Helmet Survey



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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?

Why? you're assuming that there would be a benefit, which is not proven. Given that all the claims
for cycle helmets have been shown to be wishful thinking and counterproductive (fewer people riding
bikes, more heart disease etc etc) why try to make out that cycling is dangerous?

Rich
 
"Daniel Auger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> 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? :)

Not only should you have been wearing knee pads, but you should now be advocating that they be
compuslory!

Rich
>
> --
> Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
 
"j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:27:49 GMT, drifter scrawled: 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.

Anecdotal is just that - one person's experience. I well remember a helmet-extremist at a local
cycle forum: he categorically stated that all cyclists should wear a helmet, as a result of his
experience when he fell off at 35+mph. Of course, his position was somewhat undermined when he
admitted that he wasn't actually wearing a helmet at the time.

I've fallen off dozens of times, I am 51, but I think I still retain most of my marbles: I can still
solve the Times chess problem, but I don't wear a helmet. Why not? because I believe the evidence,
not anecdotes.
>
>> 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.

Quite obvious when you think about it: the people whose lives weren't saved by the helmet they were
wearing don't respond with anecdotes.

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.

As already shown on this thread, risk compensation is a significant effect, but there are also the
injuries caused by helmets: several children were "hanged" by their helmet straps in Scandinavia
(with the result that legislation ensures that helmets fly off at the first contact, so that the
second impact will be fatal) and that helmets increase and cause rotational injuries. The latest
research from Australia postulates that rotational injuries are far more important that straight
impact injuries, so that helmets are actually increasing your risk of an injury.
>
> Personally I swear by helmets: from very personal experience. But I want to understand why the
> stats seem to prove me wrong for "the average cyclist." Who is having the near-death experiences
> that make up for my narrow squeaks? And isn't he or she getting sick of it? Do helmets encourage
> more reckless behaviour in some cyclists, or even in some motorists?

To be my own worst enemy, yes there is anecdotal evidence that drivers behave more dangerously
towards unhelmeted cyclists. It would certainly be interesting to investigate this further.

Rich
 
"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

It is well known that the CTC have fought several such cases, and there has been no reduction in
damages in those cases. Do you know of others where there has been a reduction? BTW I think you
mean premise.

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

More likely that 21% of the population was disuaded from cycling because it was dangerous: it must
be dangerous, you had to wear safety equipment to do
it. No stats available about any possible increase in CHD due to lack of exercise.

Rich
 
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:44:40 +0100 someone who may be "Mr R@t \(2.3 zulu-alpha\) [comms room 2]"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>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).

Does it recommend car helmets though? In the road "safety" lobby's terms these would "save more
lives" than cycle helmets, whether one measures this in absolute or relative terms.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
In news:[email protected], Mike Sales <[email protected]> typed:

> 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.

Understandable - if you are riding a motorbike in December/January wearing only your pants, the wind
chill factor is *bound* to make you go a bit slower :)

Alex
 
"Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room 2]" wrote in message

Mike Sales <[email protected]> typed:
>
> > 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.
>
> Understandable - if you are riding a motorbike in December/January wearing only your pants, the
> wind chill factor is *bound* to make you go a bit slower :)
>
> Alex
>
Top speeds, in mph, reached with different levels of protection B-road town leathers pants leathers
pants Steve 126 92 36 28 Hugo 115 84 38 27 Luke 124 105 35 29 Maria* 120 65 31 25
* Maria wore pyjamas instead of underpants As I hope you can see from this table, the riders were
first on a quiet B road, where they slowed somewhat when in underpants, and then in a town, where
they still felt it necessary to slow even further (typically 30s to
20s) even though they had previously been comfortable at two or three times the speed on the open
road, whilst dressed in chilly underpants. It would surely have been quite obvious to the
experimenters if the reason for slowing was cold. I don't have the mag with me, but it is not
necessarily the case that the experiment was done just before publication. Are you trying to
maintain that a motorcyclist in leathers would not ride any faster than one in underpants?
Mike Sales
 
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:25:08 +0100, Mike Sales scrawled: ) 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.

Yeah, I can see that. I think this may be true for the sum total of cyclists.

But to play the statistics game and assume that a helmet can do a *u.r.c* denizen (on average) no
good because it does the average cyclist no good: surely that denies the fact that we are /not/
average cyclists here? I hope nobody here is insulted if I suggest that we're nowhere near the
centre of the bell curve. Although I don't have the stats to back it up, then I think we here would
be the more considerate subset of cyclists. As such, we are unlikely to buy helmets, with the
intention of increasing safety, and then to start cycling less safe because of them.

But maybe as you say this is a largely unconscious, or at least unconscienced, thing, though. Like
the push-pull effect that means that in some cities cyclists will just "get away with" less legal
manoeuvres than in others because one develops a feel for the mean traffic flow around you. Once you
know the environment then you simply adapt. Hum. I don't know how well that adaptation occurs.

(Perhaps, then - if you'll permit gross rationalization after the fact - the advantage of helmets is
that, without decreasing safety, they allow a cyclist to cycle in a more convenient way, in a busy,
aggressive environment! They permit cyclists to conscience less safe actions while keeping the mean
safety level constant...!)

) 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.

That's true, but I'd also say that I find it hard to consider something as far removed from
intellect as a cycling helmet altering my intuitive behaviour: I feel that as a safety gadget it's
too intellectualized and would only alter my considered, willed behaviour. Example: if I were a car
driver, I don't think that the fact that I was insured for first-party damages would make me more
intuitively reckless. It might affect my deliberate behaviour, but I find it hard to see my
"subconscious" (bleah) making the connection. An insurance policy is more abstracted than a helmet,
but maybe that's a point against intuitive risk homeostasis..

Did the wearing of helmets by miners, or builders, produce the same homeostatic effect? Or are
such professions so highly regulated already that they don't have enough leeway to shift the risk
bubble around?

) 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.

Not at all. You at least admit other points of view without belittling them. Many thanks :)

J-P
--
We were doomed from the start Reading too much Dostoevsky has made me flip
 
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 22:27:01 +0100, Richard Burton scrawled: ) Anecdotal is just that - one person's
experience.

I appreciate that, which is why I was interested in how the sum total of the anecdotes I have heard
can be (a) reconciled with the statistics and
(b) permit there to be exceptions far from the mean for whom helmets are very detrimental or very
useful. I don't like extrapolating from only my own experience, if the statistics state
something entirely different.

One possible resolution might be a breakdown of such statistics by cyclist demographic. It may be
that e.g. very fast cyclists experience more rotation-based injuries because of their speed.
Similarly I would hope to see that e.g. beginner cyclists fare much better with helmets, because
most of their accidents are simply falling off the bike, with their head tending to hit the ground
straight on, with very little rotation.

) I've fallen off dozens of times, I am 51, but I think I still retain most of ) my marbles: I can
still solve the Times chess problem, but I don't wear a ) helmet. Why not? because I believe the
evidence, not anecdotes.

There's believing the evidence, and believing the predigested statistics. For me the sum total of
the evidence is strong statistical affirmation of the null hypothesis, accompanied by equally
strong anecdotal affirmation of the helmetty hypothesis. I must therefore convince myself that the
statistics don't hide some sinister demon by the very nature of their smearing-out of the
underlying data.

I'm not saying I'm not convinceable by stats, by the way; I'd hope not to be so bull-headed,
especially as I'm a scientist by profession! I just want to be certain of the explanation of
the stats.

J-P
--
Then it will conveniently Urinate in the Palm of your hand!!! Believe me my friend!!! Hand Held
Technology just got a whole lot WARMER!!!
 
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304051414350.4969-100000 @mulgara.eng.cam.ac.uk>,
[email protected] says...
> 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? :)

On the two times I have come off and really hurt myself I have suffered badly scuffed knuckles. On
neither occasion was I wearing gloves or mitts. I now always wear them in the hope of a vague
control experiment never occurring someday.

I also broke my ribs once, maybe we should all wear those armoured body suits :-S

Colin
 
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MPG.18fb4176ce4bb5559898c9@localhost...

> I also broke my ribs once, maybe we should all wear those armoured body suits :-S

I fell off on Saturday and managed to bruise my ribs quite badly as I came down on the end of handle
bar using my breast-bone to stop.

No serious damage but a precautionary trip to casualty (as I was finding it difficult to breath
properly about 3 hours after the fall).

I present to Casualty with badly bruised ribs and a minor graze to the knee.

Q1. How did it happen?
Q2. I fell off my bike.

Q3. Were you wearing a helmet?
Q4. No.

Lecture -- you should. Response -- there are statistics that show there is little or no benefit in
wearing a helmet. Body armour might have helped here. Reponses -- blank look.

So I am now enter the hospital statistics as an irresponsible, non helmet wearing, injured cyclist.

Another victory for woolly intuition over reality :(
 
Richard Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>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?
>Why? you're assuming that there would be a benefit, which is not proven.

For reference, I am not. I'm merely commenting on the characteristics of motorcycle helmets.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>On the two times I have come off and really hurt myself I have suffered badly scuffed knuckles. On
>neither occasion was I wearing gloves or mitts.

Those of us who type a lot can probably see benefit from padded gloves even if we never
have a spill.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
"Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.

There are non-arbitrary reasons not to wear a helmet on playground climbing frames - see
http://www.bhsi.org/playgrou.htm

(Roller skating or cycling they may not have moved faster than you walking, but were probably more
likely to fall over.)
 
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:08:37 +0000, Steve McGinty <stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com> wrote:

>I don't want to start another thread on the rights and wrongs of helmets, .....

67 (and counting) posts later...

Stephen
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > 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.

> There are non-arbitrary reasons not to wear a helmet on playground climbing frames - see
> http://www.bhsi.org/playgrou.htm

Never thought of that! But do we know there haven't been a corresponding # of fatal head injuries
prevented by helmets in playgrounds?

> (Roller skating or cycling they may not have moved faster than you walking, but were probably more
> likely to fall over.)

So let's say the average child falls down 100 times a year, and of those, 10 of those times are from
wheels. The average # of falls in a given period of time are elevated by wheels over those from
walking, and maybe slightly over those from running. If (and of course it's a big
if) helmets are of use in such cases, does it really make sense to wear them only when on wheels?
How about at other times of elevated fall danger, as when on stairs or in a bathtub? And if
such times only increase the chance of falling by, say 2- or 3-fold, does it matter? How
about 5-fold?

And only the skates presented a greater chance of falling. With training wheels, the kids probably
were more stable sitting on the bikes than walking.

My own impression was that the increased "head size" and "head mass" produced by those styrofoam
helmets on those little heads increased danger to the neck to a degree probably exceeding the degree
of protection to the skull.

Robert
 
In message <[email protected]>, Robert Goodman <[email protected]> writes
>"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> > 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.
>
>> There are non-arbitrary reasons not to wear a helmet on playground climbing frames - see
>> http://www.bhsi.org/playgrou.htm
>
>Never thought of that! But do we know there haven't been a corresponding # of fatal head injuries
>prevented by helmets in playgrounds?
>
>> (Roller skating or cycling they may not have moved faster than you walking, but were probably
>> more likely to fall over.)
>
>So let's say the average child falls down 100 times a year, and of those, 10 of those times are
>from wheels. The average # of falls in a given period of time are elevated by wheels over those
>from walking, and maybe slightly over those from running. If (and of course it's a big
>if) helmets are of use in such cases, does it really make sense to wear them only when on wheels?
> How about at other times of elevated fall danger, as when on stairs or in a bathtub? And if
> such times only increase the chance of falling by, say 2- or 3-fold, does it matter? How about
> 5-fold?
>
>And only the skates presented a greater chance of falling. With training wheels, the kids probably
>were more stable sitting on the bikes than walking.
>
>My own impression was that the increased "head size" and "head mass" produced by those styrofoam
>helmets on those little heads increased danger to the neck to a degree probably exceeding the
>degree of protection to the skull.

Quite. Some things really reinforce my faith in human idiocy. The Thudguard is actually a real
helmet being marketed to save real urclings from, er, possibly terrible things. Like falling over
and bonking their bonces. Or exploring their little worlds. Look at http://www.thudguard.com and
laugh. Or weep.

Complete with endorsements from the usual suspects. "Will make a valuable contribution in a similar
way to cycle helmets......." Indeed.

I asked for further information, but haven't heard much since. Possibly my endorsement wasn't quite
so heartfelt as the wa^H^Hpromoter would have liked. Or perhaps this may have run out of steam. The
site doesn't seem to have been updated since last autumn.

>
>Robert
>
>

--
Richard Keatinge

http://www.keatinge.net
 
> Quite. Some things really reinforce my faith in human idiocy. The Thudguard is actually a real
> helmet being marketed to save real urclings from, er, possibly terrible things. Like falling over
> and bonking their bonces. Or exploring their little worlds. Look at http://www.thudguard.com and
> laugh. Or weep.
>
> Complete with endorsements from the usual suspects. "Will make a valuable contribution in a
> similar way to cycle helmets......." Indeed.

I went to the RoSPA site that the idiot quoted "Will make a valuable etc etc " concerned claimed to
be representing. Couldn't find the actual quote, but the b*****t about cycle helmets has to be seen
to be believed. All of the quoted "facts" on the Effectiveness of Cycle Helmets (A synopsis of
selected research papers and medical articles, with "selected" being the operative word) section are
out of date and very suspect (me being polite) while the advice is just laughable: "RoSPA recommends
that all cyclists wear a cycle helmet that meets a recognised safety standard. Cycle helmets, when
correctly worn, are effective in reducing the risk of receiving major head or brain injuries in an
accident."

OK Mr RoSPA, how come none of the whole population, robust, demonstrable, supported research shows
what you say? Is RoSPA interested in reducing accidents and their effects or are you just a bunch of
poseurs? Oh, and how come you won't quote the research which shows that helmets are a waste of time,
only the out-dated stuff that supports your entrenched position?

Answers on a postcard to: RoSPA Head Office: Edgbaston Park, 353 Bristol Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham
B5 7ST, UK

Cheers

Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.