Negative View of Cycle Helmets

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

i think vanity has a lot to answer for here and honesty.what other reasons are they besides that? i mean, are there any valid reasons why someone shouldnt wear a helmet? ... just saying that there is no scientific proof that it doesnt protect isnt enough. the fact of the matter is that there is proof that is does aid, be it a little amount, but it does.

This kind of logic could be used to make pedestrians wear helmets....

rubadub

Originally Posted by rubadub
Glad you were not injured. Now if you had gotten off your bike to go into the shop were walking, tripped and fell and shattered the helmet, would you now continue to wear helmets while walking around in normal life. If not why not?

Cabaal wrote:

I really hate this type of argument, in fairness the use of a helmet is a messure to try and stop yourself from getting even more hurt if you hit something at speed.....yes if you were walking and you fell you could also hurt yourself and if you wanted you could wear a helmet but nobody does.

But when it comes to being on a bike its a preventitive messure.

There was no argument. I was asking a simple question and his own logic would tell me that he would decide to wear the helmet walking around if it did happen.

20 years ago I never saw a helmet on a cyclist. If pedestrians did start wearing them I could say the exact same thing, it is a preventitive measure. They are wearing them to stop themselves getting even more hurt if they were hit by something at speed.

Motorists do not wear them either but some of those studies show they are far more beneficial to them than to cyclists.

You say no pedestrians do wear helmets, neither do motorists, I cannot understand the disbelief some people have that cyclists do not either.

beans wrote:

Point is, during all my years of living and falling, it's only been a bike fall that has lead to head impact, and for that reason alone i'm going to continue to wear my hat. Given, my reason for wearing it in the first place was anectodal evidence about protection, but I'm glad in hindsight)

Thats fair enough. I have fallen from my bike many times and never come close to hitting my head. I have fallen and knocked out teeth and severely hit my head while younger too, I have no intention of wearing a helmet while walking about though.

cerebus

Mucco wrote:

It may be a lame excuse, but it's proven that cyclist numbers do drop on the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing
.

robfitz wrote:

Mandatory wearing of cycle helmets does not apply in any country in Europe, but in countries where it has been introduced, it appears to have had the effect of discouraging significant numbers of people from cycling. There is no population-based evidence that compulsory use of cycle-helmets is of any benefit in reducing serious injury or death among cyclists. The British Medical Association reviewed the available data in 1999 and concluded that “one of the most important reasons why it could be disadvantageous to make helmet wearing compulsory at the present time, is the risk that it may discourage cycling”

I think it might be worth digging into more recent research on the topic. The BMA have come out in favour of a compulsory helmet law (2004) as they believe the statistics do back it up. Check out the details here.

Some highlights:

BMA wrote:

In our 1999 report significant emphasis was placed on the BMA’s wish not to discourage cycling by making helmets compulsory.

This advice was based on evidence from Australia indicating that cycling levels decreased following the introduction of legislation. This evidence is now outdated and contains distortions from variables including a reduction in the legal age of driving that meant more teenagers travelled in motor vehicles. A study from Ontario, Canada has demonstrated that introduction of helmet legislation did not reduce numbers of children cycling

Also lots of interesting links to statistics on injury/fatality reduction with bike helmets.

BMA wrote:

Several recent studies and discussions [14] have provided scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents:

• In the USA, a 30-month study of 3,854 cyclists showed that helmet usage decreased the overall risk of brain injury by 65 per cent and severe brain injury by 74 per cent in all age groups [9].
• An Australian study showed that wearing cycle helmets reduces both the incidence of facial injuries by 28 per cent and their severity [11].
• A Cochrane review considering five case-control studies from the UK, Australia and the USA illustrates a large and consistent protective effect from cycle helmets, reducing the risk of head and brain injury by 65 to 88 per cent and injury to the upper and mid face by 65 per cent [12].
• A study of primary school, secondary school and adult cyclists in New Zealand demonstrated a 19 per cent reduction in head injuries to cyclists in the three years after the introduction of legislation [13].
• In Victoria, Australia, an increase in helmet use from 31 per cent prior to legislation to 75 per cent one year after was accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the following four years

As with any religious/dogmatic argument on the interwebs, I don't expect that any of the principal actors in this thread will change any deeply held convictions.

I found the BMA stance and data interesting though.

rubadub

I wonder how they are working out all these %'s. The australian one says head injuries fell by 40%, but is this the count of injuries per year? i.e. if all these people did stop cycling like people are claiming then if there are 50% less cyclists on the road then head injuries falling by 40% is really an increase.

cyclopath2001

cerebus wrote:

As with any religious/dogmatic argument on the interwebs, I don't expect that any of the principal actors in this thread will change any deeply held convictions.

That's only if you see the argument as being black/white - pro-helmet vs anti-helmet, pedestrian/cyclist. There's much more to debate on cyclist safety than the scant & unpredicatble protection promised by the helmet manufacturers.

Mucco

cerebus wrote:

I found the BMA stance and data interesting though.

Yeah, I saw that on the BMA site yesterday. It's interesting because it seems at odds with other data I've seen. I remember reading a Kiwi site showing that the rate of head injuries remained the same before/after compulsion - can't find it now, of course.

I'm very wary when it comes to statistics, as the same facts can be presented in different ways to come to opposite conclusions. I'm going to try to fish out those papers cited.

M

John_C

cerebus wrote:

As with any religious/dogmatic argument on the interwebs, I don't expect that any of the principal actors in this thread will change any deeply held convictions.

I found the BMA stance and data interesting though.

Me two, and thanks for finding it.

I don't know if I count as one of the principle actors but my position hasn't changed. I said that I'd believe the evidance when I saw it so I can go home now safe in the knowledge that my bicycle helmet is doing me some good.

sobriquet

cerebus wrote:

As with any religious/dogmatic argument on the interwebs, I don't expect that any of the principal actors in this thread will change any deeply held convictions.

The reference to the BMAs' research and recommendations is very useful, but this comment isn't. You might not agree with it or you might dispute the reasoning behind it, but there's no reason to assert that people who believe helmets should not be mandatory or that they don't make one safer are religious or dogmatic.

There's a lot going on behind bike safety, and most of it has nothing to do bikes or safety gear - it's skill in bike handling and general tactics for safe road use that apply to any vehicle. On top of that, brakes and tyres and so on need to be in good working order. Doesn't matter if you anticipate a collision unless your bike can handle the evasive measures.

cerebus

rubadub wrote:

I wonder how they are working out all these %'s. The australian one says head injuries fell by 40%, but is this the count of injuries per year? i.e. if all these people did stop cycling like people are claiming then if there are 50% less cyclists on the road then head injuries falling by 40% is really an increase.

I'm afraid I can't answer that, but I imagine that if you check the sources that are referenced then that should answer all our questions.

Just for the heck of I looked up accident/fatality numbers for where I'm living - a jurisdiction with a compulsory helmet law introduced in 1996 (British Columbia, Canada).

Statistics for 2003 (latest i could find) offer these gems:

Of 6 bicycle fatalities, 4 were not wearing a helmet (junk science time: does this mean you are twice as likely to be killed if you don't wear a helmet? )

Table 14.15 in the document (BC traffic accident statistics 2003) gives a break down of helmet vs non-helmet wearers in terms of injuries.

Report on the effects of the helmet law is here They seem to say there was no effect on cyclist numbers.

I'll see if I can track down cyclist fatality/injury numbers for a period of years covering before/after the introduction of BC's helmet law... might be interesting.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

That's only if you see the argument as being black/white - pro-helmet vs anti-helmet, pedestrian/cyclist

Ah yes, maybe you could point out exactly where I said that...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

There's much more to debate on cyclist safety

...or indeed where I disagreed with this?

cerebus

sobriquet wrote:

The reference to the BMAs' research and recommendations is very useful, but this comment isn't. You might not agree with it or you might dispute the reasoning behind it, but there's no reason to assert that people who believe helmets should not be mandatory or that they don't make one safer are religious or dogmatic.

You're right, that was a rather flippant remark - my apologies.

However, I think it is fair to say that a lot of the internet comment and debate on this topic has been dogmatic in nature, starting way back in the day almost as soon as rec.bicycles was created.

Should point out that the dogma and rhetoric has been on both pro and anti helmet sides - you seem to be suggesting that I believe it is only on the anti. Nothing could be further from the truth...

cyclopath2001

cerebus wrote:

Of 6 bicycle fatalities, 4 were not wearing a helmet (junk science time: does this mean you are twice as likely to be killed if you don't wear a helmet? )

What were the causes of death?

cerebus wrote:

yes, maybe you could point out exactly where I said that...
...or indeed where I disagreed with this?

The remarks were not directed at you, but at others who have contributed far less to the discussion & who see things in black & white.

sobriquet

cerebus wrote:

However, I think it is fair to say that a lot of the internet comment and debate on this topic has been dogmatic in nature, starting way back in the day almost as soon as rec.bicycles was created.

Way before that, I'd say. As a species (or just as a society?) all our debate seems to fall into that mode. It's unfortunate, but it's a function of how we argue, I suppose. An assertion is made, someone counters, the first party defends, second retorts again and so on... Looks dogmatic even if neither party is 'religious' on the subject. Anyway, waaaay OT.

cerebus wrote:

Should point out that the dogma and rhetoric has been on both pro and anti helmet sides - you seem to be suggesting that I believe it is only on the anti. Nothing could be further from the truth...

No, I don't; that wasn't intended. My 'there's a lot going on...' comment is just a general random thought on the subject. My point is that it's worth bearing in mind, I think, that focusing too much on helmet wearing (whether pro- or anti-) distracts from a plethora of things that have a greater bearing on cyclist safety.

Squirrel

rubadub wrote:

Well seat belts are the law

That's exactly my point, if it were made law people would

cyclopath2001

Squirrel wrote:

That's exactly my point, if it were made law people would

Like speed limits & laws on safe over-taking?

Why not enforce the laws that we have instead of distracting the Gardaí. Surely priority should be given to accident-prevention?

Mucco

Well, from reading a few of the papers cited in the BMA site, and several others found elsewhere, I've come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. The debate seems to be ongoing.

So I suppose, wear a helmet if you feel it will benefit you, but be aware that cyclists in Ireland tend to be killed by trucks/buses, and I'm not sure that even a suit of armour would help you there.

M

daymobrew

Mucco wrote:

So I suppose, wear a helmet if you feel it will benefit you, but be aware that cyclists in Ireland tend to be killed by trucks/buses, and I'm not sure that even a suit of armour would help you there.

I read a "Coroner's Court" article in the Irish Times two week ago. It was about a cyclist killed by a truck on East Wall Road at the entrance to the docks.

A truck (heading toward East Link Bridge) let a truck turn left across him into the docks. The cyclist came up the left side of the stopped truck and went under the turning truck. "Death by misadventure" was the verdict returned by the jury.

In this accident I feel that the cyclist should have taken more care since he couldn't see ahead of the truck. A few others I relayed the story to completely disagree with me, saying it is completely the turning truck's fault.

John_C

daymobrew wrote:

In this accident I feel that the cyclist should have taken more care since he couldn't see ahead of the truck. A few others I relayed the story to completely disagree with me, saying it is completely the turning truck's fault.

There's a charachter in 'The Great Gatsby' who justifies her bad driving by saying that the world is allowed one bad driver. It's only when two meet that an accident occours. I think that this is the case here.

cyclopath2001

daymobrew wrote:

"Death by misadventure" was the verdict returned by the jury.

The newspaper I read said that the verdict was accidental death. This implies no blame on the victim or the truck driver. A misadventure verdict would imply that the victim was not being careful.

daymobrew wrote:

In this accident I feel that the cyclist should have taken more care since he couldn't see ahead of the truck. A few others I relayed the story to completely disagree with me, saying it is completely the turning truck's fault.

The coroner's primary job is to establish the immediate cause of death (being run over by a truck) rather than collect all facts that might attribute blame. It would be up to the victim's unfortunate family in the Philippines to petition for justice, if they could afford it.

Not mentioned was that the cycle track that the victim was using at the time was not marked or signed in accordance with the relevant statutory regulations. Nor do we know if the truck first overtook the cyclist before slowing down to turn. Also unknown is if the truck driver was indicating or if his indicators were visible.

The cycle track at that location is in the same condition now as it was at the time of the accident, despite a direction by the coroner that the design be reviewed .

rubadub

Squirrel wrote:

Cyclopath2001, do you wear a seat belt in a car? Do cars you travel in have airbags?

Well seat belts are the law

Squirrel wrote:

That's exactly my point, if it were made law people would

I don't get your point of questioing him, you are questioning him if he obeys the law or not?
What has that got to do with helmets? If it was made law he would wear one, AFAIK he already does wear one since he mentioned it earlier. If the law said I had to wear a padded chicken suit for protection I would, but so what?

Seems it would be hypocritical if they forced cyclists to wear helmets while motorists do not have to.

Heinrich

rubadub wrote:

Seems it would be hypocritical if they forced cyclists to wear helmets while motorists do not have to.

Maybe cyclist should be forced to wear seatbelts and have airbags on the handlebars.

See how silly these arguments are.

rubadub

Heinrich wrote:

Maybe cyclist should be forced to wear seatbelts and have airbags on the handlebars.

See how silly these arguments are.

If studies showed airbags and seatbelts on bikes dramatically reduced injury then it would not be silly. The studies posted before show that motorist wearing helmets would get far more protection from the helmet than from seatbelts or airbags, so what is silly about arguing that a motorist should be wearing a helmet? if they are already forced by law to wear a seatbelt?

robfitz

daymobrew wrote:

I read a "Coroner's Court" article in the Irish Times two week ago. It was about a cyclist killed by a truck on East Wall Road at the entrance to the docks.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It would be up to the victim's unfortunate family in the Philippines to petition for justice, if they could afford it.

cycleopath2001 your not talking about the same accident.

Last year in Dublin three cyclists where killed in accidents which all happend on or within spitting distance of East Wall Road.

2005-08-05 08:00 58 Male Irish North Wall Quay & East Wall Road Dublin Bicycle, Truck
2005-02-08 16:00 32 Male Filipino North Strand Road & East Wall Road (Annesley Bridge) Dublin Bicycle, Truck
2005-01-20 15:30 27 Male Chinese East Wall Road & Alexandra Road Dublin Bicycle, Truck

tabatha

Squirrel wrote:

That's exactly my point, if it were made law people would

well this isnt necessarily true......lights are law to have on bikes yet hardly any cyclists i ever see have them.

rubadub

tabatha wrote:

well this isnt necessarily true......lights are law to have on bikes yet hardly any cyclists i ever see have them.

If the law was enforced you would. I see people recording coronation street all the time, if the law was enforced nobody would do that either.

I don't think anybody could doubt the benefit of lights!

John_C

robfitz wrote:

2005-08-05 08:00 58 Male Irish North Wall Quay & East Wall Road Dublin Bicycle, Truck
2005-02-08 16:00 32 Male Filipino North Strand Road & East Wall Road (Annesley Bridge) Dublin Bicycle, Truck
2005-01-20 15:30 27 Male Chinese East Wall Road & Alexandra Road Dublin Bicycle, Truck

This is the main problem I have with the argument about helmets. The arguments in favour and against helmets have merit and have been discussed here but it only distracts from the main problems. There is a clear pattern to cyclist deaths, particularly in Dublin. The majority of them (I read once about three quarters) are caused by a bicycle / truck collission.

Some simple safety measures could be taken by the government or someone else which would probably improve the situation. I think even highlighting this statistic would make a lot more cyclists aware of the dangers of being alongside a truck

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

cycleopath2001 your not talking about the same accident.

Any idea when the City Council will (at Annesley Bridge) bring the cycle track into compliance with relevant laws?

BTW I found myself (involuntarily) having to pass a truck on the inside today. It was on the South city quays & an articulated truck overtook me & then moved in beside me, slowing down while moving closer to the kerb at the some time. I had to decide whether to slow down & risk getting whacked by something protruding from his rear or speed up and try & get clear.

This was on a section of Dublin's 'strategic cycle network' whice uses the latest state-of-the art, cost-effective cycle tracks (i.e. only exists in a DTO hand-out). I dread to think what would have happened if I was on an ordinary road.

GreeBo

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Like speed limits & laws on safe over-taking?

Why not enforce the laws that we have instead of distracting the Gardaí. Surely priority should be given to accident-prevention?

While I agree that this would have a possibly bigger affect on safety (for all) I think its MUCH harder to achieve.

As I tried to say before, only one person has to change to wear a helmet.
Everyone has to change if we want to improve general driving habits.

For those that think that there are so many other dangers that a helmet will not help, with read this;

If I was the only person ever going to be on the road I would wear a helmet.
The fact that the road is more dangerous due to others seems a silly reason to not wear one.

cyclopath2001

GreeBo wrote:

While I agree that this would have a possibly bigger affect on safety (for all) I think its MUCH harder to achieve.

If the Gardaí are diverted to enforcing mandatory helmet laws (MHL), wouldn't this mean even less resources being applied to preventing accidents?

As you know for a helmet to have eny beneficial effect in an accident, it must be correctly fitted, of the right standard & size & free from defect . To be effective, a MHL would have to guarantee these conditions.

GreeBo

cyclopath2001 wrote:

If the Gardaí are diverted to enforcing mandatory helmet laws (MHL), wouldn't this mean even less resources being applied to preventing accidents?

As you know for a helmet to have eny beneficial effect in an accident, it must be correctly fitted, of the right standard & size & free from defect . To be effective, a MHL would have to guarantee these conditions.

Mneah, you see someone cycling without a helmet you book them.
You dont need to go looking for them or setup sting operations.

cyclopath2001

GreeBo wrote:

Mneah, you see someone cycling without a helmet you book them.
You dont need to go looking for them or setup sting operations.

You mean like they book drivers who drive in cycle tracks?