Helmet Survey

[Tim Woodall]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:28:54 -0500, Robert Goodman <[email protected]> wrote:
> "drifter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety,
>> is liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires
>> you to do so,
>
> Where in NA does a law require an adult to do so?
>
British Columbia for one. Its one of the stats that both the pro and anti groups quote - head
injuries halved, cycling halved, total injuries went up slightly.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[David Damerell]

Robert Goodman <[email protected]> wrote:
>"drifter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety,
>>is liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires
>>you to do so,
>Where in NA does a law require an adult to do so?

Some Canadian provinces, I believe.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David Damerell]

Robert Goodman <[email protected]> wrote:
>cut pretty badly. Which makes me wonder why they don't have face shields like motorcylce helmets,
>or are those useless in impact situations too?

Motorcycle-style helmets would be unfeasibly hot on bicycles - even a face shield would result in
gallons of sweat running into the eyes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[-Lsqnot Respond]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:05:44 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:21:09 +0100, Peter Clinch scrawled: ) Liability is a non-issue in the UK,
>helmets aren't compulsory here.
>
>Neither are parts of the Highway Code; yet they still translate into liability. Is it really
>different for helmets, given the HC recommends wearing them?
>
>J-P

Faced with a massive bill of costs, an insurance company's lawyers will worry away at anything that
might prove to be 'contributory negligence'. It's no different with helmets and there have been
several 'reduced' out of court settlements on that premis. None have yet taken it to the wire and
had a judgement on the issue (AIUI). I do wonder if the negative publicity they get might have
something to do with it.

 

[Mike Sales]

"drifter" wrote in message
> The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.
>
> I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw
> and had other serious injuries. Just a couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly
> and lost my balance and fell against a lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.
>
> All of that a side, the main reason most people wear a helmet, a side from possible safety, is
> liability. Here in North America, if you aren't wearing a helmet where the law requires you to do
> so, should you have reason to make a claim, insurance companies may ask the courts to deduct from
> your award the expenses, short and long term, for injuries that might have been avoided had one
> been wearing a helmet. In that sense you may lose big time, particularly should you have only
> minimal or partial brain damage. Significant brain damage, it doesn't matter because you are too
> far gone to care!

Since 1991 the number of head injuries to cyclists in the USA has increased by 10% whilst cycle
helmet use has risen sharply from less than 18% to around 50%. Furthermore, ridership over the
period has declined by 21%. Per active cyclist, the rate of head injuries is now 50% greater than
it was a decade ago. In Australia head injuries per cyclist went up, not down, after helmet use
was boosted by legislation. In Western Australia injuries are now at an all time high despite
cycle use being 15% less than before its helmet law. From Canada and New Zealand there is further
evidence that helmets have not reduced fatalities or serious injuries. And the same applies to
Britain where crash statistics yield no evidence whatever of any positive effect of helmets on
injury reduction and some evidence of an increase in average severity as helmet use has risen.
Nova Scotia is the latest area to find that compulsory helmet wearing has not reduced injuries.
The statistics above are mostly from the relevant government body. The USA ones for instance from
the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. Robert Medford, an assistant director confessed
himself mystified. In the real world things are a bit more complex. It is possible that wearing a
helmet changes behaviour towards risk. A recent informal study in the January issue of "Bike" (a
motorcycle magazine) found that riders slowed considerably when they wore underwear rather than
full leathers. Mike Sales

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Mike Sales
<[email protected]> writes
>A recent informal study in the January issue of "Bike" (a motorcycle magazine) found that riders
>slowed considerably when they wore underwear rather than full leathers.

Hmm. Sounds kinky to me.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Ben]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:27:49 GMT, drifter <[email protected]> wrote:

>The question of a helmet is not daft. If I had a "choice," I wouldn't wear one but it is the law.
>
>I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear one and had a single accident and fractured his jaw and
>had other serious injuries. Just a couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and
>lost my balance and fell against a lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.

I agree with you on the choice thing, my personal choice is only to wear one offroad.

But I'm curious as to why you think a helmet would have prevented a fractured jaw?
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****

 

[Mr R@T \ -Lsqco]

In news:[email protected], [Not Responding]
<[email protected]> typed:

> On 04 Apr 2003 14:06:50 GMT, [email protected] (SabineUK) wrote: Curious issue this - and I've
> never seen it properly addressed. Employers seem to think that HSW applies to travelling by bike
> for work duties - but not for travelling by car. When was the last time you saw a Risk Assessment
> for driving?

At least one Department of the Civil Service has published a risk assesment for "Driving at Work"
(the Department has a lot of field officers who travel in an official capacity). It is based warns
(amongst other stuff) against driving when tired and *bans* the use of mobile phones when driving -
*even hands free ones*.

According to my H & S area, the journey to work or back home isn't covered by the H & S rules - its
apparently a matter of individual personal freedom what safety procedures (over and above the law of
the land) one uses. This *doesn't* mean you can ride on every pavement and run down grannies, or
drive to the office like a lunatic, as you would eventually get nicked
[1]and this would then possibly be a disciplinary manner for bringing the Crown into disrepute.

Official travel is only stuff like visiting a customer or supplier, or travelling to another site
during the work day. If you do this by bicycle there is an expense allowance - only 20p per mile but
I suppose better than nothing...

This position may however be due to the involvement of Trade Unions in H&S procedures in the Civil
Service - the unions (and rightly so) do *not* want "Health and Safety" being used as an excuse to
interfere in one's *private* life outside the office.

However for inter site travel the H& S rules would apply; and I can well understand that if an H & S
officer does not cycle they could erroneously consider that helmets are "mandatory" if they are led
by papers from ROSPA et all - after all even the HC reccommends them.

FYI my union rep cycles to work and doesn't wear a helmet - nor do I for that matter. Its about
50/50 amongst the cyclists at work, and those who wear helmets tend to be those who are racers or
club riders (where wearing one could be more sensible as protection against the effects of a
collision within a group of *cyclists*).

I think if I suddenly met the woman of my dreams and decided to father a load of kids I would start
wearing one, but more to "set an example" to the kids rather than for my own safety.

I would however also advise *everyone* in Reading and the Thames Valleyu to wear protective
headgear or carry a good and sturdy umbrella at all times, even when it is not raining. Why? Well,
there would be such a quantity of flying pigs in the local area; they will need to evacuate their
bowels as Nature intended *sometime*, and I wouldn't want anyone to be soiled by manure dropped
from on high

Alex

 

[Mike Sales]

"j-p.s" wrote in message
> With that in mind, I'd be interested in (reasonable, un-Damerell i.e. open to discussion) theories
> as to why this anecdotal evidence somehow doesn't affect the statistics. I wonder why helmets
> don't seem to change the overall severity of accidents, even when in individual accidents that I
> hear about, there's often no doubt that a helmet has done some real good.
>
Do helmets
> encourage more reckless behaviour in some cyclists, or even in some motorists?
>
> J-P
I think you have put your finger on it. The answer is Risk Compensation, or Risk Homeostasis. I
believe that we do change our behaviour according to our circumstances. To deny this is to deny our
nature. If we feel safer we proceed accordingly, and maintain our risk at the level we feel happy
with. (This is not to say we don't make mistakes, but that these range either side of the target
level.) If what we wanted was to be safer we could (if those who believe that they will not take a
helmet into account are correct) pay more attention, try harder and cycle more safely. Unless you
believe that you cannot possibly cycle any more safely, because your riding is perfect. I think that
our behaviour in the rapidly changing circumstances we meet with on the road is only partly under
our concious control. Much of our reaction is too fast for this. Mobile phone users drive (or cycle)
with only a minor part of their attention, (and probably not the concious part) on their driving.
And most of the time they manage not to crash. If you are really interested in this fascinating
subject read "Risk" by John Adams from the University College London Press. 1-85728-068-7 PB. If you
want to discuss it here I would be happy to oblige. Though you may, since you seem to dislike David
Damerel's posts, find the you consider mine too as unreasonable. Though I do believe that Risk
Compensation is a good description of how people deal with a world of dangers and rewards, I am
prepared to discuss the subject in a way I would consider "reasonable". Mike Sales

 

[Graeme]

"Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:b6k6dd$65q34$4@ID- 140940.news.dfncis.de:

<big snip of unreferenced stuff> - which some people should remember to do!!!!
> In 1991 went to Calif. to visit my sister, and was amused to see my little niece & nephew put on
> helmets to bicycle ride or roller skate -- neither of which caused them to move faster than I
> walk, and both of which they did on the sidewalk -- and then took them off to climb on monkey bars
> & other structures in a playground! Apparently they were following some arbitrary rules that
> wheels required helmets, and absence of wheels required they not be worn, regardless of the actual
> danger of the situation.

Going purely by personal experience (oops, anecdotal evidence coming up) I think I am far more
likely to hit my head whilst roller skating than whilst cycling. Roller skates are much more likely
to shoot out from underneath you and leave you heading groundwards rather rapidly. Of course, that
may be due to the fact that I can't really skate. Also, you're even more likely to fall flat on
your ****, but I found it really difficult to skate with two helmets shoved down the back of my
trousers

Have fun!

Graeme

 

[Mr R@T \ -Lsqco]

In news:[email protected], Ben <[email protected]> typed:

> But I'm curious as to why you think a helmet would have prevented a fractured jaw?

I suppose if you are wearing one and an irate motorist wants to punch you, you can get a few
head-butts in first

Alex

 

[Robert Goodman]

"Mike Sales" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Since 1991 the number of head injuries to cyclists in the USA has
> increased by 10% whilst cycle helmet use has risen sharply from less
than
> 18% to around 50%. Furthermore, ridership over the period has declined
by
> 21%.

I'm interested in that last stat. Aging population? Does "ridership" mean persons, person-hours,
person-miles? If persons, is it persons who self-describe as cyclists, or persons who say they've
ridden at least once during some previous period of time?

What I'm guessing is that the increase in helmet use might reflect the remaining riders considering
themselves more "serious" because they ride more frequently, longer distances, and especially
faster. Either that or as older riders age out, younger ones are more predisposed to wear helmets
because they don't remember the time before people wore them, or because they were made to wear them
(in some cases by statute) as children.

Robert

 

[Robert Goodman]

"Ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> I agree with you on the choice thing, my personal choice is only to wear one offroad.

That's interesting. I don't wear any, but if I discriminated it'd be toward wearing one when ON
road. Maybe it has something to do with the difference between on-road & off-road conditions we
find. Maybe to you off-road means rough conditions, while to me it means a smooth unobstructed
surface away from motor traffic, which is how I do most of my riding.

Robert

 

[Robert Goodman]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YBi*[email protected]...

> Motorcycle-style helmets would be unfeasibly hot on bicycles - even a
face
> shield would result in gallons of sweat running into the eyes.
> --
Then how about the type of helmet used in American football, with one or more bars in front of the
face, and otherwise open?

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC), j-p.s <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:27:49 GMT, drifter scrawled: ) I know of a dental surgeon that didn't wear
> one and had a single ) accident and fractured his jaw and had other serious injuries. Just a )
> couple of weeks ago I was climbing up a steep grade slowly and lost my ) balance and fell against
> a lamppost. Wearing a helmet, no injuries.
>
> There seems to be lots of *anecdotal* evidence about how helmets *do* help to reduce the severity
> of crashes. Both a friend and I have had crashes where there's no doubt that the presence of a
> helmet resulted in minor injuries to me, and only a grazed cheek to my friend.
>

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html

Is a nice short page about how cycling helmets seem to have made no difference (to fatalities)
(it doesn't attempt to explain why this is the case so hopefully avoids some of the more
controvertial bits)

I'm sure I read somewhere that only 10% of UK accident injuries to cyclists after dark involve unlit
cyclists but this page says that in Canada it is 90% who are inadequately lit so mayby I misread or
misremember something. Alternatively, maybe fatal accidents don't really fit on a continuum from a
slight graze to critical injuries.

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Ben]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:31:02 +0100, "Mr R@t \(2.3 zulu-alpha\) [comms room 2]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:[email protected], Ben <[email protected]> typed:
>
>> But I'm curious as to why you think a helmet would have prevented a fractured jaw?
>
>I suppose if you are wearing one and an irate motorist wants to punch you, you can get a few
>head-butts in first

That works best with motorcycle helmets. Trust me
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****

 

[Ben]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 15:49:29 -0500, "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> I agree with you on the choice thing, my personal choice is only to wear one offroad.
>
>That's interesting. I don't wear any, but if I discriminated it'd be toward wearing one when ON
>road. Maybe it has something to do with the difference between on-road & off-road conditions we
>find. Maybe to you off-road means rough conditions, while to me it means a smooth unobstructed
>surface away from motor traffic, which is how I do most of my riding.

It's just my risk assessment. I've fallen off the bike a fair few times on the road and never hit my
head. Cut and grazed legs and arms but never a head injury. But I've not been hit by a car on the
mtb. On the motorbike I have been hit by cars, three times in fact. In those cases I have hit my
head hard enough to seriously damage a motorbike helmet. This leads me to a conclusion that in a
car/Ben interface, a pedalbike helmet is going to do pretty much bugger all.

Mind you I don't really want to test this hypothesis.

Offroad on the otherhand I've fallen off shedloads, a lot while racing. Bashed my head on tree,
stumps, floor etc. In these cases, because the impact is at a lower speed, and doesn't have 2 tons
of steel behind it, pedalbike helmets seem to do the trick.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****

 

[Daniel Auger]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Robert Goodman wrote:

> Which makes me wonder why they don't have face shields like motorcylce helmets, or are those
> useless in impact situations too?

I have come off a bike three times in my life. On each occasion, I have received non-serious but
painful knee injuries. I sometimes wonder whether I ought to be wearing protective knee pads?

--
Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)

 

[Daniel Auger]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, j-p.s wrote:

> With that in mind, I'd be interested in (reasonable, un-Damerell i.e. open to discussion) theories
> as to why this anecdotal evidence somehow doesn't affect the statistics. I wonder why helmets
> don't seem to change the overall severity of accidents, even when in individual accidents that I
> hear about, there's often no doubt that a helmet has done some real good.

One theory might be that the number of severe accidents where the _only_ severe injuries could be
prevented by a helmet is small compared to the total number of accidents involving severe injuries.
Is there a difference in the statistics if you look at "head injuries" rather than "severe
injuries"?

Two other ideas worth discussion:

Could helmets increase the likelihood of other sorts of severe injury,
e.g. neck injuries, thus cancelling out any net benefits?

Are the majority of helmet-wearing people wearing badly-sized or badly-positioned helmets?

I have no evidence whatsover for any of these explanations, so I don't plan to defend them.

--
Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)

 

[Richard Burton]

"the Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> SabineUK wrote:
> > Peter Clinch [email protected] said:
> >
> >> Liability is a non-issue in the UK, helmets aren't compulsory here.
> >
> > But there is continual talk of insurers trying to claim contributory negligence if you try to
> > claim for injury suffered while helmetless.
> >
> > When my ex was knocked off her solicitor raised this as a very real issue although in the event,
> > it didn't seem to affect the claim.
> >
> When I put in a claim last October when a car hit me one of the first questions asked by any of
> the legal people I had to talk to was "were you wearing a helmet?". That seemed to me to imply
> that my claim for compensation was related to wearing a helmet.

Mark, if you weren't a CTC member at the time, join now! Their legal department will thouroughly
trash any attempt to reduce damages because you weren't wearing a helmet.

Thinking about this, isn't it time all cyclists joined the CTC, after all, if it wasn't for them,
you wouldn't have anywhere to ride now, and they're still looking after your interests: and they are
the biggest cycling organisation in the UK..

Rich