The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[philepo]

If you'd bothered to do any actual research rather than just regurgitating prejudices and anecdotes, you'd already know this.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11491251

There is no need to be so aggressive. For the umpteenth time, to be clear, I am not in favour of compulsory helmet wearing and I am trying to encourage more thinking on the issue. Saying "If you bothered to do any research..." etc is a lazy insult, becasue as anyone will see from my posts, I've done much more research than the average debater (whichever side they are on).

Again, in one of my early posts on this issue I said that, if you just look at this type of graph it only proves that helmets and seat belts in cars do not save lives. We agree on that.... but I bet you wear a seat belt even though the graph of seat belt use and deaths is just like this one.

 

[philepo]

I think you've made a geometry error in your 28% - surely propensity to hit is going to be be area related not radius after all. So something like 65% to 70% if I take your 28% as being the "true" radius difference. That's actually quite a lot. Helmets would have to do quite a bit of good to compensate for the misses becoming hits.

At the risk of being naughty with a thought-experiment - the oft quoted by the "pro-" lobby example of "hit your head with a hammer with and without helmet" could be replaced by "miss your head entirely with a hammer versus hit your helmeted head with the hammer"

The point was about rotational torque, not area, and is correct - this area issue has been covered and I agree with you.

 

[philepo]

Seat belts were introduced in 1982 in the UK - see any change?
Now I am not at war with non-helmet wearing cyclists and the very very last hing i would want is compulsory wearing of them (I'd refuse), I am just curious as to how this and the New Zealand graph state similar results. But I bet all the non-helmet wearers do belt up.

I'm going to sign out now and not be tempted to reply, becasue this is a very angry debate and I just wanted to get a little closer to the truth if possible. When I have been proved wrong, I have stated this, and when I have agreed I've stated this, but some people want to be offended. There is no way of knowing if helmets save lives. It should be personal choice. End of debate (for me).

 

[Profpointy]

Seat belts were introduced in 1982 in the UK - see any change?
Now I am not at war with non-helmet wearing cyclists and the very very last hing i would want is compulsory wearing of them (I'd refuse), I am just curious as to how this and the New Zealand graph state similar results. But I bet all the non-helmet wearers do belt up.

ah, but seat belts allow you to drive faster and more recklessly, just like good brakes and roadholding.

 

[martint235]

So your graph would probably show a significant drop in car occupant deaths per mile travelled and even more so after rear seat belts became compulsory.

A case of finding a stat to say what you want it to say

 

[growingvegetables]

Also, this 2007 research has been repeated (2014) with a control group by the same author and found that passing distances do not change with helmet wearing, so what do u think now? http://opus.bath.ac.uk/37890/

What do I think? Seriously? That's such an easy one .... I think you haven't read the paper you've made the link to.

An easy mistake to make. I've done it myself. Except ..... that I hope I have never so selectively mangled an actual quote as you have done?

"A motive for this study was to test Walker’s (2007) hypothesis that the reduced passing proximities seen when a bicyclist wore a helmet might have been caused because, as Basford et al. (2002) suggested, drivers take helmeted riders to be more experienced or in control. However,.....did not lead to changes in mean driver overtaking proximities or in the proportion of very close passes. ... such that motorists no longer respond to perceived experience as they did when Walker (2007) collected data. At present, we cannot say for certain which of these explanations is likely to be correct and further research could usefully address this question."

Read it again - the researcher is NOT testing helmet wearing, but the impact of varying sets of cycle clothing. To test whether drivers' behaviour reflects perceptions of a cyclist as "more experienced or in control".

Again read it - but take the "helmets-are-good" blinkers off.

You have mentioned two pieces of research based on objective obervation. Putting the conclusions of those papers VERY crudely (but accurately) ..... there's a subset of drivers

- who think that cyclists wearing helmets will bounce; that they are entirely protected and impervious to any possible harm. So no matter if said motorist comes far too close;
- who think "Oh sh!t" when they see an official looking "Police high-vis". They suddenly realise they'd better give more space. Said subset of drivers TAKE THE TIME AND TROUBLE TO READ THE HIGH-VIZ JACKET BEFORE they pull the scandalously close pass on the rest of us.

And you know something? I really can't be bothered with the rest of your post. For reasons I trust are pretty obvious.

 

[growingvegetables]

Oh damnation - reading further down the thread

as anyone will see from my posts, I've done much more research than the average debater (whichever side they are on).

Let's just say that such a conclusion is "debatable".

 

[bianchi1]

Oh damnation - reading further down the thread


Let's just say that such a conclusion is "debatable".

You've read this then?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/

 

[ufkacbln]

You've read this then?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/

Researcher re-edits data to prove their own agenda shock!

 

[benb]

There is no need to be so aggressive. For the umpteenth time, to be clear, I am not in favour of compulsory helmet wearing and I am trying to encourage more thinking on the issue. Saying "If you bothered to do any research..." etc is a lazy insult, becasue as anyone will see from my posts, I've done much more research than the average debater (whichever side they are on).

Again, in one of my early posts on this issue I said that, if you just look at this type of graph it only proves that helmets and seat belts in cars do not save lives. We agree on that.... but I bet you wear a seat belt even though the graph of seat belt use and deaths is just like this one.

You claim to have done research, yet if you had done so you would have already known that helmets have been shown to offer no significant improvement in head injuries, hence my frustration at having to reiterate points that I've made before.

The graph is head injuries not deaths, so not only do helmets not prevent deaths, but they do not prevent injuries either (or at least, the chance of them doing so is so remote as to not be detectable)

Unlike helmets, there is evidence that seatbelts do save some injuries, but I'd agree it is a lot weaker than most people think. However, it is a legal requirement and causes me no negative

 

[growingvegetables]

You've read this then?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/

I hadn't - thank you for the link. Bears reading beyond the "executive summary".
Rough translation
- "Our analysis confirms Walker's results regarding helmets and passing distance with an adjusted estimate of an additional 5.8 cm when not wearing a helmet."
- However, the effect of helmets on passing distance is only significant for wide, safe overtakes. "the reported additional average passing space when not wearing a helmet occurs only during overtaking events of at least one metre. Therefore, with regards to bicycle safety, helmet wearing does not appear to influence unsafe driving behaviour."
- "Helmet wearing is associated with a small difference in passing distance and is not associated with close passing."

Effectively - they suggest that Walker's data does not support the argument that choosing NOT to wear a helmet reduces the risk of close passes. Their graph suggests there is an effect - just that it is not statistically significant.

[I shall therefore refrain from using that argument to justify my choice not to wear a helmet. But I won't start wearing a helmet ]

 

[philepo]

Apologies, I cannot resist replying!

So your graph would probably show a significant drop in car occupant deaths per mile travelled and even more so after rear seat belts became compulsory.

A case of finding a stat to say what you want it to say

No, I said the opposite. Please slow down and re-read. My point was that overall stats show no correlation between compulsory seat belt wearing in cars post compulsion, so why would a pro-non-helmet-wearing cyclist think that it is good to wear a seat belt and bad to wear a helmet? I'm not trying to be clever, it's a perfectly valid question. The seat belt graph post 1982 shows no reduction in deaths, and the helmet wearing graph shows no reduction in injuries. So who here thinks seat belts are a waste of time?

Selective quoting and 'interesting' editing there....

I can't print the whole paragraph - there was no intention to mislead, the fact is he redid the experiment with more variables and found a slightly different result, I included the link for everyone to decide for themselves.

What do I think? Seriously? That's such an easy one .... I think you haven't read the paper you've made the link to.

An easy mistake to make. I've done it myself. Except ..... that I hope I have never so selectively mangled an actual quote as you have done?



Read it again - the researcher is NOT testing helmet wearing, but the impact of varying sets of cycle clothing. To test whether drivers' behaviour reflects perceptions of a cyclist as "more experienced or in control".

Again read it - but take the "helmets-are-good" blinkers off.

You have mentioned two pieces of research based on objective obervation. Putting the conclusions of those papers VERY crudely (but accurately) ..... there's a subset of drivers

- who think that cyclists wearing helmets will bounce; that they are entirely protected and impervious to any possible harm. So no matter if said motorist comes far too close;
- who think "Oh sh!t" when they see an official looking "Police high-vis". They suddenly realise they'd better give more space. Said subset of drivers TAKE THE TIME AND TROUBLE TO READ THE HIGH-VIZ JACKET BEFORE they pull the scandalously close pass on the rest of us.

And you know something? I really can't be bothered with the rest of your post. For reasons I trust are pretty obvious.

I'll ignore the angry fog that clouds your logic and stay calm:
I did read the paper. I quoted to save space and included the link for your convenience.
Yes, I know he is testing clothing-wearing influence on driver behaviour, but importantly a set of clothes worn is a helmet-wearing cyclist one. He specifically quotes his own research paper (he wrote both) of 2007 (the one you think proves helmets encourage close passing - which it did, marginally, at the time, but research moves on) and discusses why driver behaviour has changed regarding helmet wearing and passing distance. The author includes several theories on why this has changed. I DID NOT MAKE UP MY OWN CONCLUSION -> IT IS THE PAPER's AUTHOR'S REASONING - Selectively quote if you like, but don't try and rephrase in your own words as that is misleading.
We agree on one thing, the only clothing that seemed to work was the one that gave the impression that he might be PC plod so drivers gave more room - pretty sad indictment of human psychology but there you go.
Yes, it is obvious. You have become angry and that is not a good sign of how your doing in a debate. You get angry when people point out contrary evidence (from the same author lol) and the challenge is annoying. Chillax, it's just a debate and I am very happy to change my own opinion on the subject, i will not feel threatened by that - I've binned my helmet. You win, wooop!

You claim to have done research, yet if you had done so you would have already known that helmets have been shown to offer no significant improvement in head injuries, hence my frustration at having to reiterate points that I've made before.

The graph is head injuries not deaths, so not only do helmets not prevent deaths, but they do not prevent injuries either (or at least, the chance of them doing so is so remote as to not be detectable)

Unlike helmets, there is evidence that seatbelts do save some injuries, but I'd agree it is a lot weaker than most people think. However, it is a legal requirement and causes me no negative

Your link goes to a search page, not actual evidence, like a paper. I don't discount your graph - please see my point about seat belts: do you wear one, if so why? I have given you a graph on seat belt use that shows the same (non) effect as cycle helmet use, so why is that one is not valid and your cycle helmet one is?

For the record, I have been enlightened by this debate and I don't think I am going to bother wearing a helmet any more as the evidence is so thin (and it get's on my nerves in the hot weather tbh). But I cannot abide people with their pseudo-evidence and poor-quality debating skills (i.e. get angry because they can't find the killer info that will prove their theory that absolute anti-helmet data is obvious). The fact is both sides have very limited evidence and so personal choice should prevail.

This doesn't change the fact that rugby, footy, prof cyclists, motorcyclists etc all seems to think helmets help. Why is that? (Hint, that's a question, not a challenge to anyone's manhood). ; )

 

[Mugshot]

No one wears helmets to play football,

Petr Cech wears one having suffered a fractured skull during a match, but certainly he's the only one I can think of. I seem to remember there being something of a debate when he started wearing which went along the lines that it portrayed the sport negatively and that attackers may be reluctant to challenge Cech as he was suggesting he was vulnerable by wearing a helmet.

Edit - Its more akin to a scrum cap I suppose, does that qualify as a helmet?

 

[Justinslow]

For the record, I have been enlightened by this debate and I don't think I am going to bother wearing a helmet any more as the evidence is so thin (and it get's on my nerves in the hot weather tbh). But I cannot abide people with their pseudo-evidence and poor-quality debating skills (i.e. get angry because they can't find the killer info that will prove their theory that absolute anti-helmet data is obvious). The fact is both sides have very limited evidence and so personal choice should prevail.

Good post and very accurate regarding some posters on this thread.
Thanks.

For my own point of view I agree it has really opened my mind to the pros and cons of wearing a helmet.
I don't wear one all the time any more, I don't make my kids wear one all the time.
I spotted two of my local cycling club members out yesterday riding solo, both without helmets, it seems people do very different things to suit a given situation. Both these riders wear them when on group rides, maybe they feel the need to confirm or peer pressure? But like I said before, the world is not black or white so why do so many on here try to make it that way?

 

[growingvegetables]

You have become angry and that is not a good sign of how your doing in a debate. You get angry when people point out contrary evidence (from the same author lol) and the challenge is annoying. Chillax, it's just a debate .....

Apologies - angry, yes.

At the chillingly callous calculations, whether deliberate or unconcious is irrelevant, which some road users make? Definitely.

At you? Definitely not. With the debate? Slightly, I suppose. At least frustrated - the helmet debate is such "a massive red herring. It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.” (Chris Boardman, the cyclist's answer to Saint Christopher!)