I have my mind changed about helmets!

[Red Light]

End of the day, evidence or not, coroner's report or not, court case or not, you as an individual chooses to wear one regardless of what other people think. If you don't wear one - that's cool. If you do - then that's cool too. Each and every one of us (me included) has our own opinions on the matter and it will be an argument to the end of time as to which is better. I personally wear one, although I don't have a go at others if they don't. Their head, not mine and by that, their decision. I don't understand why people get so arsed up about it. You aren't spending the money for those who want one to wear one, so why be bothered?

Why it matters is that while no-one is out there campaigning for a ban on helmets, there are plenty of people lobbying for them to be mandatory and it is creeping in through the back door - how many cycling events are left that don't require you to wear a helmet to take part? If it were left totally to individual choice I would be happy with a live and let live approach but when my freedom of choice is being increasingly curtailed and Ministers are being pilloried in the press for riding without a helmet, I will challenge the misinformation that claims:

- cycling in unusually dangerous
- cycling is an unusually productive source of head injuries
- cycle helmets reduce head injuries.

 

[Red Light]

Sorry but your the one who portrays himself as the expert here, not me.

I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion that I'm more at risk of a head injury going about my everyday life than I am riding a bicycle, so all I'm asking is for you to prove it with accurate statistical evidence.

Simple. Just take the being pedestrian aspect of everyday life and ignore the other significant causes of head injury from falls in the home, car accidents and physical assaults then:

Proportion of Road Casualties with Injuries to the Head/Face:

Age Pedestrians Cyclists
0-15 53% 40%
16-64 44% 36%
65+ 42% 32%
All Ages 46% 37%

Risk per Bn journey km

Death Serious Injury
Cyclist 24 541
Pedestrian 31 2001

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1414973"]
That doesn't even things out. This is about statistics, which in this situation aren't helpful.

Suggesting that there are head injury risks associated with walking down the road is deceptive without considering which groups the term pedestrian includes. And people don't appear to have this information.
[/quote]

No different to any other field of statistics. In the absence of specific evidence on sub-populations, assume the general population statistics apply.

 

[benb]

Brain surgeons and A&E doctors are totally unqualified to comment on the protection or otherwise of a piece of plastic.

True, I agree 100%

In many cases they are sponsored by big business - which influences both the drugs they use and the advice they give.

Offensive bullshit.

 

[benb]

...
Finally, I have to say that if I imagine hitting a hard and stationary object with my head at either 40mph or 60mph I can only think that I would sustain some serious injuries so it really is hats helmets off to these two posters to come away with such negligible injuries (or so I am led to believe) in the circumstances of their collisions.

FTFY

 

[Mark_Robson]

Simple. Just take the being pedestrian aspect of everyday life and ignore the other significant causes of head injury from falls in the home, car accidents and physical assaults then:

Proportion of Road Casualties with Injuries to the Head/Face:

Age Pedestrians Cyclists
0-15 53% 40%
16-64 44% 36%
65+ 42% 32%
All Ages 46% 37%

Risk per Bn journey km

Death Serious Injury
Cyclist 24 541
Pedestrian 31 2001

Do those statistics take into account the percentage of journeys per head of the population travelled on foot as opposed to the percentage of journeys per head of the population travelled by cycle? Because if they don't then those percentages don't reflect the true picture.

Also how do you factor in the percentage of cyclists who may have avoided serious head injury and a trip to A&E because they were wearing a helmet?

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1414978"]
No. When the inference is incorrect the stats become invalid.

For example, if 90% of 'pedestrians' acquiring head injuries are fighting drunks (no inference intended here) then it's wrong to suggest that walking along a pavement should compare with riding a bike when considering helmet use based on risk.
[/quote]

The data was compiled by the ONS for DfT as part of Reported Road Casualties Great Britain to investigate the known problem that the main tables do not include pedestrian accidents in which no vehicle was involved and therefore give an overly favourable view of the walking as a means of transport.

 

[gavroche]

I very rarely do 30mph on my bike, more like 25 on a good day!

 

[Red Light]

Do those statistics take into account the percentage of journeys per head of the population travelled on foot as opposed to the percentage of journeys per head of the population travelled by cycle? Because if they don't then those percentages don't reflect the true picture.

If you cared to read it its normalised to distance travelled in each mode. People on average walk for travel purposes about three times as far as they cycle (National Travel Survey) so if you want the annual exposure risk its about three times greater as a pedestrian compared to a cyclist as the per Bn km figures would suggest.

Also how do you factor in the percentage of cyclists who may have avoided serious head injury and a trip to A&E because they were wearing a helmet?

I don't because the two detailed papers by Paul Hewson looking into exactly this issue using the UK police and hospital datasets found there was no evidence that helmets made any difference at the population level meaning if there was such a percentage there was an equal percentage that suffered a head injury and went to A&E because they were wearing a helmet.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1414982"]
So it's about people crossing roads then as opposed to pedestrians generally. Well that's a start, as it removes some of the inference.
[/quote]

Why do you think that? About 15% are accidents on the pavement or on the road where the pedestrian is hit by a vehicle. The other 85% is pedestrians tripping and falling on uneven pavements, potholes, kerbs or even their own feet. I see no reason why those should only happen when crossing roads and understand the vast majority is trips on uneven pavements.

 

[sabian92]

Why it matters is that while no-one is out there campaigning for a ban on helmets, there are plenty of people lobbying for them to be mandatory and it is creeping in through the back door - how many cycling events are left that don't require you to wear a helmet to take part? If it were left totally to individual choice I would be happy with a live and let live approach but when my freedom of choice is being increasingly curtailed and Ministers are being pilloried in the press for riding without a helmet, I will challenge the misinformation that claims:

- cycling in unusually dangerous
- cycling is an unusually productive source of head injuries
- cycle helmets reduce head injuries.

[attachment=4080:Cycle Helmet Ad.png]

Because if there was a ban on them, then they'd have to ban motorcycle helmets as well, and that will never happen.

End of the day, banned or not, campaigns or not, people will do what they please. I don't see why people should be bothered about what other people do. I don't give one if you wear a helmet or not, that's your own choice, and I don't expect you care if I wear one or not.

 

[Red Light]

Because if there was a ban on them, then they'd have to ban motorcycle helmets as well, and that will never happen.

What has that got to do with the fact that no-one is campaigning for a ban on cycle helmets? There are lots of things that will never happen (although your logic here escapes me) yet it doesn't seem to prevent people campaigning for them.

End of the day, banned or not, campaigns or not, people will do what they please. I don't see why people should be bothered about what other people do. I don't give one if you wear a helmet or not, that's your own choice, and I don't expect you care if I wear one or not.

If only that were so. There are many leisure cycling events in the UK where I do not have freedom to do as I please - if I want to take part I have to wear a helmet. That has only happened because the helmet campaigners have pressured the organisers directly or indirectly. There are now several countries where I cannot cycle without a helmet and there have been several attempts to make that the situation here in the UK with partial success now in Jersey and a close call in Northern Ireland. If you chose to wear a helmet none of this bothers you because no-one is campaigning, lobbying and pressing to prevent you from exercising that choice. For me though my ability to exercise my choice is under constant threat and is being constantly eroded by the helmet lobby. And I am not prepared to sit by and let that happen.

 

[david k]

Strong evidence and if you are not aware of the evidence by now then perhaps you should do a little research into it first. Pedestrians have a much higher serious injury and death rate per journey km than cyclists and pedestrians have a much greater likelihood of suffering a head injury in those accidents (48%) than cyclists (38%). On a lifetime basis you are about 15-20 time more likely to suffer a serious head injury from a motor accident, trip, fall or assault than you are from cycling.

Sources: RRCGB 2009 Article 6 Table 6f and Main Report Table 52; Pedal Cyclist Casualties in Road Accidents 2007, DfT Road Accidents Fact Sheet No 4, 2008; Pedestrian Casualties in Road Accidents 2007, DfT Road Accidents Fact Sheet No 3, 2008.

are the walking injuries due to bumping your/their heads?

 

[david k]

Simple. Just take the being pedestrian aspect of everyday life and ignore the other significant causes of head injury from falls in the home, car accidents and physical assaults then:

Proportion of Road Casualties with Injuries to the Head/Face:

Age Pedestrians Cyclists
0-15 53% 40%
16-64 44% 36%
65+ 42% 32%
All Ages 46% 37%

Risk per Bn journey km

Death Serious Injury
Cyclist 24 541
Pedestrian 31 2001

is it possible that, presuming this to be accurate and true, that the fewer cycling injuries in respect of pedestrian injuries is because they are more likely to wear helmets.

With the stats being injuries/km this does not reflect time out walking/cycling. As most people cycle a km quicker than they walk a km the amount of time out doing the activity would be increasingly more if walking. If these stats were injuries/time then they would be more favorable towards pedestrians


Therefore does this stat help prove pro helmet wearing?

 

[ufkacbln]

It is really so simple.....

One asks if helmets can prevent or lessen the severity of a head injury.

One then looks at the next 100 casualties walking through the door of A / E .... and decides whether each head injury could have been less severe or avoided.

ALL the cohort studies suggest that wearing a helmet whilst drinking would give the best benefit by saving most victims.... the group which would show least benefit is always the cyclists!