The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

The price of people not cycling outweighs the very marginal benefit that helmets bring.

If you mean the effect on health, obesity etc etc then yes I agree, compulsion is a bad thing. But we don't have compulsion here and this thread is not solely about compulsion.

 

[Justinslow]

Yes, at an unacceptable price.

Like so many other things - sugar, alcohol.

 

[benb]

So if they are not "totally ineffective" there must be some "effectiveness", good hey?

I guess you conveniently missed the post earlier where it was shown that even helmet promotion puts people off cycling, so anything promoting helmets is doing more harm than good.

As already said, ad infinitum, there are plenty of everyday activities where there is a similar (low) risk of head injury, where helmets would also offer "some" effectiveness. Yet no one suggests helmets for those activities. Odd that.

If you recommend people wear a cycling helmet but not a pub helmet, you are a hypocrite.

 

[benb]

I think you probably need to re read the post again.
I'm not calling you a liar! I'm asking you if you are calling them liars!

Yeah, still an outrageous and indefensible accusation.

 

[MontyVeda]

Compulsion is just one extreme end of a spectrum. Every helmet wearing cyclist projects an image of cycling as a dangerous activity. It all adds up to a negative overall effect.

that won't sway him since he firmly believes that cycling is dangerous.

 

[Profpointy]

So if they are not "totally ineffective" there must be some "effectiveness", good hey?

some good in some cases does not mean good overall. The stats indcate nit good overall, so if we accept they are good in some cases (which I do) then it logically follows they are bad in other cases else we would see good on average, and we don't. Plausible reasons are bigger head = more hits, risk compensation by wearer and passing cars, and extra leverage increasing likelihood of neck injuries. All these are perfectly plausable - and the bigger head thing is quite obviously true. Hence balancing good and bad is quite reasonable. Also seeing as we know there's some extra risk, the sceptics need to accept (not all do I fear) that they must do some good occasionally.

 

[mjr]

You are saying they are ineffective based on the evidence, so are all those people liars?

OK, I'll play: no, they're not liars but they are mistaken. They are crashing, smashing a helmet and taking that as confirmation, which has various problems, not least that the helmet may have helped cause the impact (by some combination of the various possible methods already mentioned - this would explain why there is no significant population-level benefit) and that it's often difficult to tell if a smashed helmet compressed and absorbed energy before breaking up.

If you want a really vexing puzzle, try to find full crash test dummy tests of cycle helmets. The standard test is a disembodied head. The most I've seen publish is tests with a limbless torso. Why?

I looked because I was wondering whether a dummy with real flailing limbs launched from a bicycle (say a classic over-the-handlebars front-wheel-jam crash) is more likely to suffer a head impact if a helmet is strapped to the head, thereby slightly enlarging and weighting it. Isn't that a fairly obvious thing to wonder? Shouldn't the car industry test rigs be able to do this fairly easily? So why isn't anyone trying it? (Conspiracy theory: a motoring firm has done it and not published unhelpful-to-motoring results.)

The other thing I would note is that NZ is indeed a different road environment to the UK - it's far MORE dangerous, based on their road casualty statistics. So helmets should be more important there, not ineffective as it seems. (I have never visited Australia.)

 

[Mugshot]

I'd like to believe that this thread could change the perception of the level of protection that a bog standard polystyrene cycling hat provides. If you suffer an impact great enough to "turn you into a vegetable", that'll happen with or without a polystyrene hat. A polystyrene hat will 'save' its wearer from a bump or a graze or even needing a few stitches. It will not protect you from literally cracking your skull open.

Thank you, I should likely rephrase what I said.
I don't necessarily look these threads as a way to stop people wearing helmets if they wish to, but I do look at them as a way to stop people wearing helmets because wearing a helmet is good because it's a helmet and therefore it helps and that's so obvious that if you can't see it you're a moron and deserve everything bad which is surely coming your way.
So when I said "not to change minds" it was referring to convincing people to stop wearing helmets, but that really wasn't very clear.

 

[ufkacbln]

The point is the data is before and after compulsion. Thus it should show an effect regardless of whether it's a different kind of country or whether cycling in that country is more or less dangerous to start with. We're looking at trends not absolute numbers surely? Anyway NZ and Oz are different countries from each other yet the conclusions are similar

@Justinslow is entirely correct that these countries are different, but unfortunately it does rather kill his own arguments

The U.K., New Zealand, Australia, the states in the U.S. are indeed absolutely and totally different and unique

However the fact that in each of these totally diverse cohorts the same result occurs strengthens the point that increasing helmet use and compulsion is NOT showing the expected reductions in head injuries

One cohort showing this would be questionable, two similar cohorts would still allow some correlation, but similar results could be expected from similar cohorts


When a number of entirely diverse cohorts ALL show the same evidence though the triangulation of the evidence becomes unequivocal that helmet use is failing to produce reductions in head injuries

 

[ufkacbln]

So you are calling the people I know who's heads have been protected by helmets liars? (And everybody else who's head has ever been less severely injured by the use of a helmet).

Lets make it very, very simple for you?


Having parked my bike, I was walking down the street and slipped on ice, banging my head

My helmet protected my head, is this claim a lie?

My injury was less severe because of the helmet - is this claim a lie?

If I claim this as evidence that pedestrians would benefit from helmets ... Is this a lie?

 

[ufkacbln]

Like so many other things - sugar, alcohol.

Once again, you seem to be providing arguments that fall flat

This is an excellent comparison

Like sugar and alcohol, head injuries affect a wide range of individuals

Your refusal to discuss anything non-cyclist is exactly the same as refusing to discuss sugar and alcohol outside the 25-30 age range by claiming that it is irrelevant

 

[Arrowfoot]

@Justinslow

The arguments are very much circular and nothing new has surfaced. You are also not going to convince them. You probably know this but you will find that what is listed below is quite a challenge to dispute.

1. A 30 min video clip of morning commuting cyclists crossing either London Bridge or Waterloo Bridge will show you that the vast majority are helmeted.
2. All those who are undertaking the current distance challenge such as Steve Abrahams, Kurt Searvogel, Kajsa Tyler, Bruce Berkeley are all wearing the plastic hat (helmet)
3. UCI and all sports events that I have seen in cycling all wear helmets
4. On the other hand on weekends and away from built up areas or running short errands you would see less people wear helmets.

I suppose people do make assessments. There will be always be claims that helmets are worn for marketing reasons or that people are misinformed.

It can be reasonably assumed that Cyclechat cannot be the sole brains trust in this debate and the majority out there are wrong. Once people ask you to wear a helmet for gardening its called clutching at straws and it time to move on.

 

[Justinslow]

If you recommend people wear a cycling helmet but not a pub helmet, you are a hypocrite.

I don't recommend people do anything, well except for my kids as they are not yet sufficiently skilled or experienced to make their own choices regarding cycling safety.
By the way when talking of pub helmets, shouldn't you be focusing your attentions on the reasons why people fall over and bang their heads - excessive alcohol, after all helmets are only a last line of defense.

 

[Profpointy]

@Justinslow

The arguments are very much circular and nothing new has surfaced. You are also not going to convince them. You probably know this but you will find that what is listed below is quite a challenge to dispute.

1. A 30 min video clip of morning commuting cyclists crossing either London Bridge or Waterloo Bridge will show you that the vast majority are helmeted.
2. All those who are undertaking the current distance challenge such as Steve Abrahams, Kurt Searvogel, Kajsa Tyler, Bruce Berkeley are all wearing the plastic hat (helmet)
3. UCI and all sports events that I have seen in cycling all wear helmets
4. On the other hand on weekends and away from built up areas or running short errands you would see less people wear helmets.

I suppose people do make assessments. There will be always be claims that helmets are worn for marketing reasons or that people are misinformed.

It can be reasonably assumed that Cyclechat cannot be the sole brains trust in this debate and the majority out there are wrong. Once people ask you to wear a helmet for gardening its called clutching at straws and it time to move on.

yebbut why don't they work i Australia, New Zealand and Ontario?

 

[Profpointy]

I don't recommend people do anything, well except for my kids as they are not yet sufficiently skilled or experienced to make their own choices regarding cycling safety.
By the way when talking of pub helmets, shouldn't you be focusing your attentions on the reasons why people fall over and bang their heads - excessive alcohol, after all helmets are only a last line of defense.

very good !