A week without a helmet.

[mcshroom]

Just in case you are referring to my statement about the benefits of cycling (the 20:1) claim. I didn't link to it this time because I've put it in this forum too many times, but the 20:1 value is quoted from the CTC evidence dossier: -
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf

What exercises me about the helmet debate is that it drowns out road safety efforts that actually are more likely to make a positive difference to cyclists and encourage more people to cycle. Take for example the recent furore about Chris Boardman appearing on BBC Breakfast without wearing a helmet. That was all over the headlines for days, but the actual issues covered by the videos dissappeared underneath.

Chris Boardman points out that helmets are 'not in the top ten' safety issues for cyclists. Indeed British Cycling, with whom he works has a ten point plan for cycling safety under the name #ChooseCycling, which doesn't include them: -
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/CHOOSECYCLING_DIGITAL_SP.pdf

Helmets are a diversion which at a personal level may help with low speed impacts, but make cycling look more dangerous than it is, and (conveniently for some) hide measures that are more likely to be effective behind a visual symbol of our lack of commitment to making the roads safe for all users.


(edited for pour spolling )

 

[Mugshot]

Helmets are a diversion which at a personal level may help with low speed impacts, but make cycling look more dangerous than it is, and (conveniently for some) hides measures that are more likely to be effective behind a visual symbol of our lack of commitment to making the roads safe for all users.

I would struggle to agree more.

From cyclehelmets.org () concerning compulsion.

Conclusions

Comparisons of pre- and post-law injury data (Figs 1-5) show that there is little benefit to either cyclists or the community from passing laws forcing cyclists to wear helmets. Rather than encouraging cyclists to wear helmets, the laws appear to have discouraged cycling, resulting in reduced health and fitness, but very little change in %HI. If the money spent on helmets had been used for other measures e.g. improving accident blackspots for cyclists, the benefits would have much been greater.


More importantly, risks per cyclist seem to have increased, compared to what would have been expected without the law, implying that helmet laws are counter-productive. Possible explanations include risk compensation, reduced ‘Safety in Numbers’ and that brain damage is predominantly due to rotational injury.


Helmets undoubtedly help prevent minor wounds to the head, but are not designed to cope with the forces that may occur in bike/motor vehicle collisions. There is little reliable experimental evidence whether bicycle helmets reduce, or increase, the risk of rotational brain injury. However, as a precaution, cyclists choosing to wear helmets may wish to consider new designs such as the ‘Phillips’ helmet.


In contrast to the little or no obvious change in %HI with bicycle helmet laws, injury statistics following measures to reduce speeding and drink driving (Figs 6-8) show considerable benefit. The vast majority of fatal and very serious head injuries to cyclists result from bike/motor vehicle collisions. The most effective way to reduce injuries to cyclists and all other road users is therefore to reduce the risk of bike/motor vehicle collisions.


As well as enforcing appropriate speed limits, controlling drink-driving and encouraging cyclists to use lights at night and ride on the correct side of the road, cycling becomes safer when more people cycle. The best option to improve overall safety, improve our health and fitness and benefit the environment is therefore a package of measures to encourage cycling and make the roads safer, while allowing cyclists to chose whether of not they wish to wear helmets.

 

[User6179]

I have no idea as I have no interest in proving the point. If it exercises you, perhaps you could research it.

It was you that said he was quoting from facts , if you didn't know why say it ?

 

[User6179]

No I didn't, I was putting your dismissal of the paragraph as opinion in to perspective for you as you were forming an incorrect opinion of it.

No that's what you thought you were doing ,if there is no data on the number of cyclists who claim " a helmet saved my life " then the quote was opinion as it was not based on any facts .

 

[Fab Foodie]

Just in case you are referring to my statement about the benefits of cycling (the 20:1) claim. I didn't link to it this time because I've put it in this forum too many times, but the 20:1 value is quoted from the CTC evidence dossier: -
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf

What exercises me about the helmet debate is that it drowns out road safety efforts that actually are more likely to make a positive difference to cyclists and encourage more people to cycle. Take for example the recent furore about Chris Boardman appearing on BBC Breackfast without wearing a helmet. That was all over the headlines for days, but the actual issues covered by the videos dissappeared underneath.

Chris Boardman points out that helmets are 'not in the top ten' safety issues for cyclists. Indeed British Cycling, whith whom he works has a ten point plan for cycling safety under the name #ChooseCycling, which doesn't include them: -
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/CHOOSECYCLING_DIGITAL_SP.pdf

Helmets are a diversion which at a personal level may help with low speed impacts, but make cycling look more dangerous than it is, and (conveniently for some) hides measures that are more likely to be effective behind a visual symbol of our lack of commitment to making the roads safe for all users.

Absolutely! You don't need to discuss efficacy if helmets because they are away down the list for improving cycle safety.

Firstly, cycling is not dangerous.

More people cycling also makes the roads safer. Helmet compulsion as shown in Australia has the opposite effect. So just looking at the best compulsion study we have actually shows that compulsion makes cycling less safe with no upsides.

As for the 'anti-helmet lobby' not having an open mind .... That statement really beggars belief.

 

[Drago]

True, I'm up to seventeen ignores. This thread has identified the one's I don't wish to converse with, like no other. 17 out of all the folk who use this site is pretty low in percentage terms, but it just goes to show you, that you have to keep it in perspective. A shouty minority, can give a false impression if you're not careful.

indeed my friend. I don't mind a lively debate, and I don't mind people disagreeing with me. In my mind just because they hold a different view doesn't mean I like them any less as people.

What I do object to is the legion of internet bullies who reside on here, who resort to foul language and abuse. I'm pretty sure they don't go round doing that in real life, but they suddenly become very brave in the isolation and anonymity of the internet.

They're small men with inadequacy issues, who resort to bullying to fill the void left by the lack of self esteem. I ignore arses like that in real life and do the same on here.

 

[benb]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me

Yes you do

 

[Mugshot]

indeed my friend. I don't mind a lively debate, and I don't mind people disagreeing with me. In my mind just because they hold a different view doesn't mean I like them any less as people.

What I do object to is the legion of internet bullies who reside on here, who resort to foul language and abuse. I'm pretty sure they don't go round doing that in real life, but they suddenly become very brave in the isolation and anonymity of the internet.

They're small men with inadequacy issues, who resort to bullying to fill the void left by the lack of self esteem. I ignore arses like that in real life and do the same on here.

Names or it didn't happen!!!

 

[Drago]

Yes you do

Shut your cakehole!

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUO

Who said the anti helmeteers had to make a case ?
My point was both sides make unsubstantiated claims !

... not the case

Snag Points have been evidenced repeatedly, yet you have "no idea" whatthat evidence is!

 

[Racing roadkill]

17 , I think I would need to start to question myself if I got to 5 or 6 .

Read some of the other helmet debates and you will see why you are getting pelters for your view , I always wear a helmet btw because it makes me feel safer .

17 from 1 thread. Good lad BTW.

 

[ufkacbln]

You obviously have not read the website "Gloves have little value against water burns "

That's my point on these helmet debates that most are arguing blind or using cherry picked data to prove an unprovable point .

... or simply challenging and showing just how silly some of the evangelical claims are?

No one really expects a hamster to wear a helmet

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Still nothing to contribute

It's difficult to type with one's head in the sand.

GC

 

[Dan B]

It's difficult to type with one's head in the sand.

It's easy if you don't care about accuracy

 

[ufkacbln]

Lets get back to the basic errors.....

There is no "proof" that helmets do or do not work

There is evidence that can be used to make an informed decsion though

For instance we know from the research by Rivara et al that children with badly fitted helmets suffer more severe injuries than those with well fitted helmets, and are twice as likely to suffer an injury.

It does not "prove" that the well fitted helmets actually prevented any injuries, it does not "prove" that the ill fitting ones caused injuries

It does however suggest that wearing a well fitting helmet is a good idea

All you can do is make an informed decision


Which is actually more constructive opinion:

1. Wear a helmet because I say so and if you don't you will end up as an imbecile drinking soup through a straw, now go and join the Darwin club if you don't do what I tell you

2. Wear a helmet if you wish, but be awrae that it has limitations. Snag points may cause injuries and well fitted helmets seem to cause more serious injuries. A smooth round helmet that fits well may be your afest option

Ironic that No.2 is the one interpreted as unaceptable and anti-helmet!