Helmets stop people cycling

[mcshroom]

I thought most of us (Reg excluded for being hostile pretty much from the start) were being pretty respectful considering his opening gambit was that it was all simple physics and we were all being thick. I'd say he was a helmet evangelist through lack of consideration, and some of us were asking him questions to make him consider the basis of his beliefs.

It's hard to follow everything in this thread though as, like normal, we ended up with a few different discussions. I was surprised to be discussing the finer points of Elvik's review with bianchi1 (considering the main point of Roger Geffen's piece was the 20:1 benefit:disbenefit ratio of cycling and this thread was originally about whether helmets discouraged cycling). I think it was interesting to get some of the other papers posted and discussed in that section though.

 

[StuartG]

Its a bit low to accuse people of puppetsocketry without evidence. The chances of being wrong are not small. Seeking to destroy discussion by discrediting the poster and not their arguement may not be the finest way of winning friends and influencing people.

Reg - if and when you suspect it - would it not be more helpful to report it to the mods who are in a much better position to judge and, if necessary, take action?

 

[screenman]

Answer to the title question, yes just like helmets stopped people riding motorbikes and wearing seat belts stopped people driving.

Just seen a slight flaw in my above statement, there are more people doing both now than when the laws were passed, who would ever have guessed.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Surely the only people that can answer this are people that are in one of the following camps:

1 - People who cycle without helmet and will stop if legislated/fined. (could affect mostly UK riders)

2 - People who won't cycle because of helmet legislation (could affect Australian riders)

People who cycle now wearing helmets in an un-legislated country (swivel eyed loons though they are ) aren't going to reduce or stop their cycling activity. People who won't cycle till helmet legislation comes in are frankly bonkers anyway, and don't deserve their place at the debating table.

 

[ufkacbln]

Answer to the title question, yes just like helmets stopped people riding motorbikes and wearing seat belts stopped people driving.

Just seen a slight flaw in my above statement, there are more people doing both now than when the laws were passed, who would ever have guessed.

So you are saying that introducing motorcycle helmets was worthwhile because of the reduction in the number of head injuries?

Lets make the point clear.

 

[ufkacbln]

Answer to the title question, yes just like helmets stopped people riding motorbikes and wearing seat belts stopped people driving.

Just seen a slight flaw in my above statement, there are more people doing both now than when the laws were passed, who would ever have guessed.

Are you really unaware of the evidence from Australia, the US, Canada and Spain that all show reduced numbers of cyclists.

Australia is actually very interesting as decrease in the number of cyclists was not reflected in a decrease in head injuries. When corrected for the decrease in cyclists, the frequency of head injuries actually increased!

 

[StuartG]

You also need to take into account those that never start cycling because helmets imply its more dangerous than it is. You should also take into account that helmets are effectively already mandatory in the UK for beginners (school rules, many bikeability courses, under 18 Sky riders ...) not to mention peer pressure.

How much has this already suppressed cyclist numbers?

 

[ufkacbln]

Your prize is a big, sloppy kiss from me when we next meet.

I am counting on a long time to prepare for that.

Of course a full face helmet would offer some protection!

 

[bianchi1]

I thought most of us (Reg excluded for being hostile pretty much from the start) were being pretty respectful considering his opening gambit was that it was all simple physics and we were all being thick. I'd say he was a helmet evangelist through lack of consideration, and some of us were asking him questions to make him consider the basis of his beliefs.

It's hard to follow everything in this thread though as, like normal, we ended up with a few different discussions. I was surprised to be discussing the finer points of Elvik's review with bianchi1 (considering the main point of Roger Geffen's piece was the 20:1 benefit:disbenefit ratio of cycling and this thread was originally about whether helmets discouraged cycling). I think it was interesting to get some of the other papers posted and discussed in that section though.

It is a shame that some on this forum gang up on new members, that's the nature of these things I guess.

Back to helmet wearing rates and cycling a good paper here has some nice data (sadly over 10 years old)

http://cycle-helmets.com/uk-helmet-surveys.pdf

I would be interested to see if anyone has added to this work.

 

[young Ed]

all im going to say about wearing helmets is that i always will and always have worn a helmet i have NEVER let my bike touched the road without me wearing my helmet! im not saying that a helmet will protect you from every thing as i lost one of my best friends at the young age of 13 years old due to a bicycle accident hit by a stupid car driver fiddling with their satnav and hit her side on she flew i believe 50 metres through the air not really sure what body part she landed on but died whilst wearing correctly fitted helmet. but from minor knocks and accidents i beleive it may save me so i shall continue to wear a helmet
End Of Post
Cheers Ed

 

[mcshroom]

Do you wear one while walking where the same knocks and accidents are can just as easily be achieved? If not, why not?

 

[snorri]

End Of Post
Cheers Ed

You're welcome, young Ed.
Let's just hope the freedom remains to wear or not to wear.

 

[bianchi1]

Do you wear one while walking where the same knocks and accidents are can just as easily be achieved? If not, why not?

I keep hearing this argument. Who are all these walkers suffering head injuries? Is the main group in the data pedestrians who are hit by cars?

 

[mcshroom]

I keep hearing this argument. Who are all these walkers suffering head injuries? Is the main group in the data pedestrians who are hit by cars?

The injury rates were assessed by Powell et al. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9710864?log$=activity
Total number of head injuries caused to pedestrians can be found here - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html

 

[bianchi1]

The injury rates were assessed by Powell et al. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9710864?log$=activity
Total number of head injuries caused to pedestrians can be found here - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html

Do you have a link to the PDF of the work as the abstract isnt much use. It is also data from nearly 20 years old! And just to clarify these are people walking for exercise rather than generally getting about.

The link you supply to the cyclehelmets org does not show the head injury data for pedestrians, it shows the head injury data for pedestrians under 16.