Nelly - it is more a heightened debate forum - we all get stroppy, we all go beyond our data, then Chris pulls the plug. We are nowhere near that yet.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
No helmet = contributory negligence
(131 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
"I don't think it is embarassing for people directly involved in accidents to over attribute the protective power of helmet - you cannot replicate the accident without a helmet to see if you die or are more badly injured."
This wasn't really what I meant. In fact, it would be amazing if people didn't attribute the protective powers of whatever it is they feel has saved them (people are convinced enough about lucky charms to demonstrate that!). Obviously, *some* of them are also right. I have no doubt that *some* people are saved by wearing a helmet... ;-)
I was referring more to the general debate. As intelligent adults at some remove from the situation where you are getting up off the floor with your helmet in two pieces, we should be in a position where we are willing to identify (or accept when identified for us) the more obvious anomolies.
For instance, "...you would also have to look at the number of people being knocked off their bikes. For instance in the good old days when no one wore helmets there were fewer vehicles on the road so maybees less people being knocked off. But now I would imagine it is not improbable that with more vehicles on the road there are more people being knocked off and therefore a larger group of people swearing blind that the helmet saved them"
Now I quite agree with that. In fact, it's interesting to note that between 80-90% of bike accidents involve only the cyclist (and this is weighted because, while I'd report every incident if I was hit by a car, I've come off 10-15x on my own and didn't bother. So it's probably more like 99.99% involve no motor vehicle).
This is also why the "helmets can't be compared to the Netherlands because they have such good cycle lanes" doesn't work for me. If vehicles are involved in a tiny proportion of crashes, how can it matter that low countries riders are segregated? etc.
Just some food for thought.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Some studies attempt to control for the change in traffic by comparing cyclist and pedestrian casualties. if they track each other then changes are unlikely to be due to a change in cyclists millinery. Another option is to compare other injuries. That was one of the more glaring flaws in Ye Olde Thompson Rivera. Their data showed that hats also protected knees.
I was on the route of the Sky ride yesterday while not actually being a Sky rider. No tabards or hats for us and no address data for Sky. Number three son fell off when he rode into a hole instead of round it. Not only did he fail to hit his head but he was actually on his feet by the time the bike hit the deck. He learned an important lesson about holes in the road.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes, helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 75% of leg injuries. That was quite an enjoyable report, or would be if the first statistic wasn't so universally and disingenuously quoted... :-)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Is there more bad cycling on the roads now because mountain biking skills are applied in the wrong places (eg at red lights)? Or as in hill walking - an increase in people just going for it without any thought or training? Or as I seek to observe - does wearing a helmet make you a poorer cyclist?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Well, it's not scientific, but the memsahib seems to have picked up a prejudice from somewhere. She feels that people in plastic hats are more likely to misbehave at traffic lights. She doesn't hurl abuse at them for their misbehaviour whereas someone else might.
It may not be caused by the hat but perhaps people wearing them are new less old school.
The memsahib has been on a bike twice in the last decade. Once at Drumpellier park and once at Ayr beach.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The study of risk compensation would lead you to expect that riders who feel more protected would take bigger chances. However, I'm not sure it would extend to such big decisions as stop at lights / jump lights (although who knows?)
I think it's possible that if we looked at motorists, for instance, we'd find a matching proportion of people willing to take risks (use their phone, smoking behind the wheel, speeding, etc) and that switching from one mode of transport to the other doesn't cause people to undergo a full personality transplant.
Either that or there's a genuine correlation (but not causation) between helmet choice and risk taking, in the same way that motorcyclists who ride safely are more likely to wear a white helmet - although wearing a white helmet does nothing to improve their safety.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Last 3 posts make some decent points.
Dont think that helmet wearing makes you a poorer cyclist per se - however I am squarely in the camp that almost without exception, the poor/misbehaving cyclists wear helmets - perhaps they 'got back into' cycling recently, and bought a helmet / bike / hi viz combo from Tesco?
On the other hand, the guys wearing caps / no headgear look to have been cycling for a long time, are more experienced, dont take as many stupid chances, and 'possibly' have less incidents.
Posted 13 years ago # -
On a related note, a wee while ago I borrowed chdot's camera to test my theory that riders with headphones in check their shoulders before pulling out into traffic more often than do their "safe" bare-eared bretheren.
I gave up after realising the time required to make it statistically significant would be enormous (or I need to figure out a better location). But anecdotally, riders with headphones in don't miss their "lifesaver" as often as the "safe" riders do...
Posted 13 years ago # -
If you ever get round to bothering with that, also see if "riders" with "cameras" attached to their "heads" look round more obviously/pointedly than those without.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Dont think that helmet wearing makes you a poorer cyclist per se - however I am squarely in the camp that almost without exception, the poor/misbehaving cyclists wear helmets - perhaps they 'got back into' cycling recently, and bought a helmet / bike / hi viz combo from Tesco?
On the other hand, the guys wearing caps / no headgear look to have been cycling for a long time, are more experienced, dont take as many stupid chances, and 'possibly' have less incidents.
I'm afraid that sweeping statement is as meaningless as others on this topic. Neds on their BSO's, usually full suspension catalogue jobs, tend not to bother with helmets, the highway code or lights. By your statement these guys are safer than the commuter who has done it for 10 years and just happens to have a lid on.
Posted 13 years ago # -
re hats and legs.
I hesitate to suggest this as an explanation but risk compensation works both ways.
Some riders will be more cautious wearing a helment because it reminds them of the risks.
It depends on the attitude of the helmet wearer, not the helmet.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If only we had a statistion on the board.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"If only we had a statistion on the board."
I think there is at least one.
Basic problem is that - as shown above - there are too many variables!
Also the difficulties of "controls" to measure against - plus stopping those who 'misbehave' (or don't) and getting them to answer a list of questions.
Perhaps start with "why are you in such a hurry?"...
Posted 13 years ago # -
On the other hand, the guys wearing caps / no headgear look to have been cycling for a long time, are more experienced, dont take as many stupid chances, and 'possibly' have less incidents.
Maybe for caps/serious riders, but I see a lot of random/bad riding behaviour from 'blokes on bikes'...helmetless, on pavements, weaving around, not cyclists, but people on bikes
Posted 13 years ago # -
also theres many reasons for wearing a lid or not
for me I have recently moved to wearing a helmet. why?
simply because I now have a wee boy and i dont want to end up a burdon on him for an injury that may be prevented by wearing a helmet.
if its bad enough that the helmet is negated then the life insurance is in placePosted 13 years ago # -
Custard, you have an assumption that the effect of an impact will not be worse wearing the hat.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Helmets have the advantage for folk like me who may be missing one or two hairs and so want to hide that. I like the extra ventilation that they have over other forms of headwear (though they do tend to trap bees).
Posted 13 years ago # -
@steveo - unsure how you derived that from my post, but - no, that is not what was meant by my sweeping statement !
Posted 13 years ago # -
@ wee folding bike
I'll give you that
however theres no real evidence either way and a trillion variables on how and accident/impact could come about
so one can only make their best guess at the 'right' choicePosted 13 years ago # -
Custard,
I would quibble about that. I do like the way that helmet proponents are now often reduced to claiming that it's not clear either way, that's some kind of progress.
I would also say that if you wear one you make them look more like a normal thing to do and it could be easier for doo gooding busy bodies to bring in compulsion.
If you don't wear one then people might ask why and you can explain it to them. Actually I find it a little odd that people ask why I don't do something but I'd rather they do that than carry on with unsupported assumption.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The other handy thing about the vents is that they allow bees to escape.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ummm... never really been troubled by bees.
Midgies can't keep up with a bike.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@ wee folding bike
Im not sure if im now a "helmet proponent" because i wear one?
if folks want to run without one then its fine.
I did for a long time
however its surely logical that in some cases a helmet may help/do no harm
same as having keys i your pocket in a tumble could cost you a liver in the right/wrong type of impactPosted 13 years ago # -
Custard,
I was careful not to say you were.
They may do no harm but there is also evidence which suggests that they can.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Custard - 'having keys i your pocket in a tumble could cost you a liver in the right/wrong type of impact'
Dont waste your time on such frivolous nonsense - surely the biggest question is - Jelly babies or Liquorice Allsorts
;-)
Posted 13 years ago # -
I've a lovely scar on the right temple going seven inches back into the hairline from a spill off my wee BMX in 1989. Double fracture, 60 stitches. I'd love to be able to say a helmet would have helped, but it starts about half an inch below the helmet line, so I'm not sure.
Anyway, I wear a helmet now that I'm an allgrowedup commuter because I'm a clumsy foolio and reckon I am sufficiently likely to benefit from low-impact protection in case of falls. I hope I ride as if I'm bareheaded in terms of sharing the road with vehicles, because I know fine well that a superawesome expensive cover wouldn't help, so the crappy supermarket job I sport certainly won't.
Why wear a helmet when you don't think it'll help in vehicular collision? Same reason I wear a jacket going along the canal if it looks like it might rain. Won't help if I fall in, buuuuut...
Posted 13 years ago # -
It's not so difficult. At a societal level there's limited evidence to suggest that there is a net positive effect from large-scale helmet use. At that level you can probably say helmets don't work.
At an individual level helmets the benefits have been grossly overstated but they may offer some protection against injury although they are most effective within the parameters they are designed for and may make injury risks worse in other circumstances.
At a societal level there is no strong case for making helmet wearing compulsory but at an individual level it's really up to individuals to balance the risks and take account of the other factors - peer / spouse / personal pressures - and potential legal issues before coming to their own decisions.
At the moment I choose not to wear one. I don't think the risks of me crashing are that great and frankly, if I felt the risks were enough that it made sense to strap a thin piece polystyrene onto my already sweaty head in the hope that that would save me, I'd probably decide that cycling is a stupid dangerous thing that no sane person should be doing. Much the same as the reasons I don't ride a motorcycle or skydive. But I'm not a zealot about it and my views might change. There's no sense in boxing yourself into a corner by taking a 'position' about something as personal and incidental as wearing a helmet or not.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@ Nelly
only a fool would choose anything but Jelly BabiesPosted 13 years ago # -
We have data showing increased serious injury per mile. Would this work at a society and individual level?
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
