Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

doozerie

monument wrote: »

Grand sure then.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out, 'twas heading toward handbags at dawn there for a while and I'm simply not a morning person.

Beasty

Phew!!

monument

Non-pro-helmet anecdotal evidence warning!

Interesting video showing what on the surface at least seems to be a random voxpox of normal Dutch cyclists, including questions on helmets....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1IGKaol_M

...in any case, one of the 'extra' bits reminds me that the Dutch (and the Danish) ride bicycles a lot while drunk. One of the people said:

"I don't think I know anybody who has had [a head] injury; normally when they are drunk they fall down and hurt their hands and their knees, but never their head..."

And -- in large numbers -- they also partake in loads of diffrent types of risky cycling... like cycling with umbrellas, cycling with dogs on leads, cycling holding another bicycle, cycling with a friend on the rear carrier...

Rob A. Bank

HivemindXX wrote: »

As of now 71 individuals have posted in this thread.

27 say they always wear helmets
4 say they never do
6 say they sometimes do
34 didn't say (a couple of these are apparently non-cyclists)

Only 1 person seems to think helmets should be compulsory
1 person thinks maybe they should be
24 say they shouldn't (13 of these always wear helmets themselves)
45 people didn't explicitly say

I didn't know anyone was keeping the score !

For what it is worth... I like my health and lifestyle choices to be evidence based, so therefore I never wear a helmet... and I think it would be absolute madness to make them compulsory.

As I see it... the problem with finding solid evidence about helmet safety is that cycling is as safe as walking. So severe injuries and death are very rare events, so rare that it is difficult to find the numbers for sensible conclusions. If the roads were littered with bodies the answer would be obvious in a very short time.

So what are we left with... on one side you have the 'Helmet saved my life' anecdotes and seriously dodgy 'scientific' papers claiming "85 percent reduction in the risk of head injury … and an 88 percent reduction in the risk of brain injury” with helmets.

On the other side you have the population studies which clearly show that cycling becomes more lethal as helmet wearing increases. This has happened in Australia, New Zealand, various states in the USA and Canada and more recently among the pro cycling peleton.

One or the other is the truth.

I believe that the population evidence is the most sound, simply because it is difficult to fudge if someone is alive or dead.

Why this is happening is fascinating, with small clues littered around the medical literature but as far as I can see nothing absolutely conclusive.

PS... I don't care what anyone else cares to wear on their heads.... it is their business alone. And I have no missionary zeal to convert anyone to my point of view.

NeedMoreGears

Slightly off topic so apologies but..... One particular component of this debate intrigues me and that's the interaction between the good of the individual and the good of the wider population. I would be convinced that on balance wearing a helmet is a good idea for me (as I've indicated in posts above the main benefit I perceive is injury reduction in medium energy events - I pretty certain it won't save my life if a truck runs over my head and I'm happy that the increased chance of rotational brain injuries etc are outweighed by the injury reduction benefit). But there appears to evidence that, for the population as a whole, the discouragement factor due to "having" to wear a helmet reduces numbers cycling and thereby increases the risk to the residual cycling cohort.
So a prisoners dilemma like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) tension emerges (assuming both of the above are accurate and I am aware of the lack of universal agreement on this) whereby it's in my selfish interest that no-one else (except me) wears a helmet. That way I get the benefit of an increased cycling population and the injury reduction benefit of wearing the helmet.

Just a curiosity - not advocating one way or other

rp

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

One particular component of this debate intrigues me and that's the interaction between the good of the individual and the good of the wider population.

Wasn't it Mr Spock who said that, in the Wrath of Kahn?

seamus

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

So a prisoners dilemma like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) tension emerges

You see, it's not quite the same as the Prisoner's dilemma.

If the entire population (or a large majority) voluntarily wore helmets without any pressure - legal or social - to do so, then there should be little or no negative effects from it.

The negative effects come from the compulsion of wearing helmets moreso than the actual fact of wearing helmets.

Granted, there are the risk compensation suggestions, but that seems to be less of a factor than the "Ew, helmets are unsightly, screw this cycling lark" one.

Grudaire

It's ok, they'll just start fining cyclists to keep us all safe!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fines-for-cyclists-and-alcohol-locks-for-drivers-on-the-cards-1.1341664

Beasty

Cliste wrote: »

It's ok, they'll just start fining cyclists to keep us all safe!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fines-for-cyclists-and-alcohol-locks-for-drivers-on-the-cards-1.1341664

Let's keep this discussion to helmets

Thanks

NeedMoreGears

@rp - 'hope I haven't broken some trekkie version of Goodwins law by mistake!

@Sé;amus - The second curiosity for me (it's kinda Friday and not too busy here today) is around the "compulsion" idea. There seems to be two forms (i) a legal requirement with penalties etc and (ii) a social (?) pressure/risk perception resulting that creates a type of self imposed obligation. It's really the latter one that creates the prisoner's dilemma - if helmet wearing is compulsary and enforced then the cycling population loses its ability to influence anyone thinking of taking up cycling one way or the other - ignoring other ways it could influence our potential cyclist for the moment

I wonder which of the two is more off-putting for people?

seamus

I see your prisoner's dilemma now, I'd never considered it that way.

As more people that choose to wear helmets without the compulsion, then to non-wearers this automatically creates a perception that the helmet is necessary and cycling is inherently dangerous. Therefore the simple act of wearing a helmet for one's own protection contributes to this effect and may disimprove the overall level of safety.

Whereas not wearing a helmet while theoretically may be individually less safe, contributes to an overall improvement in cycling safety.

droidus

seamus wrote: »

I see your prisoner's dilemma now, I'd never considered it that way.

As more people that choose to wear helmets without the compulsion, then to non-wearers this automatically creates a perception that the helmet is necessary and cycling is inherently dangerous. Therefore the simple act of wearing a helmet for one's own protection contributes to this effect and may disimprove the overall level of safety.

Whereas not wearing a helmet while theoretically may be individually less safe, contributes to an overall improvement in cycling safety.

That is, I believe the crux of the argument that Monument and others have been making, and for which they have been pilloried and characterised as extremists.

monument

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/About%20Us/RSA_STRATEGY_2013-2020%20.pdf

The RSA think nearly 50% of cyclists wear helmets, and they want to get more people wearing them.

Keep_Her_Lit

Got to say, this is one "dilemma" that I haven't lost any sleep over.

The proliferation of cycling helmets apparently deters non-cyclists from cycling. Haven't any of them wondered why the wearers of those helmets haven't been deterred from cycling?

I'm quite happy to see more people taking up cycling. But I've no interest in being an active participant in increasing the numbers of cyclists because of the argument that this will make things safer for all cyclists. There's no need to do that, since cycling is already a safe activity, as we are continually assured by some of those who choose not to wear helmets. And on this, I agree with them.

Even if this tenuous, arm-waving logic is taken at face value, the cost-benefit analysis falls down flat from my point of view.

The potential cost : a head injury which might have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

The potential benefit : somebody, somewhere might someday decide to complete a journey by bicycle because they saw me cycling without a helmet.

I fully agree that my actions and decisions help to shape the society in which I live. However, I give much more weight to how those decisions might affect those closest to me.

There may well be some individuals out there who think that helmets look "unattractive" and decide not to cycle as a result. TBH, I couldn't care less.

droidus

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

@Sé;amus - The second curiosity for me (it's kinda Friday and not too busy here today) is around the "compulsion" idea. There seems to be two forms (i) a legal requirement with penalties etc and (ii) a social (?) pressure/risk perception resulting that creates a type of self imposed obligation. It's really the latter one that creates the prisoner's dilemma - if helmet wearing is compulsary and enforced then the cycling population loses its ability to influence anyone thinking of taking up cycling one way or the other - ignoring other ways it could influence our potential cyclist for the moment

I wonder which of the two is more off-putting for people?

It's worth pointing out as well, that the social pressure is very often couched in pretty extreme language tantamount to moral blackmail 'you'd be an idiot not to wear one', 'how would your family feel if you died', 'I work in an A+E and Im begging you to wear a helmet' etc... to the point where its an almost pavlovian response when hearing of an accident to first ask if the cyclist was wearing a helmet and to even apportion legal blame/responsibility based on the answer.

Few things that should be pointed out:

1) Cycling is not a sport! I wish this one would sink in. We keep coming back to points about helmets and dangerous 'sports'. A commuting cyclist doesn't normally get above about 12mph - very hard to give yourself a serious injury at that speed.

2) The best way to prevent injury is to slow down. Again, something we can learn from our continental friends. Nobody in Copenhagen cycles around like they are in a race. They are getting from A to B in a smart, stylish fashion. I do believe that helmets, lycra and other 'sports' gear encourages cyclists to behave more dangerously. They encourage the sport / transport confusion above.

3) The reason so many of the 'anti' helmet brigade get touchy about this is that it is a live issue. There's a very real risk some politician looking for cheap publicity will adopt this as a hobby horse, get the Joe Duffy brigade onside and before you know it we're living the australian nightmare. That's why we're suspicious of the ongoing media focus on this issue - one that objectively speaking is so trivial as to make you question the motives of those who are so obsessed with it.

Keep_Her_Lit

Deleted User wrote: »

A commuting cyclist doesn't normally get above about 12mph

Man, you need to get some more miles in your legs.

- very hard to give yourself a serious injury at that speed.

On the contrary, death through sheer boredom would be a real risk.

2) The best way to prevent injury is to slow down.

Alternative methods include sharpening up your reflexes, learning to read the road and traffic conditions more accurately and improving your bike handling skills. All far more enjoyable and engaging than just plodding along.

Again, something we can learn from our continental friends. Nobody in Copenhagen cycles around like they are in a race.

Well then I'm glad I don't live in Copenhagen.

They are getting from A to B in a smart, stylish fashion.

More vanity. I enjoy cycling fast (or at least trying to) and have no interest in whether observers think I'm smart or stylish looking.

I do believe that helmets, lycra and other 'sports' gear encourages cyclists to behave more dangerously. They encourage the sport / transport confusion above.

There's no confusion in my mind. Unlike riding fast on a high performance motorcycle, it's perfectly possible to cycle fast on public roads without being dangerous.

3) The reason so many of the 'anti' helmet brigade get touchy about this is that it is a live issue. There's a very real risk some politician looking for cheap publicity will adopt this as a hobby horse, get the Joe Duffy brigade onside and before you know it we're living the australian nightmare. That's why we're suspicious of the ongoing media focus on this issue - one that objectively speaking is so trivial as to make you question the motives of those who are so obsessed with it.

Sorry, I am not changing my riding style to placate Joe Duffy and the assorted muppetry who are dull enough to take anything he says seriously.

Keep_Her_Lit

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Alternative methods include sharpening up your reflexes, learning to read the road and traffic conditions more accurately and improving your bike handling skills. All far more enjoyable and engaging than just plodding along.

Coming from the man who has landed on his head four times in total.

With the greatest of respect, I would keep working on those reflexes until you don't fall on your head at all. Because one day you'll go flying and a helmet won't save you.

chakattack

4 in 29 years is a pretty good record.

I'm up to 2 in 4 already.

doozerie

Deleted User wrote: »

A commuting cyclist doesn't normally get above about 12mph - very hard to give yourself a serious injury at that speed.

I see a number of issues with this line of reasoning, making it an over simplification that simply muddies the debate in my view. For one thing, speaking personally my commute takes me along some relatively narrow roads with other cyclists and motorised traffic, and at rush hour when congestion is at its worst and peoples' patience is at their shortest (making them more unpredictable and therefore a greater source of risk). By comparison my "sporting" rides on the bike are on roads with less traffic. The odds of my colliding with other road users on my commute route are greater in my view, and to me that poses greater risk to me than falling off my bike at speed with no traffic around me i.e. my commute riding is arguably more dangerous.

For another thing I commute by bike all year round, through ice and snow included, whereas I don't take my "sporting" bike out in ice typically. Similarly I commute in the dark, in other forms of poor visibility, or basically in whatever conditions that nature throws at me, whereas I'm much more selective about when I ride my other bikes. Generally speaking I am more likely to come off , or be knocked off, my commute bike due to wet or icy roads, etc., than my "sporting" bikes, and my very few falls and collisions over the years have borne this out.

I spend more time on my commute bikes than my "sporting" bikes, increasing the likelihood that if I have a fall it'll be while commuting.

Despite all that I don't believe that cycling is a dangerous activity, and I think that suggesting that one form of cycling is somehow more dangerous than another form helps to fuel the arguments of those for whom cycling and danger go hand in hand.

Further, if you factor in the tests that helmets are required to undergo to meet the safety standards, you'll find that a helmet is likely to be of more benefit in a low speed crash than a high speed one, so it could be argued to be of greater use to a commute cyclist than a "sporting" one. I'm not making that argument incidentally (not least because a commute cyclist is probably more likely to be hit by a car at which point any benefit of the helmet comes strongly into question), but it's another example of the further can of worms that you open up when you try to distinguish one form of road cyclist from another.

Deleted User wrote:

The best way to prevent injury is to slow down.

I disagree. In my view the best way to prevent injury is to ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall or a collision in the first place. Some of this involves working your own awareness, some of it involves encouraging other road users to be more aware of cyclists, etc. A big part of that is encouraging empathy in the other road users around you (be they drivers, cyclists, or whatever), which is ironically the opposite of what helmet debates all too often seem to achieve.

doozerie

doozerie wrote: »

I disagree. In my view the best way to prevent injury is to ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall or a collision in the first place. Some of this involves working your own awareness, some of it involves encouraging other road users to be more aware of cyclists, etc. A big part of that is encouraging empathy in the other road users around you (be they drivers, cyclists, or whatever), which is ironically the opposite of what helmet debates all too often seem to achieve.

I agree with this - I just happen to think that slowing down is the number one smartest way to "ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall".

Maybe it's just me getting old but every time I'm passing parked cars I am assuming one of them is going to open a door in my path. Every time I am descending I am assuming some muppet is going to drive into my path from the left. Every time I am crossing a junction inside stationary traffic I am assuming someone will turn right across me. and so on. That attitude inevitably makes you slow down.

Haven't had so much as a scrape for a long, long time now - despite cycling across Dublin and back every day.

monument

chakattack wrote: »

4 in 29 years is a pretty good record.

I'm up to 2 in 4 already.

Good compared to what? I'm at 0 in ~25.

Unregistered.

monument wrote: »

Good compared to what? I'm at 0 in ~25.

It's good compared to 25 in 25.

Dermot Illogical

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with this - I just happen to think that slowing down is the number one smartest way to "ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall".

Maybe it's just me getting old but every time I'm passing parked cars I am assuming one of them is going to open a door in my path.

Smarter still would be to stay out of range when passing parked cars.

dub_skav

monument wrote: »

Good compared to what? I'm at 0 in ~25.

Me too, including school I'm over 25 years commuting and no head strikes yet.
I'd worry that those with 2 or more are engaging in risky behaviour

buffalo

Deleted User wrote: »

The best way to prevent injury is to slow down.

But if we follow the line of logic that says greater speed is correlated to a greater rate of accidents, then the accident rate should approach zero as we slow down. So to have zero accidents, logically, we should not move. For the least amount of accidents, while still moving, by your logic, we should walk. Very slowly.

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

But if we follow the line of logic that says greater speed is correlated to a greater rate of accidents, then the accident rate should approach zero as we slow down. So to have zero accidents, logically, we should not move. For the least amount of accidents, while still moving, by your logic, we should walk. Very slowly.

Your logic is correct but I am not sure it amounts to an argument.

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

But if we follow the line of logic that says greater speed is correlated to a greater rate of accidents, then the accident rate should approach zero as we slow down. So to have zero accidents, logically, we should not move. For the least amount of accidents, while still moving, by your logic, we should walk. Very slowly.

Logically yes but that would be impractical. If we want to consider the safety of relatively slow cycling, the Bikeshare schemes like Velib in Paris and Dublin bikes provide a good example. Heavy, clunky, slow but apparently reasonably safe.

The Bicycle Revolution in Paris, Five Years Later
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/the-bicycle-revolution-in-paris-five-years-later/

In five years, 138 million people have used the 23,000 rental bicycles, and the system currently has 225,000 subscribers out of a total urban population of 2.3 million. In addition, during this time, only six people have died in traffic accidents involving rental bicycles.

Dublinbikes 3 years on and the wheels are still turning…
http://www.dublinbikes.ie/Magazine/News/3-years-on-and-the-wheels-are-still-turning

It has been over 3 years since dublinbikes was introduced to the streets of Dublin and the scheme is now firmly established as part of daily life in Ireland’s capital city. Over 4 million journeys have been taken to date and with each bike being used on average 10 times a day, it is one of the busiest bike share rental schemes in the world.

In that time there has been one death involving a Dublinbikes user.

doozerie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If we want to consider the safety of relatively slow cycling, the Bikeshare schemes like Velib in Paris and Dublin bikes provide a good example. Heavy, clunky, slow but apparently reasonably safe.

Anecdotally I can say that my experience of Dublinbikes users suggests that some of them at least are a real danger to themselves and others too in some cases.

My daily commute home brings me along Lombard Street East, Westland Row, and onto Merrion Square West. That particular part of my commute represents what for me are consistently the worst examples of cycling that I encounter in Dublin, and I see extreme examples there on an almost daily basis. I encounter people cycling against one-way traffic on Lombard Street East (towards traffic turning onto the road from both directions alongs City Quay), against me (and other traffic) on my side of the (2-way!) road on Westland Row, and against one-way traffic on the last bit towards Merrion Square West (including cycling against traffic on a blind corner). Basically people use the route as a stupidly dangerous shortcut between Merrion Square and City Quay.

Not all of the lunatic cyclists I see along there are on Dublinbikes but they do account for the majority. The only reason I can see for why I haven't seen any of these cyclists involved in a collision along those stretches is that other road users, me included, go to lengths to avoid a collision, by stopping, pulling further out into traffic to leave space for them, etc. So while one seemingly plausible explanation for the lack of incident (that I am aware of) on those bits of road is that cycling madly against traffic is safe, I think the more accurate explanation is that other road users are working hard to keeping these people from harming themselves, representing amongst other things some very considerate driving on the part of motorists despite the view of some that Dublin motorists are a murderous lot.

That particular example, and some other incidents I've observed involving Dublinbikes users, leaves me wondering exactly how safe Dublinbikes user are generally. At the very least it confirms for me that the safety of some cyclists is not due entirely to their own actions, in the worst cases they actually remain safe in spite of themselves. And that makes me question whether the Dublinbikes scheme itself is "safe" or whether Dublin is a much safer city to cycle in than public opinion would have you believe (because of considerate behaviour by motorists, other cyclists, and pedestrians). Because I don't consider cycling in Dublin inherently dangerous to start with, I tend towards the latter of those reasons.

As an aside, RTE Radio 1 spoke about road safety in Dublin this morning. They prefaced it with references to Dublin being, basically, an extremely dangerous city centre to travel in. Is it any wonder that so many people (mistakenly) believe cycling in Dublin to be dangerous when the national media so casually label it as such.

galwaycyclist

Helmets not required for Tour de France 2014 Grand Depart
http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-depart

The change in the rules came about after a special request from cycle campaigning organisations and local authorities keen to use the event to promote everyday cycling.

The uniform anonymity of a fully helmeted peloton is thought by some to alienate non-cyclists and, while inspiring some to take up racing, may not generate the quotidian, utilitarian cycling – to shops, schools or for commuting - that leads to reduced congestion, pollution and improved health.