Complacent cylists urged to start using their heads -- and helmets

blorg

DITTKD wrote:

I could jog backwards down the M50 and probably not get run over.

If you do decide to do this, make sure to wear a helmet.

PeadarofAodh

Some of the answers to my post were ridiculous to say the least! I've never ever heard someone say they cycle more dangerously while wearing a helmet, and I've never cycled more dangerously or felt a sudden rush of confidence because I am.

"I'm not going to wear a helmet because otherwise cars will drive more carelessly around me" - Go write a book on driver's psychology then, but why would you try and analyse driver's mentality instead of putting something on your head that may lessen damage? I very much doubt that wearing foam on my head is going to stop me getting brain damage if I'm in a serious accident but if I have a spill and knock my head off the kerb etc then I wouldn't mind avoiding the concussion!

I'm sorry if I come accross a bit strong, it's just that reading of people saying that not wearing a helmet will make drivers more responsible around you is crazy. At least give a real man's answer and tell me you're too lazy!

ozchick

My 'prevention is better than cure' comment was related to prevention brain injury rather than curing it - sorry I may not have made the clear. Obviously wearing a helmet doesn't prevent accidents! but neither does in increase the risk of accidents - where on earth do you come up with that theory??

Re the seatbelts comment: When they were made compulsory in Australia the road toll went from over 1000 a year in the State of Victoria to around as low as 300 (just recalling here, havent googled the facts, it was a long time ago!) I can't see a relationship between an increase in pedestrian and cyclists fatalies when seatbeats were introduced. Surely a coincidence? How would it affect it?

Since I have been home I have been kinda dismayed to see the increase in number of people not wearing helmets (including children) on bike paths. Didn't make it onto the road today so can't comment but the risk of a fine on a well patrolled road is probably a good deterent

Simons cranking

I always wear a helmet and have done for quite some time, i just dont think its worth it if some inconsiderate driver decides to run you off the road. Its better to wear a helmet than nothing at all, at least give yourself some chance. When I am commuting i cant believe the amount of cyclists that dont wear a helmet, plus there are alot of terrible cyclists out there which i have witnessed do the most stupidist things. I think their should be a test for cyclists to determine if they are competent enough to be on the road, if you cant maintain symbol balance by cycling in a circle without falling off then you shouldnt be allowed to cycle.
Proper maintainenance is crucial as well, i was cycling behind a guy yesterday who decided he didnt need brakes on his bike until he face planted into the back of a car after pulling his brake lever to realise there was nothing there to slow him down.
I dont believe in enforcing the use of the helmets, i think it is purely the decision of the user, some people just find them uncomfortable, if you dont use one just ride safe and expect the unexpected as you only get one head.

Civilian_Target

ozchick wrote:

My 'prevention is better than cure' comment was related to prevention brain injury rather than curing it - sorry I may not have made the clear. Obviously wearing a helmet doesn't prevent accidents! but neither does in increase the risk of accidents - where on earth do you come up with that theory??

I didn't, Transport for London did in an unpublished paper according to the Times (quite a few of their findings about cyclists have been too "controversial" to publish!) but also University of Bath http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html?ex=1323406800&en=6cfbd84196d71abc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland and University of Edinburugh http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/97/8/409

Since I have been home I have been kinda dismayed to see the increase in number of people not wearing helmets (including children) on bike paths. Didn't make it onto the road today so can't comment but the risk of a fine on a well patrolled road is probably a good deterent

Tell me, how much did the number of cyclists drop by in Aus when the compulsory helmet laws were introduced? What do you think the benefits to you and me of that exercise we get on a bike are? Don't you think the benefits of getting that exercise outweigh the supposed "risk factor" provided by wearing a bit of foam on your head.

Especially when most of those bits of foam aren't actually designed to protect you from accidents with cars, and given the fact that most people don't actually wear them in a manner that would protect them in an accident (not round here anyway!)

Traumadoc

I wear a helmet when cycling, although my only serious bike accident was because my visual field was reduced due the the helmet ( I was cycling hard and put my head down and could not see the car stopped infront of me, I ended up going through the back window. The helmet with visor definitly reduced my ability to look forward).


I have seen several people die despite wearing helmets- including a horrific crush injury where the helmet could not protect the victim from the weight of a roadstone truck.

I saw one child left paraplegic from a BMX accident - He was pulling a wheelie and fell back wards the helmet protected his head but may have increased the lever action on his cervical spine ,
I am unsure if it actually protects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Ghost Rider

Do you wear one?

Traumadoc wrote:

I wear a helmet when cycling, although my only serious bike accident was because my visual field was reduced due the the helmet ( I was cycling hard and put my head down and could not see the car stopped infront of me, I ended up going through the back window. The helmet with visor definitly reduced my ability to look forward).


I have seen several people die despite wearing helmets- including a horrific crush injury where the helmet could not protect the victim from the weight of a roadstone truck.

I saw one child left paraplegic from a BMX accident - He was pulling a wheelie and fell back wards the helmet protected his head but may have increased the lever action on his cervical spine ,
I am unsure if it actually protects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

dub_skav

I'm sorry if I come accross a bit strong, it's just that reading of people saying that not wearing a helmet will make drivers more responsible around you is crazy. At least give a real man's answer and tell me you're too lazy!

PeadorofAodh

I'm not too lazy, I just believe that helmets do not prevent all that much and that not wearing reduces some risks. These risks being increased torsional effects on the spine and increased risk of concussion, due to effectively widening the radius of your head and making contact with the ground more likely.

They are my reasons, which I have thought about.
Please don't call people lazy when your research is obviously limited

rubadub

PeadarofAodh wrote:

At least give a real man's answer and tell me you're too lazy!

Lazy how? not bothering to read any studies or peoples posts?

PeadarofAodh wrote:

I've never ever heard someone say they cycle more dangerously while wearing a helmet, and I've never cycled more dangerously or felt a sudden rush of confidence because I am.

People did in so many words. Mountain bikers would definitely say they do. If somebody says they cycle more carefully or are less confident without a helmet then in my mind that is equivalent to saying they cycle less carefully with a helmet or more confidently with a helmet- simple logic.

PeadarofAodh wrote:

why would you try and analyse driver's mentality instead of putting something on your head that may lessen damage?

Why would you put something on your head that may increase the likelihood of being in a crash in the first place.

I want to know the drivers mentality and why not, if I write a book I cannot be sure they will read it. I like to analyse scumbags mentality and avoid fights or being mugged too, I simply accept there are people out there like that and I cannot avoid or change them.

robfitz

[post]53917581[/post]

Unfortunately I've another person to add to this list.

2007-09-02, Cork A 10-year-old girl has died 11 days after crashing her bike in to a wall

robfitz wrote:

2007-07-01, Meath, The man's bicycle crashed into a parked car shortly after midnight at Newcastle in Enfield.
2006-12-02, Dublin, A young mother cycling with her daughter lost control of her bicycle as she was crossing Parkgate Street in heavy winds
2005-09-08, Cork, the woman had cycled down a steep hill and crashed at around 8.30am

rubadub

DITTKD wrote:

As an aside people, arguing that not wearing a helmet ends up with you getting more space on the road, I don’t buy it. I’m sure the statistics are accurate, but basically you’re just blackmailing the motorist aren’t you?
I could jog backwards down the M50 and probably not get run over. Motorists will see me and move out of my way won’t they? But just because I can doesn’t mean I should.

Or am I missing something?

I think a better analogy would be wearing a hurling helmet & shin guards. If somebody is going into a tackle and the player is wearing a helmet & shin guards then they may be more aggressive in their tackling, thinking that the person can take it is since they are suitably protected. I imagine american footballers could get tackled harder than rugby players.

Ghost Rider

I think you're confusing confidence with over-confidence.

rubadub wrote:

People did in so many words. Mountain bikers would definitely say they do. If somebody says they cycle more carefully or are less confident without a helmet then in my mind that is equivalent to saying they cycle less carefully with a helmet or more confidently with a helmet- simple logic.

DITTKD

rubadub wrote:

I think a better analogy would be wearing a hurling helmet & shin guards. If somebody is going into a tackle and the player is wearing a helmet & shin guards then they may be more aggressive in their tackling, thinking that the person can take it is since they are suitably protected. I imagine american footballers could get tackled harder than rugby players.

I don't think so myself, but I don't want to get into semantics (Who has the better example!!).
I will say though, I'm sure any decent Hurler or Rugby player would disagree very strongly with you.

rubadub

Ghost Rider wrote:

I think you're confusing confidence with over-confidence.

I am taking into account that many people do confuse confidence with overconfidence. People seem to take these things too personally but stats & studies seem to show it is the case.

You could look at it another way, people wearing the helmet are simply confident (rather than overcondifent) those without the helmet are not so confident and therefore cycle slower and safer, so could be less likely to have an accident. Just like the hurler without a helmet might think twice about getting into a situation where he could be struck on the head in the first place.

I could jog backwards down the M50 and probably not get run over. Motorists will see me and move out of my way won’t they? But just because I can doesn’t mean I should.

A motorist sees a kid walking down the road on the path, I imagine they are more likely to slow down then when seeing an adult do the same. If I am cycling I slow to an almost halt with kids around cycletracks. This is the same idea behind the berth motorists give to helmet wearers and non wearers. Jogging on the M50 or any jaywalking is illegal, cycling without a helmet is not. Instead of thinking of them giving more room to nonhelmet wearers, think of it more like giving less room to helmet wearers.

Ghost Rider

I think you're playing a semantic game here. If an attitude gets you into trouble on the roads, then it is by definition an over-confident one, not a confident one. Otherwise, the attitude has nothing to do with it!

Moreover, your analogy with a hurler is flawed. It only takes account of situations the hurler can see coming. Many accidents, on the other hand, are just the opposite: unforeseeable.

rubadub wrote:

You could look at it another way, people wearing the helmet are simply confident (rather than overcondifent) those without the helmet are not so confident and therefore cycle slower and safer, so could be less likely to have an accident. Just like the hurler without a helmet might think twice about getting into a situation where he could be struck on the head in the first place.


A motorist sees a kid walking down the road on the path, I imagine they are more likely to slow down then when seeing an adult do the same. If I am cycling I slow to an almost halt with kids around cycletracks. This is the same idea behind the berth motorists give to helmet wearers and non wearers. Jogging on the M50 or any jaywalking is illegal, cycling without a helmet is not. Instead of thinking of them giving more room to nonhelmet wearers, think of it more like giving less room to helmet wearers.

rubadub

Ghost Rider wrote:

If an attitude gets you into trouble on the roads, then it is by definition an over-confident one, not a confident one. Otherwise, the attitude has nothing to do with it!

I think you are playing semantic games yourself, if you are going to insist on using the "over" prefix in a negative way, then I could similarly say some people without helmets are over-cautious, and this could result in them being less likely to be in an accident. There attitude gets them into less trouble on the road.

And if a helmet does make some people overconfident, and overconfidence is such a bad thing, then they might be better off without it. Some are taking things to personally. Also as I said in another thread many helmet wearers may be biased since they have made a financial investment in them and to not want to rethink that their purchase might not have been so wise. If I had bought a helmet before reading all the various threads I might well be still wearing it, conciously or subconciously not accepting that I bought something I dont really need. If I was offered a helmet free today, I would take it- and wear it only mountainbiking.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Moreover, your analogy with a hurler is flawed. It only takes account of situations the hurler can see coming. Many accidents, on the other hand, are just the opposite: unforeseeable.

I am saying the person tackling is the motorist, they see the person has a helmet so might take more risk when tackling, this is forseeable by the tackler and is a concious decision. The motorist sees the cyclist with the helmet and might overtake closer, sees a small gap and goes for it, again foreseeable by the motorist, a concious decision made by the motorist- thinks ah yer man is grand sure he has a helmet. This might be unforeseeable to the cyclist, they have no control over the motorists mind.

Ghost Rider

I don't think so. It's a conventional usage.

rubadub wrote:

I think you are playing semantic games yourself, if you are going to insist on using the "over" prefix in a negative way...

ThOnda

On contrary, I think that people without helmets are over-selfconfident and they think that they can't have an accident. And that's the problem. You can control few things, but you can have an accident even when you trying everything possible to avoid it.

Civilian_Target

Really? My experinece has been very much the opposite.
There's a lot of hard evidence to support the fact that hemlet use is correlated with increased accident risk, whereas I have yet to see any evidence showing that wearing a helmet reduces the chance of you being involved in an accident.

Ghost Rider

Is anyone actually claiming that?

Civilian_Target wrote:

... I have yet to see any evidence showing that wearing a helmet reduces the chance of you being involved in an accident.

rubadub

Ghost Rider wrote:

Is anyone actually claiming that?

I would like to know too, some seem to infer it.

I think that people without helmets are over-selfconfident and they think that they can't have an accident.

To me that is saying people without helmets are more likely to be in an accident, ergo people wearing helmets are not as likely to be in an accident, therefore wearing a helmet reduces the chance of being in an accident.



http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/psi.htm

That conclusion would be warranted if it were also supported by evidence about the effect on cycling behavior of wearing a helmet. The studies assume that behavior is unaffected. That assumption is not justified. The likelihood is that when wearing a helmet cyclists feel less vulnerable and therefore ride less cautiously. As a result, they are more likely to have an accident. Consequently, the benefits attributed to helmets by the studies are at best highly exaggerated. At worst, wearing a helmet may expose cyclists to greater danger.

Wearing a helmet only marginally reduces the extent of head injury following collision with a motor vehicle. Thus, cyclists who wear a helmet do so with an inflated idea of its protective properties. Indeed, this illusion is encouraged by road safety campaigners and helmet manufacturers who set out to persuade cyclists that they will be safer with a helmet, using all the techniques of modern advertising. Cyclists are not warned of the limited benefit provided by a helmet in an accident with a motor vehicle

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp? or do you also think the opposite it true? or it has a perfectly neutral effect? (And I am not saying every single helmet wearer will be like this before people take it personal and get upset)

skidpatches

Civilian_Target wrote:

Really? My experinece has been very much the opposite.
There's a lot of hard evidence to support the fact that hemlet use is correlated with increased accident risk, whereas I have yet to see any evidence showing that wearing a helmet reduces the chance of you being involved in an accident.

agreed. it has been PROVEN that people engage in risk compensation behaviour. it has also been PROVEN than drivers give more room to cyclists without a helmet (and even more still to female cyclists without a helmet).

some people just don't see the big picture.

Ghost Rider

The paragraph you cite makes two claims:

(i) People can be led into a false sense of security by wearing a helmet.

(ii) A helmet will not necessarily protect you if you're hit by a car.

Regarding (i): so there are idiots out there. How surprising is that? Most of us are well able to wear helmets without being lulled into a false sense of security. If I thought there was an inevitable link between helmet-wearing and having a false sense of security, I might change my mind, but I don't believe there is such a link. The link is one of possibility, not necessity.

Regarding (ii): I don't doubt it, but so what? A seatbelt wouldn't help me if someone fired a missile at my car but I'm still going to wear one.

To my mind, neither point has any bearing on my decision to wear a helmet, or on my recommendation to everyone I know that they do likewise.

rubadub wrote:

I would like to know too, some seem to infer it.


To me that is saying people without helmets are more likely to be in an accident, ergo people wearing helmets are not as likely to be in an accident, therefore wearing a helmet reduces the chance of being in an accident.



http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/psi.htm

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp? or do you also think the opposite it true? or it has a perfectly neutral effect? (And I am not saying every single helmet wearer will be like this before people take it personal and get upset)

rp

Ghost Rider wrote:

To my mind, neither point has any bearing on my decision to wear a helmet, or on my recommendation to everyone I know that they do likewise.

And you'll be doing them a service: just as long as you recommend they wear one as a pedestrian and car driver/passenger as well (a study in the UK found that the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians at 30.0% vs. 30.1%)

skidpatches

Ghost Rider wrote:

The paragraph you cite makes two claims:

(i) People can be led into a false sense of security by wearing a helmet.

(ii) A helmet will not necessarily protect you if you're hit by a car.

Regarding (i): so there are idiots out there. How surprising is that? Most of us are well able to wear helmets without being lulled into a false sense of security. If I thought there was an inevitable link between helmet-wearing and having a false sense of security, I might change my mind, but I don't believe there is such a link. The link is one of possibility, not necessity.

Regarding (ii): I don't doubt it, but so what? A seatbelt wouldn't help me if someone fired a missile at my car but I'm still going to wear one.

To my mind, neither point has any bearing on my decision to wear a helmet, or on my recommendation to everyone I know that they do likewise.

*sigh*

no one is suggesting that cyclists consciously think "i'm wearing a helmet, therefore i am invincible, and will ride recklessly". risk compensating behaviour is subconscious, but very real (cars and seat belts are proof of that).

the pro helmet wearers seem to think everyone should wear helmets. people like myself just want people to be able to make their own choice. why can't helmet wearing be a matter of personal choice?

Ghost Rider

"Sigh" yourself, brother. Every time this debate comes up, I ask the same question: who is claiming that helmets should be mandatory in law?

The article cited at the beginning of this thread made no such call, nor did it refer to any. By describing posters who advocate the wearing of helmets as "pro" helmet, you imply that their position entails legislating to make helmets mandatory. Yet I am not aware of a single post making such a claim. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) So if anything is being foisted on anyone else, it would appear to be you doing the foisting.

Also, by the way, the fact that risk-compensating behaviour operates at an unconscious level is neither here nor there. Nobody denies its empirical existence. The question is "Is it an inevitable consequence of wearing a helmet?"

skidpatches wrote:

*sigh*

no one is suggesting that cyclists consciously think "i'm wearing a helmet, therefore i am invincible, and will ride recklessly". risk compensating behaviour is subconscious, but very real (cars and seat belts are proof of that).

the pro helmet wearers seem to think everyone should wear helmets. people like myself just want people to be able to make their own choice. why can't helmet wearing be a matter of personal choice?

ThOnda

I would like to have helmets mandatory for people who don't pay taxes. So young and elderly people.
If you pay taxes, OK, all costs for your health care will be paid from your taxes if you didn't have a helmet during the crash. Cash for ignorance, maybe even stupidity.
If could helmet save my brain even in 1% of accidents, I would like to have it on my head. And that 1% could be just one fall. And it could be even the very first fall from bike.

And this is officialy my last post to this subject, it is just waste of time. I wish to all people to avoid any accidents on their bikes or anywhere in traffic, I wish noone helmet would be needed for protection, I wish we all could feel safe and we would reach our destinations safely. But I am going to wear a helmet, I am going to teach and force my kids to wear a helmet and I am going continue buying helmets for my parents on regular basis.

Please, use your brain till it's working properly!

Ghost Rider

Mmm. I guess I asked for that...

ThOnda wrote:

I would like to have helmets mandatory for people who don't pay taxes. So young and elderly people.
If you pay taxes, OK, all costs for your health care will be paid from your taxes if you didn't have a helmet during the crash. Cash for ignorance, maybe even stupidity.
If could helmet save my brain even in 1% of accidents, I would like to have it on my head. And that 1% could be just one fall. And it could be even the very first fall from bike.

And this is officialy my last post to this subject, it is just waste of time. I wish to all people to avoid any accidents on their bikes or anywhere in traffic, I wish noone helmet would be needed for protection, I wish we all could feel safe and we would reach our destinations safely. But I am going to wear a helmet, I am going to teach and force my kids to wear a helmet and I am going continue buying helmets for my parents on regular basis.

Please, use your brain till it's working properly!

cyclopath2001

ThOnda wrote:

Please, use your brain till it's working properly!

I think the thread should be renamed to 'complacent road safety pundits run out of ideas and urge everyone to wear a helmet (again)'.

jaycummins

ThOnda wrote:

If you pay taxes, OK, all costs for your health care will be paid from your taxes if you didn't have a helmet during the crash.

health care? you mean your funeral.