Helmet or no helmet??

[4F]

I actually forget I've got it on when I have my ipod blaring at full volume

Nice, helmet and Ipod wearing in the same thread. Chuck a RLJ post in and ask "what is best Shimano or Campagnolo ? " and you will have the full set.

To kick things off for another 22 pages I will make a start:-

I value my hearing too much to ride with an I pod and anyone who does wear one is a fool !

 

[StuartG]

Where are these statistics that say seatbelts do not reduce fatalities? That is totally wrong. Wearing a seatbelt reduces the chances of injury by 50% and the 2009 road survey showed that it could be up to a 70% reduction compared to not wearing a seatbelt ....

Yes you are mostly right. The introduction of seatbelts, air bags and car shell design have remarkably reduced injury and death inside the car. People walk away from some amazing smashes.

That is if they were IN the car. The figures don't reflect on people walking (or riding) OUTSIDE the car. Depending on how you read the statistics (which group over which time period in which place) it is probable that these safety issues have cost lives of pedestrians and riders because of collisions due to the effect of risk aversion on drivers.

Having said that the reduction INSIDE far outweighs an increase OUTSIDE so the laws on seatbelts etc have credibility and should be worn.

Whereas when we get to helmets we don't get this sort of balance. There is no great proven statistical reduction of deaths and injury over those not wearing helmets. There is also the downside in the possible greater incidence of a collision if you appear to be well protected. Nobody can yet balance these upsides/downsides so it should be a personal choice.

It is perverse use seatbelt statistics to justify helmet legislation.

 

[robbiep]

4F that's extremely provocative...............but you're right I'm a foooooooool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes you are mostly right. The introduction of seatbelts, air bags and car shell design have remarkably reduced injury and death inside the car. People walk away from some amazing smashes.

That is if they were IN the car. The figures don't reflect on people walking (or riding) OUTSIDE the car. Depending on how you read the statistics (which group over which time period in which place) it is probable that these safety issues have cost lives of pedestrians and riders because of collisions due to the effect of risk aversion on drivers.

Having said that the reduction INSIDE far outweighs an increase OUTSIDE so the laws on seatbelts etc have credibility and should be worn.

Whereas when we get to helmets we don't get this sort of balance. There is no great proven statistical reduction of deaths and injury over those not wearing helmets. There is also the downside in the possible greater incidence of a collision if you appear to be well protected. Nobody can yet balance these upsides/downsides so it should be a personal choice.

It is perverse use seatbelt statistics to justify helmet legislation.

Actually it is proof that helmets should be worn as even with all of this protection, vehicle occupants still outnumber cyclists in head injury admissions by a considerable margin

 

[battered]

Actually it is proof that helmets should be worn as even with all of this protection, vehicle occupants still outnumber cyclists in head injury admissions by a considerable margin

Because there are millions of car drivers and each one does hundreds of hours ever year in their car, covering thousands of miles, often at high speed. As a result there are far more collisions involving cars than bikes. Hence the possibility of more head injuries, as you say.

Are you suggestng that for every 100 car accidents there are more head injuries than 100 bicycle accidents?

 

[Bill Gates]

Look I don't know if this has already been mentioned so I apolgise in advance as I'm not prepared to read all 23 pages or so.

The fact is that when you cycle along a road it has been shown that if you are wearing a helmet then drivers willl overtake much closer to you than if you are not wearing one. If you accept that, then logically it is more dangerous to wear a helmet when cycling along a road.

 

[battered]

drivers willl overtake much closer to you than if you are not wearing one. If you accept that, then logically it is more dangerous to wear a helmet when cycling along a road.

Not necessarily. This only applies if the elevated risk from closer drivers outweighs the reduced probability of injury in the event of an accident.

The same applies to seatbelt wearing. If you wear one there is an element of risk compensation, you drive slightly faster/closer and are (slightly) more likely to have an accident. Using your reasoning, this means that it is more dangerous to wear a seatbelt than not. But it isn't. We have proved that this is not the case. Of course, some passengers are worse off withseatbelts in the event of an accident, but the vast majority are not. I've a friend who doesn't believe this and he has a string of tickets and fines for non seatbelt wearing to prove it, but that's by the by.

The safest road *for me* would have everybody else driving around with a big spike coming out of the steering wheel . I'd still have a belt on though, or a helmet were I on 2 wheels.

 

[2Loose]

The safest road *for me* would have everybody else driving around with a big spike coming out of the steering wheel . I'd still have a belt on though, or a helmet were I on 2 wheels.

and a two inch thick steel breastplate.

 

[swee'pea99]

Not necessarily. This only applies if the elevated risk from closer drivers outweighs the reduced probability of injury in the event of an accident.

Assuming there is one. Also, you fail to take into account the crucial question of the likely seriousness of injury.

Alongside the strong evidence that you're least at risk from close-driving drivers as a non helmet-wearing blonde, and the significant evidence that the helmeted unconsciously compensate by driving marginally more recklessly, there's also the crucial playoff between different kinds of injury.

I don't think anyone disputes that helmets can save you a nasty bruise or scrape; there is, however, a fair body of evidence to suggest that in at least some cases, an accident that would have resulted in a nasty bruise or scrape ends up instead with a vastly more serious whiplash injury, with damage to the spine/spinal cord, due to the helmet's addition to the impact area and/or snagging on the road surface and/or some other obstruction. Personally I can take a bruise on the chin - I'm a big boy now - but I'd rather not break my neck.

 

[StuartG]

The fact is that when you cycle along a road it has been shown that if you are wearing a helmet then drivers willl overtake much closer to you than if you are not wearing one. If you accept that, then logically it is more dangerous to wear a helmet when cycling along a road.

Wow - did something pass me by - and I'm not talking cars. AFAIR there is one study in which cars were recorded as passing closer and not by that much. The study hypothesised that passing closer would suggest a higher risk of collision - but from the dataset (one cyclist who lived to write the study) there is no evidence however intuitive it may seem.

There are a number of problems which you appear to ignore. First the study was not designed to produce a robust set of evidence. No comprehensive study across different types of rider in different conditions etc to eliminate all other factors. Also of course the type of accident related to passing too close and those that cause head impacts may be highly or lowly correlated. I don't know, do you?

It was an important study. And key to the argument that cushioning head impacts is not what we want. What we want is less collisions with less injuries and deaths without diminishing the attraction of cycling. Not necessarily the same thing.

The sad thing is that both sides religiously quote or dismiss this study instead of doing the research that it quite clearly indicates needs to be done to inform rather than hector the cyclist and legislators on this issue.

 

[Bill Gates]

The study hypothesised that passing closer would suggest a higher risk of collision - but from the dataset (one cyclist who lived to write the study) there is no evidence however intuitive it may seem.

The closer you are to something the more likely you are to hit it. That isn't hypothesis. It's basic physics.

 

[StuartG]

The closer you are to something the more likely you are to hit it. That isn't hypothesis. It's basic physics.

Physics plays no part - unless there is a collision rather than passing very close. It is the softer human sciences that are in play here. Another hypothesis (they are easy to manufacture but dammed hard to prove/disprove):

See cyclist without helmet. Obviously an amateur tosser about to wobble everywhere. I will give him a wide berth.
If I am right (about his skills) the chance of a collision is x.

See cyclist with helmet. Obviously someone who cares about his safety and is unlikely to swerve unexpectedly to the right. I pass at a closer point but one with the same perceived chance of intersecting . So if I am right (there is a correlation between skill, care and wearing a helmet. then the chance of collision should not be higher than x. Indeed it may be lower.

Now one can argue (as did the original study) the wobble factor was actually the same (as it was the same rider) and hence the second perception (which was then wrong) would indicate (but no prove) a higher chance of collision.

Or perhaps ..

Real cyclists who choose/not choose helmets are usually different and may themselves behave differently. For example with a helmet the cyclist can feel 'safer' and hence take less care whereas the non-helmeted may feel more vulnerable and take care to wobble less when being overtaken.

In which case wearing a helmet is lethal. But we just don't know. It is dangerous to believe we - or physics - do.

 

[Banjo]

The closer you are to something the more likely you are to hit it. That isn't hypothesis. It's basic physics.

Hard to see how any meaningfull measurements could be compiled on how close cars pass helmeted versus nonhelmeted cyclists.

Personally I almost allways wear one but woulds strongly object to wearing helmets becoming compulsory.

 

[snorri]

The fact is that when you cycle along a road it has been shown that if you are wearing a helmet then drivers willl overtake much closer to you than if you are not wearing one.

If you are referring to the study I think you are referring to, I'm not convinced the study was carried out in a very scientific manner. The findings may very well have been an accurate snapshot of events on that day, but would similar results have been obtained at other locations where traffic volume, average speed, road width etc. would have been different?

 

[Bill Gates]

Physics plays no part - unless there is a collision rather than passing very close.

Exactly the bit I'm worried about.