Helmets

Peter Taylor

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
fairytales)

One character recently posted

"How can this happen - I was wearing my h*lm*t, surely that protects
one from all injuries ? It must be true - its in peer reviewed journals
;-)

Dou"

Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
very good idea.

Just to clarify things for "half pint" and "discoduck". A helmet will not
save you from falling under a bus, and accidends are one off events, and
cannot be averaged over a number of rides. And a helmet will not help in
the vast majority of accidends which result in road rash or the odd broken
limb or collar bone.

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

Peter Taylor (not a troll, probably)

Richard

Peter Taylor wrote:

> There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
> enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
> argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
> (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

No. It depends on the reasons for wearing a helmet. I can think of a
few good reasons to wear one - however, most of the reasons usually
given, particularly by those who haven't studied the data, are not good
reasons.

> My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
> helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
> injury.

It's a nice simplistic argument. However, the whole population studies
of serious brain injury do not show any benefit from wearing a helmet.
So it's as effective as carrying a rabbit's foot, or a St
Christopher. I'm not saying don't carry a rabbit's foot or a
helmet, but as all the whole population studies have shown, helmets
(and, I would imagine, rabbits' feet) are not effective precautions
against serious injury.

> Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
> sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

May I suggest you visit www.cyclehelmets.org?

R.

David Martin

On 2/12/04 4:41 pm, in article congju$6re$1@hercules.btinternet.com, "Peter
Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote:

> As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
> read some of the postings on this site.
>
> There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.
Against over promotion of helmets. Against overstatement of the effects of
helmets. And definitely against anyone trying to make us wear helmets when
we don't want to.

And we wear helmets when we feel it is appropriate (me - sometimes, oters
most of the time, some never)

> Fair
> enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
> argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
> (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Not at all. You are perfectly free to do what you want. It has frequently
been stated that helmets will provide good protaction against minor
scratches and bruises. A perfectly good reason to wear one.

They also provide protection against nagging. ANother reason to wear one.

>
> And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
> being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
> fairytales)
I would refer you to the conversation in question. A list of papers which
had been presented uncritically, without any reasoned arguement were
rebutted with arguments. The OP then took to calling anyone questioning his
'holy writ' Troll.

> One character recently posted
>
> "How can this happen - I was wearing my h*lm*t, surely that protects
> one from all injuries ? It must be true - its in peer reviewed journals
> ;-)
>
> Dou"

There was irony here. It was taking the piss out of the T, R&T paper whose
emthodology indicated helemts prevent 75% of leg injuries.

>
> Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
> not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
> fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
> foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
> very good idea.
>
We could actually test your intuition by seeing whether they work in
practice. The only way to do that reliably is to look at whole populations
to get an idea of whether there are a significant proportion of accidents in
which they make a difference.


> Just to clarify things for "half pint" and "discoduck". A helmet will not
> save you from falling under a bus, and accidends are one off events, and
> cannot be averaged over a number of rides. And a helmet will not help in
> the vast majority of accidends which result in road rash or the odd broken
> limb or collar bone.
>
> My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
> helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
> injury.

Bit like carrying a portable lightning conductor then? 10,000 volts can
really fry your brain.

>
> Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
> sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

I'll do what I want with my kids. I hope yours wear a properly designed
helmet when walking. Head injuries as a pedestrian vastly outstrip the
number as a cyclist.

It is always uncomfortable having your preconceptions challenged. If you
feel there have been mistakes made in interpretation then feel free to point
them out. Expect a vigorous response.

...d

JohnB

Peter Taylor wrote:
>
> As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
> read some of the postings on this site.
>
> There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
> enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
> argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
> (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

I don't think I've seen anyone here argue that a helmet wearer is a wimp.

I make no apologies for being opposed to helmet wearing for
non-competitive cycling, but mainly on the grounds that by wearing one
you effectively voting for compulsion.
Compulsion will lead to all manner of problems (well documented) but not
least the move towards the responsibility for 'accidents' being placed
on the victim.

> Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
> sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

My children would probably not cycle if they were forced to wear
helmets, and they are keen cyclists.
Which is best? would you prefer they don't ride?
And quite honestly what is it to do with you anyway.

> Peter Taylor (not a troll, probably)

Nope, I reckon you probably are.

John B

Andy Leighton

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:13:14 +0000,
Richard <richard@nomail.nospam.thanks> wrote:
> Peter Taylor wrote:
>> My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
>> helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
>> injury.
>
> It's a nice simplistic argument. However, the whole population studies
> of serious brain injury do not show any benefit from wearing a helmet.
> So it's as effective as carrying a rabbit's foot, or a St
> Christopher.

I don't think it is in the same class. Helmets may work in some individual
cases, however it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Helen Deborah Vecht

"Peter Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk>typed


> As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
> read some of the postings on this site.

<Regulars, stop reading here cos you've heard or said it all before.>

> There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.

They aren't against helmets per se. They are against helmet compulsion
and also against the exaggerated claims made by some helmet proponents.
Some of these have been shown to be false.

Since the pressure for helmet compulsion will increase when a higher
proportion of people wear them, helmet wearing could be seen aas a
silent vote for compulsion.

> Fair
> enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
> argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
> (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Few actually do this.

> And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
> being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
> fairytales)

This is because the evidence chosen was rather selective, discredited,
or both.

> One character recently posted

> "How can this happen - I was wearing my h*lm*t, surely that protects
> one from all injuries ? It must be true - its in peer reviewed journals
> ;-)

This was a tongue in cheek swipe at a discredited study which is still
being used by helmet compulsion proponents.

> Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
> not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
> fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
> foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
> very good idea.

That's the problem. It *seems* like a good idea until you realise:
1) That helmets cover only a small part of the head
2) Helmet design standards/specifications are so low that they are
unlikely to afford meaningful protection.
3) Helmet fitting for some head shapes makes it unlikely that a helmet
*will* protect in the event of a crash.
4) Helmets make the head larger and more likely to strike things
5) It is possible that helmets *worsen* some types of brain injury or
transfer impact to the neck. etc


> Just to clarify things for "half pint" and "discoduck". A helmet will not
> save you from falling under a bus, and accidends are one off events, and
> cannot be averaged over a number of rides. And a helmet will not help in
> the vast majority of accidends which result in road rash or the odd broken
> limb or collar bone.

We know this. We also think people's behaviour might be altered by this
so-called 'safety' equipment by a risk compensation mechanism.

> My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
> helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
> injury.

Most people here thought much the same and wore helmets for the same
reasons. Then they read a bit more widely and then found the case _for_
helmets was rather weak, even for isolated head injuries.

Some then became anti-helmet because they were anti-compulsion.

> Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
> sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

If you're going to impose a helmet on a child:

- Check it fits properly and cannot ride up over the head. Make sure the
straps are a snug fit.
- Instruct your child to remove it in playgrounds as some kids on
climbing frames get strangled by helmets.
- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.
- Make sure the bike's brakes are in good condition and child is strong
enough to use them.
- Check the bicycle's general condition for any dangerous faults

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.

Clive George

"Andy Leighton" <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrncqul1a.mma.andyl@azaal.plus.com...

> I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

Now there's a challenge :-)

cheers,
clive

Zog The Undeniable

Peter Taylor wrote:

> As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
> read some of the postings on this site.
>
> There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
> enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
> argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
> (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Bzzzt, thankyou for playing. I am against people wearing helmets for
this reason:

http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter1.gif
http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter2.gif

Read the highlighted paragraphs (sorry they're on two pages) and think
about whether you should be wearing one next time you ride, for the sake
of your fellow cyclists who don't want compulsion.

Guy - if this letter is useful for your site feel free to copy,
thumbnail, etc.

chris French

In message <313030303736393541AF57C591@zetnet.co.uk>, Helen Deborah
Vecht <helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.

Off the topic of helemts, took Elinor (3 3/4) to the park today with her
new bike so she could ride around. were going along a park 'road'
which met another one at a 'T' junction. without prompting, Elinor
stopped and looked and said we have to stop and check for cars coming
across.

I was impressed - obviously does pay attention when sitting in the
trailer- better be careful of any bad habits....
--
Chris French, Leeds

Helen Deborah Vecht

chris French <newspost-c-002@familyfrench.co.uk>typed


> In message <313030303736393541AF57C591@zetnet.co.uk>, Helen Deborah
> Vecht <helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.

> Off the topic of helemts, took Elinor (3 3/4) to the park today with her
> new bike so she could ride around. were going along a park 'road'
> which met another one at a 'T' junction. without prompting, Elinor
> stopped and looked and said we have to stop and check for cars coming
> across.

Hopefully, she won't bomb off a pavement into the traffic...
.... with non-existent brakes -
- causing some coroner to call for <expletive deleted>

> I was impressed - obviously does pay attention when sitting in the
> trailer- better be careful of any bad habits....

Yup; they are memory machines at that age (so anything you say/do may be
taken down and used as evidence at any embarassing time...)

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Taylor"
<peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote in message
<congju$6re$1@hercules.btinternet.com>:

>As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
>read some of the postings on this site.

Not a site, a group. This is Usenet.

>There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.

I think you will find that this is not the case. The accusation of
being anti-helmet is a straw man raised by zealots who are unable to
distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic. I personally only
know one person who is genuinely anti-helmet, but I know very few
cyclists who accept more than a fraction of the pro-helmet evidence,
whether they wear helmets or not.

>But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
>argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
>(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

No, not presumably anything. Actually on the grounds that there is no
solid evidence from anywhere in the world that wearing a helmet is a
"very good idea". The Road Safety Minister is pro helmet and even he
admitted that he knows of no evidence that cyclist safety has ever
improved with increasing helmet use.

>And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
>being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
>fairytales)

I think you will find that the most recent case was the precise
opposite. And if you don't know what a troll is then you've not been
around Usenet very long :-)

John D'oh has made it a habit to post a one-liner, "Troll.", in
response to any well-argued post disagreeing with him, but I think
we've established by now that this is not an accusation but a
placeholder.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web...cuments/johndoh

>Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
>not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
>fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
>foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
>very good idea.

Unless the crash only happens because they were wearing the bit of
foam so rode less carefully (Risk compensation in children’s
activities: A pilot study; Mok D, Gore G, Hagel B, Mok E, Magdalinos
H, Pless B. 2004. Paediatr Child Health: Vol 9 No 5 May/June 2004).
The key authors are strongly pro-helmet, by the way.

>My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
>helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
>injury.

And ours is that robust evidence for any efficacy of helemts in
reducing these injuries is very hard to find. Nor do the
manufacturers claim it.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Ian Smith

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Peter Taylor <peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote:

> As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
> read some of the postings on this site.
>
> There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
> enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
> argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
> (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Back under your bridge.

If you're capavble of reading enough to understand that some people
oppose compulsion, you know full well that they do not do so on teh
grounds of being a wimp. Hence, you must be deliberately
misrepresenting, and are teh sort of person that probably used to
enjoy pulling the legs of things to watch them die slowly.

Piss off.

> And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse
> them of being a Troll

You self-evidently are a troll.

> My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not.

Exactly. Now, out of skin and brain, which one are helmets effective
at protecting?

> Peter Taylor (not a troll, probably)

Self-evidently a grade-A troll, for the reasons highlighted above.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith

On 02 Dec 2004 17:43:06 GMT, Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think it is in the same class. Helmets may work in some individual
> cases, however it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
> compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
> effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.
>
> I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

But conversely, there's no credible way it could make the injuries
worse, unlike helmets.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 02 Dec 2004 17:43:06 GMT, Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com>
wrote in message <slrncqul1a.mma.andyl@azaal.plus.com>:

>it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
>compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
>effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

And there is more discussion of this all the time. There are two
studies into the locations where helmets get hit, and they come out at
an average of about 2/3 of impacts being on the side of the helmet,
not the straight frontal or top impact modelled in the drop tests.
And there is yet another report on oblique impacts out: *Injury
tolerances for oblique impact helmet testing, *Aare M, Kleiven S,
Halldin P. Int J Crashworthiness 2004. I haven't read the original
yet, but the abstracts talk about the current standards not even
measuring oblique / rotational forces (which we knew) despite their
being strongly implicated in the worst kinds of brain injury.

We also know that almost all modern helmets have a tendency to grab
tarmac surfaces.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University