Helmets - increase injuries

monument · 12-08-2009 12:38AM

BostonB wrote: »

I was being facetious at the idea that the big issue is, if you wear safety gear your more likely to take risks. Thats not what you see in every day life. IMO Risk compensation is being greatly overstated. Stand on any junction and see who is taking risks.

Yes, that could be true.

I wouldn't say people who wear helmets act more dangerously / less cautiously...

I would however say helmets are a massive distraction to the things that really matter for safety. Such as [a] inexperienced cyclists learning advanced cycling, and making roads safer (by reducing speed limits, enforcing current laws, safer road design etc). With the former, those I see with helmets (and high-viz) are often the ones cycling too close to the side of the kerb (and most of you don't have to worry, it's 'pedestrians on bicycles' [sic] and not racing types that I mostly see doing this). Same goes for the same type of cyclists going around without lights (more so in the winter).

The average commuter's need for a helmet, or potential benefit given by one, is so low that you have to start questioning why are such people not wearing a helmet while walking around or in a car where the need for / potential benefit given by a helmet is the same or greater.

If you are cycling at high speeds or are taking other risks, then that's a different story.

BostonB wrote: »

Ok helmets have disadvantages aswell theres no denying that.

One of the main ones I think is on the image and marketing side of cycling.

Why is marketing cycling important?

It probably isn't high up on the minds of most cyclists. But it's important when the state is trying to increase the amount of people cycling. In this respect, if the image of cycling is one where safety gear such as helmets and building site like high-viz are required then cycling is going to look more dangerous than it actual is.

And why should the average commuter cyclist care? Easy -- giving cycling a bad image has a knock on affect against safety in numbers (actual safety in numbers and less pressure for more resources/measures).

BostonB · 12-08-2009 04:33AM

monument wrote: »

...The average commuter's need for a helmet, or potential benefit given by one, is so low that you have to start questioning why are such people not wearing a helmet while walking around or in a car where the need for / potential benefit given by a helmet is the same or greater.

If you are cycling at high speeds or are taking other risks, then that's a different story.

If what you were saying is true, then all those people who voted for hemets above had a impact to the head from a bike fall. Would all have had a similar impact to the head from walking or driving in the same period. How likely is that.

monument wrote: »

...safety gear such as helmets and building site like high-viz are required then cycling is going to look more dangerous than it actual is....

Can't deny the safety in numbers.

But if something makes you more visible, then won't more people see you. Thus promoting cycling, rather than less people seeing you. TBH half the roads and junctions, because of poor design, and lack of enforcement, are dangerous to drive never mind cycle. Seeing someone sail past with or without a helmet isn't going to change my mind about that. I'd assume a lot of people would think the same.

monument · 12-08-2009 05:43AM

BostonB wrote: »

If what you were saying is true, then all those people who voted for hemets above had a impact to the head from a bike fall. Would all have had a similar impact to the head from walking or driving in the same period. How likely is that.

No, not at all.

For that to happen in any meaningful way, all of those in the poll would have to have the same accident rate on each method of transport, which is highly unlikely.

BostonB wrote: »

Can't deny the safety in numbers.

But you can slow any potential growth of it down!

And slowing real growth in cycling numbers is counter-productive to overall safety. This is proven and apparently undisputed (or at least so compared to helmets!).

BostonB wrote: »

But if something makes you more visible, then won't more people see you. Thus promoting cycling, rather than less people seeing you.

I'm guessing this is in regards to high-vis only...

Given most cyclists deaths are caused by HGVs (almost 75% according to a DCC report), then high-vis is a detraction from the real issues of educating cyclists to watch out for and stay away from trucks, for drivers to watch out for cyclists, having better mirrors on all trucks etc. A detraction cyclists should be keeping away, and high-vis cannot even possably improve visibilty in the cases of drivers being unable to see blind spots (as well as them not looking, as I've seen mentioned in court cases).

Furthermore, given the same report said: "almost one-third resulting in serious injury to the cyclist involved a left-turning vehicle" -- the need for cyclists to watch out and keep away from left turning vehicles, and drivers to watch out again is key. High-vis again a distraction.

And, it said, "A further 18 per cent of serious injuries were caused when a vehicle turned right and hit a cyclist, while 11 per cent involved sideswipes from vehicles." ... both cases drivers would would want to be blind to not see cyclists, and use of high-vis to increase visibility here is questionable at best.

What has to be questioned on the other hand is a notably large amount of cyclists in winter months wearing high-viz but not using lights (high-viz would not be lit up much thus not mush visible, for example, where a driver is looking in their mirror). For the record, I'd be in favour of the garda handing out fines for not having lights more than I would the city and other handing out high-vis.

BostonB wrote: »

TBH half the roads and junctions, because of poor design, and lack of enforcement, are dangerous to drive never mind cycle.

Again, I've already said, helmets and high-vis are a detraction from fixing these types of problems.

BostonB wrote: »

...Seeing someone sail past with or without a helmet isn't going to change my mind about that. I'd assume a lot of people would think the same.

Years of the State, schools, other cyclists making out helmets are needed all the time, is going to an impact on most peoples' perceptions more so than seeing or not seeing cyclists with helmets and high-vis. Most photoshoots or other images of cyclists always depicting helmets is going to add to this.

Although, I know some commuters from suburbs are in denial about helmets and high-vis use -- many I talk to on and off line think nearly almost everybody wears such, I think partly because they see many of their fellow suburbs commuters wearing one or the other or both. Outside commuting times use in the city seems to drop massivly (almost zero if the racing cyclists were taken out) with normal people going shopping etc without such gear.

And, yes, I have reserched, read about, thought about, and wrote about this far, far too much around these parts and elsewhere.

dub_skav · 12-08-2009 08:12AM

GreeBo wrote: »

erm what?

I refer you to my previous question.

petethedrummer answered you in a far more sensible fashion than I did.
But the crux of my post was that your analogy was deeply flawed and your use of it seems to show that you think the benefits of cycling helmets are indisputable (same as condom use) - which they are not.

Lumen · 12-08-2009 08:24AM

I will not wear high-vis. It's against my religion.

At least until my contract with Liquigas starts.

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 08:48AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

You cannot equate the two. Noone refutes that condoms assist in preventing pregnancy or preventing AIDS except perhaps the catholic church.

Helmets can protect you from some (probably most) types of impact but can in certain cases cause excessive brain rotation or, in the example outlined in this thread, cause injury to the neck and paralysis.

But condoms are not 100% effective...a bit like helmets I would say.
Also, is there any evidence that the same injuries would not have happened if the person was not wearing a helmet? In such fringe cases without the corollary evidence I think you cant hold that up as an argument.

petethedrummer wrote: »

There is also the indirect effect of your behaviour while wearing a helmet and also how other road users interact with you. Which may make you more likely to be in an accident.

Surely the same indirect behaviour exists regarding people using condoms? If you have them are you not more likly to have sex than if you didnt have them? Since they are not a foolproof method (like helmets) I dont see how can you not use the same arguments for both.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Have you not been reading the thread?

I have been. Im not sure what your point is here. Ive yet to see conclusive evidence here but your comment seems to suggest that Ive missed some?

blorg · 12-08-2009 09:46AM

7 pages already and well off topic, bad Tunney for starting this one on a Monday... I think the original idea was not the whole helmet debate AGAIN but simply do people think that in case of an accident on balance you would be worse off (a) wearing a helmet or (b) not wearing a helmet.

rubadub · 12-08-2009 09:56AM

rubadub wrote: »

i.e. I doubt the lad on the BMX would have done such a dangerous wheelie if he had no helmet on. For SOME people it can give a false sense of security.

BostonB wrote: »

I don't really agree with the idea that people with more safety gear do more dangerous stuff. That not what I see everyday. Usually its the exact opposite, in my experience.

BostonB wrote: »

I was being facetious at the idea that the big issue is, if you wear safety gear your more likely to take risks. Thats not what you see in every day life. IMO Risk compensation is being greatly overstated. Stand on any junction and see who is taking risks.

You are missing my point about the BMX lad, I never said it is what I see everyday. The majority of people wearing helmets at the moment are no doubt safety concious, and therefore probably obeying the rules of the road etc. So probably taking less risks etc. So I would fully agree the helmet wearers are better "behaved" at the junction, but that is not what I am getting at.

To flip it around, if helmets were made ILLEGAL overnight, then I expect these people might be even more careful on the road going out the next day. They obviously feel it is dangerous out there so I expect they would be even more cautious without their protection.

I think individuals are getting upset/offended at being lumped in with the theory and so they say "it doesn't make ME more reckless". So it might be a better way to phrase it, "without their helmets people would tend to be even more careful".

Makes sense to me, I see it with people with/without safety gear in work all the time.

My point about the BMX is he would probably not have taken the risk without the helmet. And also that you might see reckless people taking risks now, the majority without helmets, but if made compulsory these guys might be even more reckless.

blorg wrote: »

I think the original idea was not the whole helmet debate AGAIN but simply do people think that in case of an accident on balance you would be worse off (a) wearing a helmet or (b) not wearing a helmet.

Yes, but then it ignores reasons why people do not wear them, and people who have never heard the full debate could be swayed. That is why I was saying the poll should have more options. When I read it first it came across as definitely being posted by a helmet wearer who wanted a black & white poll that they could point to and go "see that, you should be wearing a helmet".

It reminds me of films where a witness is in court and the sleazy lawyer is going "A simple YES or NO please", when the person is trying to explain to the jury the real story, the lawyer keeps smugly going "YES OR NO", knowing full well what the answer is and how the jury would react without hearing the full story.

Lumen · 12-08-2009 09:58AM

blorg wrote: »

7 pages already and well off topic, bad Tunney for starting this one on a Monday... I think the original idea was not the whole helmet debate AGAIN but simply do people think that in case of an accident on balance you would be worse off (a) wearing a helmet or (b) not wearing a helmet.

The poll reflects that narrow question. If you want the answer, look at the poll results.

The discussion reflects the wider issues.

I'm not sure the results reveal anything unexpected - crashing tends to increase one's tendency to wear a helmet. Big surprise.

petethedrummer · 12-08-2009 10:09AM

GreeBo wrote: »

But condoms are not 100% effective...a bit like helmets I would say.
Also, is there any evidence that the same injuries would not have happened if the person was not wearing a helmet?

well you can't prove a negative. But you can look at the increase in other types of injury due to helmet use.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html
http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/h-i-mech.htm

you can also look at the figures for accident rates countries with mandatory helmet laws vs. countries with no helmet laws, which shows that safety in numbers is the most important factor:
http://daniel.sparing.hu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/index_11.jpg

And that mandatory cycle helmet laws reduce cycling participation:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html

Or the effects introducing helmet laws have on accident rates:
http://web.aanet.com.au/~d-e/BKS/bhacc.htm

Also the fact that wearing a helmet can raise your chance of being in an accident.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
(though this study could be a bit more rigorous)

GreeBo wrote: »

Surely the same indirect behaviour exists regarding people using condoms? If you have them are you not more likly to have sex than if you didnt have them? Since they are not a foolproof method (like helmets) I dont see how can you not use the same arguments for both.?

Drawing parallels with condoms does nothing for the argument. Noone needs an analogy. You need to read the opinion on both sides of the helmet debate and come to a conclusion yourself, based on how you are going to cycle. Condoms are also not mandatory.

GreeBo wrote: »

I have been. Im not sure what your point is here. Ive yet to see conclusive evidence here but your comment seems to suggest that Ive missed some?

You seem to have missed that there is some evidence and informed opinion that is contrary to your point of view.

I don't know and it seems noone knows definitively if helmet wearing in all situations is a good idea. That's why people should choose for themselves.

Hermy · 12-08-2009 10:12AM

Someone wearing a helmet crashed into a relative of mine. The helmet broke his collar bone.

blorg · 12-08-2009 10:16AM

Hermy wrote: »

Someone wearing a helmet crashed into a relative of mine. The helmet broke his collar bone.

But was he wearing a condom at the time?

Lumen · 12-08-2009 10:18AM

Hermy wrote: »

Someone wearing a helmet crashed into a relative of mine. The helmet broke his collar bone.

Just as well the perp was wearing a helmet, or else your relative would have had his collarbone broken by the hair, which would be embarassing.

Hermy · 12-08-2009 10:18AM

blorg wrote: »

But was he wearing a condom at the time?

You know, I never thought to ask him.:D

peterako · 12-08-2009 10:31AM

rubadub wrote: »

(lots removed...)

My point about the BMX is he would probably not have taken the risk without the helmet.

(Some more removed...)

Sort of defeats the purpose of BMX-ing :rolleyes:

rubadub · 12-08-2009 10:31AM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure the results reveal anything unexpected - crashing tends to increase one's tendency to wear a helmet. Big surprise.

I would expect the same results even if everybody thought helmets made no difference. The question seems sort of leading to me. Imagine it was a more "benign question"

A- "Thank fcuk I wasn't wearing blue socks, if I was I would be fcuked"
B- "Thank fcuk I was wearing blue socks, if I wasn't I would be fcuked"

I would not really want to answer either, but if forced to I would go with B, since A is inferring I would definitely be hurt because of them.

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 10:35AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

well you can't prove a negative. But you can look at the increase in other types of injury due to helmet use.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html
http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/h-i-mech.htm

well what I mean is that if you setup a repeatable scenario involving a helmet "causing" damage and then run the same scenario without the helmet what happens. Obviously you would need at least two volunteers...

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't know and it seems noone knows definitively if helmet wearing in all situations is a good idea.

If I knew what type of accident I was going to have on a particular day sure I could decide if a helmet was required or not. But I think its foolish to argue against the idea that in most incidents a helmet does more good than harm?

petethedrummer wrote: »

You seem to have missed that there is some evidence and informed opinion that is contrary to your point of view.

I dont see how me disagreeing with those opinions means I have missed them. In they same way that you are disagreeing with my opinion doesnt mean you have missed it.

For the record I wear a helmet for any type of cycling.
If its too much hassle to put it on for a short spin to the shops then its also too much hassle to get the bike out of the shed.

When having sex I always wear a condom on my helmet. :pac:

petethedrummer · 12-08-2009 10:36AM

There was no option for people who haven't hit their head in an accident. So I abstained.

peterako · 12-08-2009 10:46AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

There was no option for people who haven't hit their head in an accident. So I abstained.

:cool:

petethedrummer · 12-08-2009 10:51AM

GreeBo wrote: »

well what I mean is that if you setup a repeatable scenario involving a helmet "causing" damage and then run the same scenario without the helmet what happens. Obviously you would need at least two volunteers...

Done with crash test dummies.

petethedrummer wrote: »

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html

GreeBo wrote: »

If I knew what type of accident I was going to have on a particular day sure I could decide if a helmet was required or not. But I think its foolish to argue against the idea that in most incidents a helmet does more good than harm?

Noone said it does more harm than good in an accident. Certainly not me. But it is not a coverall against all types of brain injury. If you take a step back, the concept of helmet wearing and particularly mandatory helmet wearing seems to have no(or a negative) effect on overall risk of being in an accident. It also reduces cycling participation and this increases overall risk of being involved an accident.

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see how me disagreeing with those opinions means I have missed them. In they same way that you are disagreeing with my opinion doesnt mean you have missed it.

Fair enough.

tomasrojo · 12-08-2009 11:05AM

rubadub wrote: »

The question seems sort of leading to me.

It certainly is leading. It's the traditional "false dichotomy". Other options would be (among others):

*"I have never had a serious spill"
*"I have never hit my head after a fall"
*"I've never given the topic of helmets much consideration"
*"This is a transparent attempt to attract more anecdotes about crashes and saved-my-life/drooling-vegetable alternative histories"

Maybe that last one is a bit harsh.

The helmet topic really generates more heat than light. A road-design or cycling training thread would not have lasted as long as this (I'm as guilty as anyone in perpetuating this thread, I know).

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 11:08AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

Done with crash test dummies.

"Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head."

To me that doesnt say anything conclusive either way....

petethedrummer wrote: »

But it is not a coverall against all types of brain injury. If you take a step back, the concept of helmet wearing and particularly mandatory helmet wearing seems to have no(or a negative) effect on overall risk of being in an accident. It also reduces cycling participation and this increases overall risk of being involved an accident.

I agree 100% that its not a coverall but other than sitting at home, what is? Do you agree (with the study) that in all but the most extreme/freak cases helmet wearing has positive results?

Personally I dont think helmet wearing has any impact on your likelihood of being in an accident. If any Id say it reduces it as a helmeted head is more visible than a non helmeted head. I dont see how less cyclists inceases the overall risk of being in an accident. For this to be true surely the number of accidents would have to be static, thus meaning there are less people to share these accidents with? And I dont think there is any proof to show that the number of accidents is static. If anything, less cyclists = less cycling accidents.
0 cyclists = 0 accidents, no?

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 11:09AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

I A road-design or cycling training thread would not have lasted as long as this (I'm as guilty as anyone in perpetuating this thread, I know).

The reason being an individual can do something about wearing a helmet. An individual can do little about general road safety.

tomasrojo · 12-08-2009 11:15AM

I dont see how less cyclists inceases the overall risk of being in an accident.

The idea is that the _propotion_ of cyclists suffering serious injury falls as the numbers rise.

Safety in Numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers

There are people who disagree, including (very vociferously) John Forester, but it's a theory that's going through a period of popularity of right now.

tomasrojo · 12-08-2009 11:22AM

GreeBo wrote: »

The reason being an individual can do something about wearing a helmet. An individual can do little about general road safety.

It isn't possible to imagine a thread where one group that has had on-road training says that another group that hasn't is dicing with death?

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 11:29AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

It isn't possible to imagine a thread where one group that has had on-road training says that another group that hasn't is dicing with death?

Unless you train everybody (all cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, joggers, etc, etc) or get those who are trained to wear some identifying mark then you are still going to be sharing your cycling with untrained idiots like you are today.

tomasrojo · 12-08-2009 11:30AM

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless you train everybody (all cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, joggers, etc, etc) or get those who are trained to wear some identifying mark then you are still going to be sharing your cycling with untrained idiots like you are today.

The point about training is that you are well positioned to deal with the unexpected. You slow down when you see joggers or a dog. You move out of the door zone when you approach parked cars.

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 11:58AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

The point about training is that you are well positioned to deal with the unexpected. You slow down when you see joggers or a dog. You move out of the door zone when you approach parked cars.

I know that and you know that, but not everyone knows that.
If the cyclist in front of you doesnt know that and they get splatted you are probably going to hit them. If we all cycled being prepared for the unexpected commuting speeds would be much slower than they are.

/off topic rant
Also, this causes more accidents than it prevents as so (too?) many cyclists swerve out around parked cars without a second
thought as to whats behind/alongside them. They are essentially changing lanes blindly.

tomasrojo · 12-08-2009 12:05PM

But that isn't how you're supposed to pull out beyond the door zone. You're supposed to travel at moderate speeds when there are many other road users or unpredictable actors in the scenario (children, animals, for example), and you're defintely supposed to look before changing lane position. If you're being closely followed, you take that into account too. You do no manoeuvre blindly.

It's based on calm, measured actions, performed with maximum alertness.

It's a little slower than some people ride, but it's the most effective way to avoid spills and collisions.

GreeBo · 12-08-2009 12:13PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

But that isn't how you're supposed to pull out beyond the door zone. You're supposed to travel at moderate speeds when there are many other road users or unpredictable actors in the scenario (children, animals, for example), and you're defintely supposed to look before changing lane position. If you're being closely followed, you take that into account too. You do no manoeuvre blindly.

It's based on calm, measured actions, performed with maximum alertness.

It's a little slower than some people ride, but it's the most effective way to avoid spills and collisions.

You are preaching to the choir here buddy, but the whole point is that you are never, ever going to get everyone to cycle like that. If they cant get motorists to drive safely there is zero chance with cyclists.

Helmets - increase injuries

Comments