Helmets stop people cycling

[Tango]

I don't think anyone denies that cycle helmets can provide some protection in some limited circumstances. If you were to bother to read the many threads on the subject of cycle helmets on Cycle Chat, you would be able to read that. But that is not the question here. The question is "Do helmets stop people from cycling?" By portraying cycling as a dangerous activity do we put people off doing it? If we do, does the health disbenefit exceed the health benefit afforded by helmets etc etc etc.

And if they did put people off it would be a shame

As said earlier, I apologies for taking it off at a tangent, but some of the replies are just daft

Life jackets and Bradley jumping off a bridge ..........

 

[Tango]

Incredible.......

 

[bianchi1]

If you want to understand the evidence around the efficacy of cycle helmets, I suggest you readwww.cyclehelmets.org - then you might be in a position to contribute to the conversation from a point other than ignorance.

To be fair this is an utterly biased, crap website that offers nothing more than lazy commentary on articles that they don't seem to fully understand.

 

[bianchi1]

I was referring to the original cases where they ended up out of pocket.

The fact that they will reclaim this from policy holders is a given.

So you will pay more not to wear a helmet? Still a choice.

 

[mcshroom]

Can someone find those photos of Sir Bradley not wearing his helmet? They are quite well known.

Do you want after the Olympic TT: -

Or with his son (also sans magic hat) from the TdF?

 

[mcshroom]

To be fair this is an utterly biased, crap website that offers nothing more than lazy commentary on articles that they don't seem to fully understand.

Ooh, I think that's worth an evidence request

 

[ufkacbln]

Dear oh dear

If Bradley wiggins has to wear a helmet, then so should I

If Lewsi Hamilton wears one, should car drivers?

My question, that ain't been answered sufficiently just skated round a bit, is this.

Does wearing a helmet offer more protection than not wearing one?

Yes, I accept I may have missed the original crux of the thread, but a simple answer to the above would be great

There is no simple answer.... unlike the one I asked you about whether you would question the common sense of a dazed pedestrian not having worn a helmet?

One paper by Rivara et al (Inj Prev 1999;5:194-197 doi:10.1136/ip.5.3.194
Fit of bicycle safety helmets and risk of head injuries in children) showed that:

Individuals whose helmets were reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold increased risk of head injury compared with those whose helmets fit well

In other words wearing a poorly fitting helmet causes injury

Then there is the issue of "snag points" - I will let you google that one for yourself

However if helmets work, the question arising from the original post that needs to be answered is from the Australian experience:

Cyclist head injuries reduced following the introduction of compulsion

The number of cyclists also decreased (proving the point of the original post)

However the two did not correlate as the reduction in head injuries was less than the reduction in the number of cyclists. The remaining cyclists were actually suffering MORE head injuries than prior to compulsion.

In Australia, not only did Compulsion actually stop people cycling, but also made head injuries more likely!

 

[redcard]

Got to admire their honesty

Read these reports, they're probably pro-helmet and a bit rubbish, whereas these other ones are a bit awesome.

 

[bianchi1]

Says who?

It's a web-site that is produced and moderated by internationally respected academics and experts. You simply don't like it because it doesn't agree with your views.

But perhaps you can amuse enlighten us by giving us your credentials to comment on whether or not they know their stuff?

From their website:

Whilst cyclehelmets.org strives to be objective in its selection of information for presentation, there is more helmet-sceptic material on this web site than that supportive of helmets. This is in part a matter of copyright (we provide references to journals but cannot generally give direct access), but largely because there is a far wider range of arguments and sources that cast doubt upon one or more aspects of helmet efficacy. cyclehelmets.org is not helmet-sceptic on principle, but because pro-helmet predictions are so often contradicted by real-world experience.

I hadn't realised that copyright was the deciding argument in helmet usage!

Most of the research they quote is from the 1980s to 90s

"Dorsch, 1987 -90% fatalities
Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1989 -85% head injuries, -88% brain injuries
Wasserman, 1990 -29% concussions, -82% skull fractures
McDermott, 1993 -39% head injuries,
but no significant reduction for adults
Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, 1996 -69% head injuries, -65% brain injuries"

If I used references like these in an Essay it would fail!

And their review of Elvic's paper is WRONG In places.

For example they say Elvic states

Elvik notes that while, on the one hand, studies have predicted large benefits from the use of cycle helmets, large increases in helmet use brought about by helmet laws have not always shown a clear decline in head injuries to cyclists. This could be due to selective recruitment – that the most cautious and safety-minded cyclists with a lower rate of accident involvement are the first to start wearing helmets – or because of behavioural adaptation (or risk compensation), whereby helmeted cyclists feel safer and thereby ride less safely


While the actual article states

Another possible reason why the aggregate effects of bicycle helmets could be smaller than expected on the basis of individ- ual effects is behavioural adaptation. Once helmeted, cyclists might feel better protected and adopt more risky riding behaviour. While this cannot be ruled out, there is no direct evidence for it and performing a convincing study of such behavioural adaptation would be very difficult.

Lazy, lazy stuff. GCSE level at best I'm afraid....but if it makes you happy go ahead.

My advice ...stop using Google. if you don't have access to a wide range of journals try Google scholar. Less crap.

Edit...changed quote for correct one...I'm as lazy as that website!

 

[bianchi1]

Here's a thought, seeing as you seem to know all about this research thing, why don't you stop asking people to provide evidence for you and start finding it for yourself?

Yay...a double team from Adrian and the User.

In order for me to provide evidence I need to know what I am being asking to prove!!!!

That website is junk! They say it themselves!!

 

[bianchi1]

One at a time boys!

Adrian. If you choose to read the thread my assertion is that individuals should have the choice to do what they want. I wear a helmet if I'm out out on a road ride, race whatever, but often do not if nipping to the shops or pub. My interest in the thread has been purely in reading some of the interesting (peer reviewed) articles posted by other users (sadly not you)

User. What's the obsession with an individuals credentials? I'm a chef....does that mean I can't understand or see the difference between a peer reviewed article and a 'first hit' website from google.

 

[bianchi1]

So you're commenting from a point of ignorance then. So much so that you don't even realise that would you're holding up as flaw int eh web-site is actually the authors engaging in good research practice...

That makes no sense!!

 

[bianchi1]

So you're commenting from a point of ignorance then. So much so that you don't even realise that what you're holding up as a flaw in the web-site is actually the authors engaging in good research practice...

Better! Is it time to put down the vino!

But seriously, the people who run the website are not 'authors' engaging in research practice, they just comment on other people's research, well that they have the copyright of, and report the bits that they agree with, ignoring the stuff that they don't.

Even a chef knows the difference between primary and secondry sources !

 

[ComedyPilot]

I ride 'oben ohne' as they say in German

I don't wear a helmet, don't feel the need to (ever) so don't see the point of wearing a plastic pudding bowl on my head.

However, in my dim yet not too distant past, I have participated in sportives and TT'ing. (I say participate, as me competing would be stretching it a bit). As such these activities/sports require helmet use to participate - their rules, so I obliged to gain permission to participate.

I do most of my riding as a commuter, leisure, social, fitness and touring cyclist. None of these activities are dangerous (apart from other people's driving) and as such I have the absolute pleasure of riding with the wind/rain/sleet/snow in my hair/cotton cap/bobble hat.

Would helmet compulsion stop me riding.....?

Not at first. I would ride on regardless, doing what I do normally/safely. However, should I get fined for not wearing one, then yes, I would stop.........

And after the years of pleasure it's given me, the amount of time and money invested in my passion, the countless thousands of miles covered, that is a sad thing IMO.

 

[bianchi1]

Don't worry Adrian. Bianchi has googled 'research' and come across some phrases, such as 'peer reviewed', 'primary evidence' and 'secondary evidence'. He doesn't actually understand what they mean but thinks that if he sprinkles his posts with them they'll somehow lend his posts some credibility...

Or I could just post phrases such as

"So much so that you don't even realise that would you're holding up as flaw int eh web-site is actually the authors engaging in good research practice..."

That's a credible post!