Helmets

David WE Roberts [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

If against, then why?

If you can produce a helmet which will provide realistic protection in
the event of a life threatening crash, and which does not cause
significant discomfort in normal use, then I'd consider it. Ignoring the
fact that this is unlikely to be possible, there are better ways to
improve the safety of cyclists. Getting more of them on the road would
be a good start, as would taking more of the bad drivers off the road.

Jon

On 6/12/04 12:44 pm, in article [email hidden],

David WE Roberts said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

Effective AND comfortable? In certain circumstances yes. Most of the time
no.

There are three things, effectiveness at doing the job, lackof side effects
(heat etc.) , and necessity. Even with the best design in the world I'll
still do my best to not fall off.

...d

David WE Roberts said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

What anti-helmet brigade is this? I haven't seen anyone on urc that
is anti-helmet, although there are a few (including myself) that are
anti-helmet-promotion and anti-helmet-wearing in certain circumstances.

I don't wear a helmet currently because

a) it won't protect me in the sort of accident I'm most likely to have
(being twatted by a vehicle; I seldom if ever go off-road or off-trail.
Having said that, the chances of me being twatted by a vehicle are
still very small. I ride following most of the guidelines in Franklin's
Cyclecraft, I'm lit up like a Christmas tree, I behave like a motor
vehicle wrt lanes, etc.)

b) it's hot, uncomfortable, and inconvenient to lug around.

c) wearing one increases the likelihood of a mandatory helmet law.

d) wearing one makes cycling look dangerous (which it isn't), which
deters people from cycling, which in turn makes the roads more dangerous
for those of us that do cycle.

e) wearing one encourages the partial shifting of blame to unhelmetted
cyclists, from drivers who are at fault, in the event of an accident.

f) it possibly/probably increases the liklihood of serious brain injury
due to rotational impacts by increasing the volume, moment of inertia,
and friction of the skull.

So, if some helmet of proven worth against motor vehicle/cycle
collisions is introduced, which deals with (a), it still doesn't deal
with (b),(c),(d), (e) or (f). So no, I probably wouldn't wear it then,
either.

R.

David WE Roberts said:

Risk compensation is being quoted with reference to helmeted riders taking
more risks than helmetless riders.

There have been several posts suggesting that "if you don't wear a helmet
motorists will take more care" or similar.

However there seems to be no evidence so far to back this up.
Certainly no one has so far posted any.

Things like the above are posted as possible reasons /why/ we see the
effect of no improvement to head injury rates for helmet wearers.
Though we don't know /why/, the *what* is fairly well established: there
is no clear evidence of helmets improving head injury rates amongst
cyclists. That is a matter of record, and it will remain so whether or
not we know why that is so.

Quoted message said:

What I have not seen so far is any proposal to campaign for a better, more
scientific set of standards for cycling helmets.
If people are being sold protective gear which is not 'fit for purpose'
then surely cyclist should be campaigning for the proper design and
development of safety gear.

This is a good example of "common sense argument". It seems so
reasonable until you realise that you're then campaigning for (at
considerable expense) something which isn't really needed. By saying
"cyclists need better helmets!" you paint a false picture that cyclists
are in terrible danger without better helmets, but the truth is we're
not really in any more need of them than pedestrians. Is there a huge
campaign to get people to wear helmets to go for a walk? No. In most
part I would think because there isn't any propaganda flying about
saying you need any such thing, although just like cyclists the list of
people getting serious or fatal head injuries as a pedestrian certainly
isn't empty.

Quoted message said:

Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

This is a problem of perception. It is entirely arguable whether
helmets for cyclists are a "reasonable safety precaution", just as it is
for pedestrians. It would be seen as at the very least rather eccentric
by the general public if I donned a helmet to walk to the shops, or if I
drove to the shops wearing one, or if I caught a bus to the shops
wearing one, so why is it "reasonable" that I must wear one to cycle
there on the same routes?

Quoted message said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

If against, then why?

I'm not "anti helmet" and I'm not aware of anyone who is. If you think
folk around here are truly anti-helmet then that's just a demonstration
that you haven't really taken in what they're saying. Everyone who
looks at the CTC mag "You Ride" column has seen me in my helmet, for
example, so characterising me as "anti-helmet" is self evidently wrong.

Would I wear this notional "better helmet" when I don't wear my current
one? Probably not. Why not? For the same reason I wouldn't wear it as
a pedestrian, or why I don't bother to improve my domestic safety by
only using the cooker wearing a heatproof and flameproof suit or having
a crash mat installed at the bottom of the stairs: if I'm already
reasonably safe and it's tangibly extra hassle to make myself safer then
there just isn't that much point.

Would I be "against" the helmet? I'm not "against" the current ones,
just misinformation regarding their effectiveness and the basic levels
of actual risks that cyclists run.

Fact is that for serious injuries they don't have any sort of proven
track record of doing any good. Another fact is that they're less
comfortable to wear than not, and they take up space, time and money to
fiddle with them. Why do these things when there's no particular need to?

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Things like the above are posted as possible reasons /why/ we see the
effect of no improvement to head injury rates for helmet wearers. Though
we don't know /why/, the *what* is fairly well established: there is no
clear evidence of helmets improving head injury rates amongst cyclists.
That is a matter of record, and it will remain so whether or not we know
why that is so.

Naughty me, I should have put the word "serious" in there. The figures
for minor head injuries are pretty unreliable due to major under
reporting and I don't think there's that much controversy that a bike
helmet will have a fair chance of saving a bump or a graze, but these
aren't going to kill or disable you.

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David WE Roberts said:

What I have not seen so far is any proposal to campaign for a better, more
scientific set of standards for cycling helmets.
If people are being sold protective gear which is not 'fit for purpose'
then surely cyclist should be campaigning for the proper design and
development of safety gear.

I personally do see the need for a helmet so I will not be campaigning
for better ones, I'd rather be cycling.

Quoted message said:

Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

Thats why I don't do that too. Campaiging for people to use halemts
carries a strong message that cycling is dangerous. It isn't.

Quoted message said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

If against, then why?

Cheers

Dave R

I wouldn't wear it because I am safe enough as I am.

By the way Dave, whats your point of view on all of this ? Are you a
cyclist ? Do you believe we all should wear helmets ? Do believe we
should be forced to by law ?

David WE Roberts said:

Risk compensation is being quoted with reference to helmeted riders taking
more risks than helmetless riders.

As documented by Mok et. al. in Injury Prevention, yes. Have you read
Risk by John Adams?

Quoted message said:

There have been several posts suggesting that "if you don't wear a helmet
motorists will take more care" or similar.
However there seems to be no evidence so far to back this up.
Certainly no one has so far posted any.
The premise that motorists currently take more care if they see a cyclist
without a helmet is (to me at least) pretty far fetched.

There is a TRL report which says that drivers are prepared to give
less space to cyclists they perceive as experienced or in good
control, than to those who are less experienced. In as much as a
helmet is part of this "uniform" of the "experienced cyclist", then
this could arguably apply. Otherwise it's just anecdotal.

The idea that drivers might view a helmeted rider as less vulnerable
than an inexperienced, wobbling rider is not in the least far-fetched.

Quoted message said:

So far fetched that it undermines any of the more reasoned arguments put
forward, and gives me the impression of a crank who will dredge up any
argument, however far fetched, to support a point of view.

Whereas the quoting of a certain 85% figure does not?

Quoted message said:

What I have not seen so far is any proposal to campaign for a better, more
scientific set of standards for cycling helmets.

There are many such references in the literature going back a couple
of decades. These vary from the tolerably scientific - papers which
seek to understand if helmets can be designed which would mitigate the
rotational forces which cause most serious and fatal brain injury - to
the faintly ludicrous, like the BDJ paper which proposes that dentists
should support compulsion because helmets provide some protection from
mid and lower face injury (how?) but that full-face helmets should be
promoted to improve this.

Quoted message said:

If people are being sold protective gear which is not 'fit for purpose'
then surely cyclist should be campaigning for the proper design and
development of safety gear.

Cycle helmets have always been a solution in search of a problem.
Improving the helmets won't make the problem any more real.

Quoted message said:

Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

For certain given values of "reasonable". It is now widely
acknowledged - not least by the manufacturers - that helmets make, on
average, no significant difference in road traffic crashes, yet every
helmet law in the world is put through on the basis of casualty
figures dominated by road traffic casualties, and helmet efficacy
figures dominated by trivial injuries.

Quoted message said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

Who are the anti-helmet brigade?

Quoted message said:

If against, then why?

As soon as I am convinced there is a substantial problem, and that
helmets are a suitable fix, I will change my view. Right now it looks
as if helmets have earned their place last on the list of cycle safety
interventions, long after things like reducing traffic danger.

I will be very happy when I start seeing large scale cycle safety
campaigns which put helmets in their correct context, until then
helmet promotion is a dangerous distraction from the real business of
cycle safety.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

you know? said:

David WE Roberts said:

Risk compensation is being quoted with reference to helmeted riders taking
more risks than helmetless riders.

As documented by Mok et. al. in Injury Prevention, yes. Have you read
Risk by John Adams?

Quoted message said:

There have been several posts suggesting that "if you don't wear a helmet
motorists will take more care" or similar.
However there seems to be no evidence so far to back this up.
Certainly no one has so far posted any.
The premise that motorists currently take more care if they see a cyclist
without a helmet is (to me at least) pretty far fetched.

There is a TRL report which says that drivers are prepared to give
less space to cyclists they perceive as experienced or in good
control, than to those who are less experienced. In as much as a
helmet is part of this "uniform" of the "experienced cyclist", then
this could arguably apply. Otherwise it's just anecdotal.

There you go again - if this forum (or at least the helmet threads) is to
be taken as representative then the general trend is for naive and/or
inexperienced cyclists to wear helmets (because they believe they are a
safety measure), but experienced cyclists to decide not to wear them
because they feel that they can do more harm than good.

I have not seen anything to demonstrate that the vast majority of
inexperienced riders do not wear helmets, but that the vast majority of
experienced riders do.

Only if you can prove this can you draw a logical conclusion that helmeted
riders are given less consideration than helmetless riders.

Even given that, the fact that they are wearing helmets is surely
incidental - their road position and general progress are far more likely
to indicate an experienced rider than the presence or absence of a helmet.
The consideration (or lack of it) is not base primarily on the wearing of
a helmet. You could use the same argument to 'prove' that wearing e.g. bib
shorts is more likely to get you hit by a bus.

From this plus your quotes it seems that motorists are more likely to give
a wide berth to helmet wearing (i.e. inexperienced) riders.

Again I say that nobody has quoted any firm evidence that wearing a helmet
will encourage drivers to give you less consideration.

Any thinking driver of any kind of vehicle will be aware that there are
inexperienced and/or unpredictable road users about.

Such drivers will give a wide berth to bikes, cars, pedestrians horses
etc. which show any sign of behaving erratically.

What I think you have just proposed is that a defensive cyclist should
ride erratically with plenty of wobbles and swerving because then cars
will give a wider berth and the cyclist will therefore be safer.

Again I say that pushing the more extreme arguments to support a position
where there have been a good range of reasoned arguments can only weaken
the overall position.

I appreciate the reasoned arguments I have seen - as well as being
concerned about the implications.
<snip reasoned argument>

Quoted message said:

Guy

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts said:

The premise that motorists currently take more care if they see a cyclist
without a helmet is (to me at least) pretty far fetched.

Well I have the advantage of having done the experiment and abandoned my
helmet after many years wearing it. So I speak from my experience and
you from speculation. Given that the risk of an accident is minimal why
don't you try it for a while and see what you find rather than what you
speculate?

Quoted message said:

Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

As are pedestrians who are far more at risk of head injury than
cyclists. Why are pedestrians against reasonable safety precautions and
why are you not campaigning for walking helmets as well - or is it just
you have a fixation on telling cyclists what to do?

Quoted message said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
still be against it?

Probably not because I'm not convinced that we know what it is of a
helmet that important. We know that helmet wearing populations have
more and more serious head injuries. Is it the straight forward
protection or indirect effects such as risk compensation (by cyclists
and motorists); is it that the paraphernalia of helmets and the
perceived dangers of needing special protective equipment puts off
cyclists leading to fewer cyclists and more accidents; is it the greater
size and mass of the helmet and the consequences for more impacts and
greater rotational brain injuries; is it the shell grabbing on the
tarmac when it hits and creating rotational and neck injuries. When
someone has the answer to what it is that is behind the whole population
experience and whether the helmet design can have any impact on it I
reserve my position. The problem is we have too many do gooders who
think they do understand and are creating consequences diametrically
opposite to their intentions.

Tony

David WE Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote:
....
| Risk compensation is being quoted with reference to helmeted riders taking
| more risks than helmetless riders.
|
| There have been several posts suggesting that "if you don't wear a helmet
| motorists will take more care" or similar.
|
| However there seems to be no evidence so far to back this up.
| Certainly no one has so far posted any.

The Munich Taxi ABS experiment was one mentioned. There is no dispute
about the existence of risk compensation generally.

But it's true that I, for one, am projecting what research there is,
and adding in common sense and experience. I'd like to see research
done into this area from this angle.

| The premise that motorists currently take more care if they see a cyclist
| without a helmet is (to me at least) pretty far fetched.
|
| So far fetched that it undermines any of the more reasoned arguments put
| forward, and gives me the impression of a crank who will dredge up any
| argument, however far fetched, to support a point of view.

Why are there so many "accidents" then? Are you really saying that, in
general, there's no connection with how much care drivers take, and
how aware they are of their margin for error? And do you really think
there's no connection between how much care a driver takes, at a
particular instant, and the amount of damage they perceive as being
possible? Do you think all drivers are so good that they maintain
perfect awareness of all possible dangers 100% of the time?

It's certainly far-fetched to suggest that a driver, when presented
with the two situations and having nothing else to think about and
being asked by someone they don't want to disappoint, will say they'd
take less care passing the helmetted cyclist, but that isn't the
situation we're talking about.

| You suggest that I prove the converse?
| Oh, come on now!
| You can propose any wild stupidity then claim it is valid because nobody
| can point to a scientific study which disproves it?

What reasons do you have for claiming "wild stupidity" here?

| What I have not seen so far is any proposal to campaign for a better, more
| scientific set of standards for cycling helmets.

There's nothing unscientific about the current helmet standards: they
show quite clearly how irrelevant they are to RTAs and saving lives.

| If people are being sold protective gear which is not 'fit for purpose'
| then surely cyclist should be campaigning for the proper design and
| development of safety gear.

There might well be a case for a (spoof?) campaign for Real Cycle
Helmets i.e. ones that really would save your life in a 30mph crash,
assuming it was only your head that got hit. I'd bet the
manufacturer's would swallow some government money to research the
matter but then say it can't be done. Meanwhile the Real Facts of the
matter might get paraded in front of the public's gaping gaze. Guy?

| Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
| cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

True; our task is to persuade the general public that helmets are not,
actually, reasonable safety precautions for cycling amongst cars.

| So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
| a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
| still be against it?
|
| If against, then why?

I agree with the other replies.

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

MSeries said:

David WE Roberts wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

By the way Dave, whats your point of view on all of this ? Are you a
cyclist ? Do you believe we all should wear helmets ? Do believe we
should be forced to by law ?

Harrumph..<clears throat>...you may regret asking this :-)

I am a cyclist, ex-motor cyclist, car and camper van driver, walker,
ex-horse rider trainee kayaker. So I tend to view any of the
walker/horse/cager/biker etc. discussions from a fairly neutral
standpoint.

I have in the past commuted over country lanes and town streets over a 10
mile route in all weathers. Did the LTB one year.

I am concerned about my safety, and also that of my daughter, who is now
doing the commute I used to do.

I am a strong proponent of wearing high visibility clothing instead of
fashion statements.
[By fashion statements I mean everything from street cool black (along
with no lights at night) to the latest TDF gear which looks like the
business close up (but not from a distance).] The cyclist I see first when
I am driving (day or night) is the one with the unfashionable fluorescent
yellow top.

On helmets, I have always worn one because I believed that it would
provide some protection to my head if I fell off. I never expected
protection from high speed impact, but (from my very limited experience of
falling off) I thought it would protect me from the more likely low speed
impact where I slithered to a stop then fell off.

I am now concerned, but think that on balance I will continue to wear a
helmet because of the limited protection in slow speed impacts. Reinforced
by my friends experience when she was knocked off and hit her head.

Given the posted evidence of the limited benefits of helmets, I am against
compulsion in their current form.
Were there a proven helmet design which gave significant reductions in the
number of permanent head injuries for cyclists then I would tend to favour
compulsion
[I am wondering why horse riders and white water kayakers both wear
hardish hats to protect themselves (both of which are a lot more sturdy
than the average cyclists helmet) without the same kind of issues. Is it
because the main requirement for a cyclist is ultra light weight and
breathability, which runs contrary to strong structure?]

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the rest of
us looking after the victims. It is not only the injured person who can
suffer long term effects, so I think that proven safety measures should be
enforced. Always a tricky line between personal freedom and sensible
controls, and you can never find a line which pleases everybody. I also do
not support any laws which will not be realistically enforced - including
most of the recent 'crowd pleasers' from Blunkett such as mobile phone
whilst driving bans.

I think that if cyclists wish to be treated with respect as road users
then they should ride responsibly. Plenty of postings around about red
light hopping, pavements etc. All obviously illegal, but if you can't
enforce the law in this area then how are you going to enforce helmet law?
Apart from stopping the slow, sensible ones?

I think irresponsible cyclists are more of a risk than helmet wearers in
changing the views of motorists and causing them to take less care when
around cyclists. "F**king cyclists - think they own the place"

In the same way, I think extreme arguments about such things as wearing
helmets can prejudice the public against the more reasoned arguments,
which is what got me into this discussion in the first place.

So boringly middle of the road, really.

[Apart from when cycling, where I try to be thoughtful towards car drivers
and find they are generally thoughtful in return].

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote:
....
| What I think you have just proposed is that a defensive cyclist should
| ride erratically with plenty of wobbles and swerving because then cars
| will give a wider berth and the cyclist will therefore be safer.

I have actually done that. Medium width country A road, twisty but
reasonable visibility; heard/felt some [censored] in a Cosworth 4x4
wanking it along at 70+. When I saw him in the mirror I deliberately
wobbled slightly, he slammed on the brakes and passed me at a
reasonable 30ish. This was in the days before helmets were an issue
either way, in case you were wondering.

| Again I say that pushing the more extreme arguments to support a position
| where there have been a good range of reasoned arguments can only weaken
| the overall position.

Yes it would but it's only you who is claiming, without
counter-evidence or reason, that it's an extreme argument.

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

Peter Clinch said:

David WE Roberts wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

This is a good example of "common sense argument". It seems so
reasonable until you realise that you're then campaigning for (at
considerable expense) something which isn't really needed. By saying
"cyclists need better helmets!" you paint a false picture that cyclists
are in terrible danger without better helmets, but the truth is we're
not really in any more need of them than pedestrians. Is there a huge
campaign to get people to wear helmets to go for a walk? No. In most
part I would think because there isn't any propaganda flying about
saying you need any such thing, although just like cyclists the list of
people getting serious or fatal head injuries as a pedestrian certainly
isn't empty.

Quoted message said:

Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

This is a problem of perception. It is entirely arguable whether
helmets for cyclists are a "reasonable safety precaution", just as it is
for pedestrians. It would be seen as at the very least rather eccentric
by the general public if I donned a helmet to walk to the shops, or if I
drove to the shops wearing one, or if I caught a bus to the shops
wearing one, so why is it "reasonable" that I must wear one to cycle
there on the same routes?

<snip>

I can think of some notable differences:

(1) The cyclist is generally travelling much faster than the pedestrian.

(2) The cyclist is mingling in with the traffic.

(3) The cyclist is generally more unstable than the pedestrian when
starting/stopping.

Walking is, after all, something we are born to and evolved to do over
millenia. Cycling is a fairly recent invention.

Granted that if the helmet is only good for the kind of accidents
pedestrians also have then the benefits are limited.

I would be interested to know the statistics for pedestrian head injuries
that are alluded to - are these only to do with RTAs or for all types of
accidents including falling down the pub steps?

Are they only for people outside their homes, or does it include accidents
in the home?

Also, do they directly compare percentage of accidents per active
pedestrians with percentage of accidents per active cyclist?

I am quite prepared to believe that you are more at risk on a zebra
crossing in London than on a bike :-)

My perception is that I am more likely to have an accident per hour spent
cycling than per hour spent walking/strolling.

Is this not the case?

Cheers

Dave R

Response to David WE Roberts:

Quoted message said:

What I think you have just proposed is that a defensive cyclist should
ride erratically with plenty of wobbles and swerving because then cars
will give a wider berth and the cyclist will therefore be safer.

This is actually not uncommon - for instance, Richard Ballantine
recommended it in his Bicycle Book - and I've used that technique myself
in the past.

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Response to David WE Roberts:

Quoted message said:

Were there a proven helmet design which gave significant reductions in the
number of permanent head injuries for cyclists then I would tend to favour
compulsion

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the rest of
us looking after the victims. It is not only the injured person who can
suffer long term effects, so I think that proven safety measures should be
enforced. Always a tricky line between personal freedom and sensible
controls, and you can never find a line which pleases everybody. I also do
not support any laws which will not be realistically enforced

And what if a more efficient helmet for cycling was also more efficient
for pedestrians, motorists, stair-climbers and so on? The reasons you
give for compulsion would then apply just as much, if not more so, to
them. Cycling is not at all uniquely dangerous.

I'm afraid I'm almost certainly doing you an injustice, but it sounds
rather as if you'd be in favour of compulsion for cyclists because it's
politically more feasible to remove freedoms from unpopular minorities.
That is no sort of reason for reducing anybody's freedom.

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

David WE Roberts said:

[I am wondering why horse riders and white water kayakers both wear
hardish hats to protect themselves (both of which are a lot more sturdy
than the average cyclists helmet) without the same kind of issues. Is it
because the main requirement for a cyclist is ultra light weight and
breathability, which runs contrary to strong structure?]

I have done a fair amount of WW kayaking (of a fairly sedate kind) in the
past and almost always wore a helmet. Going down a rocky river upside down
makes hitting your a very real possibility, and the helmet I wore could
handle that sort of bumps. Increasing numbers of more serious kayakers
wear helmets with chin guards, as they tend to land on their chin (like my
ex did, took some stitches).

I didn't wear a helmet when we went to the local lake to practise rolls as
hitting my head there seemed rather far fetched. I do wear a helmet when
rock climbing because I bump into things and things drop down.

I usually don't feel the need to wear a bicycle helmet.

And I even normally manage to stay out of helmet threads :-)

Roos

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:02:33 +0000, David WE Roberts
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a problem of perception. It is entirely arguable whether
helmets for cyclists are a "reasonable safety precaution", just as it is
for pedestrians. It would be seen as at the very least rather eccentric
by the general public if I donned a helmet to walk to the shops, or if I
drove to the shops wearing one, or if I caught a bus to the shops
wearing one, so why is it "reasonable" that I must wear one to cycle
there on the same routes?

Quoted message said:

I can think of some notable differences:
(1) The cyclist is generally travelling much faster than the pedestrian.

Thus placing the cyclist above the speed / impact force for which
helmets are designed...

Quoted message said:

(2) The cyclist is mingling in with the traffic.

And no cycle helmet in the world is designed, specified or sold for
protection against road traffic crashes.

Quoted message said:

(3) The cyclist is generally more unstable than the pedestrian when
starting/stopping.

And most cyclist injuries occur due to a motorist failing to give way,
or overtaking incorrectly, followed by hits from behind while turning
right and dooring / parked cars pulling away while being passed by a
cyclist. The last time I was injured falling, my bike was seventy
miles away at the time.

Quoted message said:

Walking is, after all, something we are born to and evolved to do over
millenia. Cycling is a fairly recent invention.

And cycle helmets even more recent. We managed no to die out for a
century, including riding high wheelers.

Quoted message said:

Granted that if the helmet is only good for the kind of accidents
pedestrians also have then the benefits are limited.

Just so.

Quoted message said:

I would be interested to know the statistics for pedestrian head injuries
that are alluded to - are these only to do with RTAs or for all types of
accidents including falling down the pub steps?

Pedestrian injuries are only RTAs, otherwise they are classed as trips
and falls (which, incidentally, is far and away the largest cause of
head injury in children)

Quoted message said:

Also, do they directly compare percentage of accidents per active
pedestrians with percentage of accidents per active cyclist?

No, if you compare risk per billion passenger kilometre, pedestrians
fare substantially worse.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:20:18 +0000, David WE Roberts
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I am a cyclist, ex-motor cyclist, car and camper van driver, walker,
ex-horse rider trainee kayaker. So I tend to view any of the
walker/horse/cager/biker etc. discussions from a fairly neutral
standpoint.

YA John Shackford & ICMFP ;-)

Quoted message said:

On helmets, I have always worn one because I believed that it would
provide some protection to my head if I fell off. I never expected
protection from high speed impact, but (from my very limited experience of
falling off) I thought it would protect me from the more likely low speed
impact where I slithered to a stop then fell off.

I can't recall ever having had such a fall.

Quoted message said:

I am now concerned, but think that on balance I will continue to wear a
helmet because of the limited protection in slow speed impacts. Reinforced
by my friends experience when she was knocked off and hit her head.

Beware the "helmet saved my life" anecdote. Or do I have to tell my
"knitted acrylic balaclava saved my life" story again? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Were there a proven helmet design which gave significant reductions in the
number of permanent head injuries for cyclists then I would tend to favour
compulsion

Bear in mind that the forces involved in a typical road traffic crash
exceed the rated capacity of a Formula 1 helmet.

Quoted message said:

[I am wondering why horse riders and white water kayakers both wear
hardish hats to protect themselves (both of which are a lot more sturdy
than the average cyclists helmet) without the same kind of issues. Is it
because the main requirement for a cyclist is ultra light weight and
breathability, which runs contrary to strong structure?]

Partly, and partly the kinds of impacts. Cyclists tend to hit the
ground at an angle, while horse riders are much more likely to
experience the sort of impact modelled by the crop tests.

Quoted message said:

Why would I favour compulsion?

Because you like begging the question? ;-)

Quoted message said:

I think that proven safety measures should be enforced.

That's the one. "proven" is the contentious word here.

Quoted message said:

I think that if cyclists wish to be treated with respect as road users
then they should ride responsibly. Plenty of postings around about red
light hopping, pavements etc. All obviously illegal, but if you can't
enforce the law in this area then how are you going to enforce helmet law?
Apart from stopping the slow, sensible ones?

And in any case, tackling the stupid behaviour will likely reduce the
scale of the "problem". Although not as much as tackling stupid
behaviour by motorists, who are far more likely to be to blame in car
v bike collisions.

Quoted message said:

I think irresponsible cyclists are more of a risk than helmet wearers in
changing the views of motorists and causing them to take less care when
around cyclists. "F**king cyclists - think they own the place"

Exhibit A: TRL report 549, 2003 "A key finding which should be noted
was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the
behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the
misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and
any external influences that could be affecting their choice of
behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought
the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours. In
contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in
terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to
continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was
unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant
effect on this finding. [...] This aligns with the psychological
prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists

Quoted message said:

In the same way, I think extreme arguments about such things as wearing
helmets can prejudice the public against the more reasoned arguments,
which is what got me into this discussion in the first place.

Ah. So how about the publicly funded charity which in order to
promote a helmet law uses an "estimate based on under-reporting" of
fatal child cyclist head injuries which is five times the correct
number, although they have been told what the correct number is? Mind
you, according to them, if helmets were made compulsory for children
the saving in healthcare costs alone would be a third more than the
NHS spends on all treatment for children aged 5-15.

Quoted message said:

So boringly middle of the road, really.
[Apart from when cycling, where I try to be thoughtful towards car drivers
and find they are generally thoughtful in return].

Exhibit B: Cyclecraft. Specifically, the "primary riding position,"
aka the middle of the road.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

"David WE Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:57:42 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Again I say that pushing the more extreme arguments to support a position
where there have been a good range of reasoned arguments can only weaken
the overall position.

OK, here's a reasoned argument: nowhere that has introduced mandatory cycle
helmet laws has seen any reduction in risk to cyclists, and at least one
huge study showed an increase in cyclist deaths and injuries with increased
helmet wearing - all good, peer-reviewed research which has not been
challenged.

Almost all, if not all, the research showing massive benefits from
helmet-wearing by cyclists has been shown to be false in practice, and most
of them were very small scale, short-term and have been peer-reviewed and
found to contain serious errors.

Which do you believe? and why do you seem to keep promoting cycle helmets?
do you sell them or something?

Quoted message said:

I appreciate the reasoned arguments I have seen - as well as being
concerned about the implications.
<snip reasoned argument>

Quoted message said:

Guy

Cheers

Dave R

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:22:08 +0000, David WE Roberts
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a TRL report which says that drivers are prepared to give
less space to cyclists they perceive as experienced or in good
control, than to those who are less experienced. In as much as a
helmet is part of this "uniform" of the "experienced cyclist", then
this could arguably apply. Otherwise it's just anecdotal.

Quoted message said:

There you go again - if this forum (or at least the helmet threads) is to
be taken as representative then the general trend is for naive and/or
inexperienced cyclists to wear helmets (because they believe they are a
safety measure), but experienced cyclists to decide not to wear them
because they feel that they can do more harm than good.

But that is not the public perception. Compare and contrast: Mrs
Miggins, unhelmeted, on Raleigh with basket; Mr Armstrong, helmeted,
on carbon fibre bike with unobtanium fittings.

Quoted message said:

I have not seen anything to demonstrate that the vast majority of
inexperienced riders do not wear helmets, but that the vast majority of
experienced riders do.

Helmets are most commonly worn by middle class adult riders on more
expensive bikes.

Quoted message said:

Only if you can prove this can you draw a logical conclusion that helmeted
riders are given less consideration than helmetless riders.

Like I said, see also anecdotal evidence.

Quoted message said:

Even given that, the fact that they are wearing helmets is surely
incidental - their road position and general progress are far more likely
to indicate an experienced rider than the presence or absence of a helmet.
The consideration (or lack of it) is not base primarily on the wearing of
a helmet. You could use the same argument to 'prove' that wearing e.g. bib
shorts is more likely to get you hit by a bus.

The judgment tends to be made in fractions of a second. Although
wearing bibshorts *is* more likely to get you hit with a paving
slab...

Quoted message said:

Again I say that nobody has quoted any firm evidence that wearing a helmet
will encourage drivers to give you less consideration.

And again I say that there are sufficient possible explanations that
it is not, as you assert, an absurd idea.

Quoted message said:

Any thinking driver of any kind of vehicle will be aware that there are
inexperienced and/or unpredictable road users about.

Spot the odd word out? "thinking". Easy.

Quoted message said:

What I think you have just proposed is that a defensive cyclist should
ride erratically with plenty of wobbles and swerving because then cars
will give a wider berth and the cyclist will therefore be safer.

Correct. Or use a flag on a flexible pole, which has a very similar
effect as it waves around as you pedal.

Quoted message said:

Again I say that pushing the more extreme arguments to support a position
where there have been a good range of reasoned arguments can only weaken
the overall position.

You seem to be picking on the incidental arguments and ignoring the
substantive point that no country in the world has achieved better
cyclist safety through increased helmet use. There are all sorts of
evidence. The evidence that drivers may behave differently around
cyclists with and without helmets is relatively weak - in as much as
we have no proof of either magnitude or sign of the difference - but
it is unlikely that their behaviour will be entirely uninfluenced.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales