Cycling to the gym is a "stroke of genius"

Peter Clinch

Neil Williams wrote:

> I'm fairly neutral with regards to adults and helmets - if anyone else
> chooses to wear one, that's their business - so long as they don't
> start telling me whether I should or not.

Those are not the only possibilities though. What if they start telling
your children they should (or not), for example? What if they start
telling other people, who eventually increase the uptake of helmets to
the point where the government start thinking /they/ should be telling
you that you must.

I would very much /like/ to be neutral on them, but ISTM that the "do
nothing" approach actually leads to more pressure for everyone to wear them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Danny Colyer

On 12/06/2008 14:39, Peter Clinch wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>> This might be where we have to agree to disagree. My view on helmets
>> is that there is no harm in them existing, and that they do provide a
>> useful protection against falls from the bike to the ground at or near
>> 0mph for those who aren't experienced in knowing how to fall properly
>> (e.g. very young children), though not for a lot more than that.
>
> They provide as much protection from falls from feet to the ground at or
> near 0 mph for those not experienced in falling.
>
> Do children ever fall over when running and playing, not on a bike? of
> course they do! So how come we don't think anything about helmets
> there, yet we should "certainly" use them on a bike.

There's one very important difference. A small child learning to walk
or run who falls over (or, more likely IME, runs into a wall) and hits
his head as a result is unlikely to be deterred from walking or running
in future. A small child learning to ride a bike who falls over and
hurts himself might very well be put off cycling by the experience.

My kids are given a choice over whether to wear a helmet when they ride.
They usually choose to do so. The only rules that I enforce are that
the helmet must be properly fitted (the straps usually need adjusting at
least every other ride) and that if we stop at a playground the helmets
must come off before the kids play on anything.

My son learnt to ride 2 months ago, on the first trip to the park with
his new bike [1]. We've taken the bike to the park a few times since,
and he's had several falls. Each time he has picked himself up and
carried on.

On one occasion he hit his head, and it looked like it would have hurt
if he hadn't been wearing the helmet. Any injury would undoubtedly have
been minor, and certainly no worse than he's had while running around,
but there would have been tears and he could so easily have decided that
he didn't want to ride any more. As it was, he got back on and carried
on riding.

For me, that one fall demonstrated the helmet's worth. Not because it
prevented a serious injury - I'm sure it didn't - but because it helped
Charlie to retain his love of cycling.

[1] http://www.redpedals.co.uk/charlie/2008/061apr08.html

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Tom Crispin

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:11:06 +0100, "Dave"
<dave.barwickns@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Tony B" <tony@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote in message
>news:cdSdnSL9juN_Ks3VnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the full set.
>>
>> I was thinking of mentioning how odd it seems that all your riders have
>> h£lmuts but none wear gloves or mitts.. but then I realised where that
>> could end up, so decided not to bother :-0
>>
>
>Many /most parents will quite happily buy a helmet as there has been so much
>publicity about them. They will rarely spend even more on gloves though
>unless the kid gets a bit more serious about riding.
>
>What you have also to remember is no matter what we as individual adults may
>believe that organisations like schools, youth organisations and many clubs
>insist on helmets for kids as they fear that they could be held liable in
>the event of an accident.
>
>Until the government stops pushing the issue organisations will continue to
>insist.

Of course there is a difference between gloves and a helmet that you
choose to ignore. No one usually dies from a grazed hand, or even a
broken wrist - or even suffers any long term disability. Even a low
impact to the head can result in serious long term disability or
death.


Over the past 30 weeks of cycling 30 Year 5 children to and from the
local swimming pool (900 cycling hours) there have been 3 falls
resulting in minor injury.

Over the past 30 weeks of walking 30 Year 1 children to and from the
local library (450 walking hours) there has not been a single fall
resulting in minor injury - and I would not expect there to be. I
don't even carry a first aid kit when taking children on local trips
by foot.

If I recalculated the above trips by distance I expect the injury rate
to be broadly similar. A walking fall will often be forwards onto two
arms. A cycling fall will often be sideways onto one arm. I have no
idea which is more likely to result in an impact to the head, but
certainly a sideways fall from a bike is most likely to involve a head
impact with a kerb - probably the most dangerous type of head impact.

Mark McNeill

Response to Danny Colyer
> For me, that one fall demonstrated the helmet's worth. Not because it
> prevented a serious injury - I'm sure it didn't - but because it helped
> Charlie to retain his love of cycling.
>
> [1] http://www.redpedals.co.uk/charlie/2008/061apr08.html


I do like the helmet in the bottom left picture.



--
Mark, UK
"I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they
may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths
of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of
course, those which you do not hold."

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:19:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> said in
<ta0354hac7cm73qr93nesuhc8vto6sn2cu@4ax.com>:

>No one usually dies from a grazed hand, or even a
>broken wrist - or even suffers any long term disability. Even a low
>impact to the head can result in serious long term disability or
>death.

And? I can't find much in the way of credible evidence to suggest
that helmets prevent such injuries, and among the weak evidence
which does exist is some which suggests that they may actually
exacerbate them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Danny Colyer

On 12/06/2008 21:24, Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Danny Colyer
>> [1] http://www.redpedals.co.uk/charlie/2008/061apr08.html
>
> I do like the helmet in the bottom left picture.

I believe my daughter's grown out of this one now:
http://www.redpedals.co.uk/temp/z-04032106jenny.jpg

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Tom Crispin

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:31:21 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<uce@ftc.gov> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:19:27 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> said in
><ta0354hac7cm73qr93nesuhc8vto6sn2cu@4ax.com>:
>
>>No one usually dies from a grazed hand, or even a
>>broken wrist - or even suffers any long term disability. Even a low
>>impact to the head can result in serious long term disability or
>>death.
>
>And? I can't find much in the way of credible evidence to suggest
>that helmets prevent such injuries, and among the weak evidence
>which does exist is some which suggests that they may actually
>exacerbate them.

There was a very credible report in the CTC's magazine two or three
years ago explaining how a cycle helmet is designed to work.

Peter Clinch

Tom Crispin wrote:

> There was a very credible report in the CTC's magazine two or three
> years ago explaining how a cycle helmet is designed to work.

By Brian Walker, you can read it again at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

Very credible indeed. I imagine you may have been struck by
"For instance, younger children (alluded to in BS6863) might well derive
the greatest benefits from wearing cycle helmets, because of their lower
riding speeds, lower falling heights, and lack of riding skills
generally", but it remains the case that "greatest benefits" still does
not highlight an absolute degree of risk to that group, or a clear
reason for wearing a helmet. The same remains true for kids in NL who
manage without them, and for kids running and palying tag, who manage
without them.

What that article doesn't do was claim that there has been any clear
record of a helmet saving a life. What manufacturers very conspicuously
don't do is claim any any actual safety performance for a helmet, they
leave that to hearsay.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Alan Braggins

In article <ta0354hac7cm73qr93nesuhc8vto6sn2cu@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>Of course there is a difference between gloves and a helmet that you
>choose to ignore. No one usually dies from a grazed hand, or even a
>broken wrist - or even suffers any long term disability.

Look at the speed those goalposts move!

Peter Clinch

Danny Colyer wrote:

> There's one very important difference. A small child learning to walk
> or run who falls over (or, more likely IME, runs into a wall) and hits
> his head as a result is unlikely to be deterred from walking or running
> in future. A small child learning to ride a bike who falls over and
> hurts himself might very well be put off cycling by the experience.

They might be, but again we have access to the past in the UK and the
present in places like NL to give us counter examples of it not actually
being a problem.

Plenty of cases of childhood games when I was a kid in the playground of
people going off in a huff after they got hurt a little saying "not
playing with you/that game any more!", and a few days later they're back
playing the same game with the same people.

> On one occasion he hit his head, and it looked like it would have hurt
> if he hadn't been wearing the helmet. Any injury would undoubtedly have
> been minor, and certainly no worse than he's had while running around,
> but there would have been tears and he could so easily have decided that
> he didn't want to ride any more. As it was, he got back on and carried
> on riding.
>
> For me, that one fall demonstrated the helmet's worth. Not because it
> prevented a serious injury - I'm sure it didn't - but because it helped
> Charlie to retain his love of cycling.

That's supposition, I'm afraid. It's also never going to be clear
whether or not the helmet contributed in any way to the accident
happening in the first place.

I think this is another line which actually gives far more credence to
elbow pads and gloves for young kids than helmets.

Note I'm not saying they shouldn't wear them, just that it it isn't
actually particularly tight reasoning as why to one should.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Of course there is a difference between gloves and a helmet that you
> choose to ignore. No one usually dies from a grazed hand, or even a
> broken wrist - or even suffers any long term disability. Even a low
> impact to the head can result in serious long term disability or
> death.

As Guy points out, there is no clear evidence that a bike helmet does
anything to guard against such injuries. The rates of serious head
injuries is unaffected by helmet wearing rates.

> Over the past 30 weeks of cycling 30 Year 5 children to and from the
> local swimming pool (900 cycling hours) there have been 3 falls
> resulting in minor injury.
>
> Over the past 30 weeks of walking 30 Year 1 children to and from the
> local library (450 walking hours) there has not been a single fall
> resulting in minor injury - and I would not expect there to be. I
> don't even carry a first aid kit when taking children on local trips
> by foot.
>
> If I recalculated the above trips by distance I expect the injury rate
> to be broadly similar. A walking fall will often be forwards onto two
> arms. A cycling fall will often be sideways onto one arm. I have no
> idea which is more likely to result in an impact to the head, but
> certainly a sideways fall from a bike is most likely to involve a head
> impact with a kerb - probably the most dangerous type of head impact.

But you still get people killed by falling down stairs, so why no
helmets for that? You still get people killed in trips and falls, so
why no helmets in the playground where trips and falls are relatively
common?

You still get the majority of the child population cycling in NL without
getting a rash of head injuries: are they naturally talented, or is
cycling not all that dangerous? You had no shortage of kids riding
without helmets when I grew up, on greatly inferior bikes to what we
have now and with higher prices too a bigger proportion of too-big
"you'll grow into it" frames. Still no head injury debacle going on, so
why do we have to worry so much now?

I am not saying they shouldn't wear them, just that the above is not
actually sound reasoning as to why they should.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mark

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:17:16 +0100, Danny Colyer
<danny_colyer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/06/2008 14:39, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Neil Williams wrote:
>>> This might be where we have to agree to disagree. My view on helmets
>>> is that there is no harm in them existing, and that they do provide a
>>> useful protection against falls from the bike to the ground at or near
>>> 0mph for those who aren't experienced in knowing how to fall properly
>>> (e.g. very young children), though not for a lot more than that.
>>
>> They provide as much protection from falls from feet to the ground at or
>> near 0 mph for those not experienced in falling.
>>
>> Do children ever fall over when running and playing, not on a bike? of
>> course they do! So how come we don't think anything about helmets
>> there, yet we should "certainly" use them on a bike.
>
>There's one very important difference. A small child learning to walk
>or run who falls over (or, more likely IME, runs into a wall) and hits
>his head as a result is unlikely to be deterred from walking or running
>in future. A small child learning to ride a bike who falls over and
>hurts himself might very well be put off cycling by the experience.
>
>My kids are given a choice over whether to wear a helmet when they ride.
> They usually choose to do so. The only rules that I enforce are that
>the helmet must be properly fitted (the straps usually need adjusting at
>least every other ride) and that if we stop at a playground the helmets
>must come off before the kids play on anything.
>
>My son learnt to ride 2 months ago, on the first trip to the park with
>his new bike [1]. We've taken the bike to the park a few times since,
>and he's had several falls. Each time he has picked himself up and
>carried on.
>
>On one occasion he hit his head, and it looked like it would have hurt
>if he hadn't been wearing the helmet. Any injury would undoubtedly have
>been minor, and certainly no worse than he's had while running around,
>but there would have been tears and he could so easily have decided that
>he didn't want to ride any more. As it was, he got back on and carried
>on riding.
>
>For me, that one fall demonstrated the helmet's worth. Not because it
>prevented a serious injury - I'm sure it didn't - but because it helped
>Charlie to retain his love of cycling.

IMHO this very much depends on the child. One of my children seems to
be unphased by anything, including breaking his arm. One of the
others is easily discouraged.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:42:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> There was a very credible report in the CTC's magazine two or three
>> years ago explaining how a cycle helmet is designed to work.
>
>By Brian Walker, you can read it again at
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf
>
>Very credible indeed. I imagine you may have been struck by
>"For instance, younger children (alluded to in BS6863) might well derive
>the greatest benefits from wearing cycle helmets, because of their lower
>riding speeds, lower falling heights, and lack of riding skills
>generally", but it remains the case that "greatest benefits" still does
>not highlight an absolute degree of risk to that group, or a clear
>reason for wearing a helmet. The same remains true for kids in NL who
>manage without them, and for kids running and palying tag, who manage
>without them.
>
>What that article doesn't do was claim that there has been any clear
>record of a helmet saving a life. What manufacturers very conspicuously
>don't do is claim any any actual safety performance for a helmet, they
>leave that to hearsay.

One manufacturer (on their web site) did quote from the
Thompson/Rivera/Thompson study. I'd say that they were claiming
actual safety performance. I can't find the reference now so maybe
they have removed it.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:10:31 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> said in
<924354hb6uoh0fbvc9qodg732gstcdj34i@4ax.com>:

>There was a very credible report in the CTC's magazine two or three
>years ago explaining how a cycle helmet is designed to work.

I know. I know Brian Walker. Theory <> reality.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound