'Organ donors' without helmets

mcmoustache · 28-03-2011 05:23PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ah yeah so as I suspected we are back to - because they look dorky.

I use my bike for convenience. On saturdays I like to head into town (Dublin). I lock my bike somewhere and I head off to do whatever. Now here's the thing: There's just no way that I could be bothered carrying a helmet around all day and locking it to the bike in the city centre would be retarded. I know that I could have it in a bag or something but the point is that this is simply inconvenient.

If it's inconvenient for me then it's probably inconvenient for lots of people. Part of what makes bikes great as a utility is their convenience. Hop on, ride, hop off, lock it. If it is made more awkward to cycle for whatever reason, it will put people off cycling.

A consequence of this is that it then becomes more dangerous when there are less people on the roads. Strangely, more cyclists on the roads means fewer cyclist fatalities. This has already been demonstrated in the thread and you only need to look at our own national statistics to see that the numbers killed has been falling over the last few years.

This is why people are against compelling people to wear helmets. Some people don't wear them and others do and that's fine. If someone doesn't want to look dorky, then that should be up to them. Just don't pretend that that's the only reason people have for wearing helmets.

Mandatory helmet laws will most likely end up with more dead cyclists. You don't want more dead cyclists, do you?

07Lapierre · 28-03-2011 05:31PM

I find helmets are very handy. When i arrive home after my saturday morning spin, i take off my helmet, i close the "chin strap" and use it as a handle. I then put gloves, glasses, waterbottle and my garmin into the helmet. This leaves one hand free which allows me to open thehouse door with the hall door key. While cycling, the easiest way to carry my helmet is on my head!!

petethedrummer · 28-03-2011 05:39PM

I usually just take the key out of my pocket and open the door.

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 05:55PM

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair there were 10 possible reasons given above and you fixated on one.

I fixated on the one the other poster says was the most significant one.

As to overheating. Seriously - wah wah wah its makes my head hot. They have air vents. If thats a serious issue then people need to get over it.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Opinion Guy, do you wear a helmet while driving? Because I know someone who died of a head injury in a car.

Nope. But I do wear a seatbelt and half several airbags to protect me.

I was recently wondering whether people should wear helmets on planes thou. Crashing is unlikely but seems like it could make a big difference to casualty rates.

monument · 28-03-2011 06:00PM

Out of the following pictured cyclists, which would be best for marketing cycling as an every day activity which is easy and safe to do?

In other words, if you want to increase the number of people cycling -- from commuting to going down to the shops etc -- which of these cyclists would you choose for a marketing campaign?

I'm glad, we've settled it. Helmet are "dorky". The use and promotion of helmets are a blocker to promoting cycling and the main proven safety measure -- safety in numbers.

Furthermore, helmets are a distraction to safe cycling. I think I argue this point quite well in this article here. There's a short video included and it's a bit too long to post.

07Lapierre wrote: »

I find helmets are very handy. When i arrive home after my saturday morning spin, i take off my helmet, i close the "chin strap" and use it as a handle. I then put gloves, glasses, waterbottle and my garmin into the helmet. This leaves one hand free which allows me to open thehouse door with the hall door key. While cycling, the easiest way to carry my helmet is on my head!!

We're not just talking about cycling as a sport. That's the thing about this board, it's under sports but it's not just sports. It's a point often forgotten and pro-helmet researches don't seem to think there's any difference between extrema sport and popping down to the shops.

Cookie_Monster · 28-03-2011 06:05PM

never mind the helmets, look at all those ridiculous day glow jackets

TinyExplosions · 28-03-2011 06:36PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Nope. But I do wear a seatbelt and half several airbags to protect me.

Because there are studies that prove that airbags and seatbelts reduce injury. This, along with the amount of crashes per year that include injuries of this nature make them a good idea.

There have been no comparable studies to show that helmets reduce injuries to cyclists in the same way. This, coupled with the relatively small number of deaths on the roads that involve cyclists makes it a silly idea to bring in mandatory helmet usage.

The number of cycling related fatalities is decreasing. Cyclists accounted for 4.6% of people killed on Irish roads in 1998, but only 2.9% in 2002. Speaking statistically, the figures are so low that not much can be inferred from them, but there is no sign of an increasing trend in deaths when the number of people cycling has increased in recent years. Couple this with the fact that between 2002 and 2006, 73% of fatal accidents in Dublin were caused by left turning HGVs, in which case helmets will make no difference whatsoever, you are left with a maximum of 0.783% of deaths on the road that could potentially be saved by making helmets mandatory (and the actual figure of lives saved would be a lot lower if you removed the fatalities in that 0.783% that were wearing helmets or were involved in crashes where it is clear that a helmet would have make no difference).

There are Australian studies that show conclusively however that mandatory helmet usage reduces the number of riders on the road, which leads to greater levels of obesity and the related health problems that come with that.

Now, helmet wearing is a very emotive issue, and it's largely lead by well meaning, but fundamentally wrong people who assume that a hemet is a Magic Hat that protects the wearer from all damage (indeed, you fall into that group by your own admission and the assumption that the accident you had would have resulted in less injury if you wore a helmet. You have no more proof of this that I do against it, so it is all just down to peoples opinion, and that is not a basis to bring in new laws).

Now, you talk about 'sexing up' helmets and having a big campaign to promote helmet usage -well, what about promoting safe cycling instead? Teach cyclists (and motorists) the rules of the road, start kids on bikes when they are young and teach them how to stay out of trouble, and also to not go up the inside of left turning vehicles etc and you would do far more to prevent deaths than a silly mandatory use policy for helmets.

Doctor Bob · 28-03-2011 06:39PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ah yeah so as I suspected we are back to - because they look dorky.

See this is my whole problem with this argument. This a societal and culturally imposed perception - that bike helmets are dorky. As such it s a perception that can be changed. It was widely considered that smoking was cool. Is it now ? No. (well that depends on what country you are in - but the point is these things can be changed). It was also once widely seen as restricting to wear seatbelts and many people refused. Is it now???? Hell no. After being made mandatory, severl PR campaigns and proper enforcement it now just seems idiotic not to wear a seatbelt.

Cowtowing to not making helmets mandatory cause people don't like them is only reinforcing that stereotype. You need to change the perception so that people don't think helmet = "dorky" to helmet = "smart".

It should be made mandatory, giving a sexy PR campaign and enforced. After a time wearing a helmet will not be seen as dorky, it will be seen as normal. But not if we continue to cowtow to looking cool.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to sex up the auld helmets a bit. They could learn from some of the ski helmets (which are both more sturdy and look better).

Your analogies are flawed.

In the case of smoking, there is the simple fact that smoking has been proven to be extremely bad for one's health. Yes, there have been educational campaigns, but underlying these was irrefutable, hard, scientific evidence. Such evidence, as has been mentioned here repeatedly already, simply doesn't exist for cycle helmets.

The same goes for seatbelts, though to a somewhat different degree. There were laws and campaigns, yes, but again these were based on evidence.

Or were they? Your introduction of the seatbelt analogy is actually quite pertinent, if inadvertently. As has long been argued - nay, demonstrated? (I'm no expert, but his figured and analysis look pretty solid to me) - by John Adams, mandatory seatbelt laws have made little difference to overall road safety, due mainly to risk compensation (feeling safer, drivers take more risks, negating the effect of the belt) and/or risk displacement (essentially, passing the risk on to those outside the car, i.e. occupants of other cars, cyclists and pedestrians) on the part of drivers.

This seems pertinent to me, as it has strong parallels with the current approach of many on the pro-compulsion side in the helmet debate (a tiny bit of science, a narrow frame of reference, no socio-cultural context, genuine good intentions, unintended consequences, etc.).

Your argument appears to rest in the belief that cycle helmets are an a priori good that just have an image problem. Are you still of that, um, opinion?

TinyExplosions · 28-03-2011 06:46PM

To put some figures on it, 59 cyclists were killed on the roads between 2002 and 2006. 73% of those were hit by HGV's, in which case a helmet would be useless. This leaves a maximum of 16 deaths in 4 years that could be saved by bringing in a mandatory helmet law (that's 4 deaths a year).

Now, not to belittle those lives, but if we were to bring in laws to save that many people, what about the 367 pedestrians that were killed in the same period. You can guarantee that at least 16 of them would have been saved if they wore helmets, so does that mean that you should have to wear a magic hat to go to the shops?

coolbeans · 28-03-2011 07:54PM

@ Opinion guy. I think that you are being deliberately intellectually lazy.
Let me get this straight. You haven't read the thread and therefore and have not considered the vary valid points made.
You also make the thread unnecessarily long by forcing others to repeat points that have already been made but you can't be bothered to go over. This is a waste of others' time.
You claim you have no time to read the thread but you seem to have plenty of time to dedicate to inane conjecture and balderdash.
You haven't read the statistical evidence kindly provided supporting the arguments being made here and you condemn others for using anecdotes when you yourself opened with an anecdote.
You continually ignore evidence even when it's pointed out to you in even the most indulgent and pedantic fashion
AND you fixate on one reason why helmet wearing is unattractive and proceed to raise it again and again despite ignoring the rest of the argument .
I think you should read the thread and consider the evidence and then come back with a worthy rebuttal or climbdown...if you can find the time.

tomasrojo · 28-03-2011 08:13PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Nope. But I do wear a seatbelt and half several airbags to protect me.

I find your complacency alarming. Surely you want as much protection as you can get?

http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/cars.htm

Head injuries to car drivers and passengers could be reduced by as much as 25% if they wore light protective helmets or even padded headbands, according to a research report released today by the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS).

The report presents findings from a two-year study on head and brain injuries among car occupants. It was jointly conducted by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit (University of Adelaide) and the Monash University Accident Research Centre.

The study found that bicycle-style helmets would be as effective as driver airbags in preventing head injuries, and would provide considerably greater head protection than many other in-vehicle options, such as improved interior padding, side-impact airbags or advanced seat-belt designs.

Professor Jack McLean, head of the Road Accident Research Unit, said that use of protective headwear could be a particularly valuable safety option for people with older cars, but even drivers with airbags would benefit significantly from the added protection.

And all you'd have to do to benefit from this extra protection is wear one of these every time you leave the house and get into your car:

I'm sure someone as hostile to vanity as yourself would have no problem.

irishmotorist · 28-03-2011 08:26PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

never mind the helmets, look at all those ridiculous day glow jackets

Yeah - did you see them? Exactly! Point proven (for another thread on another day anyway...)

Cookie_Monster · 28-03-2011 08:41PM

irishmotorist wrote: »

Yeah - did you see them? Exactly! Point proven (for another thread on another day anyway...)

and, shockingly enough, I can also see the parts of the person and bike not covered in lurid yellow too.

Do I get a prize for spotting them?

irishmotorist · 28-03-2011 08:51PM

I've been tuning in and out of this thread for a while and find the same old angry arguments being trotted out. Nearly all analogies that I've seen used are irrelevant in this discussion.

Cycling isn't the same as driving so there's no point asking if all drivers should wear helmets. There are different threats, risks and different existing safety features.

Cycling isn't the same as walking so asking if all pedestrians should wear helmets is, again, deflecting from the main point.

I've also seen people ask in the past if people should wear a helmet in the shower because they might slip and there is evidence of people dying like this in the past!

In my view, helmets are an important safety device. We are at risk as we're sharing road space with bigger, faster vehicles. I don't wear one just to protect myself from death, I wear it to try to reduce all head injuries that I might get. I don't need to see a 'study' that shows that wearing protective equipment on my head will provide this reduction. I did come off the bike once - taking a slippery corner too fast. My helmet walloped hard off the ground and while I would unlikely have died from it, I reckon I would have had a cut/bruising. I had a pretty deep rash on my hip and judging by the feeling in my ribs for 2-3 weeks afterwards, I did some damage around them too. While it was a trivial fall, my head (skin/hair etc.) did not make contact with the road but parts that did were injured.

I don't particularly think that making them compulsory is such a good idea. Dublin Bike uptake, for example, is a good thing and I can't imagine compulsory helmets working with that. I think that promoting the benefits of helmets to all is a good way to go though.

irishmotorist · 28-03-2011 08:55PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and, shockingly enough, I can also see the parts of the person and bike not covered in lurid yellow too.

Do I get a prize for spotting them?

Depending on the time of day (e.g. dusk/dawn), maybe you would get a prize. I've taken time recently to pay attention to cyclists/pedestrians around dawn and dusk and while quite often the person in darker clothing is visible, the person in the shocking yellow is much MORE visible. I know that I'd prefer to be noticed 100m away rather than 50m or 20m.

Anyway, sorry - I think I'm dragging this off topic...:o

tomasrojo · 28-03-2011 09:13PM

irishmotorist wrote: »

Cycling isn't the same as driving so there's no point asking if all drivers should wear helmets. There are different threats, risks and different existing safety features.

That's true in ways that put cars in a poor light as well as a good light. There's more to safety than passive safety devices, such as airbags and seat belts. Cars have relatively poor active safety characteristics: you can't wheel your car off the road and walk it through junctions you find tricky. Once you're on a collision course with something, the size of your vehicle makes it hard to avoid it. And, of course, the temptation to speed seems hard to resist for a lot of people.

It's also true that some people who die every year would survive if car occupants wore proper five-point harnesses, helmets and flame-retardant suits. That doesn't mean it's a good initiative.

irishmotorist wrote: »

Cycling isn't the same as walking so asking if all pedestrians should wear helmets is, again, deflecting from the main point.

But the head injury stat.s for cyclists and pedestrians is very similar. About 30% of members of both groups hospitalised have head injuries.

irishmotorist wrote: »

I've also seen people ask in the past if people should wear a helmet in the shower because they might slip and there is evidence of people dying like this in the past!

Well, it's true. People slipping in showers is a very common cause of head injuries. So is people falling down stairs. The point is cycling is being singled out when it's not even a common cause of head injuries, even when you compensate for the relatively small number of cyclists.

irishmotorist wrote: »

I think that promoting the benefits of helmets to all is a good way to go though.

What are those benefits though? Judging by the Australian and New Zealand experience, the benefits are too small to measure.

EDIT: I should point out that the number of head injuries incurred in the bathroom and on stairs would not be high if you filtered out individuals over 75 years of age, or thereabouts.

Idleater · 28-03-2011 09:37PM

irishmotorist wrote: »

Yeah - did you see them? Exactly! Point proven (for another thread on another day anyway...)

Without going down this route totally, I can wholeheartedly state that as a luminous jacket wearing motorbiker I have not noticed any change in driver recognition for luminous clothing attached to an approaching object- even including always on dipped headlights, and day or night, dusk or dawn.
Luminous clothing is almost as much a red herring as mandatory helmet use.

monument · 28-03-2011 10:07PM

irishmotorist wrote: »

In my view, helmets are an important safety device. We are at risk as we're sharing road space with bigger, faster vehicles. I don't wear one just to protect myself from death, I wear it to try to reduce all head injuries that I might get. I don't need to see a 'study' that shows that wearing protective equipment on my head will provide this reduction. I did come off the bike once - taking a slippery corner too fast. My helmet walloped hard off the ground and while I would unlikely have died from it, I reckon I would have had a cut/bruising. I had a pretty deep rash on my hip and judging by the feeling in my ribs for 2-3 weeks afterwards, I did some damage around them too. While it was a trivial fall, my head (skin/hair etc.) did not make contact with the road but parts that did were injured.

Why exactly should cyclist wear helmets and others should not? You're not giving any valid reasons here. Pedestrians also share road space with bigger, faster vehicles. Pedestrians are hit by cars, motorcycles and cyclists. People slip and fall all the time while walking and get "walloped" on their heads resulting in cut / bruising / death. Your injuries are from a single cyclist crash -- if cyclists were a danger to them self we'd see that in the stats from Denmark and the Netherlands where there are massive amounts of cyclists, the vast bulk of them without helmets, but yet we see very low cyclists deaths and injuries in those countries.

People also get head injuries in car. The difference between cycling and cars is that in cars you can wear far more effective motor racing like helmets. These could be of benefit even with air bags and safety belts. We could have them just mandatory for children who have yet to develop their skulls fully.

Why do you view cycling differently?

Cycling is not dangerous and there is no proof that there is any large number of cyclists who get head injuries.

doozerie · 28-03-2011 11:17PM

Idleater wrote: »

Without going down this route totally, I can wholeheartedly state that as a luminous jacket wearing motorbiker I have not noticed any change in driver recognition for luminous clothing attached to an approaching object- even including always on dipped headlights, and day or night, dusk or dawn.
Luminous clothing is almost as much a red herring as mandatory helmet use.

Similarly, despite the ridiculous amount of light that my current sets of lights (front and rear) generate I've still had people step/cycle/drive out in front of me and once I've skidded to a halt to avoid a collision and asked them why they did something so clearly ridiculous they swear blind that they never saw me.

Basically, if it is inconvenient for people to see you they'll simply choose to "not see you" no matter how visible you make yourself. That entirely selfish attitude is at the heart of many road accidents I'd imagine. And the responses that I have experienced in such situations invariably tend towards the culprits believing that it is entirely my responsibility to make myself visible to them and that they have no responsibility to make an effort to see me. It is a bizarre mindset and one that presumably does not stretch to road vehicles that are larger than them - they'd make sure that they noticed a heavy lorry heading towards them, I'd imagine.

The same mindset seems to be at the heart of some of the more ridiculous entries in that RSA "Top Tips" list posted earlier. The emphasis seems to be on cyclists making themselves ever more conspicuous - I'm certainly all in favour of making myself visible on the road but clearly other road users have a responsibility to notice me too (just as much as they have a responsibility to notice any non-cyclist road user). Sometimes it seems like that burden of responsibility is pushed more and more onto the cyclist and in the process relieving other road users of some part of their responsibility. The same attitude seems to be applied to motorcyclists too. There just seems to be some sort of automatic social acceptance that cars have a greater entitlement to road space than other forms of vehicle so other vehicles have to somehow earn their space on the road by going to increasingly ridiculous lengths to ensure that they are glaringly obvious to car drivers (e.g. "always wear high visibility clothing" regardless of time of day or weather conditions). Or maybe I'm just getting cynical about peoples' attitudes!

irishmotorist · 29-03-2011 06:53AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

What are those benefits though? Judging by the Australian and New Zealand experience, the benefits are too small to measure.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are the Australia and New Zealand stats to do with reduced cycling uptake when there is compulsory helmet wearing? I am obviously in the camp that thinks helmets do provide a valuable service so I think the benefits are reduced head injuries.

monument wrote: »

Why exactly should cyclist wear helmets and others should not? You're not giving any valid reasons here. Pedestrians also share road space with bigger, faster vehicles. Pedestrians are hit by cars, motorcycles and cyclists. People slip and fall all the time while walking and get "walloped" on their heads resulting in cut / bruising / death. Your injuries are from a single cyclist crash -- if cyclists were a danger to them self we'd see that in the stats from Denmark and the Netherlands where there are massive amounts of cyclists, the vast bulk of them without helmets, but yet we see very low cyclists deaths and injuries in those countries.

People also get head injuries in car. The difference between cycling and cars is that in cars you can wear far more effective motor racing like helmets. These could be of benefit even with air bags and safety belts. We could have them just mandatory for children who have yet to develop their skulls fully.

Why do you view cycling differently?

Cycling is not dangerous and there is no proof that there is any large number of cyclists who get head injuries.

I think that it is a good idea for cyclists to wear helmets. I didn't say that others should not. I stated that I thought comparing cyclists to other types of road users was not valid and this is because there are differences. You ask specifically about pedestrians. Well, pedestrians have their own space - the footpath. They are not regularly travelling at 20/30/40km/h on a shared surface with cars. These are differences that make this comparison useless, IMO. I think that the shared space and my speed on a bike give bigger risk. If something happens to me or I make a mistake at that speed, I think that I have a bigger risk of a problem than if I fell while I was walking.

Just on head injuries, my wife's cousin fell from a standing position (he passed out) a number of hears ago. He hit his head when he fell. After 3 days in a coma, he only recognised immediate family for the first number of weeks. Slowly things came back, but his personality and approach to life is different. He still has no sense of smell. This was a relatively simple fall but the way he hit his head, caused these problems.

On a bike, my head would be heading towards the ground at a similar speed. I'm probably unlikely to hit it in exactly the same way that he did, but I do believe that the helmet will reduce potential injuries. It won't stop them - it will reduce them.

I agree that cycling is not dangerous. It's the best thing in the world. It's the behaviour of cyclists and the people that we're near that cause all of the danger, with the minute exception of an unseen brick on the road. I have done and do make mistakes. I learn from them. Others make mistakes and hopefully they learn too. We've all seen cars cut across in front of us because they're in a hurry or didn't see us. We've all seen people step out onto the road in front of us because they didn't hear us so didn't look.

unionman · 29-03-2011 07:52AM

I usually avoid helmet threads (I wear one but don't think mandatory is the way to go) but I note fairly limited coverage of the RSA's campaign which launched yesterday.

From the 'cut and paste the press release' school of journalism:

Irish Independent

HGV Ireland with no specific mention of the high rate of fatalities attributable to left turning HGVs.

As many have already pointed out, the priority listing of safety advice on that RSA press release was fairly rubbish. I don't really see this debate moving on to a more progressive discussion about all road users responsibility to each other any time soon.

Meanwhile, the idea that cycling is dangerous gathers momentum.

Mucco · 29-03-2011 08:18AM

irishmotorist wrote: »

They are not regularly travelling at 20/30/40km/h on a shared surface with cars.

You're right, cars are the problem. 90% of Irish cyclist fatalities invlove another vehicle (car, HGV, motorbike).

Unionman wrote:

Meanwhile, the idea that cycling is dangerous gathers momentum.

That's the thing that annoys me about the helmet debate; it's all about how dangerous cycling is. The RSA press release is the same: I recommend emailing them to get them to change their stance.

ednwireland · 29-03-2011 08:30AM

An analysis of deaths and serious injuries among cyclists also reveals that just over half -- 51pc -- of fatal collisions occur in rural areas, and that most happen in daylight.

this made me laugh as i had been told off by someone i know for not having lights on (in daylight) because they hadnt seen me as they came over a blind crest on a country road at 80km/h, seems to me the RSA thinks that its all the cyclists fault.

obviously all my fault

The campaign, which will run on local and national radio stations over the next two weeks, hopes to educate cyclists on how to stay safe on the roads.

"This is an important awareness campaign for the RSA as cyclists continue to be vulnerable on our roads," said chief executive Noel Brett.

"We are reminding cyclists that it's everyone's responsibility to pay attention and stay safe on the roads.

unfortunately this campaign would be better if they had a campaign in paralell for other road users to look out for cyclists, give them room and be a little more patient

doozerie · 29-03-2011 08:45AM

irishmotorist wrote:

You ask specifically about pedestrians. Well, pedestrians have their own space - the footpath. They are not regularly travelling at 20/30/40km/h on a shared surface with cars. These are differences that make this comparison useless, IMO. I think that the shared space and my speed on a bike give bigger risk. If something happens to me or I make a mistake at that speed, I think that I have a bigger risk of a problem than if I fell while I was walking.

No discussion of helmets is ever black and white, partly because views differ so much but also partly because what you might presume to be logical assumptions are not always so logical. One assumption that I'm sure most people would think to be a safe one to make is that the increased speed of a cyclist versus a pedestrian makes a helmet of greater use to a cyclist in a fall. But one debate over the testing procedures for helmets described in the safety standards discusses the fact that they focus heavily on the ability of a helmet to absorb the shock of a direct fall on the helmet, the kind of fall which happens at low speed and where you essentially topple over onto your head - this is basically the kind of fall that pedestrians are at greatest risk of. There are some serious questions around whether helmet safety tests are really best suited to the helmets' real life use, which is yet another angle in the debate on helmets.

I wear a helmet too, but my faith in its ability to protect my head in a fall/crash is limited. I also share the view though that in certain scenarios the helmet may actually put me at greater risk of harm, for a variety of reasons. As such, for me my wearing a helmet is a bit of a gamble just like not wearing one is a bit of a gamble. Unfortunately, the debate around helmets tends mostly to focus on the "should you wear one or shouldn't you wear one" argument, but I think it would be of far greater benefit to everyone if it were to take a step back first and focus on whether current helmet designs really are best suited to their intended purpose. Well, to be honest I'd prefer if the debate took one huge step further back again, to focus on whether helmets are really a solution to a real problem or just window dressing, but while that topic does get discussed here I think that many outside of the cycling community would see that as a step too far and label it as crazy talk by the smelly lycra-wearing hippies who need to be protected from themselves.

tomasrojo · 29-03-2011 09:00AM

irishmotorist wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but are the Australia and New Zealand stats to do with reduced cycling uptake when there is compulsory helmet wearing? I am obviously in the camp that thinks helmets do provide a valuable service so I think the benefits are reduced head injuries.

Correcting for the diminished number of cyclists, there is no change in head injury rates for cyclists after the number of cyclists wearing helmets went from <40% to >80% in the space of a year.

So their benefit is either very small, or a complex of factors rendered them ineffective when applied to a whole population (and has done so in every jurisdiction so far where a helmet law has been enforced).

Compare the two graphs in this article. The first is head injury rates following a drink-driving crackdown. If the mandatory helmet laws had produced a graph like this, you would see it in every press release by Headway or the RSA. But what they got instead was the second graph.

The second is head injury rates for all road users following bicycle helmet laws. See if you could guess without the labels which line in the second graph represents cyclists and the date when helmet-wearing more than doubled.

http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2026.pdf

For the moment, waiting for further evidence, I'm going for Occam's Razor on this and assuming that the benefit is too small to be measured.

tomasrojo · 29-03-2011 09:12AM

And it continues:

Madam, – Your correspondents who have highlighted the dangers of brain injury from failing to wear a helmet while cycling are doubtless right in respect of the individual, but, paradoxically, may be wrong in societal terms.

One of the reasons helmets are not compulsory is the likely disincentive to cycling this would create. The greatest boon to cycling safety is numbers, both for increasing driver awareness of cycling, and creating a requirement for increased provision for safe cycling on our streets.

More detailed analysis of this issue is available at cyclehelmets.org. – Yours, etc,

MICHAEL CASSIDY,
Boulevard Malesherbes,
Paris,
France.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0329/1224293298040.html

doozerie · 29-03-2011 09:27AM

The Independent seems to be feeling neglected in this whole debate so they've published this article today which rehashes the guff from RSA. But, as is their way, the Independent have "helpfully" summarised their view of the real issue in the headline - here is a snippet, but I don't think a large enough font exists to convey the ranting nature of the first few lines:

Helmets halve risks of fatality
Cyclists urged to use their heads as safety campaign gets into gear

CYCLISTS who don't wear a helmet are twice as likely to be killed on the roads than those who use head protection.

And no, the subsequent article does not support the headline - presumably they expect most people to not bother with the long boring wordy bits of the paper so they just pick headlines out of a hat and apply them at random.

tomasrojo · 29-03-2011 09:43AM

The "twice as likely" statistic is for motorcyclists, I believe. I don't know how it's arrived at, but I've never heard it for cyclists.

The source in the article is "safety bosses":

Safety bosses said that cyclists who did not wear a helmet, which can cost as little as €20, were twice as likely to die

Cookie_Monster · 29-03-2011 09:43AM

Indo Article wrote:

Almost a quarter are killed on a Tuesday, and one in three collisions occur between 4pm and 7pm, or the evening rush-hour.

There you go, reduce your risk exposure by 25% by the simple step of not cycling on a Tuesday.

CYCLISTS who don't wear a helmet are twice as likely to be killed on the roads than those who use head protection.

but what the base line there though. Is the chance doubled from 0.00000001% to 0.00000002% of death for every KM covered or something? Meaningless statistic is meaningless.

tomasrojo · 29-03-2011 09:49AM

It might well be a meaningless statistic, but my concern would be that it's totally made up.

'Organ donors' without helmets

Comments