The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Big Andy]

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.

I agree that the likelihood of an incident while cycling is also small although I believe not as small as when walking and depending on the type of cycling I may assess the risk acceptable to not wear a helmet, equally I may assess it such that I will wear a helmet. The important aspect is it is entirely my assessment which is as it should be. I would never dream of castigating anyone else for assessing differently.

 

[martint235]

I agree that the likelihood of an incident while cycling is also small although I believe not as small as when walking and depending on the type of cycling I may assess the risk acceptable to not wear a helmet, equally I may assess it such that I will wear a helmet. The important aspect is it is entirely my assessment which is as it should be. I would never dream of castigating anyone else for assessing differently.

Entirely true. However there are 300 pages of concern from other people that your assessment of the mitigating influence of a cycle helmet is based on non-existent, or worse false, data

 

[Big Andy]

There are a small number of pages of concern. Many pages of repeated posts and even more of pointless bickering. Sadly most of the pages in this thread contain nothing at all of benefit to the debate.

I thank you all for your concern though.

 

[MontyVeda]

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.

yeah but... the question was, What caused pedestrian head injuries to fall? The graph shows it, just as it shows cyclist's head injuries falling. You claim one is due to increasing helmet use, but the other?? Maybe it's due to the increasing popularity of slip on shoes or Velcro fastenings, no more pesky laces to trip over!

 

[Big Andy]

yeah but... the question was, What caused pedestrian head injuries to fall? The graph shows it, just as it shows cyclist's head injuries falling. You claim one is due to increasing helmet use, but the other?? Maybe it's due to the increasing popularity of slip on shoes or Velcro fastenings, no more pesky laces to trip over!

When it comes to cycling head injuries what does it matter what causes head injuries in an unrelated activity to fall? There is simply no data to make any judgement on pedestrian head injuries and it is not particularly relevent. The graph shows a rise in helmet use since 1984 and a corresponding fall in head injuries from 1985 onwards, it is an imperfect graph as we have no idea what the %age refers to. All we can deduce is that increased helmet wearing appears to have been followed by a decrease in head injuries, we can only surmise if the fall in head injuries is due to helmet use, there may and oprobably is other contributory factors, we simply do not know.

 

[ufkacbln]

Entirely true. However there are 300 pages of concern from other people that your assessment of the mitigating influence of a cycle helmet is based on non-existent, or worse false, data

There is false data


BHIT the British Helmet Initiative Trust was notorious for lying

Their emotive pleas to Parliament for compulsion in under 16s claimed that in fact compulsion would save more head injuries in this group than had occurred in ALL cyclists the previous year

Headway is another group who love to quote the figures for ALL cycling injuries and claim that they will be prevented by helmets... When in fact the majority were not head injuries in the first place

 

[ufkacbln]

When it comes to cycling head injuries what does it matter what causes head injuries in an unrelated activity to fall? There is simply no data to make any judgement on pedestrian head injuries and it is not particularly relevent. The graph shows a rise in helmet use since 1984 and a corresponding fall in head injuries from 1985 onwards, it is an imperfect graph as we have no idea what the %age refers to. All we can deduce is that increased helmet wearing appears to have been followed by a decrease in head injuries, we can only surmise if the fall in head injuries is due to helmet use, there may and oprobably is other contributory factors, we simply do not know.

None of whic explains the fact that helmet compulsion decreased the rate of decline

 

[martint235]

There are a small number of pages of concern. Many pages of repeated posts and even more of pointless bickering. Sadly most of the pages in this thread contain nothing at all of benefit to the debate.

I thank you all for your concern though.

So it doesn't bother you that your risk mitigation is unfounded? Please don't get a job where risk mitigation is mission critical

 

[Big Andy]

None of whic explains the fact that helmet compulsion decreased the rate of decline

No it doesnt. What may explain the decreased rate of decline is simply it will not be a linear relationship. You will never eliminate head injuries while cycling even if every cycle journey was done wearing a helmet so it is not unexpected that the rate of decline will decrease.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Just back from a five week tour; I was surprised at the number of people wearing helmets in Germany, I'd say 75% of riders we saw on segregated cycle routes (mostly bimbling along) were, then in northern Italy I'd guess only about 30% with lids, including quite a few mountain bikers and families (although another 10% seemed to have one in a basket or hanging off a rucksack for some reason).
Not drawing any conclusions but I expected Germany to be more like the Netherlands when it came to helmets/utility cycling, mind you we did pass a lake there where people were pottering about in Canadian canoes who were all wearing kayaking lids.

 

[jonny jeez]

Page 313.

Wow.

So, is anyone able to summarise ...objectively...what the score is.

Is there relevant, solid data to prove or disprove the effectiveness of helmets.

 

[srw]

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.

In a word, yes.

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

In a word, yes.

Demonstrably, the risk of serious injury while walking is similar to that while cycling. The risk of serious injury while skiing is far higher than that while cycling.

When I cycle, people ask whether I'm going to wear a helmet, and tell me off or gasp in amazement when I say no. When I say I'm going for a walk they say "have a nice time". When other people say they're going skiing they are wished a nice holiday. I'm in the minority in wishing others a safe, injury-free holiday.

 

[srw]

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.

To be fair you can read the graph to illustrate that a very small increase in helmet wearing among cyclists is associated with a reasonably small drop in head injuries among both cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[srw]

I agree that the likelihood of an incident while cycling is also small although I believe not as small as when walking and depending on the type of cycling I may assess the risk acceptable to not wear a helmet, equally I may assess it such that I will wear a helmet. The important aspect is it is entirely my assessment which is as it should be. I would never dream of castigating anyone else for assessing differently.

That's kind of you - but my experience of this thread and real life is that you're unusual. I assess risk professionally - but my (non-risk-assessing) colleagues are amongst the most castigatory.

 

[srw]

Page 313.

Wow.

So, is anyone able to summarise ...objectively...what the score is.

Is there relevant, solid data to prove or disprove the effectiveness of helmets.

To prove - no.
To disprove - it's mounting.