Reasons not to wear helmets

[lukesdad]

http://en.wikipedia....ulation_studies

Its now clear why you haven't wanted to discuss the evidence when you don't understand some of the basic concepts.

The floor s yours .....

 

[martint235]

A helmet makes a real mess of my hair!!!

 

[ufkacbln]

Population - level indicates to me, that a study would supply a result that would give me a complete level of inccident as regards to a complete level of population. would it not ?

If not ,what does it tell me ? Its a cross section or a snapshot of the population and inccident.

From what ive read on helmet studies this is certainly the case.

The problem is that no-one is ever going to perform the perfect study, you have to read what is there and decide.

It is not perfect in that not every single member of the population was asked, but that is the way it is.

Extrapolating the sample to a whole population providing it is done by methods that are verifiiable, stand up to scrutiny and peer review is fine.






A true whole population study would be brilliant as it is almost certain to highlight where helmets would have most effect, and it wouldn't be cyclists!


I agree there is some very bad science.

The BHIT claims that one child each week dies from a cycle elated head injury each year and claims to save 52 lives per year by making helmets compulsory. The actual number or reported that year was 3!

There are others... one of the most outrageous:

Headway in a petition claims that "Children suffer between 90,000 and 100,000 cycling related head injuries per year" as justification for compulsion in children

The DfT figure show that in fact there were 16,000 accidents a year involving cyclists on the road (3000 serious injuries and 160 deaths typically).

Now I am aware that this may be under reported, but by over 80%?

When queried Head way gave their source as:

Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does
the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR,
Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.


Looking at the paper one finds the following section.

EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEAD INJURY AFTER BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
Across all ages in the UK it is estimated that there are 90,000 road-
related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents per year. Of these
accidents, 100,000 (53%) involved children under 16, suggesting
that children are at greater risk of injury during cycling than adults.
In the UK, there were between 127 and 203 cycling fatalities
per year between 1996 and 2002, of which 70–80% were
caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).The most recent Gov-
ernment death and serious injury figures are summarised in
Table 1. In children under 16, two-thirds of cycle-related deaths
occur in road traffic accidents (RTAs) with the remaining third
occurring whilst the child is cycling off road. The majority of
injuries, however, occur when children are cycling off road3–6
and, of these, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most likely to
have long-term consequences.

Now read the figures....

The claim fro 100,000 is in fact ALL injuries in all groups
The figure for children for ALL injuries is about half of that
Fatalities were in fact 203 (maximum) and only 160 ofthose were traumatic brain injury.

This does not of course include serious head injuries, nor minor ones, but even the most basic analysis of this information shows that the figure of 100,000 children suffering head related injuries is a "little" over inflated

PS - the BHIT also uses this overall figure and claims they are all head injuries.Exceopt they are even worse in the manipulation - they claim they were all hospital admissions!

 

[lukesdad]

Exactly Cunobelin that is a blatant example of a report comming to the wrong conclusion.

Even a large minority study would be nice to read.

The mis-information given by such mistakes or neglecting facts that may be relevent to the conclusions are the main reason Joe public ( me if you like) regard such reports with suspicion.

 

[Red Light]

Fatalities were in fact 203 (maximum) and only 160 ofthose were traumatic brain injury.

And only a very small proportion of the traumatic brain injury deaths didn't have fatal injuries to other parts of their bodies. In one study looking at this, of the nineteen fatalities reviewed only three didn't have other fatal injuries and one of those was the only one of the nineteen that had worn a helmet.

It is quite usual that with multiple fatal injuries its only TBI that is put down as the cause of death.

 

[tongskie01]

Now that I've become aware that many people are against wearing helmets and also the idea/threat of compulsion, I've been reading over the many threads covering these topics.

For me, I wear a helmet and a recent accident has given me reasons to justify to myself doing so. However, I didn't always feel that way, certainly not when I started cycling. Can we please park the whole compulsion thing completely for now and focus on what makes people CHOOSE NOT TO wear helmets?

The reasons I see frequently cited are:
1) Statistics can show that death/injury is not that much higher than other everyday activities where people don't wear helmets
2) A belief that the construction of current cycling helmets will not prevent serious injury or death anyway
3) A belief that in certain instances helmets could actutally increase risk upon impact, i.e. increased dissipation of force to the neck

Please don't comment on the whys and wherefores of this - this has already been done to death - although by all means if you have something to add please do so.

What I'd really like to know is whether there are any other common objections / reasons why we don't wear helmets?

Thanks,

Tim

please change your title to reasons to wear a helmet. And youll find more reasons not to wear one.

 

[Red Light]

Even a large minority study would be nice to read.

I've suggested them to you several times but you haven't bothered to read them. Here they are again.

Reducing bicycle accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use. Rodgers, GB. J. Product Liability. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 307-317. 1988.

Rodgers looked at 8 million cyclist accidents in the US and at a time when the helmet specifications were higher than they are today. He found that "bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use". You will need to order the full paper from the BLL through your local library.


Cycle Helmets and Casualties in the UK, Hewson PJ, Traffic Inj. Prev. 2005 Jun;6(2):127-34.

Hewson in this and another paper on child cyclists looked at the UK national road accident and hospital datasets and concluded "There is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce the overall cyclist injury burden at the population level in the UK when data on road casualties is examined." You can buy this paper on-line if you don't have access rights or you can again order it from the BLL through your local library. It is a very thoughtful and considered paper - one of the best in this field

 

[mickle]

and people who wish to wear them, we are told they dont care if we wear one or not and then ask for evidence as to why we wear one, complete contradiction

On the contrary, I care if you wear a helmet because I believe that every person seen wearing a helmet is a strike against cycling as a safe and enjoyable mode of transport. Your helmet tells anyone who sees you that cycling is a dangerous activity. Cycling is no more dangerous, and a bunch safer, than most other activities. But people wouldn't think that looking at you.

I care if you wear a helmet because every helmet wearing cyclist reinforces the idea that a helmet is 'part of the uniform'. Where once they were rare now they have become normalized - which opens up the ridiculous possibility that a helmetless cyclist who gets knocked off their bike whilst going about their business perfectly legally might have their damages reduced because their helmetlessness was seen as a factor. Contributory negligence its called.

I care that you wear a helmet because it tells me that people like you - regular everyday cyclists- have fallen for the lie. The helmet on your head tells me that marketing works. Because the simple fact remains: there is no evidence that helmets actually do 'what they say on the tin'.

We have a whole generation of cyclists - all riding around in the happy delusion that the lump of high density polystyrene on their head will save them from head injury in a fall.

So, perhaps unlike other folk in this discussion, I do care if you wear one. I'd rather you didn't. Does that mean I can now ask you for evidence as to why you wear one?

 

[Red Light]

Because the simple fact remains: there is no evidence that helmets actually do 'what they say on the tin'.

It doesn't say anything on the helmet tin. The manufacturers know how limited they are and cannot claim what they aren't so they tend to say nothing other than the name, the size and colour and the standards they meet. But why would they? There are plenty of people out there making the claims for them that the manufacturers can't.

 

[david k]

So, perhaps unlike other folk in this discussion, I do care if you wear one. I'd rather you didn't. Does that mean I can now ask you for evidence as to why you wear one?

You dont want me to wear one, that is removing my freedom of choice, why do you feel you can force me not to wear one, and remember this is the argument placed on me for wearing one.

As cumbolin says it is not possible to remove compulsion from helmet threads, why do you want to make it compulsion not to wear one and take away everyones freedom of choice

 

[mickle]

It doesn't say anything on the helmet tin. The manufacturers know how limited they are and cannot claim what they aren't so they tend to say nothing other than the name, the size and colour and the standards they meet. But why would they? There are plenty of people out there making the claims for them that the manufacturers can't.

You're absolutely right.

 

[Mad at urage]

You dont want me to wear one, that is removing my freedom of choice, why do you feel you can force me not to wear one, and remember this is the argument placed on me for wearing one.

As cumbolin says it is not possible to remove compulsion from helmet threads, why do you want to make it compulsion not to wear one and take away everyones freedom of choice

He never said he feels he can force you not to wear one, that's your paranoia kicking in again. He said " I do care if you wear one. I'd rather you didn't", which is very different to "force".

On the contrary, I care if you wear a helmet because I believe that every person seen wearing a helmet is a strike against cycling as a safe and enjoyable mode of transport. Your helmet tells anyone who sees you that cycling is a dangerous activity. Cycling is no more dangerous, and a bunch safer, than most other activities. But people wouldn't think that looking at you.

I care if you wear a helmet because every helmet wearing cyclist reinforces the idea that a helmet is 'part of the uniform'. Where once they were rare now they have become normalized - which opens up the ridiculous possibility that a helmetless cyclist who gets knocked off their bike whilst going about their business perfectly legally might have their damages reduced because their helmetlessness was seen as a factor. Contributory negligence its called.

I care that you wear a helmet because it tells me that people like you - regular everyday cyclists- have fallen for the lie. The helmet on your head tells me that marketing works. Because the simple fact remains: there is no evidence that helmets actually do 'what they say on the tin'.

We have a whole generation of cyclists - all riding around in the happy delusion that the lump of high density polystyrene on their head will save them from head injury in a fall.

So, perhaps unlike other folk in this discussion, I do care if you wear one. I'd rather you didn't. Does that mean I can now ask you for evidence as to why you wear one?

You can of course ask, but IMO should not be surprised if the reply is "Because I believe there might be a benefit to me. If there is a dis-benefit, it is up to you (as the one asking someone else to change their behaviour) to demonstrate this".

 

[totallyfixed]

On the contrary, I care if you wear a helmet because I believe that every person seen wearing a helmet is a strike against cycling as a safe and enjoyable mode of transport. Your helmet tells anyone who sees you that cycling is a dangerous activity. Cycling is no more dangerous, and a bunch safer, than most other activities. But people wouldn't think that looking at you.

I care if you wear a helmet because every helmet wearing cyclist reinforces the idea that a helmet is 'part of the uniform'. Where once they were rare now they have become normalized - which opens up the ridiculous possibility that a helmetless cyclist who gets knocked off their bike whilst going about their business perfectly legally might have their damages reduced because their helmetlessness was seen as a factor. Contributory negligence its called.

I care that you wear a helmet because it tells me that people like you - regular everyday cyclists- have fallen for the lie. The helmet on your head tells me that marketing works. Because the simple fact remains: there is no evidence that helmets actually do 'what they say on the tin'.

We have a whole generation of cyclists - all riding around in the happy delusion that the lump of high density polystyrene on their head will save them from head injury in a fall.

So, perhaps unlike other folk in this discussion, I do care if you wear one. I'd rather you didn't. Does that mean I can now ask you for evidence as to why you wear one?

Excellent post.
To answer the original question, I don't wear one because it's safer. You might find this of interest:
http://blogs.bmj.com...o-wear-helmets/

The reasoning behind my answer is simple, after over 250,000 miles of riding a bike I have had more off's and seen more off's than I care to remember and never experienced a serious head injury. What is of interest is that bike handling skills seem to me to have declined somewhat

 

[david k]

He never said he feels he can force you not to wear one, that's your paranoia kicking in again. He said " I do care if you wear one. I'd rather you didn't", which is very different to "force".


You can of course ask, but IMO should not be surprised if the reply is "Because I believe there might be a benefit to me. If there is a dis-benefit, it is up to you (as the one asking someone else to change their behaviour) to demonstrate this".

i said the same about wearing one and it was changed to 'force' as it apparently mean that. the other way round it doesnt?
You say time and again its not about stopping people to wear helmets, ok, what is it about then?

 

[Red Light]

You say time and again its not about stopping people to wear helmets, ok, what is it about then?

Three things. Stopping people forcing helmets on others whether by law or by participation rules, stopping people pedalling misinformation about the effectiveness of helmets and stopping people misrepresenting cycling as a dangerous activity requiring protective head gear.