitter therefore faster?

Drivers expecting cyclists to be slower (or faster) have been a factor in some crashes.

Recent cyclist death statistics from London have shown that left turning lorries are a real danger. Women are disproportionately involved. I assume that helmets are not generally a factor (but I haven't studied in detail). I also assume that women are more cautious and/or less experienced.

Mayor Boris wants to ban bendy buses because of the perceived danger to cyclists. Apparently statistics don't support this.

OK the above is 'off the helmet topic' but my point is that if the idea is to get more people cycling - safely, in a reasonably safe environment, helmets can become a distraction.

Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12…4 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Helmets!

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links