Helmets

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:11:14 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Gonzalez said:

For hill walking I wear walking boots, for cycling I wear
a cycle helmet. There's nothing special with either.

But you don't have to wear walking boots for hill walking.
Many people walk in trainers, wellies or even sandals.

Indeed. I've even seen people get off the train at the top
of Snowdon in high heels. But I wouldn't recommend trainers,
wellies or even sandals for an ascent of Snowdon from Pen-y-
pass via Crib Goch.

you know? said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:12:13 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm 6' 1" tall. When cycling, sitting upright, my head is
about 6' off the ground.

So, lower than when you are walking. Get that walking
helmet on your head /now/ :-D

It hasn't been unknown. Walking up Tryfan, for example, I've
been known to wear a helmet.

PK said:

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

It's impossible to say, because the figures are
incomplete. But I do know that, numerically, far more
children suffer head injuries from walking than form
cycling; taking only the transportational component, the
same applies to child pedestrians vs. child road
cyclists.

I do hope that you do not use such ideas in you letters to
ministers etc. the logic is so flawed as to be risible.

The proportion of children who cycle and the time they
cycle is trivially small compared to the number who walk
and the time they walk. the risk per hour for cycling
children could be enormously higher than for walking
children and there would still be, numerically, "far
more children suffer(ing) head injuries from walking
than form cycling"

If you want to convince the wider community the use of
stats by bhit is flawed and deceitful, you had best ensure
that your own use of stats is clear and correct. If you in
turn use stats that can be argued about then your criticism
of their use is devalued.

Very nicely put.

Gonzalez said:

Having sold my car I have little interest in any laws that
are passed on motorists and/or their passengers.

Hi Gonzalez

I appreciate you feelings but motoring legislstion does
affect you. If, for example, a law was passed stating that
cyclists were to blame for an accident no matter what the
cirmumstances you would be affected.

Your comment would be similar to my stating that I, also as
a non-motorist, is not affected by the various taxes on
motoring. I buy food. The price of food (and almost
everything else you care to think of) is affected by fuel
tax, vehicle excise duty and any tax on insurance premiums.

The price I pay for a bottle of wine, a slab of cheese, a
lettuce etc includes the sum factored into the total price
by the various people involved in the production and
tranpoirt of these items.

It's not just a pile of beans, you know.

James

James Hodson said:

It's not just a pile of beans, you know.

Perhaps I should put a disclaimer, like Guy's, at the end of
my messages.

Gonzalez said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just a pile of beans, you know.

Perhaps I should put a disclaimer, like Guy's, at the end
of my messages.

Whoops

No need to now G. I'm more used to it from Guy.

Sorry James

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:45:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Take a look at this website:

helmets.orghenderso.htmOpen ↗

An extract: (Take particular note of the final point).

===========

* The effectiveness of crash helmets for motorcyclists has
been studied for decades, and they are known to reduce the
risk of severe head injury by about one-third.

* The most careful, conservative estimates from good studies
show that the reduction in risk of head injury to a
bicyclist as a result of wearing a helmet is in the order
of 45 per cent. In other words, at the very minimum a
helmet halves the risk of head injury.

* Other estimates from controlled studies give even higher
risk reduction figures. Depending on the type of impact
and the severity of injury, the reduction in the risk of
head injury as a result of wearing a helmet has been shown
in several studies from all over the world to be in the
range of 45 per cent to 85 per cent.

* Those who do not wear helmets are several times more
likely to sustain injury to the brain tissue than
riders who do.

* For children, an Australian study has shown that the risk
of injury is reduced 63 per cent for head injury and 86
per cent for loss of consciousness, when a helmet is worn.
For loss of consciousness, the risk is over seven times
higher among non-helmet wearers than among helmet wearers.

* In the two years after the compulsory helmet legislation
was introduced in Victoria, the number of bicyclists
with head injuries decreased by 48 per cent and 70 per
cent in each of the two years, relative to the last year
before the law.

* In Queensland, the rate of head injury from bicycle
crashes fell by more than half following the introduction
of a helmet-wearing law; admissions to hospitals with bicycle-
related injuries other than to the head remained unchanged
over the same period.

* Helmets designed to the Australian and Snell standards
provide a margin of protection in the real world greater
than the respective standards require.

* Old-style helmets that do not comply with the
Australian Standard reduce the risk of head injury by
little or nothing.

* The vast majority of head impacts occurring in the real
world of traffic are easily survivable if a Standards-
approved helmet is worn.

* No studies have come to conclusions contrary to the above.

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Leighton said:

Gonzalez said:

For hill walking I wear walking boots, for cycling I
wear a cycle helmet. There's nothing special with
either.

But you don't have to wear walking boots for hill
walking. Many people walk in trainers, wellies or even
sandals.

Indeed. I've even seen people get off the train at the top
of Snowdon in high heels. But I wouldn't recommend
trainers, wellies or even sandals for an ascent of Snowdon
from Pen-y-pass via Crib Goch.

Bet the fell runners might disagree about the trainers,

Russ

Gonzalez said:

Please dress sensibly. You should wear bright comfortable
clothes, but please remember that as you cycle you may get
hot and want to take some off. You will need a small
rucksack (or panniers) to hold your packed lunch, a bottle
of water, any spare clothes and an anorak. Don't forget
your cycle helmet!

One question If they DO forget their cycle helmets, are they
still allowed on the ride?

Colin McKenzie
--
Why believe statistics? Ignore them and you can believe the
damned lies instead!

Colin McKenzie said:

Gonzalez said:

Please dress sensibly. You should wear bright comfortable
clothes, but please remember that as you cycle you may
get hot and want to take some off. You will need a small
rucksack (or panniers) to hold your packed lunch, a
bottle of water, any spare clothes and an anorak. Don't
forget your cycle helmet!

One question If they DO forget their cycle helmets, are
they still allowed on the ride?

Yes.

Ah good, some half-decent pro-helmet stuff. At first look is incrediably
compelling, but the problem with doing a history degree is that you tend
to take note of what you read. My comments are, I believe, entirely
warranted - there's nothing wrong with being a bit sceptical :-)

I'll pop over to look at the website after I've had me
dinner, so expect grovelling retraction of most of this when
I come back ;-) In the mean time feel free to throw all
sorts of criticisms at what I've said.

Quoted message said:

* The effectiveness of crash helmets for motorcyclists has
been studied for decades, and they are known to reduce
the risk of severe head injury by about one-third.

Is that in small scale lab type studies, or 'real world'
results after making everyone wear helmets? Is the one third
the average (and if so what type of average) or the maximum
result of the studies? Are the studies any good (I'd hope
they're better than some of the cycling ones - should be -
there's more money in motorbikes!)

Quoted message said:

* The most careful, conservative estimates from good
studies show that the reduction in risk of head injury
to a bicyclist as a result of wearing a helmet is in the
order of 45 per cent. In other words, at the very
minimum a helmet halves the risk of head injury.

<sarcasm> Really, how amazing. </sarcasm>

Sorry for that but I don't give two [censored] about, for example,
a small bruise on someones forehead. We can presume that the
helmets take away only the most minor 45%, which then makes
it look not quite so impressive.

Quoted message said:

* Other estimates from controlled studies give even higher
risk reduction figures. Depending on the type of impact
and the severity of injury, the reduction in the risk of
head injury as a result of wearing a helmet has been
shown in several studies from all over the world to be
in the range of 45 per cent to 85 per cent.

85% sounds a bit like Thompson, Thompson and Riveira (sp?).
As the paragraph above talked about 'the most careful...'
then we can assume that this paragraph is talking about all
the half arsed ones!

Quoted message said:

* Those who do not wear helmets are several times more
likely to sustain injury to the brain tissue than riders
who do.

No no no no no no no no NOOOOO!

Whoever wrote this is utterly, utterly wrong. It
should read:

"Those who strike their heads without a helmet... blah
blah blah."

There's a big difference.

Quoted message said:

* For children, an Australian study has shown that the
risk of injury is reduced 63 per cent for head injury
and 86 per cent for loss of consciousness, when a helmet
is worn. For loss of consciousness, the risk is over
seven times higher among non-helmet wearers than among
helmet wearers.

Does anyone have a feeling that this could be another study
with flawed methodology? There's only one study mentioned
which provided these results, the name/authors of the study
are not mentioned, the figures are at the very highest end
(60 something % was the revised (and still discredited)
figure for the discredited T,T and Riv.)

Quoted message said:

* In the two years after the compulsory helmet legislation
was introduced in Victoria, the number of bicyclists
with head injuries decreased by 48 per cent and 70 per
cent in each of the two years, relative to the last year
before the law.

But they haven't bothered to factor in the drop in cycling
that we know occured. They also talk about injuries, rather
than serious injuries. Again, cuts and bruises and other non-
serious injuries will be the things to be saved first.

Also note: only talks about head injuries, so the saving in
injuries overall will be substantially less.

70% sounds suspiciously high too...

Quoted message said:

* In Queensland, the rate of head injury from bicycle
crashes fell by more than half following the
introduction of a helmet-wearing law; admissions to
hospitals with bicycle-related injuries other than to
the head remained unchanged over the same period.

This is more like it! Still talking about head injury,
rather than serious head injury. Again, who cares if there
are less cuts, bruises and minor concussion needing no
treatment? It's the serious injuries that we all care about
(from a centrla gov. point of view, of course).

Quoted message said:

* Helmets designed to the Australian and Snell standards
provide a margin of protection in the real world greater
than the respective standards require.

That's a pity, very few helmets on sale here meet the more
rigourous snell standard. Ho hum.

Quoted message said:

* Old-style helmets that do not comply with the Australian
Standard reduce the risk of head injury by little or
nothing.

Crikey, they must've been [censored]!

Quoted message said:

* The vast majority of head impacts occurring in the real
world of traffic are easily survivable if a Standards-
approved helmet is worn.

No sh1t sherlock! The vast majority of head impacts
occuring in the real world of traffic are easily
survivable if no helmet is worn! Sheesh, did they expect
to get that one past?

Quoted message said:

* No studies have come to conclusions contrary to the
above.

That's 'cos the conclusions above are a bit pants. They
don't seem to be talking about serious head injuries, so all
their >40% savings are of little consequence.

Studies have discredited some of the higher claims made
above (i.e. the criticisms of T,T & Riv.). I'm sure Guy et
al can provide links or references to studies that show no
significant drop in serious head injuries not explained by a
comparable drop in cycling, but then this wasn't claimed for
was it :-)

Just zis Guy said:

Is it really worth expending significant resources (e.g.
£400,000 of Government money to BeHIT) on promoting
something which prevents minor injuries, when the method
of promotion includes as an integral component the
portrayal of cycling as uniquely dangerous? There is no
doubt that many trivial injuries would be prevented if all
children wore gloves, elbow and knee pads when playing.
Why is there no official Government policy that no child
may be shown playing nunless wearing gloves, elbow and
knee pads?

And furthermore, it seems to me possible that wearing a
balaclava or baseball cap could provide nearly as much
protection against minor injuries as a cycle helmet - with
considerably less inconvenience.

Colin McKenzie
--
Why believe statistics? Ignore them and you can believe the
damned lies instead!

Russ said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. I've even seen people get off the train at the
top of Snowdon in high heels. But I wouldn't recommend
trainers, wellies or even sandals for an ascent of
Snowdon from Pen-y-pass via Crib Goch.

Bet the fell runners might disagree about the trainers,

I have two friends who have run Crib Goch. I still
wouldn't recommend
it.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:32:17 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Few children are infirm.

But you mentioned adults.

Indeed, but we have to compare like with like, so taking
child pedestrian vs. child road cyclist shows five times
more peds KSI than cyclists, and so on and so on. But if you
don't trust my analysis, do your own. The figures are all in
the public domain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If children walk five times or more further than they
cycle then the risk is higher for the child cyclist.

But we don't know.

Quoted message said:

What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me to believe the evidence. The evidence
tells me that there is no known case where cyclist safety
has improved with increasing helmet use. The evidence also
tells me that although only 10% of child injury admissions
are due to motor traffic, these account for half of all
fatalities. So common sense, backed by the best available
evidence, tells me that the source of danger has four
wheels, not two.

Quoted message said:

I have never claimed that cycling is uniquely dangerous, or
even suggested such a thing.

Good. So why should cycling alone be subject to special
protective measures? And don't say it's not "special"
because of all the forms of daily transportation most
children will use, cycling is the only one where you
propose that protective headgear is advisable; and not just
advisable, you recommend it strongly enough to put *don't
forget your helmet* on letters to parents, thus
prioritising - to them, at least- it above maintenance (and
many other things).

Quoted message said:

When children go sailing I encourage them to wear a
life jacket, when they go cycling I encourage them to
wear a helmet.

OK, so I can provide evidence where lifejackets have saved
the life of a weak swimmer, can you provide a single proven
case where a helemt has saved a life? I'll make it easy, you
don't need to prove that the crash wasn't caused by the
helmeted cyclist taking less care. I'm working form the
evidence here; the evidence is that cyclist safety /does
not/ improve when helmet wearing increases. That doesn't
mean helmets are necessarily ineffective in themselves, but
it implies that there is something else going on, and until
I know what it is I am certainly not going to risk
compounding the problem.

Quoted message said:

Hell, you are even given instruction on how to put on a
life jacket - even if flying from Kashgar to Urumqi when
the nearest open water big enough to crash into is 1000
miles away!

The last few times I've flown there has been no such
instruction; hewever, this procedure dates back to the days
when crashes and forced landings were relatively common.

Quoted message said:

It's about risk reduction.

No it's not, it's about attempts to mitigate injury which
ignore - and indeed draw attention away from - the causes
of danger.

Quoted message said:

Although life jackets on planes does seem a little absurd.

A little?

Quoted message said:

I don't know of a single life or injury which has been
saved on a passenger airline in the last three decades by a
life jacket.

url:http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-
24852,00.html>

Quoted message said:

If it helps, here's an extract from my letter to the
children (I prefer to address the letter to the children
than to their parents so the children can take more
responsibility.) The letter is based on a risk assessment
of the cycle ride.

So according to your risk assessment they are more likely to
sustain a serious injury through failure to wear a helmet
than through poor maintenance. That is the order in which
you approached them; you also emphasised the helmet with a
shriek. I put it to you that you have no evidence to support
that relative weighting.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is a cycle helmet if it is not safety equipment?

Quoted message said:

OK, maybe it is safety equipment. I'd still prefer to refer
to my helmet as part of my cycling equipment - like my
pump, my lights and my water bottle.

Viewed as a peer of the pump, bottle, tools, puncture kit -
that is unexceptionable. Just as I would pop down to the
shops without a puncture kit, I would pop down to the shops
without a helmet. I am rather more likely to need a puncture
kit than a helmet on a ride, mind, but at that level of
priority there is no problem.

However...

That is not how the issue is being put. Right now on the BBC
children's website the brother of a boy who died riding off
the pavement into the path of a car on a bike with defective
brakes, is pushing helmets. I want to know what heartless
[censored] told this grieving family that if only "they" (the
omnipresent "they" who should do something about congestion
and heart disease) had forced their child to wear a helmet,
he would be alive today. It is a harsh reality, but one
which they need to face: if the bike had been properly
maintained and the boy riding legally, that crash would not
have happened. Instead of campaigning for magic hats which
are admitted by their makers to ineffective in crashes
involviong motor vehicles, they should be promoting
maintenance and roadcraft. They are not. They are admiring
the Emperor's New Helmet.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Gonzalez said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:45:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you
know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Take a look at this website:

helmets.orghenderso.htmOpen ↗

An extract: (Take particular note of the final point).

Well done, you've discovered the notoriously flawed
Henderson study widely touted by BHSI, the US
equivalent of BsHIT

John Franklin (author of Cyclecraft and a leading cycling
safety campaigner) has reviewed the report:.

"A comprehensive compilation of the arguments in favour of
cyclists wearing helmets was produced by Henderson in 1995.
The author did not himself carry out any original research,
but summarised the findings of others, as well as dealing
with the biomechanics of head injury. The author states that
helmets "substantially" reduce the risk of head injury. At
first sight this paper appears to offer convincing evidence
in favour of helmet wearing, not the least because of its
authoritative size and detail (29 pages of small print).
However, the paper has received much criticism from others
on account of a perceived bias towards including only
material favourable to its conclusions. Some of the
criticisms are: ?? Henderson makes no reference to the
decline in cycling brought about by helmet legislation in
Australia. The reduction in head injuries that he cites as
having been achieved is in absolute numbers, not relative to
cycle use. ?? He makes no reference to other research that
casts doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets in reducing
injury. ?? There is little concession to the location of real-
life head injuries and the fact that over half occur to
parts of the head for which a cycle helmet offers no
protection. ?? Some of his principal references have
themselves come in for much criticism, of which he makes no
mention (e.g. the 1989 Seattle study). ?? Henderson is
dismissive of the possibility that helmeted cyclists might
differ in their behaviour to non-helmeted cyclists. ?? He
makes no attempt to put the risk of head injury into
perspective (relative to distance cycled or the risk faced
by other road users), thereby exaggerating the impact on
society of such injuries. Despite these criticisms, the
paper by Henderson does include references to the
limitations of helmets and helmet testing procedures. For
example, he cites research by Mclntosh and Dowdell9 of
helmeted cyclists involved in crashes, which suggests that
effective head protection is afforded by a helmet only if
the impact speed is less than 20 km/h. Henderson is himself
critical of the tests required by the various standards for
helmets, saying that they are too simplistic."

The Cyclists Rights Action Group's critique (a group formed
after the introduction of mandatory helmets laws in
Canberra) is less restrained in their critique

pcug.org.auhender1.htmOpen ↗

Particularly note the opening paragraph:

"Individuals and organizations zealously pushing mandatory
helmet use for cyclists are continuing to churn out reams of
propaganda. One of the more voluminous efforts is Michael
Henderson's "The Effectiveness of Bicycle helmets: A Review"
1995, a politically motivated paper prepared on behalf of
the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, Australia
apparently in a desperate effort to justify the State's
botched law outlawing cyclists who ride without a helmet."

Gonzalez said:

I have two friends who have run Crib Goch. I still
wouldn't recommend
it.

Why? Its not that difficult

Tony

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:52:27 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It hasn't been unknown. Walking up Tryfan, for example,
I've been known to wear a helmet.

You can't walk up Tryfan. The easiest route is a
scramble :-D

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Other estimates from controlled studies give even
higher risk reduction figures. Depending on the type of
impact and the severity of injury, the reduction in the
risk of head injury as a result of wearing a helmet has
been shown in several studies from all over the world
to be in the range of 45 per cent to 85 per cent.

85% sounds a bit like Thompson, Thompson and Riveira
(sp?). As the paragraph above talked about 'the most
careful...' then we can assume that this paragraph is
talking about all the half arsed ones!

And I've just realised that the phrase "Depending on the
type of impact and the severity" makes the whole paragraph
pretty meaningless :-(

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:13:57 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Take a look at this website:
helmets.orghenderso.htmOpen ↗

I have already seen the BHSI website. They are the US
equivalent of BeHIT. I asked them why they were still using
the TR&T figures even though they are know to be bogus and
have been revised by their authors. This is what they said:

"We are aware of the second study, but by the time it
appeared the 85% figure was so deeply ingrained in the
injury prevention community that a change will not be
helpful. I regard any similar numbers published in those
or other studies as approximations anyway. Over the years
observation of who gets head-injured and who does not
seems to support the 85% number. So we have left it up
that way. We do have references to the later study for
those who need more."

This "observation" does not include comparing injury rates
in the USA with helmet wearing rates of 50%, with those of
the USA with helmet wearing rates of 17%, some years
earlier. The injury rate has increased by 40%, a fact which
for which BHSI have not as yet found space.

Quoted message said:

* The effectiveness of crash helmets for motorcyclists has
been studied for decades, and they are known to reduce
the risk of severe head injury by about one-third.

Which fully explains why the US states which have repeald
their helmet laws have better motorcyclist safety records
than those which have not. Or does it? To be honest, any
site or person who seeks to draw parallels between the
vastly different worlds of motorcycling helmets and pedal
cycling helmets has an immediate and serious credibility
problem. The only way in whihc motorcycling helmets inform
the debate is, like seat belts, as corroborating evidence
for risk compensation.

[snip usual [censored]]

Quoted message said:

* No studies have come to conclusions contrary to the
above.

Apart from the ones they don't want you to know about. Like
those by Dorre Robinson, for example.

And you believe them? In the light of the above quote,
which might justly be summarised as "don't confuse people
with the facts?"

Now, account for the fact, admitted by the Government, that
there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved
with increasing helmet use.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:21:06 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

And furthermore, it seems to me possible that wearing a
balaclava or baseball cap could provide nearly as much
protection against minor injuries as a cycle helmet - with
considerably less inconvenience.

Is this a good time to repeat my "balaclava saved my
life" anecdote?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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