This is a helmet debate

[Bollo]

If you want to move it onto a debate on the scientific evidence and its merits then we can have a reasoned debate but as long as the anti-helmet side sticks to its "they are only their for stationary fall" and "show me proof they work" arguments (as they have here)

I'm really confused. The goal of evidence is to prove or disprove that they work. Why are we not allowed to consider the option that they don't?

then reasoned debate will be impossible because the anti-helmet side is arguing from only 1 sided facts.

A one-sided fact!? Brilliant.

I'm not going to get into a big lecture on the uses and abuses of stats. In fact I've told a bit of a fib above. Statistics don't prove or disprove anything - they allow us to accept or reject hypotheses with a specified level of confidence. So, taking smoking for example, the evidence has built up over the years that they cause cancer. We can state this with a very, very high degree of confidence, but it's still not absolute proof. With cycle helmets, the data to support the hypothesis that helmets reduce KSIs is much much weaker.

The main difficulty with drawing conclusions from data gathered from 'the real world' is that we have to be very careful that we don't attribute the the wrong cause to the observed effect or introduce implicit biases in the way we collect data. Throwing the maths at bad data will give bad results and give rise to bad conclusions. This kind of thing is rife in the helmet debate - for example by considering the reduction in deaths due to helment compulsion in isolation from any reduction in cycling numbers, or extrapolating injury numbers from a specific age group across the population.

None of this is particularly easy, but my frustration with the whole helmet debate (and unfortunately the policies of many pressure groups) is that they don't want to engage in the gathering and analysis of impartial, unbiased evidence because it's difficult to soundbite and there's a chance it might not fit with their established predjudices.
OK, it did turn into a stats lesson. Sorry.

 

[Dan B]

I post saying "except for the extreme examples given" within just several minutes we have a reply asking for proof of saving "death or serious injury"

If the claim being made is that they prevent "death or serious injury", then proof that they prevent "death or serious injury" is exactly the proof needed to support that claim.

If you aren't claiming they have that effect but choose anyway to wear one for some other reason (e.g. they give you somewhere to keep your sunglasses, or they protect you against cuts and scratches to the head) then fair enough, but to then say that you respect others opinions not to even though you think they're wrong - as you have, earlier in this thread, is seen by many as patronising and interfering. If I'd rather take the risk of a cut to the head than the certain inconvenience of wearing a helmet then that's just as valid an opinion as your choice to take the risk of a graze to the shin instead of the inconvenience of wearing shin guards.

 

[david k]

​

​

Good morning Jezston, how are you?​

​

I dont wish to engage in tit for tat or calling people ignorant etc, personal attacks I feel are best left to those who have nothing better to say or feel insults will back up their point. Its usually because people have lost their argument in the first place. I have aimed to point out the irony in suggesting those who do not agree are bloody minded whilst refusing to listen to the counter view, I do find that funny.

​

I did say I wouldn't continue to argue the same points and that is still correct, I found this on a simple google search and felt it summed up my view, so what better way to finish but with a link to evidence that supports my view. I stress, my view.​

​

"safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent accidents, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that riders should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent. " http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html​

​

​

Thanks all for your comments and posts on this thread, especially those who conducted their selves with dignity.​

​

David​

 

[Bollo]

http://bicycleuniver...elmets-nyt.html

David. You did read the rest of that article, right?

 

[dellzeqq]

if one were to isolate professional racing from the rest of cycling, then there'd be no case for helmets. I'd say that, for good or ill, compulsion in racing was political.

http://bicycleuniver...elmets-nyt.html

David. You did read the rest of that article, right?

as in this bit?
With ridership declining over the same period, the rate of head injuries among bicyclists has increased 51 percent even as the use of bicycle helmets has become widespread.

One looks at these threads with trepidation. I've got my own ideas on the efficacy of helmets, but I have come to the conclusion that, actually, nobody knows

 

[dellzeqq]

Morning Ian,

I'd like to agree but cannot see evidence of that, only trying to damn those who choose to wear helmets IMHO.

I've not seen this at all

 

[Red Light]

If you want to move it onto a debate on the scientific evidence and its merits then we can have a reasoned debate but as long as the anti-helmet side sticks to its "they are only their for stationary fall" and "show me proof they work" arguments (as they have here) then reasoned debate will be impossible because the anti-helmet side is arguing from only 1 sided facts.

Here we go again. Would you please present the evidence you have for helmets being specified, designed and tested for more than a fall from a stationary bike? If you have the evidence that they are I would be very interested to see it. If not, any claim you make that they are for more than a stationary fall is yet more "proof by assertion"

You have repeatedly ducked the question, now is the time to put up if you want a reasoned debate. I present as my evidence the helmet standards against which they are designed, tested and accredited. Your evidence is?

 

[Red Light]

There is little point in continuing the debate along the same lines as it creates pages of repetition, something I wont continue to do. But I feel I had to point out the irony of one sides 'reasoned' debate and the fact I have seen no evidence to suggest helmets are not of any value except for the extreme examples given, hardly scientific proof.

Isn't it wonderful that at the exact point where we are starting to talk about having a reasoned debate around the evidence, David K decides its time to quit the thread. You couldn't make it up!

But I suspect he is right that he has "seen no evidence to suggest helmets are not of any value" but in a Nelson "I see no ships" sort of way. There is no logical explanation as to why he wouldn't have seen the two papers by Paul Hewson in Traffic Injury Prevention and Accident Analysis and Prevention in 2005 otherwise.

 

[Spin City]

david k



On these helmet threads, in an incident where a cyclist hits their head on a hard object, there is a lot of anecdotal 'evidence' that give credence to the, probably, common sense belief that the wearing of a helmet provided the wearer with some level of protection.

I cannot recollect similar anecdotal 'evidence' stating that not wearing a helmet was beneficial in an incident where a cyclist has hit their head on a hard object. If you are one of these cyclists then please post this 'evidence' so there is some balance in the debate.

Now the question a cyclist has to ask him/herself is: "What is the likelihood that I will be involved in a incident where my head will hit a hard object and what is the probability that a helmet will provide me with some protection?"

In my mind, this a similar question that a car driver used to ask themselves about wearing a seatbelt. This question has, of course, been taken away from individual drivers because of the evidence that has been collected to underline the hypothesis that incidences do happen where a seatbelt will be of some benefit. From this evidence legislation was brought in to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory.

For cyclists the question has become "Is there hard evidence to support the hypothesis that a cycle helmet will provide sufficient protection in an incident where the cyclist hits a hard object with their head?"

There are, of course, arguments surrounding the probability of being involved in these sorts of incidences in the first place. e.g. type of cycling, type of cycle, type of cyclist, conditions such as weather, riding surface, location, environment, etc.

I hope we trust that the legislation process would come to the right conclusions if this evidence were proven. There are pressure groups, etc on both sides of the fence so helmet compulsion would probably be difficult to introduce. Some countries/states have already introduced compulsory helmet wearing but I'm not sure where these 'experiments' are up to in terms of the results of the legislation. I believe the issue of compulsory helmets for cyclists is being looked at in Northern Ireland right now.

If we look at the 'statistics' that have been given in earlier posts for (I think) professional road racing cyclists then the wearing of cycling helmets hasn't reduced the number of deaths. Of course, deaths aren't the only results of the incidences being looked at in this thread as there are non-fatal situations that need to be investigated as well. The reasons why fatalities have increased also need to be thoroughly investigated.

I'm sure the reasoned debate on this forum will continue.

 

[hotmetal]

I can't believe I've wasted another sunny afternoon reading another pointless helmet thread when I could have been cycling!
That is near enough proof that helmet wearers are mad. I wasted an afternoon on the internet and I usually choose to wear a helmet, but not always.
In my small-sample unbiased study, that proves that helmet wearers are mad and the internet is dangerous.
I actually got as far as page 19 before realising that this thread has long since degenerated into "my evidence/opinion/underpants is better than yours" and "he said/she said/yeah but you started it".

If anyone wants my opinion (which I am not forcing down anyone's throat, nor am I stating it as fact and therefore do not need to provide a bibliography), it is simply that I choose to wear one most of the time because a) I don't object to wearing one and b) think it may help (within its design limits) in some instances. However I am also strongly against it being compulsory because that will just dissuade more people from cycling. Also I think the nanny state sucks. Like the newfangled rules about kids playing conkers. If it's true. Blimming safety nazis.

Come on guys, let's just forget trying to convince one another that our point of view is right and let's just get out on our bikes (with or without lid, your choice).
The helmet thread is dead, long live the helmet thread!

EDIT:
Oh no! It seems my well-reasoned tirade against obsessive health and safety has been debunked by a high-quality journal!
Apparently conkers haven't been banned. Or at least if they have, it's not by those nice people at the HSE (who allegedly sponsor the World Conker Championship WTF?!)

 

[david k]

I can't believe I've wasted another sunny afternoon reading another pointless helmet thread when I could have been cycling!
That is near enough proof that helmet wearers are mad. I wasted an afternoon on the internet and I usually choose to wear a helmet, but not always.
In my small-sample unbiased study, that proves that helmet wearers are mad and the internet is dangerous.
I actually got as far as page 19 before realising that this thread has long since degenerated into "my evidence/opinion/underpants is better than yours" and "he said/she said/yeah but you started it".

If anyone wants my opinion (which I am not forcing down anyone's throat, nor am I stating it as fact and therefore do not need to provide a bibliography), it is simply that I choose to wear one most of the time because a) I don't object to wearing one and b) think it may help (within its design limits) in some instances. However I am also strongly against it being compulsory because that will just dissuade more people from cycling. Also I think the nanny state sucks. Like the newfangled rules about kids playing conkers. If it's true. Blimming safety nazis.

Come on guys, let's just forget trying to convince one another that our point of view is right and let's just get out on our bikes (with or without lid, your choice).
The helmet thread is dead, long live the helmet thread!

EDIT:
Oh no! It seems my well-reasoned tirade against obsessive health and safety has been debunked by a high-quality journal!
Apparently conkers haven't been banned. Or at least if they have, it's not by those nice people at the HSE (who allegedly sponsor the World Conker Championship WTF?!)

+1

 

[david k]

david k



On these helmet threads, in an incident where a cyclist hits their head on a hard object, there is a lot of anecdotal 'evidence' that give credence to the, probably, common sense belief that the wearing of a helmet provided the wearer with some level of protection.

I cannot recollect similar anecdotal 'evidence' stating that not wearing a helmet was beneficial in an incident where a cyclist has hit their head on a hard object. If you are one of these cyclists then please post this 'evidence' so there is some balance in the debate.

Now the question a cyclist has to ask him/herself is: "What is the likelihood that I will be involved in a incident where my head will hit a hard object and what is the probability that a helmet will provide me with some protection?"

In my mind, this a similar question that a car driver used to ask themselves about wearing a seatbelt. This question has, of course, been taken away from individual drivers because of the evidence that has been collected to underline the hypothesis that incidences do happen where a seatbelt will be of some benefit. From this evidence legislation was brought in to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory.

For cyclists the question has become "Is there hard evidence to support the hypothesis that a cycle helmet will provide sufficient protection in an incident where the cyclist hits a hard object with their head?"

There are, of course, arguments surrounding the probability of being involved in these sorts of incidences in the first place. e.g. type of cycling, type of cycle, type of cyclist, conditions such as weather, riding surface, location, environment, etc.

I hope we trust that the legislation process would come to the right conclusions if this evidence were proven. There are pressure groups, etc on both sides of the fence so helmet compulsion would probably be difficult to introduce. Some countries/states have already introduced compulsory helmet wearing but I'm not sure where these 'experiments' are up to in terms of the results of the legislation. I believe the issue of compulsory helmets for cyclists is being looked at in Northern Ireland right now.

If we look at the 'statistics' that have been given in earlier posts for (I think) professional road racing cyclists then the wearing of cycling helmets hasn't reduced the number of deaths. Of course, deaths aren't the only results of the incidences being looked at in this thread as there are non-fatal situations that need to be investigated as well. The reasons why fatalities have increased also need to be thoroughly investigated.

I'm sure the reasoned debate on this forum will continue.

+1 again

 

[Midnight]

<I seem to be fairly good at killing threads off, so, here goes... >

One looks at these threads with trepidation. I've got my own ideas on the efficacy of helmets, but I have come to the conclusion that, actually, nobody knows

+1

Since joining this forum I've read a fair bit on the pro's and con's of helmet wearing, and although I've come a lot of thought-provoking material, I yet to see a proper, scientific analysis of the efficacy of helmets, or detailed, exhaustive analysis of the causes of cycling 'accidents' and whether or not a helmet has, or could've made any difference to the injuries sustained - it seems that no-one gathers all the relevant data.

I'm embarrased to admit that whilst still new to the forum, I may have also posted my own 'anecdotal' account of when I believed a helmet may have prevented further injury, but that was purely because that is what I believed at the time, not because I'm part of any alleged pro-helmet lobby, but was maybe guilty of not realising that the longer-standing members of the forum have heard it all before ad nauseum. I will also admit that I now accept that the probability of sustaining serious injury whilst cycling is statistically much lower than I'd previously assumed, and that the current design of cycle helmets fall a long way short of what most people would expect a safety helmet to be. And I have always been pro-choice.

There have been a quite a few threads on this matter of recent, but I think that is inevitable given that this is a cycling forum, and safety on a cycle is important issue for us all. As much as some members may despise these threads, I don't have an issue with them, and as long as they don't degenerate into general abuse, I think they should be allowed to run their course. It would be nice to have a proper, science-based critique of helmets, but in order to do that all participant should be willing to present their arguements without prejudice, and expect those arguements to be challenged rationally, and without emotive mudslinging.

As an aside, does anyone think their would be any mileage in using the 'Human Rights' arguement to overcome compulsion in racing?

 

[hotmetal]

As an aside, does anyone think their would be any mileage in using the 'Human Rights' arguement to overcome compulsion in racing?

LOL The old 'ooman rights chestnut! Probably worth a go, seeing as pretty much everyone uses this as an excuse to say that no-one should tell anyone else what they can and can't do. My teacher friends say they get this line quoted to them every time they so much as intimate that the child in question ought to adhere to the same rules as everyone else for the benefit of everyone. It's a shame really, because human rights is a serious subject (especially if you live in a less-than-democratic country) but is seen by so many as a get out of jail free card - it seems to be one of the most abused or misused (and probably misunderstood) pieces of legislation ever passed. I think it might be seen as a bit frivolous for competition cyclists to use it to stop them from being told to wear helmets whilst racing. Probably. IMO. etc.

 

[Red Light]

david k



On these helmet threads, in an incident where a cyclist hits their head on a hard object, there is a lot of anecdotal 'evidence' that give credence to the, probably, common sense belief that the wearing of a helmet provided the wearer with some level of protection.

I cannot recollect similar anecdotal 'evidence' stating that not wearing a helmet was beneficial in an incident where a cyclist has hit their head on a hard object. If you are one of these cyclists then please post this 'evidence' so there is some balance in the debate.

Lets take a different angle on that. About 25-30% of the UK cycling population wear a helmet. So for every piece of anecdotal evidence where someone hit their head on a hard object while wearing a helmet, there should be on average another 2-3 people who were head injured because they did the same without a helmet. So where are they all? You see very few in the official statistics or the anecdotal reporting on cycling forums.

The conclusion you come to is either the helmet made little difference to the outcome or that helmet wearers hit their heads a lot more. (I dismissed the third option of a hospital conspiracy to hide all the bodies)

Now the question a cyclist has to ask him/herself is: "What is the likelihood that I will be involved in a incident where my head will hit a hard object and what is the probability that a helmet will provide me with some protection?"

Well we know that about 5 million unhelmeted journeys have been completed in London and Dublin on the bike hire schemes without a head injury so the answer to the first part of the question is extremely unlikely. The population level studies show that on average at least the helmet will not protect you. Of course it may be that it helps in some situations but if that is the case it must harm in as many cases to get the no overall effect outcome. And unless you know what sort of accidents it does help or harm in and can pre-ordane that you will have the right sort of accident you won't know whether you will be helped or harmed if you do have an accident.

In my mind, this a similar question that a car driver used to ask themselves about wearing a seatbelt. This question has, of course, been taken away from individual drivers because of the evidence that has been collected to underline the hypothesis that incidences do happen where a seatbelt will be of some benefit. From this evidence legislation was brought in to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory.

You've not heard of the Isles Report then?

I hope we trust that the legislation process would come to the right conclusions if this evidence were proven.

You haven't heard of the Isles Report!

There are pressure groups, etc on both sides of the fence so helmet compulsion would probably be difficult to introduce. Some countries/states have already introduced compulsory helmet wearing but I'm not sure where these 'experiments' are up to in terms of the results of the legislation. I believe the issue of compulsory helmets for cyclists is being looked at in Northern Ireland right now.

The results have been in for a long time. Australia, head injuries fell by less than the fall in numbers cycling. Ditto New Zealand. In Ontario a doubling of helmet wearing when the law came in followed by a decline back to historical rates as it was not enforce saw the historical trend in head injuries unperturbed (Fig below)