If you always wear a helmet cycling, why not in a car?

monkeybutter

monument wrote: »

The problem with "common sense" is that it is not common, it is an individual thing based on experience and other factors.

You won't answer questions, but your experience seems to be that cycling is notablly more dangerous than walking.

Mine isn't. I dont think there's much of a diffrence one way or another. And -- in my most safity critical activity of transporting my son -- I found walking with a pram less safe at least at times than cycling. Motorists and lesser so cyclists breaking red lights at crossings was the worst, followed by parking on footpaths, speeding cars, and cyclists on footpaths.

But as with your self, that's based largely on feeling and personal experance -- both of which can't be relied on to determine actual risk.

These things are only a small mesure of perceived safety -- important in its own right but useless for measuring actual risk.

What scientific approach are you using to measure risk? Does risk increase with speed?

If you find walking is risky, maybe you should wear some PPE, a high viz?

monkeybutter

tomasrojo wrote: »

The standards are actually weaker now than they used to be. (I'll have to leave it to someone else to send you a link).

Helmets *might* make the more serious brain injuries worse, when the head is turned rapidly relative to the spine (links in a recent thread, but this phone is too cumbersome). They occasionally strangle children too.

So it's a rather grey area, I feel. I think in a simple fall with no motorised vehices involved and the head not being twisted, they're probably of some use. They must save the use some scalp damage too. Not sure that that's the idea of their effectiveness that most people have though.

Standards being weaker now is surely a bad thing, are we not advocating tougher standards.

I would expect that the helmet would provide protection and absorb some of the impact, not turn me into superman. I would still expect to get hurt, broken arm, bruises, some grazing (really sore).

I would still do everything in my power to avoid the accident in the first place.

monkeybutter

tomasrojo wrote: »

They occasionally strangle children too.

Look at the list of these incidents, they were strangled while wearing a helmet yes, but not while cycling. These are just tragic accidents.



Year Country Child Circumstances 2011 Sweden Boy, 3 years Helmet caught in tree
(NB: Hockey helmet but of a type often used for cycling) Aftonbladet, 2011 2010 USA Boy, 3 years Helmet caught on backyard swingset KTRV-TV, 2010
2010 Norway Girl, 3 years Helmet stuck in tree while girl playing in kindergarden Sweden, 2
2009 Australia Boy, 5/6 years Hanged from an overhead clothesline while jumping on a trampoline SMH, 2009
2008 USA Boy Strangled. More details unknown.
2007 Australia Boy, 3 years Suspended by his helmet strap when he tried to climb out of a home window Adelaide Now, 2007
2003 Australia Boy, 2 years Suspended by his helmet strap between a bunk bed and a wall ABC, 2004b
1999 USA Boy, 3 years
Asphyxiated while wearing a bicycle helmet and playing on playground equipment. Caught between two overlapping horizontal platforms when his helmet would not fit through the gap between them where his body had already gone. BHSI, 2
CPSC, 1999
1997 Canada
Girl, 7 years Hanged when helmets entrapped in opening in playground structure. 1984 to 1992 Sweden & Norway 6 incidents 6 cases of asphyxiation by helmet straps when the helmets caught in Swedish or Norwegian playground equipment. All boys under 6 years. 30 further non-fatal cases
BHSI, 2
CPSC, 1999

tomasrojo

I agree these are accidents, and mercifully rare. It is, however, another shortcoming of the current design, and another problem with indiscriminate promotion. If they're so great, then why not wear them in other situations where there's a risk of a fall? Australia at least has bolder warnings about this possibility than we do.

I believe that in Scandinavia, you can get a green buckle that snaps open under prolonged load. I don't think they're bundled with any current helmets though. If that works, they should be a standard feature with children's helmets.

As I said before, helmet standards show no sign of rapid improvement. In Australia, the medical authorities, who were instrumental in passing the law, have since shown no sign of interest in optimising helmets. They keep passing the buck back to the standards authorities, who also seem to have very little interest in changing the current design very much.

monument

monkeybutter wrote: »

What scientific approach are you using to measure risk? Does risk increase with speed?

If you find walking is risky, maybe you should wear some PPE, a high viz?

I did not say I found walking risky, I said: less safe at least at times than cycling.

Also, I said: "Motorists and lesser so cyclists breaking red lights at crossings was the worst, followed by parking on footpaths..." how does high viz or PPE help with those? If motorists don't heed traffic lights what are the changes that they are going to heed high-vis?

monkeybutter wrote: »

Look at the list of these incidents, they were strangled while wearing a helmet yes, but not while cycling. These are just tragic accidents.

That's the problem with only looking at the abstract and not how people use protective gear, you only count what you want to count and not what happens in reality.

smacl wrote: »

Right. So six pages into the discussion we've established that cycling helmets are considerably less useful to car passengers in the event of a car crash than helmets specifically designed for car passengers. Not exactly breaking news. I wouldn't say they're much to sky divers, pot holers, or boxers either, but then that's not what they're designed for.

Are you focusing on one part of the summery for a reason?

smacl wrote: »

At this point I would have hoped to uncover something relating to the efficacy of cycling helmets in a cycling accident which included a knock to the head.

That's fairly old ground really? Try searching bicycle helmets on the board... or are you trying to derail the thread?

monkeybutter wrote: »

That everyone should wear helmets all the time? This is not practical,

Why is it not practical for motorists and passengers to wear helmets? -- there's space in cars and new cars could be built with storing them in mind.

monkeybutter wrote: »

in cars you can bring in other solutions to minimize head injury (airbags etc), you can't on bikes or motorbikes.

As the report already referenced says: crash helmets would be more beneficial than those things.

monkeybutter wrote: »

Motorcyclists arguing against it when helmets were brought in, and the point here is it reduced the number of head injuries in total, you want to walk away without one, the majority of motorcycle head injuries are major ones because that was beyond what helmets are designed to cope with. That's why the bikes stat is skewed up. For minor accidents, people tend to walk away unhurt or with minor cuts or bruising, whereas without protective gear it's a different matter. Now people would call you a fool to not use a helmet on a bike.

Motorcycle helmets are not comparable to bicycle helmets -- motorcycle crashes are overall at far higher speeds then bicycle crashes.

monkeybutter wrote: »

I point out that you are at least 5 times more likely to have a head injury cycling a bike than a car. That means you are still more likely to get a major injury on a bike than in a car.

No, it does not. We don't know how many of the cyclists were engaged in non-transport activities and you're trying to compare transport to a mix of transport, sports, leisure and play.

Even if you were correct in usage numbers (which you clearly are not), then the stark difference in severe injuries 13% for cyclists compared to 38% for car users would cancel out a good deal of your "at least 5 times more likely".

monkeybutter wrote: »

I'd reckon at least 1/2 (probably 75%) the people i see on the roads wear helmets, it's probably higher, so would it not make sense that this lowers the percentage of severe head injuries.

I see a lot less wearing helmets and outside of the main commuting times that drops even lower. I currently live and cycle in Dublin around the areas with the highest cyclists numbers -- but when in Mayo I also see most cyclists not wearing helmets (I'll have a better look soon).

At a guess I'd say a lot less then 10% of Dublin bike users wear one and less than five percent of the children and teenage cycling around the inner city wear them.

tomasrojo

On arterial routes in the suburbs of Dublin at rush hour I think a majority wear helmets.

On the other end of the scale, nobody wears them in working-class neighbourhoods.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

On arterial routes in the suburbs of Dublin at rush hour I think a majority wear helmets.

On the other end of the scale, nobody wears them in working-class neighbourhoods.

I can't dispute that for sure but I did a lot of standing around looking at cyclists for other reasons (taking photos) and I quickly found that it varies a lot -- by time of day, different routes will differ, and the sections of route will differ.

What I found most striking was how much it can differ in rush hour from one traffic light sequence to the next (was mainly waiting at junctions) -- one you might have a mix one way or another and then the next min you'd have all wearing ones and then the next none at all. The norm seem to be a mix swinging one way or the other.

Would love see some propper and comprehensive junction behavior monitoring (not just for helmets).

monkeybutter

monument wrote: »

I did not say I found walking risky, I said: less safe at least at times than cycling.

you found someone breaking a red light as you crossed the road more dangerous than cycling in a straight line

monument wrote: »

Also, I said: "Motorists and lesser so cyclists breaking red lights at crossings was the worst, followed by parking on footpaths..." how does high viz or PPE help with those? If motorists don't heed traffic lights what are the changes that they are going to heed high-vis?

Maybe they didn't see you as you crossed, a high viz jacket might have highlighted you were there and they would have taken more care, especially if you had a child. Anyone breaking a red light like that with someone crossing is a clown, and would be equally dangerous to someone walking or on a bike, but a runs this risk more than someone walking, mixing with cars etc, rather than mostly on a footpath at speed.

monument wrote: »

That's the problem with only looking at the abstract and not how people use protective gear, you only count what you want to count and not what happens in reality.

This is exactly whta you are doing, I pointed out an error you had made in looking at the stats

monument wrote: »

Are you focusing on one part of the summery for a reason?

Yes, the important bit, the bit you are basing you illogical argument on

That's fairly old ground really? Try searching bicycle helmets on the board... or are you trying to derail the thread?

monument wrote: »

Why is it not practical for motorists and passengers to wear helmets? -- there's space in cars and new cars could be built with storing them in mind.

You can give 3rd parties lifts in your bcar, thus you would need a wide range of helmets to fit these people, just like you would need a set of different helemts if you were going to bring someone on your motorbike, this is impractical.

monument wrote: »

As the report already referenced says: crash helmets would be more beneficial than those things.

Possibly, but not necessarily, given that the report also points out that cars are already safer, even with the higher speeds

Theres no doubt that helmets are a good idea, just not practical. The very point is helmets provide protection. So there would be no harm in wearing one.

monument wrote: »

Motorcycle helmets are not comparable to bicycle helmets -- motorcycle crashes are overall at far higher speeds then bicycle crashes.

Sure they are, they are designed for higher speed crashes and some are full face, some are not, just like bicycle helmets. Can you outline why they are not comparable, I doubt it.

No, it does not. We don't know how many of the cyclists were engaged in non-transport activities and you're trying to compare transport to a mix of transport, sports, leisure and play.

monument wrote: »

Even if you were correct in usage numbers (which you clearly are not), then the stark difference in severe injuries 13% for cyclists compared to 38% for car users would cancel out a good deal of your "at least 5 times more likely".

Explain how I am wrong there would ya, 13 by 5 is higher than 38, if you can understand that, and thats just the severe head injuries, you seem to be mad for the lower ones, which you seem to have forgotten about. The whole point is that the reason people don't have serious head injuries on the bikes is down to the high level of helmet usage and the lower speed, which is is exactly what the helmets are designed for.

monument wrote: »

I see a lot less wearing helmets and outside of the main commuting times that drops even lower. I currently live and cycle in Dublin around the areas with the highest cyclists numbers -- but when in Mayo I also see most cyclists not wearing helmets (I'll have a better look soon).

At a guess I'd say a lot less then 10% of Dublin bike users wear one and less than five percent of the children and teenage cycling around the inner city wear them.

The vast majority of people wear helmets, the vast majority of people cycling are commuting in the first place.

Kids and teenagers are immature, that is why they aren't using them.

There is no availability for dublin bike users to wear them unless they bring them with them, thats not a good thing now is it, I know it's not an easy thing to sort out helmet rental along side given the different head sizes, etc, so who know if it will never be available.

Maybe it's all these people end up with the serious head damage given they aren't used to it.

So finally, if i was in a crash in a car I would want to be wearing a helmet have a role cage etc etc. But I believe that car safety has come on leaps and bounds in the last 20 years, but you can have no helmet solutions in cars

At the moment, there are no alternatives to helmets in bikes and motorbikes, so it makes sense to wear them.

Flandria

Soon this will be the best thread on the internet...:rolleyes:

doozerie

@monkeybutter, It has already been mentioned but bears repeating - bicycle helmets have been discussed at length on this forum and elsewhere in the past. You have opinions which you are presenting as facts, such as the suggestion that helmets introduce no dangers in themselves. Ideas like those have been discussed before and various studies have been cited (and linked to) which support, or not, such theories with some hard facts. You'd do well to search for such threads and read them rather than drag yet another helmet thread back to the absolute basics.

The debate around helmets is a long-running knife fight, you've thrown yourself in enthusiastically armed only with a spatula. Good luck.

smacl

doozerie wrote: »

The debate around helmets is a long-running knife fight

Knife fights don't last that long. Handbags however you can bludgeon away to you hearts content, damage is largely minor, and there's every opportunity to repeat the event ad nauseam. Only sayin' ......

tfrancer

smacl wrote: »

Knife fights don't last that long. Handbags however you can bludgeon away to you hearts content, damage is largely minor, and there's every opportunity to repeat the event ad nauseam. Only sayin' ......

There should be a thread about threads about helmets. It is the ideal issue for prolonged and ill-tempered discussion........the evidence is inconclusive on both sides, the average poster's statistical knowledge is minimal and, most important of all, the control issue......people like telling others what they should do and think and get very annoyed when contradicted.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Ladies and Gentleman, I would like to draw this months helmet thread to a close, it strayed off the OPs point quite quickly and trying to tidy it up to either make sense or be worth reading seems pointless.

Read through the thread, read through all of the other threads (HINT: Use the search function), make up your own mind, most of you are old enough to make your own decisions, IMO its strayed top far away from a DISCUSSION to be saved regardless.

Feel free to PM me if you feel there are other points to be made, but I will not reopen it for any of the handbags at dawn malarky I've just skimmed over, I will open it for points of discussion that have NOT been made before.