metro article on helmets

[Red Light]

Does the peds vs cyclists injuries take into account percentages, assuming that there are a greater amount of peds around than cyclists? Or are there just numbers?

I tried to make the same point about uncontrollable events...I'm willing to bet that there are a fair share of irresponsible peds among the stats as it is.

I've never had a problem as a pedestrian, not even close. I've never felt threatened as a pedestrian by a car. I look both ways when I cross the road and if I'm not crossing the road I stay away from the road. On a bike, I've had close passes from cars, vans, motorbikes, squeezed at pinch points etc and been FAR closer to having a problem. I have only ever been close to adding to the cyclist stat, not a ped stat. I believe that everybody on here would say the same thing, I don't think that's even up for debate, and because of that - being closer to problems as a cyclist than a ped on a regular basis - I seek to protect myself. If you just step away from the stats for a min you'll understand that.

Per journey-km the risk of being killed as a pedestrian is about 50% higher for pedestrians than cyclists while for serious injuries it is many times higher for pedestrians. Much of the pedestrian injuries are from tripping and falling on uneven surfaces. If you believe helmets work, there is a much stronger case for them to be mandatory for over 60's pedestrians than for cyclists.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

Mickle as I said, having in just the last hour read posts from mid 2011 on this forum (in yet another helmet thread), my wearing a helmet is enforced for me. In one thread alone there are at least 2 or 3 instances of cyclists having hit their head whilst wearing a helmet, the helmet taking the impact and being damaged, rather than the head. Unless these people are lying, this is as good as reading any bunch of numbers and as i KEEP saying - it is not enough of an inconvenience to not wear a helmet. That's just from one thread, from less than a year ago, on this forum.

I'm not the only one who chooses to wear a helmet for this reason but clearly I'm the lone nutter in this thread and everyone's done a runner!

So where are all the people on this forum who have serious head injuries because they weren't wearing a helmet? There should be twice as many as those with "helmet saved my head/life" stories based on the helmet wearing statistics but I can't recall reading one.

One either concludes therefore that the helmet wearers are

a) having many more accidents or
b) hitting their heads much more often or
c) that if they had not worn a helmet there would have been nothing to report.

Which one do you think it is?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[growingvegetables]

Mickle as I said, having in just the last hour read posts from mid 2011 on this forum (in yet another helmet thread), my wearing a helmet is enforced for me. In one thread alone there are at least 2 or 3 instances of cyclists having hit their head whilst wearing a helmet, the helmet taking the impact and being damaged, rather than the head. Unless these people are lying, this is as good as reading any bunch of numbers and as i KEEP saying - it is not enough of an inconvenience to not wear a helmet. That's just from one thread, from less than a year ago, on this forum.

That's your response to Mickle's "There is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce head injuries." Seriously? A few anecdotes from a CC thread ...... is evidence?

Goodness, you're easily satisfied. Tell you the right story, and you roll over like a puppy to have its tummy tickled. Forget rigorous experimental design, statistical analysis, scientific rigour, peer review, repeatable results. Naaah, a few wee stories does you fine; that's "evidence".



Hmmm, funny really. I was just remembering back here, where you described evidence [WITH rigorous design, WITH statistical analysis, WITH scientific rigour, and probably WITH repeatable results] as

Walker''s POV

Now that's double standards. When it suits your choice, you're happy to confuse anecdote with evidence. But when evidence doesn't suit your choice, you dismiss it as "point of view".


1. Wear a helmet if you want - it's none of my business.
2. I'll be on your side if anyone tries to force you NOT to wear a helmet.
3. Tell me why you wear a helmet - no problem; nothing but respect. I'll listen politely - and equally happily explain why I don't.

BUT - if you try to "evangelise" (going a step further than saying why you wear a helmet, on towards telling me why I should wear a helmet), then you can expect people to pull you on using double standards, or failing in logic.

And that's not a healthy road to go down. It's already led TyT to forget the cardinal rule - "When you're in a hole, stop digging!" [Please - somebody take TyT's shovel away from him ]

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

How ridiculous. It's about taking easy precautions to prevent something no matter how unlikely numbers say it might be, do you not get that? Most drivers will never 'need' their seatbelt, most airplane passengers will never need their seatbelt, most police officers will never need their stab / bullet proof vests. Why are you arguing against this idea?

No pedestrian feels at risk enough to have to walk around wearing a helmet. Being a pedestrian is, to the average, smart and able-bodied person, very safe and routine. No ped would feel it appropriate to walk around with a cumbersome piece of plastic and foam on their head, I'm fairly sure. Again I reiterate, travelling on a road at anywhere between 0-30 mph alongside cars, this is felt more appropriate by people, apart from you and other non helmet wearers, because of either a) you don't think you'll ever get a head injury b) you don't think a helmet would help in the event of a head injury c) They look stupid.
Those are all used because in the unlikely and unwanted event of an incident it may just protect them.
I've read enough accounts of people on this forum alone who have had offs involving hits to the head, whilst wearing a helmet, to warrant wearing one. It's just not enough of an inconvenience, as a London cyclist, not to wear one IMO. If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority so don't wear one you hypocrite unless you wear one walking down the road!' manner.

Make up your mind! "Those are all used because in the unlikely and unwanted event of an incident it may just protect them." so why not wear a walking helmet? Oh because "No pedestrian feels at risk enough to have to walk around wearing a helmet" the risk is the same , the numbers show that, but you want to ignore the numbers because they don't gel with your perceptions!

Why do you think helmets work, because of "science"* , yet you will only accept science when it agrees with your pre conceptions, as soon as you get an answer from science you don't like you drop back to listening to stories.


* in actual fact I think you belied that, you think they work because of religion, but let's go with the idea that you believe the science of the helmet.

 

[doctornige]

Helmets come in red. Heads generally don't. Therefore helmets are faster. QED.

 

[ufkacbln]

How ridiculous.

I love irony!

It's about taking easy precautions to prevent something no matter how unlikely numbers say it might be, do you not get that? Most drivers will never 'need' their seatbelt, most airplane passengers will never need their seatbelt, most police officers will never need their stab / bullet proof vests. Those are all used because in the unlikely and unwanted event of an incident it may just protect them. Why are you arguing against this idea?

We all get that, except it appears you!

It is about taking the easy precaution of wearing a helmet whilst walking to prevent ahead injury no matter what the numbers say it is as likely as it is when riding a bicycle, which you feel is necessary!

Choosing to dismiss the facts and evidence in favour of a personal belief is your decision.

Once again the increased use of helmets is being advocated, yet bizarrely you continually fail to comprehend this.

Pedestrian helmets should surely be worn because in the unlikely and unwanted event of an incident it may just protect them. Why are you arguing against this idea?

No pedestrian feels at risk enough to have to walk around wearing a helmet. Being a pedestrian is, to the average, smart and able-bodied person, very safe and routine. No ped would feel it appropriate to walk around with a cumbersome piece of plastic and foam on their head, I'm fairly sure. Again I reiterate, travelling on a road at anywhere between 0-30 mph alongside cars, this is felt more appropriate by people, apart from you and other non helmet wearers, because of either a) you don't think you'll ever get a head injury b) you don't think a helmet would help in the event of a head injury c) They look stupid.

Once again you are totally wrong about what is being posted.

I don't know how to get across to you in terms that are simple enough for you to understand

1. You have no idea whether any of us wears a helmet
2. It is stated clearly that head injuries occur in both cyclists and pedetrians
3. Helmets work in some cases, but not in others and can have some adverse effects - helmets would be more effective in pedestrian use due to the lower impact speeds. The advocacy is for increased helmet use.
4. Care to point out where anyone has posted that helmets look stupid?

However thank you for this section of your post - it shows the point we are all making so very precisely. Both activities are of equal risk, yet you have been convinced by the propaganda that walking is safe and cycling is dangerous when the risks are in reality similar.

You have simply dismissed the real and equal danger of pedestrian head injury and then in a classic case of denial come up with multiple excuses why.

I've read enough accounts of people on this forum alone who have had offs involving hits to the head, whilst wearing a helmet, to warrant wearing one. It's just not enough of an inconvenience, as a London cyclist, not to wear one IMO. If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority so don't wear one you hypocrite unless you wear one walking down the road!' manner.

What about pedestrians who have had equally tragic losses?

Is the death, injury of a loved one somehow less traumatic, or life changing?

This is something that requires an explanation as to why you feel this is so, after all surely both groups have the same "responsibility" and the decision to wear or not wear is going to have the same effect.

 

[ufkacbln]

Helmets come in red. Heads generally don't. Therefore helmets are faster. QED.

They do in summer!
Heads also come with stripes

Ever had the end of the good day and then wondered why everyone in the pub is smiling?
Then looked in the mirror and found the outline of the helmet vents burned in bright red on to one's balding pate..... or as a mere youngster is this a delight you still have to look forward to?

 

[ufkacbln]

To most of us this is about informed choice.

However even if you rely on a belief system rather than the evidence then consistency should still exist

You have made a clear belief based statement above, now let us give the same belief system to a cyclist

If a cyclist does not feel that at risk enough to have to cycle around wearing a helmet. Or that being a cyclist is, to the average, smart and able-bodied person, very safe and routine... and does not feel it appropriate to walk around with a cumbersome piece of plastic and foam on their head, why should they need to

I and most of the others on this thread would recognise this as a personal decision and that is fine, however for ther record, would you respect this cyclists wish not to wear a helmet?

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1773040, member: 45"]Can anyone share the evidence to show that in some cases helmets can create or increase injury? And by evidence I don't mean "well there was this bloke...."[/quote]

I posted some of the evidence about snag points earlier, including the ejection of helmets in accidents. The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute is a pro-helmet site in the US, but most of it is relevant to the UK. It covers most of the aspects such as the efficiency of new materials, denser foam, snag points etc.

Also look at www.cyclehelmets.org

As always - read and make up your own mind

 

[caimg]

I and most of the others on this thread would recognise this as a personal decision and that is fine, however for ther record, would you respect this cyclists wish not to wear a helmet?

Geez as I said in one of my last posts, yes! I said I wear a helmet because in the event of a head trauma I think it may protect my head. You don't, and so don't wear a helmet, and THAT'S COOL. I respect that.

I'm bowing out of this, it pretty much feels like an entire forum of people (or a select bunch continuously) getting pretty irate for no reason. I wasn't dismissing evidence. I wasn't being 'evangelical'. It sounds to me as if some of you have had this discussion before. I would never have used 'evangelical' to describe a person that wears a helmet whilst cycling but there you go nor am I ignoring any statistics, or evidence, or facts. Nor am I wearing a helmet because of 'a few anecdotes on a forum'. I read those last night, they are not my 'evidence'.

I have repeatedly said why I wear a helmet and rather than show me any respect and say 'oh okay that's fine, I don't agree but go for it!' I'm a hypocrite for not wearing one as a pedestrian? It's funny really, I started in this thread by wrongly storming in and calling non-helmet wearers 'utter douches' but my oh my are these all the thought processes that go through non-helmet wearing cyclists? Serious OTT passive aggression.

I wear a helmet because I believe in the unlikely event of hitting my head whilst cycling, it could protect me.

Can you find it in yourselves to just say 'well, I'm not quite sure that's true but that sounds like pretty much the same reason thousands of people the world over wear one'. You have presented reasons why you don't wear one, and I respect that far more than before taking part in this thread.

 

[caimg]

Oh and I'm really, really not trying to make any of you wear helmets. I've said this already but it seems to have been ignored. If you don't think they're any good then that's your view, your business. As for a religion vs science debate, there are times, places and threads for those and this is defo not it!

 

[benb]

I think people are generally being quite reasonable, and no-one has suggested you shouldn't wear a helmet.

We just want you to explain why you feel the need to wear one on the bike, but not when walking, when the risk of head injury is similar in both activities.

 

[mickle]

...and why you insist on wearing an item of personal protective equipment for which no evidence exists of it's effectiveness.

I have had two or three crashes which, had I been wearing a helmet, the health professionals who treated me would have said; 'Lucky you were wearing helmet, it saved your life'. Seriously, I have. Including backwards through a car windscreen fast enough to end up on the dashboard. And look! I can still spell complex words and I don't dribble when I talk.

There simply is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce head injuries in cyclists. Forget all the 'my helmet saved my life' stories for a minute and let that thought roll around inside your mind. No evidence. You'd think there would be loads of evidence wouldn't you, if helmets did what you imagine they do.

 

[benb]

I don't dribble when I talk

Depends who you're talking to, surely?

 

[ufkacbln]

Geez as I said in one of my last posts, yes! I said I wear a helmet because in the event of a head trauma I think it may protect my head. You don't, and so don't wear a helmet, and THAT'S COOL. I respect that.

But consistently refuse to recognise that helmets would be equally valid in pedestrian head injuries!

Why not stop evading, and answer the question why you don't think a helmet would prevent a head injury in a pedestrian in the same way that it does for a cyclist?

I'm bowing out of this, it pretty much feels like an entire forum of people (or a select bunch continuously) getting pretty irate for no reason. I wasn't dismissing evidence. I wasn't being 'evangelical'. It sounds to me as if some of you have had this discussion before. I would never have used 'evangelical' to describe a person that wears a helmet whilst cycling but there you go nor am I ignoring any statistics, or evidence, or facts. Nor am I wearing a helmet because of 'a few anecdotes on a forum'. I read those last night, they are not my 'evidence'.

Yet you consistently refuse to recognise the evidence and have referred continually to your beliefs as opposed to facts!

You have consistently failed to recognise that the risk of head injuries in pedestrians and cyclists is the same, why not recognise that the potential reduction in head injury is also similar?

I have repeatedly said why I wear a helmet and rather than show me any respect and say 'oh okay that's fine, I don't agree but go for it!' I'm a hypocrite for not wearing one as a pedestrian? It's funny really, I started in this thread by wrongly storming in and calling non-helmet wearers 'utter douches' but my oh my are these all the thought processes that go through non-helmet wearing cyclists? Serious OTT passive aggression.

Not at all, you have made claims like:

If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority

.....and then failed to explain why the injuries are acceptable in pedestrians when equally avoidable. That can only be described as hypocrisy.

If I have misunderstood, please enlighten me and explain why you feel that a tragic story about a cyclist is a reason for helmets, but a similar tragic story about a pedestrian isn't?

I wear a helmet because I believe in the unlikely event of hitting my head whilst cycling, it could protect me.

Please explain why it would not protect a pedestrian?

Can you find it in yourselves to just say 'well, I'm not quite sure that's true but that sounds like pretty much the same reason thousands of people the world over wear one'. You have presented reasons why you don't wear one, and I respect that far more than before taking part in this thread.

Bizarre interpretation to say the least!

As pointed out before, no-one has at any point given a reason for not wearing a helmet.What has happened (and appears to be too complex) is that people have pointed out limitations and hazards. You also make ridiculous assumptions about other from members with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever.... you simply do not know who does and does not wear a helmet, so claiming that anyone who does not fall down and worship at the altar is not wearing one ridiculous!




This is called an informed choice, and something of an anathema to the pro helmet lobby.