The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Profpointy]

BHIT and Angela Lee did this as well

They took ALL cycling head injuries and claimed that that was the number of children's lives that would be saved with compulsory helmets.

So if you looked at the actual figures you had the bizarre situation where helmet use would increase cycling related head injuries by several orders of magnitude.

These bizarre claims are one of the reasons so many "celebrity" endorsements were withdrawn.

Headway did something similar by taking all cycling injuries and claiming that they would be prevented by helmets

It raises the question that if helmets are so good, why the pro helmet / compulsion lobby has to lie

That last point is the one that astonishes me too. The other bizarre one is when we hear of kids not being allowed to do training unless helmetted. Training (I understand) has evidence backing its effectiveness, whilst helmets, not so much. Thus, logically, helmet evangelism is so important to some that it's actually worth sacrificing children's lives for

 

[swansonj]

I had a shock this morning - caught a bit of the rebooted Tellytubbies, and saw Po wearing a helmet. My daughter tells me it's because she is riding a scooter.

 

[mjr]

I had a shock this morning - caught a bit of the rebooted Tellytubbies, and saw Po wearing a helmet. My daughter tells me it's because she is riding a scooter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ please, but I'm as shocked that they have genders.

 

[snorri]

Another group of helmet evangelists online
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/dont-be-vain-protect-your-brain/

Project aim
Don't Be Vain Protect Your Brain is dedicated to educating people about the dangers of not wearing a helmet when you skate, scoot or cycle.

 

[benb]

If we reasonably assume (as I do) that helmets sometimes help, then it logically follows they must make things worse in some other way - else Australia would show a net benefit - and it doesn't.

Or, which is my view, the situations where a helmet can help are so vanishingly remote that the protective effect is so small as to be not statistically detectable.

 

[mjr]

(quoted: ) Don't Be Vain Protect Your Brain is dedicated to educating people about the dangers of not wearing a helmet when you skate, scoot or cycle.

Oh well, at least it's doomed to fail because they're bashing the vanity myth instead of addressing any of the main reasons that people don't use helmets.

 

[Profpointy]

Oh well, at least it's doomed to fail because they're bashing the vanity myth instead of addressing any of the main reasons that people don't use helmets.

I don't know. Sounds like good tactics to me. If you "beg the question" by assuming helmets help and thus side-step the real debate, you can then argue on a trivial point. Cynical and effective

 

[mjr]

I don't know. Sounds like good tactics to me. If you "beg the question" by assuming helmets help and thus side-step the real debate, you can then argue on a trivial point. Cynical and effective

They've been failing with the vanity tactic for years (definitely since Crackpot-nell) so I don't expect it to succeed now. All it takes is opponents to ask why they're avoiding the real reasons, then they're dragged onto points they're ill-equipped for.

 

[ufkacbln]

That last point is the one that astonishes me too. The other bizarre one is when we hear of kids not being allowed to do training unless helmetted. Training (I understand) has evidence backing its effectiveness, whilst helmets, not so much. Thus, logically, helmet evangelism is so important to some that it's actually worth sacrificing children's lives for

It is even more subtle than that.

There are probably other confounding factors (such as the geography of the areas, state of the bikes etc) but children from low income or deprived families tend to have more cycle accidents, and are also the ones least likely to wear helmets (cost makes it a low priority item)

So the sad thing is that the ones who are at greater risk and would benefit most are most likely to be exluded

 

[ufkacbln]

Another group of helmet evangelists online
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/dont-be-vain-protect-your-brain/

Project aim
Don't Be Vain Protect Your Brain is dedicated to educating people about the dangers of not wearing a helmet when you skate, scoot or cycle.

Reminds me of the "Charity" providing helmets for "Boris Bikes"

The evangelism was lost when asked questions about how the helmets would be maintained (cleanliness as well as physically), how damage could be logged by users to remove compromised helmets, how they would ensure the helmet would be fitted correctly and not contribute to injury


They withdrew in the end.

 

[ufkacbln]

I did like:

This is such an important message, none of us are invincible and we want to work with YOU to protect our communities. A Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) has devastating effects for everyone involved. Let's have the 'helmet conversation' and start protecting our loved ones NOW!

One only wishes they would as opposed to an ill-informed jump in at the deep end without checking the depth

 

[MontyVeda]

It is even more subtle than that.

There are probably other confounding factors (such as the geography of the areas, state of the bikes etc) but children from low income or deprived families tend to have more cycle accidents, and are also the ones least likely to wear helmets (cost makes it a low priority item)

So the sad thing is that the ones who are at greater risk and would benefit most are most likely to be exluded

really?

 

[Profpointy]

A good few years back there was a similar debate in uk.rec.cycling or whatever it was. I raised the point about some children being strangled by their helmet straps whilst climbing trees, in what you might call freak accidents - but my point was simply to illustrate there can be undesirably consequences from what might appear a sensible precaution (namely wearing a helmet to climb trees).

Someone argued back that they were "abusing" cycle helmets by wearing them to climb trees. And "abusing" was the word used. Thus it was OK to argue that it was obviously helpful to wear a cycle helmet cycling, yet was "abusing" the helmet to wear it climbing a tree. I gave up at that point. I must admit I probably would wear a helmet if doing serious tree climbing, eg a with a chainsaw or such, if ever I needed to do such a thing, but hey ho. No idea of whether it statistically would help.

 

[Scoosh]

Interesting too that the TBI occurred on (off ) a skateboard, not even a bicycle. It does annoy/frustrate me when I see children on 3-wheeled scooters (a very good way for them to learn balance, I'm sure ... ) wearing a helmet. How daft do they have to be to fall off one of those with sufficient force to cause serious injury to their bonce - not just a bump (part of growing up) but a TBI ?

The campaign also seems to be targeted at the fear factor.

 

[mjr]

One only wishes they would as opposed to an ill-informed jump in at the deep end without checking the depth

They can jump in at the deep end without checking the depth. They're wearing helmets. They don't need to learn to swim. The polystyrene will be a buoyancy aid. Statistics say that few people drown as a result of wearing a cycle helmet, so that proves it.