Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[jtaylor]

"Stuart Lynne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Yuh8g.146218$WI1.120506@pd7tw2no...


>
> I suspect that helmets, if nothing else, reduce the number of injuries and
> concussions that need medical attention.

But how can you say this when populations-level studies fail to show this?

 

[Dave]

"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Stuart Lynne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Yuh8g.146218$WI1.120506@pd7tw2no...
>
>
> >
> > I suspect that helmets, if nothing else, reduce the number of injuries
and
> > concussions that need medical attention.
>
> But how can you say this when populations-level studies fail to show this?
>
>

All this talk of helmets: It is a matter of personal choice. If any
convincing needs doing it must be to law makers in the first instance to
prevent it becoming law to wear one.

I can understand many parents getting their child to wear one on the basis
that kids often fall off and it MAY prevent a head bang at lower speeds from
a fall. As long as people do not expect it to prevent injury from stupid
acts and fast speeds - education is needed.

I can understand cyle hirers, competition and event organisers making a
ruling on helmets as surely a good lawyer will argue hard for their client
either way - and I would guess that it would be difficult to prove either
way but organisers have to be seen to be doing something. Advising someone
is not considered good enough by a court.

In answer to some comments I could say that if I had a helmet on I could go
and bang my head on a brick wall and it MAY not hurt (I am not stupid enough
to try) but I would be even more stupid to try without a helmet.

People need educating to the point that a helmet MAY in some circumstances
be good or MAY be bad but ride like an idiot with or without and you are
more likely to get injurred.

Dave

 

[Clive George]

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

> I can understand cyle hirers, competition and event organisers making a
> ruling on helmets as surely a good lawyer will argue hard for their client
> either way - and I would guess that it would be difficult to prove either
> way but organisers have to be seen to be doing something. Advising someone
> is not considered good enough by a court.

Why should these people feel they have to force riders to wear helmets? The
evidence seems to be that they don't actually help, so surely there's no
reason why they need to be mandated?

cheers,
clive

 

[Peter Clinch]

Dave wrote:

> All this talk of helmets: It is a matter of personal choice.

For some, not for those who prefer to be law abiding in legislatures
with MHLs.

> convincing needs doing it must be to law makers in the first instance to
> prevent it becoming law to wear one.

And the place to convince the law makers in a democracy is to start with
the people who are represented to give a groundswell of opinion.

> I can understand many parents getting their child to wear one on the basis
> that kids often fall off and it MAY prevent a head bang at lower speeds from
> a fall.

Though understandable, if this had any useful effect then you'd think
the Dutch would be /very/ keen on helmets since so many people cycle in
NL and of course the kids learning are just as susceptible to falls as
those in any other country. But in actuality you see very few Dutch
kids in helmets and similarly unconcerned parents, and the lowest rates
of head injuries you'll find anywahere. So why is it an issue
elsewhere? Paranoia, or are the laws of physics really different
outside NL to in it?

> In answer to some comments I could say that if I had a helmet on I could go
> and bang my head on a brick wall and it MAY not hurt (I am not stupid enough
> to try) but I would be even more stupid to try without a helmet.

But as is often pointed out, that isn't a useful reason to wear one. Or
you should wear one walking or driving as well.

> People need educating to the point that a helmet MAY in some circumstances
> be good or MAY be bad but ride like an idiot with or without and you are
> more likely to get injurred.

Indeed. But as that's also the case with walking and running and
driving (all things which are happily done without helmets) without
paying attention to your surroundings, some education as to the true
levels of relative risk for road-going cyclists wouldn't go amiss either.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> So why is it an issue
> elsewhere? Paranoia, or are the laws of physics really different
> outside NL to in it?

Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken. Riding in the
mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
safer.

Unfortunately, the studies you bring up fail to distinguish between
commuting cyclists in and near towns versus serious road and mountain
bikers. The first group is more likely to have a vehicle collision while
the latter group is more likely to hit an object after a tumble or
slide. A helmet won't help much in the first case but has a greater
chance of helping in the latter. Most of the data ignores the avid
cyclist and their style and associated risks. So yes, the physics are
different.

Also factor in that the helmet standards in Europe are weaker than
elsewhere. Euro helmets can't be sold in the US since most can't pass
our CPSC test (and it isn't all that great). Same goes for Euro ski
helmets, lame. Performance standards on safety gear (cycling, climbing,
whatever) are merely an excuse to design to the minimal requirements and
still receive protection from lawsuits -- they really aren't for
consumers.

Yet another factor is that casual riders and commuters who wear helmets
seldom adjust them properly. You often see them with straps hanging lose
or the helmet pushed back on the forehead. Of course these aren't going
to offer the same protection as a properly fitted and worn helmet that
is typical on the avid cyclist. Stores that sell cheap helmets seldom
have the staff to explain helmet fitting or take the 10-15 minutes
needed to get them dialed in. Again, the data doesn't account for this.

 

[Tony Raven]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> Though understandable, if this had any useful effect then you'd think
> the Dutch would be /very/ keen on helmets since so many people cycle in
> NL and of course the kids learning are just as susceptible to falls as
> those in any other country. But in actuality you see very few Dutch
> kids in helmets and similarly unconcerned parents, and the lowest rates
> of head injuries you'll find anywahere. So why is it an issue
> elsewhere? Paranoia, or are the laws of physics really different
> outside NL to in it?
>

In the time before I educated myself about helmets, our two children did
a school exchange with two Dutch families. We insisted they wore
helmets for the many cycle trips they did with their Dutch hosts. The
hosts were very accommodating but the parents found it very difficult to
comprehend why we felt it was necessary. None of them or their children
wore helmets when cycling or saw even the slightest need to. I've since
learnt that we were the ones with the odd ideas, not them.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Dave wrote:
> I can understand cyle hirers, competition and event organisers making a
> ruling on helmets as surely a good lawyer will argue hard for their client
> either way - and I would guess that it would be difficult to prove either
> way but organisers have to be seen to be doing something. Advising someone
> is not considered good enough by a court.

In this case, since, as you say, a good lawyer could argue either way,
the choice should be left to the participant. Otherwise they could
sue if an injury were exacerbated by a helmet they were forced to wear.

Enforcing use of safety gear is only right if it is provable that
there is a genuine benefit, on average. This cannot be proved with
cycle helmets. It is not necessary to prove that there is always a
benefit. Enforcing non-wearing of helmets would be equally wrong.

Colin McKenzie

--
In Britain, there is less justification for wearing cycling helmets
than there is for wearing walking helmets.

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
> in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
> sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken.

And is a wobbly kid wearing a helmet going to survive any better
when hit by a Ford F-150 piloted by said redneck?

> mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
> aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
> frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
> impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
> safer.

Again, how is this relevant to a kid learning to ride supervised by
a parent who's put a lid on them?

> Unfortunately, the studies you bring up fail to distinguish between
> commuting cyclists in and near towns versus serious road and mountain
> bikers.

Which would be why, had you bothered following the flame war, you'd
have noticed that nobody's been saying it's pointless for a MTBer
to wear a hat.

> Also factor in that the helmet standards in Europe are weaker than
> elsewhere.

But if you factor in that not wearing one at all does not cause one
any particularly great degree of harm, and that those accidents
that do happen are not especially productive of head injuries to
start with, then you can see that wearing a helmet of any standard
for the utility cyclist is irrelevant. If I'd been wearing a Magic
Hat That Prevented All Injuries over my cycling career I'd not be
any more alive than I am today.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Martin]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So why is it an issue
> > elsewhere? Paranoia, or are the laws of physics really different
> > outside NL to in it?
>
> Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
> in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
> sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken. Riding in the
> mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
> aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
> frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
> impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
> safer.

The CSPC standards are designed to protect against redneck-driven
pickups and dopey tourist driven RV's? Where can I get one of these
magic vhicle deflector beanies?

Or maybe I can interest you in this cardboard bullet proof vest?

...d

 

[Richard]

[email protected] wrote:
> Our roads often have potholes,
> frost heaves, and sand along the edges.

Why on earth would you be cycling down the edge of such a road? Good
practice is that you adopt the secondary or primary position, rather
than skulk along the gutter.

R.

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
> > in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
> > sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken.
>
> And is a wobbly kid wearing a helmet going to survive any better
> when hit by a Ford F-150 piloted by said redneck?

Sure, when they're run off the road into a ditch. Heck if they get hit
by a Smart car, the bike might win ;-) We Am'rcuns like our vehicles BIG
and we drive like we own the road.

> > mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
> > aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
> > frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
> > impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
> > safer.
>
> Again, how is this relevant to a kid learning to ride supervised by
> a parent who's put a lid on them?

What's the biggest hill in that entire country? Said kid has to peddle
to attain any speed so they are self-limiting. And a country the size of
a postage stamp can take better care of its roads than one that's half a
continent. They don't have pointless war to finance either, priorities
you know.

> > Unfortunately, the studies you bring up fail to distinguish between
> > commuting cyclists in and near towns versus serious road and mountain
> > bikers.
>
> Which would be why, had you bothered following the flame war, you'd
> have noticed that nobody's been saying it's pointless for a MTBer
> to wear a hat.

Like the studies, those wars seldom make the distinction between types
of riding. Usually just labeling all helmets as useless, end of story.
Always the same people singing the same song so this war is the same as
the ones last year, and the year before, and....

> > Also factor in that the helmet standards in Europe are weaker than
> > elsewhere.
>
> But if you factor in that not wearing one at all does not cause one
> any particularly great degree of harm, and that those accidents
> that do happen are not especially productive of head injuries to
> start with, then you can see that wearing a helmet of any standard
> for the utility cyclist is irrelevant.

Well they don't cause additional harm by wearing them -- risk
compensation has yet to be proven a significant factor for cycling
helmets. Beyond that, the weakness and bias of all the research to date
makes it impossible to draw useful conclusions on effectiveness. Anyone
who uses a helmet as an excuse for not riding will find some other
equally lame excuse to drive their car.

 

[Richard]

[email protected] wrote:
> Well they don't cause additional harm by wearing them

A demonstrably false assertion.

Even if you dismiss (by assertion) the plausible mechanisms involving
risk compensation and diffuse axonal injury, for example, and dismiss
(by assertion) the Rogers study which showed that helmet wearers were
positively correlated with increased injury and death rates, you are
still left with incidents such as those described here:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99065.html

R.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Richard:
>> Our roads often have potholes,
>> frost heaves, and sand along the edges.
>
>Why on earth would you be cycling down the edge of such a road? Good
>practice is that you adopt the secondary or primary position, rather
>than skulk along the gutter.

If "secondary or primary position" means riding in the same place that many
people are driving 15-20 mph over the speed limit while talking on cell phones,
doing email on Blackberries, or text messaging... I think I may know the reason
why.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Richard]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Richard:
>
>>> Our roads often have potholes,
>>>frost heaves, and sand along the edges.
>>
>>Why on earth would you be cycling down the edge of such a road? Good
>>practice is that you adopt the secondary or primary position, rather
>>than skulk along the gutter.
>
> If "secondary or primary position" means riding in the same place that many
> people are driving 15-20 mph over the speed limit while talking on cell phones,
> doing email on Blackberries, or text messaging... I think I may know the reason
> why.

Fear of being rear-ended? In fact, that sort of crash comprises only
about 2% of crashes. By being more visible, by making drivers think
about overtaking you rather than sweeping past without a thought, by
giving yourself two escape routes rather than one, by keeping further
away from the gutter full of broken glass and sand, by keeping further
away from the sidewalks where pedestrians occasionally wander out
unexpectedly, you are in fact safer than if you skulk in the gutter.
But don't take my word for it, read "Cyclecraft", published by a branch
of the UK government and written by an expert authority.

R.

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]lid
says...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Well they don't cause additional harm by wearing them
>
> A demonstrably false assertion.
>
> Even if you dismiss (by assertion) the plausible mechanisms involving
> risk compensation and diffuse axonal injury, for example, and dismiss
> (by assertion) the Rogers study which showed that helmet wearers were
> positively correlated with increased injury and death rates, you are
> still left with incidents such as those described here:
>
> http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99065.html
>
It may be false, but it's not demonstrably false. The studies showing
correlations between increased injury and death rates don't demonstrate
whether riding while wearing a helmet is safer or less safe than cycling
bareheaded. Those who cite studies on either side of this question as
demonstrations of a causal relationship are grasping.

Likewise, there are many anecdotes on both sides of the helmet debate,
and they're equally tantalizing but not conclusive.

About all one can glean from the stats is that, on average, mandatory
helmet laws haven't yielded the hoped-for result. To extrapolate those
studies to the question of whether you or I am safer with or without a
helmet takes the data somewhere it isn't suited to go.

Rick

 

[Nick Kew]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:

> About all one can glean from the stats is that, on average, mandatory
> helmet laws haven't yielded the hoped-for result. To extrapolate those
> studies to the question of whether you or I am safer with or without a
> helmet takes the data somewhere it isn't suited to go.

Oy! You there! Is it not written "thou shalt not speak rationally
in a religious war"?

My contribution to the poll: an accident described at
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/2a8da89c01427b3/1c0a24a3788497af

--
not me guv

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, (PeteCresswell)
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Per Richard:
>>> Our roads often have potholes,
>>> frost heaves, and sand along the edges.
>>
>>Why on earth would you be cycling down the edge of such a road? Good
>>practice is that you adopt the secondary or primary position, rather
>>than skulk along the gutter.
>
> If "secondary or primary position" means riding in the same place that
> many people are driving 15-20 mph over the speed limit while talking on
> cell phones, doing email on Blackberries, or text messaging...

Which is precisely why you want to be in the centre of their vision and
not its periphery; and also why you want to have two or three metres of
safe clear pavement on your inside to dive into when idiots do get too
close.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another hick in the mall
-- Drink C'lloid

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
Espressopithecus (Java Man) ('[email protected]') wrote:

> It may be false, but it's not demonstrably false. The studies showing
> correlations between increased injury and death rates don't demonstrate
> whether riding while wearing a helmet is safer or less safe than
> cycling
> bareheaded. Those who cite studies on either side of this question as
> demonstrations of a causal relationship are grasping.

That, of course, is true.

The truth is that we don't know whether, net, wearing a helmet has any
safety benefit. As you indicate, the population scale data implies the
opposite, but as you also indicate, there are so many confounding
factors that it isn't easy to draw clear conclusions.

There probably are circumstances in which wearing a helmet is beneficial,
but

(i) we don't know what they are, and
(ii) there is a strong implication in the data that if there are, there
are circumstances at least as common where helmet wearing is actually
harmful.

Insisting people wear helmets when cycling is like insisting people wear
parachutes when flying. Occasionally, it may save a life (the air
hostess who got sucked out of a hole in the side of a 747 bound for
Hawaii, for example, or some of the people at Lockerbie). Most of the
time, it's just a bloody nuisance.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> Sure, when they're run off the road into a ditch.

Not a very common source of death, riding into ditches. Helmets are
only specified to tackle minor impacts, not the flavour that cause
death. Look at the specs if you don't believe that.

>>> mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
>>> aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
>>> frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
>>> impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
>>> safer.
>> Again, how is this relevant to a kid learning to ride supervised by
>> a parent who's put a lid on them?
>
> What's the biggest hill in that entire country? Said kid has to peddle
> to attain any speed so they are self-limiting.

You haven't actually answered my question. Kids learning under parental
supervision won't be breaking the sound barrier, ands if they did then
it's still the case that helmets are only specified for low speed
impacts. Add a lot more energy and they suffer brittle failure which
absorbs very little energy.

> Like the studies, those wars seldom make the distinction between types
> of riding.

That's odd, studies I've read (for example, Hewson's) make a very
particular point of distinguishing exactly where the data comes from
(roads, mostly) and how that means they're not much use for those places
it doesn't come from. And similarly, helmet sceptics in flame wasr are
generally quite careful to put definite limits on what they say, as
you'd realise if you followed them properly.

> Well they don't cause additional harm by wearing them

What is your basis for that comment?

> risk compensation has yet to be proven a significant factor for cycling
> helmets.

And has yet to be disproved. You can't just assume no additional harm
as a default without evidence and retain any credibility.

> Beyond that, the weakness and bias of all the research to date
> makes it impossible to draw useful conclusions on effectiveness.

That works both ways, and also works for possible harm they could cause.
So in that case it makes little sense to promote them as a Good Thing.

> who uses a helmet as an excuse for not riding will find some other
> equally lame excuse to drive their car.

So in that case how come cycling has dropped significantly in the wake
of any enforced MHL?

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Richard]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]lid
> says...
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Well they don't cause additional harm by wearing them
>>
>>A demonstrably false assertion.
>>
>>Even if you dismiss (by assertion) the plausible mechanisms involving
>>risk compensation and diffuse axonal injury, for example, and dismiss
>>(by assertion) the Rogers study which showed that helmet wearers were
>>positively correlated with increased injury and death rates, you are
>>still left with incidents such as those described here:
>>
>>http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99065.html
>>
>
> It may be false, but it's not demonstrably false.

I take it you didn't bother to look at the URL. [email protected]
asserted "[helmets] don't cause additional harm by wearing them." The
URL notes two cases where a child died strangled by their own helmet.
Thus, the assertion is demonstrably false.

R.