The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

You must be looking at a different graph to me then. 1984 helmet wearing increasing, head injuries falling.

which amazingly appears to show the same decrease for pedestrians too... how does that work?

 

[Big Andy]

which amazingly appears to show the same decrease for pedestrians too... how does that work?

who knows but as its a completely different activity its not particularly relevent to cycling, just as the stats for helmet wearing while skateboarding, skydiving and potholing are not particularly relevent.

 

[Brandane]

Just tried to sign up to a local(ish) social cycling group; West Coast Velo.. Did all the usual registering nonsense only to find that helmets are compulsory on rides . As a matter of principle, that's me OUT (despite the fact that I do own a plastic hat). Why, why, WHY do they insist on this nonsense? The obvious answer is insurance, but then they also insist that you have membership of BC (which I have) or CTC, both of which provide insurance anyway. Insert shakey head smiley here. Or the "FFS" one .

 

[EnPassant]

who knows but as its a completely different activity its not particularly relevent to cycling, just as the stats for helmet wearing while skateboarding, skydiving and potholing are not particularly relevent.

Well no, they aren't the same activity.
Relevant though? As somebody who thought pretty much the same until I visited this place, the discussion here did rather make me wonder why it seems to be that when somebody injures their head when not on a bike, there isn't an almighty clamour that they should have been wearing a helmet.

Pedestrians and car drivers unfortunate enough to get a head injury aren't then faced with being questioned as to why they weren't wearing a helmet. The point, isn't that the activities are the same, or even similar, but that there is all this hullabaloo and even in some places enforced compulsion for riding a bike, but not for those unrelated activities. Why not?

 

[Big Andy]

Well no, they aren't the same activity.
Relevant though? As somebody who thought pretty much the same until I visited this place, the discussion here did rather make me wonder why it seems to be that when somebody injures their head when not on a bike, there isn't an almighty clamour that they should have been wearing a helmet.

Pedestrians and car drivers unfortunate enough to get a head injury aren't then faced with being questioned as to why they weren't wearing a helmet. The point, isn't that the activities are the same, or even similar, but that there is all this hullabaloo and even in some places enforced compulsion for riding a bike, but not for those unrelated activities. Why not?

Surely we all do a risk assessment when we undertake any activity, I certainly do, I do not consider the risks of unrelated activities to that which I am about to conduct though. Does anyone?? Surely not.

I wonder if that as cyclists we are just a bit hyper-sensitive on this subject. Is there really that much of a hullabaloo??

 

[snorri]

who knows but as its a completely different activity its not particularly relevent to cycling, just as the stats for helmet wearing while skateboarding, skydiving and potholing are not particularly relevent.

It would be relevant if the pedestrians were being injured by cyclists who had become more reckless since being forced to wear bombproof hats, risk compensation in action.
However, I think the graphs raise more questions than answers.

 

[snorri]

Is there really that much of a hullabaloo??

Yes, absolutely.

 

[mjr]

You must be looking at a different graph to me then. 1984 helmet wearing increasing, head injuries falling.

Helmet use on that graph isn't shown before 1984, so it's hard to say it's increasing there and you do seem to be looking at a different graph to me.

1985 maybe, but as both cycling and pedestrian rates are falling, probably all three are correlated simply with something else such as roads improvement or increased law enforcement or something.

But as several others note, what are the injury rates there? % of casualties having a head injury, or something else. Not a great graph, as so often the case with helmet stats. There seems to be something about helmet promotion attracts the innumerate.

 

[EnPassant]

Surely we all do a risk assessment when we undertake any activity, I certainly do, I do not consider the risks of unrelated activities to that which I am about to conduct though. Does anyone?? Surely not.

I wonder if that as cyclists we are just a bit hyper-sensitive on this subject. Is there really that much of a hullabaloo??

Well, somewhere above is my post about changing my mind, probably 100 pages ago now though even though it was only a couple of months ago. Risk assessment is exactly the point though, in order to assess it, you must know definitively what it is, be able to measure or quantify it and what the piece of equipment you are considering does exactly to mitigate that risk.
This isn't easy in general as I'm sure @srw can say since iirc it's what he does for a living in an unrelated area. One could say this whole thread is about that assessment.

And I'm not casting any kind of aspersion here, lord knows I did much the same myself, but do you conduct a risk assessment when going for a walk and conclude you'd be safer with a helmet than not? Do you do so when you get in a car?

It's my view that yes, there is that much of a hullabaloo, and cyclists are consequently hyper-sensitive to it. There has been no attempt anywhere in the world to compel people to wear helmets as pedestrians or as car drivers (ETA: of which I am aware). If I am unfortunate enough to hit my head doing one of these 3 activities, why is it that my choice of headgear will only be called into question by such as police officers or A&E staff when doing only one of them? The last thing anyone needs is to be told it's partly your own silly fault, and all the more galling if that is based on an incorrect assumption.

 

[Big Andy]

It would be relevant if the pedestrians were being injured by cyclists who had become more reckless since being forced to wear bombproof hats, risk compensation in action.
However, I think the graphs give rise to as more questions than answers.

Possibly. Is there any evidence of that though.

I agree that particular graph doesnt really have enough information.

 

[Big Andy]

Helmet use on that graph isn't shown before 1984, so it's hard to say it's increasing there and you do seem to be looking at a different graph to me.

1985 maybe, but as both cycling and pedestrian rates are falling, probably all three are correlated simply with something else such as roads improvement or increased law enforcement or something.

But as several others note, what are the injury rates there? % of casualties having a head injury, or something else. Not a great graph, as so often the case with helmet stats. There seems to be something about helmet promotion attracts the innumerate.

Perhpas I should have said helmet wearing is increasing from 1984, although I thought ut was pretty clear that was what I meant, apologies for not being clearer. Yes there is important data markers missing from the graph, however it was introduced to show that wearing a helmet didnt reduce the number of head injuries while that is one thing it most definitely doesnt support.

 

[mjr]

Yes there is important data markers missing from the graph, however it was introduced to show that wearing a helmet didnt reduce the number of head injuries while that is one thing it most definitely doesnt support.

The post 1991 section appears to support that (very big rise in helmet use while the injury % bobbles around almost level) while the earlier bit doesn't. Some people of each view seem to be ignoring the bit of the graph that disagrees with them.

 

[Big Andy]

And I'm not casting any kind of aspersion here, lord knows I did much the same myself, but do you conduct a risk assessment when going for a walk and conclude you'd be safer with a helmet than not? Do you do so when you get in a car?

Risk assessment is more than just is it safer, its also about how much safer and how much the risk is mitigated and als the liklihood of an incident. So yes i assess going for a walk wearing a helmet is safer, the liklihood of an incident is tiny, and the increase in safety is marginal enough that I choose not to wear a helmet. Similar to when cycling, depending on the route, which bike, planned distance and speed I may assess the risk ti be either worth wearing a helmet or otherwise.

 

[EnPassant]

Risk assessment is more than just is it safer, its also about how much safer and how much the risk is mitigated and als the liklihood of an incident.

Sure. Agreed.

So yes i assess going for a walk wearing a helmet is safer, the liklihood of an incident is tiny, and the increase in safety is marginal enough that I choose not to wear a helmet. Similar to when cycling, depending on the route, which bike, planned distance and speed I may assess the risk ti be either worth wearing a helmet or otherwise.

The entire 300 odd pages here are about this. The hard evidence I can find appears to be that the likelihood of an incident on a cycle is also small, that it will involve your head smaller still and that current cycle helmets will do little if anything to mitigate it (they meet a lower standard than they used to, no manufacturer headlines any prophylactic data in their advertising etc).
I wore one, I now don't. But this doesn't mean I wouldn't change back if the data says I should. Currently my risk assessment says don't wear one of those that are approved as of today.
I'm actually pretty ambivalent about them personally, wearing or not wearing one doesn't really bother me, so I choose based on that current assessment, nothing else.
I try not to act on incorrect evidence or when somebody says I should based on faulty data (or worse, what is essentially emotional blackmail backed up by faulty data). There are 300+ pages here, and more elsewhere that I have considered whilst trying to make that assessment, it's not been that simple.

 

[Tin Pot]

The post 1991 section appears to support that (very big rise in helmet use while the injury % bobbles around almost level) while the earlier bit doesn't. Some people of each view seem to be ignoring the bit of the graph that disagrees with them.

Quite.

Plus, correlation != causation.