Convincing people to use helmets

I was horrified to recently discover that a couple of my (intelligent) friends who cycle around
Oxford do not wear helmets.

To me, a helmet is an absolute no brainer, the cost is ~£20 plus a slight inconenience, but the
benefit is potentially the difference between being alive and not being alive.

But here is the question - how do I make the case in such a way that people will listen?

Also, I am searching around for statistics to back up my claims. So far I have found that cycling is
14 times more dangerous (per mile) than going by car, and bear in mind there are around 10 deaths
from car accidents _per day_. I would like to know things like the number of fatal bicycle accidents
with and without helmets, if such a study has been done?

I don't really want to start a debate as to whether helmet wearing should be compuslory as that is a
bit old hat. (Sorry, couldn't resist )

But really, I find it very difficult to believe that any intelligent, rational person would choose
not to wear a helmet if they had access to all the information. So at the very least, I want to give
them access to the information.

Cheers!

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:50:40 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
<oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk> wrote:

>I was horrified to recently discover that a couple of my (intelligent) friends who cycle around
>Oxford do not wear helmets.
>
>To me, a helmet is an absolute no brainer, the cost is ~£20 plus a slight inconenience, but the
>benefit is potentially the difference between being alive and not being alive.
>
>But here is the question - how do I make the case in such a way that people will listen?
>
>Also, I am searching around for statistics to back up my claims. So far I have found that cycling
>is 14 times more dangerous (per mile) than going by car, and bear in mind there are around 10
>deaths from car accidents _per day_. I would like to know things like the number of fatal bicycle
>accidents with and without helmets, if such a study has been done?
>
>I don't really want to start a debate as to whether helmet wearing should be compuslory as that is
>a bit old hat. (Sorry, couldn't resist )
>
>But really, I find it very difficult to believe that any intelligent, rational person would choose
>not to wear a helmet if they had access to all the information. So at the very least, I want to
>give them access to the information.
>
>Cheers!
>

Google tells me that you are new to u.r.c so you *might*, conceivably, be ill-informed and not
just a troll.

Try googling a bit. You'll find the stats.

Before you come back to us, though, take a close look at casualty rates for walking vs. cycling and
explain how you are going to start your campaign to get your friends wearing walking helmets. As you
say, for 20 UKP (though I've never seen one this cheap), it's a no brainer.

"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news2an10tsb3nsri02lq1tk3ov9n18d9nh80@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:50:40 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
> <oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >I was horrified to recently discover that a couple of my (intelligent) friends who cycle around
> >Oxford do not wear helmets.
> >
> >To me, a helmet is an absolute no brainer, the cost is ~£20 plus a slight inconenience, but the
> >benefit is potentially the difference between being alive and not being alive.
> >
> >But here is the question - how do I make the case in such a way that
people
> >will listen?
> >
> >Also, I am searching around for statistics to back up my claims. So far I have found that cycling
> >is 14 times more dangerous (per mile) than going
by
> >car, and bear in mind there are around 10 deaths from car accidents _per day_. I would like to
> >know things like the number of fatal bicycle accidents with and without helmets, if such a study
> >has been done?
> >
> >I don't really want to start a debate as to whether helmet wearing should
be
> >compuslory as that is a bit old hat. (Sorry, couldn't resist )
> >
> >But really, I find it very difficult to believe that any intelligent, rational person would
> >choose not to wear a helmet if they had access to
all
> >the information. So at the very least, I want to give them access to the information.
> >
> >Cheers!
> >
>
> Google tells me that you are new to u.r.c

First post, but not new. I have witnessed multiple debates about compulsion of helmets, but this is
different -this is a personal matter, not a subject of acedemic interest.

>so you *might*, conceivably, be ill-informed and not just a troll.

In what way am I "ill informed"

> Try googling a bit. You'll find the stats.

I already did:

http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics_uk.htm

>
> Before you come back to us, though, take a close look at casualty rates for walking vs. cycling

Walking is higher yes yes I know that, mainly because people walk across roads without looking etc,
but that is another issue all together.

>and explain how you are going to start your campaign to get your friends wearing walking helmets.

What the hell is your problem?

>As you say, for 20 UKP (though I've never seen one this cheap), it's a no brainer.

Well, amazingly we agree on something!

Usenet seems to be going downhill. There was a time when someone could ask a question without being
bombarded with complaints of "do your own research" or "this has been discussed before". We may as
well just shut down all the newsgroups.

In article <401ba4b0_3@athenanews.com>,
"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating@ukaea.org.uk> writes:
>
> But really, I find it very difficult to believe that any intelligent, rational person would choose
> not to wear a helmet if they had access to all the information. So at the very least, I want to
> give them access to the information.

Try by far the biggest study to date: Rodgers, in the Journal of Product Liability, studied 8
million cases of death and injury to cyclists in the USA over 15 years. He concluded: "There is no
evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most
surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly
correlated with increased helmet use".

Or stop trolling and use google (like I did to get that reference).

Note followups.

--
Nick Kew

"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk> wrote in message
news:401ba4b0_3@athenanews.com...
> I was horrified to recently discover that a couple of my (intelligent) friends who cycle around
> Oxford do not wear helmets.
>
> To me, a helmet is an absolute no brainer, the cost is ~£20 plus a slight inconenience, but the
> benefit is potentially the difference between being alive and not being alive.

...

> But really, I find it very difficult to believe that any intelligent, rational person would choose
> not to wear a helmet if they had access to
all
> the information. So at the very least, I want to give them access to the information.

They may well already have access to it. You've already admitted you don't. You may be surprised at
what the information is.

I'm afraid the best answer to your question is one you've already complained about, viz google. The
archives of uk.rec.cycling are littered with helmet debates. They can be identified by the length of
thread - helmets on this ng are somewhat like speeding on the ones you normally frequent.

But for a quick summary for a busy person like yourself (and your friends), www.cyclehelmets.org is
a pretty good starting point. When you've read what's there, feel free to come back with more
questions.

clive

"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk> wrote:

| I was horrified to recently discover that a couple of my (intelligent) friends who cycle around
| Oxford do not wear helmets.
|
| To me, a helmet is an absolute no brainer, the cost is ~£20 plus a slight inconenience, but the
| benefit is potentially the difference between being alive and not being alive.

What we know is that the maximum impact speed (12.5mph) helmets are designed for isn't the speed
encountered in collisions that will kill you, and that at that speed and below such collisions are
commonly survived without helmets, i.e. helmets aren't really up to spec for saving lives in RTAs,
not that there are no particular examples where that did in fact happen. I'm anti-helmet because I'm
more concerned with collisions at higher speeds, which will kill me helmet or not, so I increase my
perceivable vulnerability to car drivers by not wearing one. I'd wear one if mountain-biking off-
road, which is what they were originally designed for.

| But here is the question - how do I make the case in such a way that people will listen?

I'd be interested to know what kinds of thing they say in reply.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended.

Oliver Keating wrote:
> I was horrified to recently discover that a couple of my (intelligent) friends who cycle around
> Oxford do not wear helmets.
>
> To me, a helmet is an absolute no brainer, the cost is ~£20 plus a slight inconenience, but the
> benefit is potentially the difference between being alive and not being alive.
>
> But here is the question - how do I make the case in such a way that people will listen?
>

Unfortunately it is not quite the no-brainer you think it is and I say that as a helmet wearer.

The best places to start to read up on it are:

The British Medical Journal Article: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../321/7276/1582

The website of John Franklin, the author of Cyclecraft and a noted safety and skill expert
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/...s/helmets.html

Cyclehelmets.org http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

There is an organisaton BHIT that is making the case so that people are listening but to do that
they have to badly misrepresent the data.

Tony

Oliver Keating wrote:
> Usenet seems to be going downhill. There was a time when someone could ask a question without
> being bombarded with complaints of "do your own research" or "this has been discussed before". We
> may as well just shut down all the newsgroups.

There was a time when it was conventional to follow a group for at least 2 weeks before posting, to
get an idea of what is appropriate for discussion and whether your question is frequently asked.

Your question is not frequently asked (I don't think I've ever seen it asked in 7 years on urc), but
if you had followed the group for the past 2 weeks you would have come across plenty of reasons why
wearing a helmet is not necessarily a good idea.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk> wrote in message
news:401badb7_4@news.athenanews.com...

> > Try googling a bit. You'll find the stats.
>
> I already did:
>
> http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics_uk.htm

That doesn't show you anything about how helmet use affects the numbers though does it? You will
need better stats than that. Have another look (or take the advice I offered in my other post).

> > Before you come back to us, though, take a close look at casualty rates for walking vs. cycling
>
> Walking is higher yes yes I know that, mainly because people walk across roads without looking
> etc, but that is another issue all together.

Any evidence for that assertion?

> >and explain how you are going to start your campaign to get your friends wearing walking helmets.
>
> What the hell is your problem?

You! He's pointing out a flaw in your thinking. The long form of what he's saying is that if all
walkers/pedestrians were to wear helmets, the reduction in head injuries is likely to be more than
if all cyclists wore helmets. Therefore you should be telling your friends to be wearing them while
walking before telling them to wear them while cycling.

> Usenet seems to be going downhill. There was a time when someone could ask
a
> question without being bombarded with complaints of "do your own research" or "this has been
> discussed before". We may as well just shut down all the newsgroups.

Don't talk ****e. The concept of the FAQ has been around for ages, and you've just asked the one
which is most likely to provoke endless discussion than any other on this ng.

Fwiw, how much bike riding do you do, and in what sort of conditions (on/off road? shared use
path?). If your friends do more than you, I suspect they may well be disinclined to take any notice
of your proclamations on bike safety, just as the denizens of uk.r.d/uk.r.c.m don't take any notice
of your proclamations on what sort of car to drive since at least in part you've patently not
followed your own advice.

clive

"Danny Colyer" <danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote in message
news:bvgc58$5nr$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oliver Keating wrote:
> > Usenet seems to be going downhill. There was a time when someone could ask a question without
> > being bombarded with complaints of "do your own research" or "this has been discussed before".
> > We may as well just shut down all the newsgroups.
>
> There was a time when it was conventional to follow a group for at least 2 weeks before
> posting, to get an idea of what is appropriate for discussion and whether your question is
> frequently asked.
>
> Your question is not frequently asked (I don't think I've ever seen it asked in 7 years on urc),
> but if you had followed the group for the past 2 weeks you would have come across plenty of
> reasons why wearing a helmet is not necessarily a good idea.

All crap reasons. People can come up with reasons to justify anything.

People used to claim that seatbelts would cause more deaths by trapping people in cars that ran
into water.

I don't buy it.

Not even a bit

>
> --
> Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
> http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
> Thomas Paine

I just want to change the tone of this discussion re helmets slightly. FWIW I always wear my helmet, both on road and off-road as it makes me feel safer.

However a cyclist involved in a high high speed ( I would guess at about 30mph + but this is just a rough guess) RTA is dead, helmet or no helmet. A cyclist getting crushed under a lorry will be dead from injuries helmet or no helmet, unless he/she is one lucky SOB.

I don't know how good motorcycle helmets are as I have never worn one but are they substantially safer than bicycle helmets? Could it be advisable to use motorcycle helmets on roads when riding a cycle??

Off road IMHO bike helmets come into their own because this is where they have been designed to be used (as mentioned above) Off road impacts will generally be cyclists crashing into stationary objects so the impact speeds will be much lower (though not always) than RTA's. The other advantage of helmets off roads is that they keep twigs and branches and other sh!t from getting caught in your hair which is bloody painful.


This is a debate that will go on forever. Each to their own I say. I shall carry on wearing my lid regardless of what people say.

"Patrick Herring" <ph@anweald.co.uk> wrote in message

>. I'm anti-helmet

just for the record, next time someone here says "no one here is anti helmet"

>because I'm more concerned with collisions at higher speeds, which will kill me helmet or not, so I
>increase my perceivable vulnerability to car drivers by not wearing one. I'd wear one if mountain-
>biking off-road, which is what they were originally designed for.

so, by all the normal risk compensation arguments, you as an individual will take more risks and put
yourself in more danger when you cycle without a helmet because you perceive yourself to be safer?

pk

"Oliver Keating" <oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk>typed

> People used to claim that seatbelts would cause more deaths by trapping people in cars that ran
> into water.

> I don't buy it.

> Not even a bit

Seat belts were 'safer' for those in cars. Shame that overall road mortality stayed about the same
and MORE vulnerable road users were killed. People just drove less carefully.

Wonderful. Not.

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

Oliver Keating wrote:
>
> All crap reasons. People can come up with reasons to justify anything.
>

...including wearing helmets. Back under the bridge Troll with all your uk.wreck.driving "friends".

Tony

Oliver Keating <oliver.keating@NOSPAMPLEASE.ukaea.org.uk> wrote in message
news:401bbe7c_5@athenanews.com...
>
> All crap reasons. People can come up with reasons to justify anything.
>

Including
a) wearing helmets
b) not doing your own homework
c) trolling