Benefits of wearing a helmet

[david k]

Ok - let's accept this.....

The same is true for a pedestrian, they will "be safer in a crash with a helmet on then no helmet" . Given that more pedestrians are admitted to A&E departments, does this argument not equally justify pedestrian helmets?

Anyone care to explain why not?

not proof that a pedestrian journey is more dangerous than cycle journey

 

[Dan B]

Last time I looked, cycling was statistically a bit safer than walking per mile and a bit more dangerous per hour, or maybe it was vice versa, but the take-home point is that the two activities are basically comparable. I don't wear a helmet while walking, so I don't see much need to wear one cycling either. And if I was going to recommend safer cycling practices to friends or colleagues or people I've never met, I would start with ones that are far more likely to make a difference. Like: don't ride in the gutter, look where you're going, if you can't see their mirrors they can't see you, and don't get stuck on the inside of a long vehicle that might turn left. Polystyrene really is a side issue

 

[4F]

last year I attempted to cycle to work in the ice. Within half a mile I lost the front wheel and hit the deck, I did not hit my head.

Walked the bike home and then set off for the bus and slipped arse over tit and and cracked my head on the ground.

So to summise
walking is more dangerous than cycling

 

[david k]

Last time I looked, cycling was statistically a bit safer than walking per mile and a bit more dangerous per hour, or maybe it was vice versa, but the take-home point is that the two activities are basically comparable. I don't wear a helmet while walking, so I don't see much need to wear one cycling either. And if I was going to recommend safer cycling practices to friends or colleagues or people I've never met, I would start with ones that are far more likely to make a difference. Like: don't ride in the gutter, look where you're going, if you can't see their mirrors they can't see you, and don't get stuck on the inside of a long vehicle that might turn left. Polystyrene really is a side issue

all the points regarding safe riding are valuable and important, however i still prefer to wear a helmet when cycling, not instead of your points but as well as.

Its not a choice of your points or helmet, it can be both

 

[david k]

cracked my head on the ground.

Its all starting to make sense

 

[ufkacbln]

There are far more pedestrians than cyclists. You need to prove likelihood so, cyclists per head injury compared to pedestrians per head injury.

The uncomfortable part and the one always avoided is simple. Helmets can only prevent a head injury if an incident occurs. Therefore i is appropraite to actually look at hospital admissions.

Look at any cohort study of hospital admissions. Sharon Thornhill's paper is a good start, or you could try the NICE guidelines on head injuries. In all of these cases cyclists do not feature as an "at risk" group.

Then we have the Maths...

100 head injuries are admitted.

In all Cohort studies the number of pedestrians is between 5 - 30 times the number of cyclists

Lets assume helmets work and take the lowest figures....

We will still prevent 5 times as many head injuries if pedestrians wore helmets.

What you now need to do is explain why we shouldn't prevent the greater number. Are pedestrian helmets less painful, less traumatic, or are pedestrian head injuries acceptable to you and therefore not worth preventing?

We could also take another paper from the BMJ...

Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping

So 35 times more people will die on stairs than cycling!

Should we be making helmets compulsory for stairs?

Or are you again going to somehow prove that these head injuries should not be prevented

not proof that a pedestrian journey is more dangerous than cycle journey

Wardlaw (BMJ) and others would dispute your stance!

Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more “dangerous” than a mile of cycling.

In with keeping with anti helmet wishes for hard evidence you will have to show evidence to support your claim, or it will be discarded

Care to explain how advocating expanding helmet use to the groups that suffer the most head injuries is "anti helmet"?

 

[ufkacbln]

Shouldn't the differences be in proportion to the relative average speeds? So a bit safer per hour, twice or thrice as dangerous per hour.

This is why it is better to actually look at hospital figures. These are unequivocal and detailed. You can show causation and identify where the intervention of helmets would offer the greatest benefit.

Of course this method is unpopular with the pro-compulsionists as it invariably proves that the greatest benefit is with pedestrians, and that rather spolis a good campaign.

Try and get any pro-compulsionist to state why pedestrian head injuries should not be prevented and watch them squirm as they avoid answering

 

[ufkacbln]

Shouldn't the differences be in proportion to the relative average speeds? So a bit safer per hour, twice or thrice as dangerous per hour.

This is why it is better to actually look at hospital figures. These are unequivocal and detailed. You can show causation and identify where the intervention of helmets would offer the greatest benefit.

Of course this method is unpopular with the pro-compulsionists as it invariably proves that the greatest benefit is with pedestrians, and that rather spolis a good campaign.

Try and get any pro-compulsionist to state why pedestrian head injuries should not be prevented and watch them squirm as they avoid answering

 

[Red Light]

There are far more pedestrians than cyclists. You need to prove likelihood so, cyclists per head injury compared to pedestrians per head injury.

In with keeping with anti helmet wishes for hard evidence you will have to show evidence to support your claim, or it will be discarded

Cyclist serious injuries per km is a tiny fraction of pedestrian injuries per km. (RRCGB2009)

Cyclist head injuries are a smaller proportion (38%) of cyclist hospital admissions than pedestrians head injuries are of pedestrian hospital admissions (48%). Source: Pedal Cyclist Casualties in Road Accidents 2007 and Pedestrian Casualties in Road Accidents 2007, DfT, Nov 2008

That evidence good enough for you?

 

[Red Light]

Shouldn't the differences be in proportion to the relative average speeds? So a bit safer per hour, twice or thrice as dangerous per hour.

I don't know about you but the choice for me is to walk to e.g the shops or cycle there. So the per km is appropriate.

 

[Red Light]

This is why it is better to actually look at hospital figures. These are unequivocal and detailed.

You have to be cautious with hospital figures. Studies that have attempted to match police records of accidents with hospital records have found that hospital records can have significant errors from confusing cyclists with motorcyclists - up to 50% of them wrong in one major London hospital. The other categories are fine but its just the ambiguity of "bike"

 

[david k]

more journeys up and down stairs are taken than people ride bikes, once again your ridiculous attempt to twist stats makes you look desperate.

i want to wear a helmet, i think they are of benefit, i think others should for the same reason, you call this pro helmet, you continually through twsited data to try to prove to me i am stupid for wearing a helmet, if you dont like the tab anti helmet stop trying to stop me wearing one

 

[Dan B]

Look, you're never going to convince anyone with all this "cautious" havering. Just tell them what to think.

 

[david k]

You have to be cautious with hospital figures. Studies that have attempted to match police records of accidents with hospital records have found that hospital records can have significant errors from confusing cyclists with motorcyclists - up to 50% of them wrong in one major London hospital. The other categories are fine but its just the ambiguity of "bike"

two on the side of anti helmet are disputing their own figures

 

[david k]

Look, you're never going to convince anyone with all this "cautious" havering. Just tell them what to think.

what should we look at dan? look at your one sided view? ive considered and discussed the data on numerous threads but this isnt good enough for you.