If you always wear a helmet cycling, why not in a car?

monument

Firstly: This is not a general helmet thread, nor is it an attempt to open a can of worms, or even to change people's minds -- I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater. Anyway, the question is:

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

Do you think cycling is very / notably dangerous generally? If so, why?

Before answering please consider that:

Studies show that people in cars -- even with safety belts and airbags etc -- would benfit from helmets more than cyclists.

In Ireland, people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists.* People in cars can also wear heavier helmets which are unsuited to cycling.

In Ireland overall people on foot who suffer brain injuries get hit by motorists at greater speeds than cyclists who suffer brain injuries.*

* Source: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

el tel

You are assuming that no one wears a helmet driving their car or while walking.

Lusk Doyle

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

Lumen

monument wrote: »

I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater

That's not really true though, is it?

I mean, statistically it might be true, but it doesn't reflect the individual cases.

For instance, it is almost impossible to accidentally kill yourself in a modern car whilst commuting to work in a city. You could possibly do it by deliberately driving into oncoming traffic, but even then you'd probably escape with crush injuries and some short term head injuries.

Whereas on a bike you just need to fall off the wrong way and it could be lights out (there are examples of this but I don't want to discuss them).

In a car the main risks are surely from a high speed accident, e.g. hitting oncoming car on a national road or getting t-boned by an artic on the motorway. No one wants to think about those, because if you did you'd never get in a car.

07Lapierre

Because You don't need a helmet when driving a car

Car crash at Motorway speed

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

In a car the main risks are surely from a high speed accident, e.g. hitting oncoming car on a national road or getting t-boned by an artic on the motorway. No one wants to think about those, because if you did you'd never get in a car.

Agreed aggressive and/or reckless driving at 10kph in a congested area is altogether safer than the same thing at speed on the open roads.

I also seem to hear about a large number of fatal accidents on the Sunday morning news, where no other driver was involved, and the accident happened some time after pub closing hours. Maybe wearing a helmet while drunk, or even not driving while drunk, would be another option worth considering.

Lusk Doyle

07Lapierre wrote: »

Because You don't need a helmet when driving a car

Car crash at Motorway speed

:eek:

nightb4

If you're on your own in the car, wearing your seatbelt and the airbag works what is your head going to hit? A car hitting you into the driverside door hard enough to make your head hit the window is a fairly rare crash I would have thought.
In other crashes your brain might rattle around in your head but a helmet won't help you there.

Jawgap

Australia tried motoring helmets....

buffalo

nightb4 wrote: »

If you're on your own in the car, wearing your seatbelt and the airbag works what is your head going to hit? A car hitting you into the driverside door hard enough to make your head hit the window is a fairly rare crash I would have thought.
In other crashes your brain might rattle around in your head but a helmet won't help you there.

Perhaps more pertinent to ask is, what is going to hit your head? Any amount of shrapnel, blunt objects, and (according to one road safety ad) the passenger in the back not wearing a seatbelt.

kennyb3

My helmet matches my bike not my car- simple really.

RidleyRider

When we were tt-ing some dude arrived in his car always with his helmet on, got out and walked around with it on, and amazingly wore it doing the course. Whats your point?

ROK ON

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

You're in the wrong forum, this about sports cycling - only joking Mknument.

Honest answer to your valid question, is that I cannot cycle with my club or do any event (race or sportif) without wearing one. Simple as that.

If I am going for a casual short cycle I don't wear one generally.
I don't make my daughter wear one while cycling her bike.

I don't wear one in a car because I am not forced to. Simple as that.

I don't think of the safety aspect of helmets truth be told - it is compliance with codes of conduct where they apply.

smacl

monument wrote: »

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

Do you think cycling is very / notably dangerous generally? If so, why?

Before answering please consider that:

Studies show that people in cars -- even with safety belts and airbags etc -- would benfit from helmets more than cyclists.

In Ireland, people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists.* People in cars can also wear heavier helmets which are unsuited to cycling.

In Ireland overall people on foot who suffer brain injuries get hit by motorists at greater speeds than cyclists who suffer brain injuries.*

* Source: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Ok. I'll bite, and note this is based entirely on your referenced document;

Helmets while driving:

A brief scan of the linked report shows that 49% of drivers sustaining injury were definitely not wearing their seat belts, and it was unknown as to whether another 16% were. So rather than advocating helmet use while driving, perhaps suggesting wearing the seat belt provided. As per my previous post, alcohol also remains a more important factor, though not among cyclists;

At least a quarter of all patients involved in motor vehicle collisions were reported to have consumed alcohol before the collision and its involvement was poorly recorded for another 63% of patients and therefore termed unknown (Table 6.12). When the patient’s position in the car was considered, then 35 of the 150 drivers injured had used alcohol. Pedal cyclists were the least likely road user to have consumed alcohol.

Helmets while cycling:

The non-wearing of helmets was frequent and noted for one in five NAS and NSU cyclists and motorcyclists (Table 6.14). In the NSU, 15 out of 29 (52%) pedal cyclists and 6 out of 18 motor-cyclists (33%) were reported to be without a helmet. Nine of the 10 motorcyclists without a helmet had a GCS <9 (a severe injury) but no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists.

To me this appears like the experts on the traumatic brain injury side of things are to keen draw a correlation between traumatic brain injury resulting from a cycling accident, and non-wearing of a helmet. While I'm often not sure why I wear a helmet (other than to placate my better half), this type of correlation re-enforces the notion that it may be just of occasional benefit.

That said, I don't see how this study relates in any way to the efficacy or not of helmets, or the dangers involved in cycling, as it does not include any cyclist population numbers, or number of hours spent in the saddle on the roads. You can't establish any relationship without this.

It also baffles me why those, such as yourself, who are keen to paint a happy smiley picture of cycling, continue to wave around reports on the rare yet gruesome injuries that cyclists and other road users might fall victim to. At a glance, what you see is yet another boards helmet thread about how and when people get maimed while cycling. Counter-productive, no?

jimmycrackcorm

Seatbelt and airbags offer some degree of good protection as an alternative to helmets. I saw from a TV documentary that in a serious crash, it's the force of the impact that causes a lot of the damage.

irishmotorist

monument wrote: »

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

My reason is that I believe it offers me protection should an unexpected incident happen. I would consider that the most likely unexpected things to happen me when cycling are the likes of me taking a corner too fast and slipping (as happened once before), a pedestrian stepping off the path in front of me or a car making contact me in some way as a result of the driver not seeing me. I think my head is a particularly valuable part of my body and wearing a typical cycling helmet offers a degree of protection while not making the activity dislikeable.

I don't wear one in a car because there are plenty of safety features built in to protect me and my head - seatbelts, air bags and the general construction of the shell.

I don't wear one when walking because I don't think there is a high likelihood of me slipping/falling and injuring my head. Things happen faster on a bike so, IMO, in the case of identical incidents happening to a person walking and a person cycling, the person walking will have a much better chance of reacting and avoiding the incident.

BTW, I don't think cycling is dangerous, but as with everything I try to take what I believe to be sensible precautions.

marketty

I have yet to forget to unclip from the pedals and topple over at the lights while in the car

Lumen

marketty wrote: »

I have yet to forget to unclip from the pedals and topple over at the lights while in the car

The motoring equivalent is forgetting to put the handbrake on.

I've done it twice that I remember. Both times I had to chase the car down the street and jump in. One time I made it, the other time the car made contact with a stationary object but didn't cause any damage.

Lusk Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

The motoring equivalent is forgetting to put the handbrake on.

I've done it twice that I remember. Both times I had to chase the car down the street and jump in. One time I made it, the other time the car made contact with a stationary object but didn't cause any damage.

Well you are obviously special.

el tel

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Well you are obviously special.

Special? Like helmets on the bus?

Lusk Doyle

el tel wrote: »

Special? Like helmets on the bus?

More like with pillows around him in the bed to stop him rolling off onto the floor :pac:

(the floor being where his helmet is left :rolleyes:)

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

The motoring equivalent is forgetting to put the handbrake on.

I've done it twice that I remember. Both times I had to chase the car down the street and jump in. One time I made it, the other time the car made contact with a stationary object but didn't cause any damage.

The RSA just rang. They say that what you need is a pair of go-faster shoes - big clunky ones that are woefully expensive and that'll you trip you up quite often, but on those occasions where you need to chase after your errant car they might get you there faster, possibly. They're so chuffed with their idea that they're considering making them compulsory for all car drivers.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Can I reply that it's a stupid question that doesn't warrant an answer and would be more appropriately placed in the After Hours forum???

monument

Thanks for the replies.... Will reply to others later, only have time for two quick ones right now.,.

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

Both questions are more about cycling than motoring, and the main question is about walking as much as car use.

CJC999 wrote: »

Can I reply that it's a stupid question that doesn't warrant an answer and would be more appropriately placed in the After Hours forum???

You can. But:

Can you please explain why it's a stupid question?

Lusk Doyle

monument wrote: »

Both questions are more about cycling than motoring, and the main question is about walking as much as car use.

Actually, your first question is about walking and driving and not cycling:

"If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?"

blatantrereg

07Lapierre wrote: »

Because You don't need a helmet when driving a car

Car crash at Motorway speed

That's 120mph in the video; not 120kmph (75mph)... Still awesome though

CardinalJ

All these pro/anti helmet threads are a bit tiring.

Flandria

If I wear a pink Brooklyn cap on a bike does that mean I have to wear one in a car now? Me confused...

Fighting Irish

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You're in the wrong forum. This is about cycling not driving.

If he gets no replies, then it's obviously the wrong forum, but he's getting replies so...

buffalo

CJC999 wrote: »

Can I reply that it's a stupid question that doesn't warrant an answer and would be more appropriately placed in the After Hours forum???

Actually, I think I'd enjoy seeing the responses to this in AH.

doozerie

@monument, I think that the retort of "why don't you wear a helmet while driving" is a reasonable one in the context of a discussion where someone is blindly advocating the supposed merits of helmets for cyclists as it might encourage them to look at their own argument in a different light, but in any other context it doesn't make a lot of sense. Just as with any other form of transport, the dangers posed by a collision in/with a car are best dealt with by addressing the behaviour of the person in control of the car, and helmets, extra air bags, etc., are all secondary.

Despite that, people will continue to drink and drive, use their mobile phone while driving, read stuff while driving, drive without working lights, etc., etc. I think the fundamental reason behind a lot of those behaviours is lazy self-delusion - people casually adopt an elevated sense of their skills as a driver so believe they can do almost anything they like without compromising the safety of themselves and others. That same self-delusion applies to their perception of their own safety too, so people can, for example, watch someone walk a tightrope to which they are securely fastened and marvel at the tightrope walker's willingness to seemingly take great risks, while merrily throwing their own car at speed into blind bends without a care or second-thought in the world. The unfortunate thing is that the relatively low number of incidents (compared to the level of careless or dangerous driving that I see anway) panders to peoples' delusions and reinforces them - they believe that they are safe, and that accidents are what happen to other people. People are very reluctant to confront their own mortality and its relative fragility. The same holds for cyclists, obviously, but bicycle helmets are aready a social norm, of sorts, and for many people it is simply easier to go along with the idea that a helmet will keep you safer rather than question it (yes, us cyclists are lazy too!).

So you can try again and again to impress on drivers that they and those around them would be safer if they slowed down, had their car serviced regularly, showed more patience, wore a helmet, etc., but many people seem to lack a willingness to try to even understand the dangers/risks, whatever about addressing them. Question many drivers on any of those things and they are likely not to listen, starting with the question of why they don't choose to wear a helmet is an approach perhaps most likely to result in you being dismissed out of hand as some kind of lunatic and no amount of stats will change that.

rp

irishmotorist wrote: »

I don't wear one in a car because there are plenty of safety features built in to protect me and my head - seatbelts, air bags and the general construction of the shell.

Sorry if its a bit of a gruesome question, but you know we hear about a fatal accident on the roads nearly every day: how come, with all those safety features? What's killing people?

Lumen

rp wrote: »

Sorry if its a bit of a gruesome question, but you know we hear about a fatal accident on the roads nearly every day: how come, with all those safety features? What's killing people?

http://www.brainline.org/content/multimedia.php?id=848

Cookie_Monster

is it not illegal to wear helmets in cars, that was posted somewhere in the other thread wasn't it?

monument

nightb4 wrote: »

If you're on your own in the car, wearing your seatbelt and the airbag works what is your head going to hit? A car hitting you into the driverside door hard enough to make your head hit the window is a fairly rare crash I would have thought.

As buffalo explains, car crashes can be a lot more of a mess than you think.

smacl wrote: »

A brief scan of the linked report shows that 49% of drivers sustaining injury were definitely not wearing their seat belts, and it was unknown as to whether another 16% were.

Still leaves at least 35% who were wearing a safety belt.

That's notable in the context of relatively rare as head injuries while cycling.

smacl wrote: »

To me this appears like the experts on the traumatic brain injury side of things are to keen draw a correlation between traumatic brain injury resulting from a cycling accident, and non-wearing of a helmet.

From their own words, as you quoted:

The non-wearing of helmets was frequent and noted for one in five NAS and NSU cyclists and motorcyclists (Table 6.14). In the NSU, 15 out of 29 (52%) pedal cyclists and 6 out of 18 motor-cyclists (33%) were reported to be without a helmet. Nine of the 10 motorcyclists without a helmet had a GCS <9 (a severe injury) but no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists.

So, for cyclists a near 50/50 split of helmet wears vs non-helmet wears and no statistical difference in the injury severity.

The facts don't support what you are saying.

smacl wrote: »

That said, I don't see how this study relates in any way to the efficacy or not of helmets, or the dangers involved in cycling, as it does not include any cyclist population numbers, or number of hours spent in the saddle on the roads. You can't establish any relationship without this.

Even if limited in time frame, it relates to the overview of brain injuries across road user groups, their severity, speeds people were hit at etc. As above, for cyclist helmets wears vs non-helmet wears it also shows no statistical difference in occurrence and severity.

Data randomly missing for all user groups is less important.

smacl wrote: »

It also baffles me why those, such as yourself, who are keen to paint a happy smiley picture of cycling, continue to wave around reports on the rare yet gruesome injuries that cyclists and other road users might fall victim to. At a glance, what you see is yet another boards helmet thread about how and when people get maimed while cycling. Counter-productive, no?

You want me to bury my head in the sand? You want me to forget the facts?

You want me to try to ignore the elephant in the room that is the issue of helmets?

The report shows pedestrians and car users who suffer brain injuries are worse off than cyclists who do -- Did you miss that?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Seatbelt and airbags offer some degree of good protection as an alternative to helmets.

Studies still seem to show that helmets would be of benefit to those inside cars even where seatbelts are used and airbags function.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I saw from a TV documentary that in a serious crash, it's the force of the impact that causes a lot of the damage.

Same applies to cyclists -- with a large impact a helmet can't stop a brain from moving inside your skull.

irishmotorist wrote: »

I don't wear one when walking because I don't think there is a high likelihood of me slipping/falling and injuring my head. Things happen faster on a bike so, IMO, in the case of identical incidents happening to a person walking and a person cycling, the person walking will have a much better chance of reacting and avoiding the incident.

Sadly there's a long list of cars hitting people when they are crossing the road and a smaller but notable list of events where motorists mount the kerb and hit people.

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Actually, your first question is about walking and driving and not cycling:

"If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?"

It's about how and why some cyclists' actions and logic does not transfer to other modes of transport. It's about why cycling is treated as so different when there's a lot pointing to the idea that other road users would benefit from helmets more than cyclists do.

doozerie wrote: »

@monument, I think that the retort of "why don't you wear a helmet while driving" is a reasonable one in the context of a discussion where someone is blindly advocating the supposed merits of helmets for cyclists as it might encourage them to look at their own argument in a different light, but in any other context it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm looking for the views of people who feel helmets are always needed while cycling regardless of the type of cycling (ie they think a helmet is needed when cycling to the shop on road or while cycling on an off-road park cycle path).

I'm do so in this context so the debate can centre and hopefully remain focused on the question of why do even cyclists treat cycling so differently.

doozerie wrote: »

Just as with any other form of transport, the dangers posed by a collision in/with a car are best dealt with by addressing the behaviour of the person in control of the car, and helmets, extra air bags, etc., are all secondary.

My point is the opposite -- it's not like any other form of transport, helmets are only a choice while cycling regardless if they could be helpful elsewhere.

CardinalJ wrote: »

All these pro/anti helmet threads are a bit tiring.

Nobody forced you to read the thread or to waste your time further by replying with an off-topic post!

Ryder

monument wrote: »

Firstly: This is not a general helmet thread, nor is it an attempt to open a can of worms, or even to change people's minds -- I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater. Anyway, the question is:

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car or while out walking?

Do you think cycling is very / notably dangerous generally? If so, why?

Before answering please consider that:

Studies show that people in cars -- even with safety belts and airbags etc -- would benfit from helmets more than cyclists.

In Ireland, people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists.* People in cars can also wear heavier helmets which are unsuited to cycling.

In Ireland overall people on foot who suffer brain injuries get hit by motorists at greater speeds than cyclists who suffer brain injuries.*

* Source: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Its a question of risk perception....cyclists feel exposed and at the mercy of other road users. In the car we we feel like were in control and have a false sense of security. I wonder how many helmet wearing cyclists would wear them, say on a closed road sportive. IE how much of it is down to the fear of being in an accident rather than a fear of cycling itself.

The issue is confounded anyway by mandatory reporting of serious mva's and not so for bikes, the proportion of short distance and low speed bike journeys etc.

WhaTs your own view on this? is this question being asked in reference to the bike culture in Europe? If so I think it will be many yeRs before people are comfortable enough to bike in large numbers,and in the early stages of promoting bike use its probably best not to weigh too far on one side or the other of helmet use

FISMA

monument wrote: »

If you always wear a helmet cycling and you think a helmet is always needed for cycling, why not wear one in a car ...?

1) Because the thousands of pounds of steel that envelope my noggin do a pretty good job.

2) I rarely fall off of my car.

3) Falling off my bike often involves rotation of my body such that head hits ground.

4) I only have two tires on my bike.

5) My bicycle's tires only have a few square cm of contact area.

...

househero

buffalo wrote: »

Perhaps more pertinent to ask is, what is going to hit your head?

I put my face through the side window in a car accident at 120. Could have probably done with one of those 'cool' ozzy helmets

I was wearing my belt (your an idiot if you don't) doesn't really help if your sideswiped though.

Cookie_Monster

FISMA wrote: »

1) Because the thousands of pounds of steel that envelope my noggin do a pretty good job.

good job at what, stopping your head from hitting the dash or wheel or headrest or side pillars in a crash?

2) I rarely fall off of my car.

rarely, so it doesn't happen from time to time?

3) Falling off my bike often involves rotation of my body such that head hits ground.

not necessarily. unless you are very unfortunate you'll fall on your side / shoulder or on your hands in general. there's always a sub concious reaction to try and protect your head, even something as simple as raising your hands.

4) I only have two tires on my bike.

so? I presume the point you are trying to make here is that as such you have less stability? Conversely you have far more agility on a bike to avoid stuff so lets just say that is neutrally balanced

5) My bicycle's tires only have a few square cm of contact area.

so do your cars tires. mass for mass your bicycle almost certainly has considerably more contact area with the road....

...[/QUOTE]

strokeslover

FISMA wrote: »

2) I rarely fall off of my car.

Fisma I'm still laughing at this!



I think helmets for cyclists should be mandatory, as a cyclist is vulnerable at the lowest of speeds i.e could fall off the bike awkwardly at walking pace and be fatally injured.

While injuries in a car crash are usually the force of the brain shaking inside the head in a crash, due to a sudden stop, in which a helmet wouldn't make a difference.

Cookie_Monster

strokeslover wrote: »

I think helmets for cyclists should be mandatory, as a cyclist is vulnerable at the lowest of speeds i.e could fall off the bike awkwardly at walking pace and be fatally injured.

a pedestrian could fall over walking slowly along and be fatally injured, should they have to wear them too?

smacl

monument wrote: »

Even if limited in time frame, it relates to the overview of brain injuries across road user groups, their severity, speeds people were hit at etc. As above, for cyclist helmets wears vs non-helmet wears it also shows no statistical difference in occurrence and severity.

Data randomly missing for all user groups is less important.

Rubbish, put simply your assertion has no valid mathematical basis as you are attempting to correlate variables without first looking at their relationship in the population from which they're drawn, let alone considering other confounding variables. If you have no cyclists, and hence no cycling related fatalities, does this make cycling safer?

To take a hypothetical example, lets say over the time frame we had 1000 cyclists involved in accidents involving head injury, 90% of which were wearing helmets. Say of those 1000 cases, 100 presented with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and half of those were not wearing helmets, we could then consider a correlation between not wearing a helmet and a higher probability of TBI in the case of an accident. Similarly, if just 10% were wearing a helmet to start off with, and we get the same TBI results, we can consider the reverse correlation.

Lets take another hypothetical example using the same logic. Say as a result of over zealous promotion of hi-viz and helmets and shoddy cycle lanes, the number of people cycling declines. As a result of fewer cyclists, the incidences of cyclists involved in fatal accidents are reduced. Using your logic, the RSA could reasonably assert that the helmet and high viz road safety campaign was a success, as cyclist fatalities were in decline.

From their own words, as you quoted:
The non-wearing of helmets was frequent and noted for one in five NAS and NSU cyclists and motorcyclists (Table 6.14). In the NSU, 15 out of 29 (52%) pedal cyclists and 6 out of 18 motor-cyclists (33%) were reported to be without a helmet. Nine of the 10 motorcyclists without a helmet had a GCS <9 (a severe injury) but no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists.

So, for cyclists a near 50/50 split of helmet wears vs non-helmet wears and no statistical difference in the injury severity.

The facts don't support what you are saying.

Again wrong, this says two things. Firstly that 52% of cyclists with TBI didn't have a helmet. If this is conspicuously high for those involved in accidents involving head injury, then not wearing a helmet could be correlated with increased risk of TBI in the event of an accident. As said previously, we don't have this information, so can't draw any such conclusions. Secondly, given that you were in a cycling accident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury, the helmet may not play any role in the severity of that injury. Fair enough, but given it may have prevented the injury altogether, this is a moot point.

You want me to try to ignore the elephant in the room that is the issue of helmets?

First show me the elephant. I've yet to see any clear correlation between promotion of helmets and the reduced take up of cycling, let alone a demonstrably causal link. What I do see however is a lot of debate on the subject of helmets, with the anti-helmet lobby seeming to be of the opinion that if all the helmets were magically whisked away, the world would be a better place where everyone started cycling again and no-one had any accidents. To me this is a piece of fantasy, and your elephant is in fact a tiny mouse in the scheme of things. Surely a more valuable opening question would be something along the lines of 'How many people in your family cycle, of those that don't but could, how could we encourage them to cycle?'.

unichall

I wear a helmet on my bike and not in my car because my bike doesn't have airbags

doozerie

strokeslover wrote:

I think helmets for cyclists should be mandatory, as a cyclist is vulnerable at the lowest of speeds i.e could fall off the bike awkwardly at walking pace and be fatally injured.

At last someone has voiced concern for us poor cyclists who simply can't look after ourselves. Through your intervention I look forward to a dramatic drop in the frankly shocking numbers of cyclists that are fatally injured from toppling over on their bikes each day. God (of your choice) bless you! *big hug*

I have a dilemma though and I could benefit from your wisdom. I wish to travel abroad so I first have to get to the airport. I was considering cycling there, but without a helmet as I don't want to have to take my helmet with me on the plane, but I see now the sheer madness of such an alternative (high five to you, once more). Drive or go by taxi, I thought, but I've just checked the stats for the deaths of those drivers and passengers involved in car accidents and despite the obvious dangers you describe of cycling without a helmet it would appear I'm at greater risk in a car. Like, major downer, and stuff. And during this I recalled that quite a few people have died in plane accidents too. I was all like, "What? As, like, if", but the stats, they were like, "Oh yeah, oh yeah, you're gonna die, you're gonna die!". And a boat poses a similar problem. So should I risk my life to go on holiday or should I perhaps stay in my house for safety's sake? As you suggest, I'm not capable of making that decision for myself so perhaps you'd be kind enough to make it for me? There is another hug in it for you.

smacl

doozerie wrote: »

I was considering cycling there, but without a helmet as I don't want to have to take my helmet with me on the plane...

...I recalled that quite a few people have died in plane accidents too...

But if you look at the statistics, I'll wager that you'll found none of those who died in plane accidents were wearing their helmets. Your 're reluctance to wear a helmet while flying is clearly the root cause of your dilemma* and you should clearly reconsider your recalcitrance in this matter.

* after all, the statistics don't lie

doozerie

smacl wrote:

But if you look at the statistics, I'll wager that you'll found none of those who died in plane accidents were wearing their helmets. You're reluctance to...

I was in such a rush to post a witty response to your post that I tripped over your stray apostrophe above and took a header across the keyboard. I wasn't wearing a helmet but thankfully I was moving at more than walking speed so my injuries were not fatal. The witty response was not so lucky though, it is *sniff* no more...

Let this be a lesson to you, stray apostrophes on the Internet can kill, yours didn't even have so much as a stitch of hi-viz on it. Mandatory hi-viz for all stray apostrophes I say! In the meantime I'll go and lay my witty reponse to rest, let its passing be on your conscience!

irishmotorist

rp wrote: »

Sorry if its a bit of a gruesome question, but you know we hear about a fatal accident on the roads nearly every day: how come, with all those safety features? What's killing people?

I don't know for definite, but I'd be pretty sure that a lot of car deaths are due to more than rapping your head off the pavement. If a car is doing 80km/h, 100km/h or more and it hits a ditch, pole or other car, then the forces involved are massive. Internal organs (in the torso, not just the head) must get some amount of damage done to them in terms of sudden deceleration and thrashing about that happens.

I've no experience or nothing to back this up, but it makes sense to me. Generally, car crashes that kill or seriously injure people aren't timid affairs.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish, put simply your assertion has no valid mathematical basis as you are attempting to correlate variables without first looking at their relationship in the population from which they're drawn, let alone considering other confounding variables. If you have no cyclists, and hence no cycling related fatalities, does this make cycling safer?....

What exact assertion of mine are you talking about?

smacl wrote: »

Using your logic,...

Again you seem to think I've made claims I have not.

smacl wrote: »

If this is conspicuously high for those involved in accidents involving head injury, then not wearing a helmet could be correlated with increased risk of TBI in the event of an accident.

The data is random unless you can prove otherwise.

What exactly are you trying to claim? I get your genral idea, but I can't even attempt to chalange it unless you spell out what you're saying.

You seem to be trying to correlate helmet wearing or non-helmet wearing with the likelihood of ending up in an accident and/or ending up falling?

smacl wrote: »

... the helmet may not play any role in the severity of that injury. Fair enough, but given it may have prevented the injury altogether, this is a moot point.

Are you trying to say one cancles the other out?

You'll need to back that up.

smacl wrote: »

show me the elephant. I've yet to see any clear correlation between promotion of helmets and the reduced take up of cycling, let alone a demonstrably causal link.

You think helmets help when it comes to getting or keeping teenage girls on bikes?

And you think it's not a blocker for anybody who cares about getting helmet hair (male or female)?

You have not seen the link between mandtory helmets and drops in cycling? Or do you just think that mandtory helmets have an affect but massive state promotion will have zero affect?

Let me guess: you think helmets are easy to carry around or do you think it's a good idea to leave a helmet on a bike in a city or town centre?

Do you think the people who walk around with helmets on their heads in supermarkets stant out?

smacl wrote: »

.What I do see however is a lot of debate on the subject of helmets, with the anti-helmet lobby seeming to be of the opinion that if all the helmets were magically whisked away, the world would be a better place where everyone started cycling again and no-one had any accidents. To me this is a piece of fantasy, and your elephant is in fact a tiny mouse in the scheme of things.

A "piece of fantasy" seems correct given that nobody is saying the things you are claiming.

smacl wrote: »

Surely a more valuable opening question would be something along the lines of 'How many people in your family cycle, of those that don't but could, how could we encourage them to cycle?'.

You're welcome to start a new thread.

It's hard enough to get people cycling and discuss cycling provisions and cycling safety without helmets being another barrier -- so that's why I'm interisted in helmets.

smacl

monument wrote: »

What exact assertion of mine are you talking about?

This;

Originally Posted by smacl
That said, I don't see how this study relates in any way to the efficacy or not of helmets, or the dangers involved in cycling, as it does not include any cyclist population numbers, or number of hours spent in the saddle on the roads. You can't establish any relationship without this.

Even if limited in time frame, it relates to the overview of brain injuries across road user groups, their severity, speeds people were hit at etc. As above, for cyclist helmets wears vs non-helmet wears it also shows no statistical difference in occurrence and severity.

Data randomly missing for all user groups is less important.

The study simply states the number of traumatic brain injuries that were presented among cyclists over a period of time, and of that number, how many were wearing helmets. To determine whether wearing a helmet reduced the likelihood of suffering such an injury following on from an accident, you need to know how many such accidents occurred, and what percentage of the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.

The data is random unless you can prove otherwise.

Nope, the truth is you can't make statements about data that you don't have. That includes its distribution.

What exactly are you trying to claim? I get your genral idea, but I can't even attempt to chalange it unless you spell out what you're saying.

You seem to be trying to correlate helmet wearing or non-helmet wearing with the likelihood of ending up in an accident and/or ending up falling?

Are you trying to say one cancles the other out?

You'll need to back that up.

What I'm saying is that you start a thread on the premise that if people feel the need to wear a helmet cycling, then they should consider doing the same driving and walking, on the basis that these are riskier activities. You support this by saying

In Ireland, people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists

and support this statement with a linked study. The study however doesn't say anything about the relative risks of walking or driving versus cycling, because to do so it would have to include how much time was spent during each activity, and factor that in accordingly. To better illustrate this, and as said previously, if you don't do this, and nobody cycled, you could deem cycling to be the safest activity.

You think helmets help when it comes to getting or keeping teenage girls on bikes?

And you think it's not a blocker for anybody who cares about getting helmet hair (male or female)?

Not at all, but then no ones making anyone wear a helmet. I do happen to wear one, my wife doesn't for just the reasons you state.

You have not seen the link between mandtory helmets and drops in cycling? Or do you just think that mandtory helmets have an affect but massive state promotion will have zero affect?

Let me guess: you think helmets are easy to carry around or do you think it's a good idea to leave a helmet on a bike in a city or town centre?

Do you think the people who walk around with helmets on their heads in supermarkets stant out?

And out comes the 'evils of mandatory helmet usage' line once again, and again raised by those from the anti-helmet lobby. In case you haven't noticed, we don't have mandatory helmet usage legislation, we're not likely to get it, and like most everyone here (bar one anomalous type), I don't support it. That particular straw man is starting to look a bit raggedy through over use.

Firstly: This is not a general helmet thread, nor is it an attempt to open a can of worms, or even to change people's minds -- I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced, this seems exactly what you're trying to do.

It's hard enough to get people cycling and discuss cycling provisions and cycling safety without helmets being another barrier -- so that's why I'm interisted in helmets.

Again, no. Look at this forum. People discussing cycling in all its aspects. IMHO cycling is undergoing a major renaissance in Ireland. Some of them wear helmets some of the time, some don't. I'd guess most are largely indifferent.

chakattack

monument wrote: »

What exact assertion of mine are you talking about?


You think helmets help when it comes to getting or keeping teenage girls on bikes?

And you think it's not a blocker for anybody who cares about getting helmet hair (male or female)?

You have not seen the link between mandtory helmets and drops in cycling? Or do you just think that mandtory helmets have an affect but massive state promotion will have zero affect?

Let me guess: you think helmets are easy to carry around or do you think it's a good idea to leave a helmet on a bike in a city or town centre?

Do you think the people who walk around with helmets on their heads in supermarkets stant out?




A "piece of fantasy" seems correct given that nobody is saying the things you are claiming.

You said originally that this is not a thread for discussion of cycling helmets....

What's that on my screen? Yet another page full of long-winded multiquote, "you said this"..."no i said that" style pointlessness about helmets.

Get over your helmet obsession. THEY ARE NOT MANDATORY.

monument

monument wrote:

Firstly: This is not a general helmet thread, nor is it an attempt to open a can of worms, or even to change people's minds -- I want to understand the thinking behind choosing to wear helmet while cycling but not wear one where the risks are greater.

To be clear:

• Not a general helmet thread but a focused one.
• I'm not just trolling -- report me if you think otherwise.
• Challenging people to get further information is not the same as trying to change their minds.

chakattack wrote: »

You said originally that this is not a thread for discussion of cycling helmets....

What's that on my screen? Yet another page full of long-winded multiquote, "you said this"..."no i said that" style pointlessness about helmets.

Get over your helmet obsession. THEY ARE NOT MANDATORY.

Just not a normal helmet thread but a focused one. We're discussing helmet use with cyclists compared to other transport modes.

I'm not clear what your problem is. Have you tried not looking at threads you don't want to view? Or if I'm doing something wrong according to the charter feel free to report the thread or any post.

If you have a strong view and don't want it challenged do your self a favour and switch away.

smacl wrote: »

The study simply states the number of traumatic brain injuries that were presented among cyclists over a period of time, and of that number, how many were wearing helmets. To determine whether wearing a helmet reduced the likelihood of suffering such an injury following on from an accident, you need to know how many such accidents occurred, and what percentage of the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.

Ok, I'll retract the occurrence claim, it was wrong to include that without backing it up. But for cyclist helmets wears vs non-helmet wears it also shows no statistical difference in severity.

Thanks, it was not clear what you were disputing.

smacl wrote: »

Nope, the truth is you can't make statements about data that you don't have. That includes its distribution.

You said:

If this is conspicuously high for those involved in accidents involving head injury, then not wearing a helmet could be correlated with increased risk of TBI in the event of an accident.

Nothing you have said since changes the fact that data remains random unless you can prove otherwise.

smacl wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you start a thread on the premise that if people feel the need to wear a helmet cycling, then they should consider doing the same driving and walking, on the basis that these are riskier activities. You support this by saying

and support this statement with a linked study. The study however doesn't say anything about the relative risks of walking or driving versus cycling, because to do so it would have to include how much time was spent during each activity, and factor that in accordingly.

The fact remains that at a population level people in cars and on foot suffer greater and less recoverable brain injuries than cyclists.

Going by recoverability and severity, cyclists are notably the least of the road user groups which require helmets. Given that helmets are worn and promoted along the lines of "just in case", why not the same for other transport modes?

Why is cycling so different?

smacl wrote: »

To better illustrate this, and as said previously, if you don't do this, and nobody cycled, you could deem cycling to be the safest activity.

If nobody cycled it just does not show up in the stats. That's all.

But you know that already.

smacl wrote: »

Not at all, but then no ones making anyone wear a helmet. I do happen to wear one, my wife doesn't for just the reasons you state.

So you're dismissing the effect of pushing helmets by the RSA, DoT, the gardai, schools, colleges, parents, friends, workmates etc?

smacl wrote: »

And out comes the 'evils of mandatory helmet usage' line once again, and again raised by those from the anti-helmet lobby. In case you haven't noticed, we don't have mandatory helmet usage legislation, we're not likely to get it, and like most everyone here (bar one anomalous type), I don't support it. That particular straw man is starting to look a bit raggedy through over use.

Nobody mentioned evils but if that's how you want to try to dismiss what I'm saying, so be it. This is important, so I'll ask again: Do you accept that mandatory helmets have an affect but you think massive state promotion of helmets will have zero affect?

Also, to repeat:

Let me guess: you think helmets are easy to carry around or do you think it's a good idea to leave a helmet on a bike in a city or town centre?

Do you think the people who walk around with helmets on their heads in supermarkets stand out?

smacl wrote: »

Again, no. Look at this forum. People discussing cycling in all its aspects. IMHO cycling is undergoing a major renaissance in Ireland. Some of them wear helmets some of the time, some don't. I'd guess most are largely indifferent.

Cycling as transport is "undergoing a major renaissance" in limited parts of the country -- mainly in Dublin. Elsewhere and in large parts of Co Dublin progress is painfully slow or not apparent at all, and around the country there are areas in decline -- the growth in Dublin just hides this in the national stats. As per the first comment here:

Cork city is also up 20% (from a low base), Galway city: no change, Limerick and Waterford cities both down about 10%.

And you said something about me being only interested in painting happy pictures? Which is strangely something I've never been accused of before given the newsworthiness of what I have covered is more often negative than positive.