Research into helmet compulsion

[col]

So, we've proven that in impacts that lead to no injuries at all, helmets successfully slightly lessen the temporary and very mild pain, and do not contribute to more injuries. Also note that in such a test a thick wooly jumper performs best.

Unless you're expecting to wildly extrapolate from this data and claim that helmets will always reduce the severity of injuries in every type of accident. In which case one can also extrapolate the wooly jumper data point and claim that this will perform even better than a helmet in reducing both the number and severity of injuries.

Of course, this experiment suffers from the same problems as the experiment suggested by Crankarm before. In order to test whether the helmet does indeed prevent or reduce minor (or even major) injuries, one has to be willing to subject oneself to those injuries. I'm guessing there'll be no takers for that.

I think when there is an impact no matter what the speed, it will be lessened even slightly with a cushion of something. Like Iv said before, only some or even a minority of impacts, but you seem to insist on including every type of accident, which isnt what I am talking about.
So do the test until some injury occurs without any protection, if you want?
Personally I dont need to try that as Im pretty sure of the outcome.

 

[Crankarm]

As a cyclist. I'm not really interested in pedestrian safety althought it has it's place I feel it is simply an irrelevance in the cycle helmet debate. You ride a bike toward me at 15-20mph and I drive toward you at 25-30 mph. Or we do the same at 90 degs converging so you hit the front near side wing/bonnet to simulate either of us pulling out of a junction prematurely.

 

[Bollo]

Last word from me on this, I promise.

What grips my sheet about the helmet argument is that its used as a moral lever. How often have you read a report of a cyclist down in a paper where, somewhere in the text, the phrase -"The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" appears. I might be over-sensitive, but the subtext reads "No helmet! He/she f***** well deserved to be offed by the drunken, disqualified, uninsured texting driver."

As previous posters have said, there's no legal basis for contributory negligence for cyclists injured while riding without a helmet. I also have a big problem with arguments based on moral or emotional arguments - that you somehow deserve your injuries because you're not lidded. Helmet use is not a question of morality, and the helmet debate distracts from the real issues that determine whether cycling is safe and can be made safer.

I get particularly tetchy when helmets are used to judge the abilities of a cyclist to ride safely and considerately. The cyclist who RLJed and hit me last month while I was crossing on foot was wearing a helmet. Was he a good, safe cyclist? When I was hit in 2007, the ambo driver's only question to me was "why don't you wear a helmet?". Not "what happened?" or "where does it hurt?". The lack of helmet gave him a nice neat pidgeon hole in which to place my abilities as a cyclist. No further thought or understanding required.

 

[ufkacbln]

As a cyclist. I'm not really interested in pedestrian safety althought it has it's place I feel it is simply an irrelevance in the cycle helmet debate. You ride a bike toward me at 15-20mph and I drive toward you at 25-30 mph. Or we do the same at 90 degs converging so you hit the front near side wing/bonnet to simulate either of us pulling out of a junction prematurely.

Why is it an irrelavance - if you are really intersted in preventing head injuries, why not learn from the lessons?

It is inconvenient that all the "tests" have proved both groups would benefit, but dismissing pedestrians is far easier than discussing the issues.

As for the tests.... we are again in a realm where you are proving nothing - again what is the EnCap rating of the car you are using?

We can prove that I would be safer and have less injuries to my limbs, pelvis abdomen and head if you were driving a Citroen C4 (5* adult safety rating, 4* child) than if you drive a Jeep Cherokee ( ADult 0*, Child 0*).

So utilising your "test" we actually have proof that removing certain cars from the road would be a fair assessment of the results, and a benefit to cyclist and pedestrian safety.......

 

[ufkacbln]

Yehuda Moon!

 

[MacB]

My biggest accident was downhill at 25-30mph.

I was young and foolish, and thought it a good idea to bomb between two lanes of slow-moving traffic. The inevitable happened and someone changed lanes in front of me. I hit their front wing, completely cleared their bonnet and head-butted the road. The impact speed was certainly well above 12mph.

The helmet did its job of absorbing impact by crushing. It ended up with barely more than the thickness of the shell. I had a slight concussion.

I would not have liked to have attempted those aerobatics without a helmet.

So yes, highly effective up to 12mph and progressively less effective at higher speeds, but far from useless.

Surely the best safety measure that could be taken here, would be not to cycle in that manner? I'm not hearing a pro helmet arguement I'm hearing a 'learn to cycle properly' one.

Cranky, you are trying to suggest setting up a deliberate crash using another cyclist as a volunteer. You'd obviously like to utilise one of the helmet naysayers for this experiment. I'm getting a sense of a desire to punish those that don't agree with you. While I can understand this I do feel ramming them with a car is a bit excessive.

All they're really saying is that cycling carries no more dangers than many other activities. The logic you're following is of the 'better safe than sorry' variety. It also ignores, or dimisses, the possibility of injury being caused, or exacerbated, by the safety wear. If I go along with your logic chain then there's a long list of activities I'd have to kit myself out differently for. Gardening, diy, any form of exercise, cooking, ironing, driving, in fact almost everything I do.

 

[Crankarm]

Surely the best safety measure that could be taken here, would be not to cycle in that manner? I'm not hearing a pro helmet arguement I'm hearing a 'learn to cycle properly' one.

Yes but also Ben Lovejoy is commenting on how his helmet protected/reduced inury to his head irrespective of the merits of his cycling manoevres that brought about his unscheduled disembarkation.

Cranky,.....

Please don't call me Cranky. I wouldn't want you getting too familiar . We share the same forum that is all.

......you are trying to suggest setting up a deliberate crash using another cyclist as a volunteer. You'd obviously like to utilise one of the helmet naysayers for this experiment. I'm getting a sense of a desire to punish those that don't agree with you. While I can understand this I do feel ramming them with a car is a bit excessive.

I'm suggesting that given the naysayers support the view that helmets are of no benefit and that those who wear or advocate them are misinformed then we can carry out some experiements to try to provide some definitive evidence to try to disprove their hypothesis. I have no intention of indiscriminately ramming any cyclist not least those partaking in the test. They could also avail themselves of other body armour if they wish since it is the head and helmet protection we are putting to the test. After all it would be ungenerous to afford some one any protection they felt suitable that had no bearing on the parameters being measured.

All they're really saying is that cycling carries no more dangers than many other activities.

Activities such as?

The logic you're following is of the 'better safe than sorry' variety.

Yep that's about it. Common sense tells me to put something on my head such as a helmet with a layer of polystyrene and plastic to protect it when I go out on my bike.

It also ignores, or dimisses, the possibility of injury being caused, or exacerbated, by the safety wear.

None of the helmets I have purchased have ever caused me harm or injury. I suppose if I left it on the stairs then decided to indulge myself in a midnight feast and negotiated the stairs in the dark I might have something to report to you . Didn't those campaigning against seatbelts come up with this sort of logic that seatbelts themselves would lead to an increase in injuries and fatalities?

If I go along with your logic chain then there's a long list of activities I'd have to kit myself out differently for. Gardening, diy, any form of exercise, cooking, ironing, driving, in fact almost everything I do.

I know...... the modern world is such a death trap:- electric mowers, hedge trimmers, drills, power saws, skiing, rugby, football, running, not forgetting cycling, knives, stoves, hot oil in pans, stability of ironing boards, irons over heating, (not that I iron anything anyway ), driving whoah now we're getting positively life threatening, air bags, full face crash helmet, fire retardant suit and gloves, 4 point harness. It takes me an age to do anything getting dressed up to tackle any hazard I might encounter. Do you find you have the same difficulties? I would ban Bank Holidays as most injuries occur following a visit to Homebase, B&Q or Wickes. Do you even put on PPE when sleeping as you say almost everything you do requires protective wear ? How about taking a bath, that's very risky? I haven't had one in 25 years as the risk is too great.

MacBludgeon, I reassuringly look to your posts as they are based on consideration, deliberation, informed decision making and common sense, navigating the reader through the choppy seas of fiction, fact, fantasy, reality, propaganda, truth, lies and serious peril.

 

[MartinC]

Ben Lovejoy is commenting on how his helmet protected/reduced inury to his head

False conclusion. Neither Ben nor anyone else knows this. Many people have similar accidents without wearing a helmet and sustain no head injury.

given the naysayers support the view that helmets are of no benefit

False dichotomy. I've heard no-one on this thread saying this. There are varying degrees of scepticism about their benefit. Labelling everyone who doesn't enthusiastically except your unsubstantiated and optimistic view of helmet capability as a naysayer is incorrect.

we can carry out some experiements to try to provide some definitive evidence to try to disprove their hypothesis

Let me try and deal with this again a different way. I had an acquaintance who was unfortunately killed in a cycle accident. He was turning left out of his road from a dead stop, it was rainy, his wheel slipped, he fell (at about 2-3 mph), struck his head on the kerb and was killed. He was wearing a helmet. I don't think this tells us anything about helmet performance. I do think it illustrates the potential for harm in what seem like trivial accidents. The "experiment" you suggest is valueless and irresponsible and is just a piece of showboating that illustrates how little you know about the subject.

Activities such as?

Being a pedestrian. The available statistics show that the risks in cycling are broadly similar to those in being a pedestrian. Cunobelin's question needs an answer for you to have credible argument in favour of cycling helmets.

Common sense tells me to put something on my head such as a helmet with a layer of polystyrene and plastic to protect it when I go out on my bike

What does common sense tell you about the potential for preventing serious head injury of 300gms of polystyrene and ventilation holes?

What does common sense tell you about making the effective mass and size of you head larger in an accident scenario?

None of the helmets I have purchased have ever caused me harm or injury. I suppose if I left it on the stairs then decided to indulge myself in a midnight feast and negotiated the stairs in the dark I might have something to report to you . Didn't those campaigning against seatbelts come up with this sort of logic that seatbelts themselves would lead to an increase in injuries and fatalities?



I know...... the modern world is such a death trap:- electric mowers, hedge trimmers, drills, power saws, skiing, rugby, football, running, not forgetting cycling, knives, stoves, hot oil in pans, stability of ironing boards, irons over heating, (not that I iron anything anyway ), driving whoah now we're getting positively life threatening, air bags, full face crash helmet, fire retardant suit and gloves, 4 point harness. It takes me an age to do anything getting dressed up to tackle any hazard I might encounter. Do you find you have the same difficulties? I would ban Bank Holidays as most injuries occur following a visit to Homebase, B&Q or Wickes. Do you even put on PPE when sleeping as you say almost everything you do requires protective wear ? How about taking a bath, that's very risky? I haven't had one in 25 years as the risk is too great.

MacBludgeon, I reassuringly look to your posts as they are based on consideration, deliberation, informed decision making and common sense, navigating the reader through the choppy seas of fiction, fact, fantasy, reality, propaganda, truth, lies and serious peril.

Irrelevant hyperbole.

 

[swee'pea99]

Last word from me on this, I promise.

What grips my sheet about the helmet argument is that its used as a moral lever. How often have you read a report of a cyclist down in a paper where, somewhere in the text, the phrase -"The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" appears. I might be over-sensitive, but the subtext reads "No helmet! He/she f***** well deserved to be offed by the drunken, disqualified, uninsured texting driver."

As previous posters have said, there's no legal basis for contributory negligence for cyclists injured while riding without a helmet. I also have a big problem with arguments based on moral or emotional arguments - that you somehow deserve your injuries because you're not lidded. Helmet use is not a question of morality, and the helmet debate distracts from the real issues that determine whether cycling is safe and can be made safer.

I get particularly tetchy when helmets are used to judge the abilities of a cyclist to ride safely and considerately. The cyclist who RLJed and hit me last month while I was crossing on foot was wearing a helmet. Was he a good, safe cyclist? When I was hit in 2007, the ambo driver's only question to me was "why don't you wear a helmet?". Not "what happened?" or "where does it hurt?". The lack of helmet gave him a nice neat pidgeon hole in which to place my abilities as a cyclist. No further thought or understanding required.

Well said.

The only thing I'd add - given that this thread purports to be about compulsion - is that I think it's important not to forget that whatever the (arguable) pros & cons of helmets vis a vis individual riders, the overall societal health impact of compulsion has (unarguably) invariably proved negative.

 

[Crankarm]

.....dichotomy......

Had to look in my dictionary for that word.........

.....Being a pedestrian. The available statistics show that the risks in cycling are broadly similar to those in being a pedestrian.

Nope I don't think so. Cycling is inherently more risky given that cyclists are a much smaller group so any injury or fataility has a much greater influence on risk to the group as a whole. Why don't you check out RoSPA's site? Quite apart from the fact that there are many more people who walk but don't cycle.

.....Irrelevant hyperbole.

Glad you enoyed it. I try to please. Even more of a result as it wasn't aimed at you .

 

[Crankarm]

[quote name='swee'pea99']........the overall societal health impact of compulsion has (unarguably) invariably proved negative.[/quote]

Compulsion to do what???? I'm confused . Have I missed something? If so it was probably not compulsory.

 

[MartinC]

Yes, I think you've missed quite a lot.

Thread title is "Research into helmet compulsion".

A quick skim of the RoSPA site didn't come up with any analysis of comparitive stats for pedestrians and cyclists. Please let me know if I've missed it - your reference wasn't very specific.

Helpfully M J Wardlaw, a contributor to the BMJ, published a paper in 2003 "Assessing the Actual Risks Faced by Cyclists" it contains amongst other things an analysis of the government stats (1999-2001) and shows:

Annual distance walked/capita: . . . . . . . . . .190 miles
Annual distance cycled/capita: . . . . . . . . . . .43 miles
Pedestrian deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . ..850 annually
Cyclist deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 annually

This clearly supports the idea that the risks both groups face are broadly similar.

 

[ferret fur]

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

Interesting reading

 

[boydj]

I found an effective new use for my helmet today. The sun was shining, for a change, on the way home, so the helmet was strapped to the side of the right pannier. Not a single close pass in 9 miles - was it the extra width or the apparent greater vulnerability?

 

[ufkacbln]

Cyclists kill more people than white van man!


This is the problem where you start to move away from the measurable (number of head injuries admitted to hospital) to the immeasurable (risk)

The claim that cyclists are "more at risk" is intersting.

If you express the number of pedestrian deaths on pavements caused by cyclists in terms of total miles travelled and then the number of deaths caused by "white vans" with miles traveled you will find that pedestrians are more at risk from cyclists!

Be careful how you read statistics!

THe sad fact is that 5 times more pedestrians are admitted withhead injuries than cyclists. If all of these casualties wore helmets (and we asume the helmets worked as claimed) then the helmets would have a more beneficial effect if worn by pedestrians than cyclists.

As I said before - pedestrians may make the arguments inconvenient, but are we interested in reducing head injuries or not?