The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[jefmcg]

Honestly, I thought it was a joke.

Unless he's a performance artist, building a character, then no it's not a joke.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-helmets.205830/

 

[ufkacbln]

Maybe they are embarrassed to come out and say they had an accident without a helmet and it hurt their head a fair bit!
After all they could have reduced the "hurt" by errrrrr wearing a helmet

Exactly what happened to a fried of mine

We were walking up to the bar and he slipped in full view of the pub regulars

He was soooooo embarrassed and had a nasty cut on the back of his head

How we laughed when we pointed out how his Tilley could have reduced the hurt and probably prevented the cut

 

[srw]

Hey, steady with the sporting analogies, I'm the one in America at the moment !

The difference of emphasis is that my professional background makes me suspicious of all data - the supposedly gold-standard epidemiology, even the ultimate randomised controlled trial included - "because it needs so much doing to it to make sense of it."

I think there is a danger manifested sometimes on this thread that in our desire to stop people drawing superficial and erroneous conclusions from "case reports" we downplay the genuine learning to be had.

You might not realise it from what I post, but I'm extremely sceptical about data too. When I'm wearing my professional hat, my professional standards (which perhaps I'm not as *ahem* familiar with as I should be - that's one of the things I employ People for) demand that I comment on the quality of data I use as well as on the uncertainty inherent in the results I present. And given the sorts of things I'm trying to squeeze out of the data I have (which make the question under discussion here appear incredibly trivial) I'm very exposed to ropey data, so I have to apply very harsh standards.

I suppose where I differ is that I struggle to see any learning to be had from the anecdotes we're usually faced with here, which are even ropier in their presentation of the facts than the worst presentation of case reports you could possibly imagine being published. And case reports are published for the edification of experts in their field, who might use them to begin to create a hypothesis that could be tested - not so that people who are very much not experts (yes, I include myself in that) can use them to justify their own preconceptions.

 

[mjr]

Is there evidence of this? you seem to be of that belief so much so you mentioned it twice.

Is there evidence that helmet use is seen as moving us towards compulsion? Have you not seen what successive governments have been saying since before slipping the H&H blaming of cyclists into the highway code? Not noticed the drip-drip-drip of transport officers, police and - until recently - the health service telling cyclists they should use helmets? Not spotted the marginalisation of the helmet-wearing majority in official pictures of cycling?

For example, when asked "won't somebody please think of the children and force them to wear lumps of polystyrene?" (or words to that effect), they answered "Regular Department for Transport surveys have shown that the wearing rate for children has remained at around 18% i.e. the majority of children cyclists do not wear helmets. Compulsory laws would therefore cause significant enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have a negative effect on levels of cycling with direct disadvantages and costs in terms of health. For these reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce compulsory cycle helmet laws."

The message from government to helmet fanatics has been clear for years: deliver more helmet users and then we'll move to compulsion.

 

[ufkacbln]

Nice handbag.

Man bag shurely?

All you need to do is make sure the wife's bag is suitable

 

[ufkacbln]

Trialled my new haute coiture home made job today. Results, peak too long blocks forward view, sweaty in hot weather, made pedestrians get out of the way Maybe a winter hat???
View attachment 141770

You need a Tilley

.... And what is more they are "proven" to prevent head injuries

 

[Flying Dodo]

I came across an interesting example of a council trying to force someone to wear a helmet. A foster mum contacted me and said her local council have recommended that a 15 year lad she's fostering should have to have some form of Bikeability training. Which is fine, but they've also said he should wear a helmet, which he says he won't wear and she doesn't want to buy.

After doing a simplified Bikeability training session for him, I sent her an email for her to pass on to the social worker:

"With regard to wearing a helmet, this should be entirely down to an individual. It's important to realise that cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to a rider travelling at 12 mph falling onto a kerb from a height of 1 metre. Helmets are not tested nor expected to be able to offer protection if you come into contact with a vehicle which is moving. In addition, when you look at accident data from RoSPA, it shows that pedestrians suffer more head injuries per distance travelled than cyclists, and yet no-one states that pedestrians should wear helmets.

In view of the fact that head injuries form a small part of any cycle related injuries, a far more effective way of reducing injury is ensuring that cyclists wear gloves, as generally in any fall, it is the hands which take the impact. Therefore my personal opinion would be to get a pair of cycling gloves rather than a helmet."

I can't see how legally the council can insist the lad wears a helmet anyway, but it's worrying that they're trying to enforce helmet use.

 

[srw]

Is there evidence that helmet use is seen as moving us towards compulsion? Have you not seen what successive governments have been saying since before slipping the H&H blaming of cyclists into the highway code? Not noticed the drip-drip-drip of transport officers, police and - until recently - the health service telling cyclists they should use helmets? Not spotted the marginalisation of the helmet-wearing majority in official pictures of cycling?

For example, when asked "won't somebody please think of the children?" (or words to that affect, they answered "Regular Department for Transport surveys have shown that the wearing rate for children has remained at around 18% i.e. the majority of children cyclists do not wear helmets. Compulsory laws would therefore cause significant enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have a negative effect on levels of cycling with direct disadvantages and costs in terms of health. For these reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce compulsory cycle helmet laws."

The message from government to helmet fanatics has been clear for years: deliver more helmet users and then we'll move to compulsion.

Fortunately, I think that these days the UK government would be laughed out of parliament if it tried to use that argument. MPs see all around them in Westminster merry tourists on hire bikes riding in ordinary clothes without helmets and not getting mashed or becoming vegetables.

I also think you're underestimating the subtlety of UK civil service speak. "For these reasons" covers enforcement difficulties (it's too difficult), negative impact on levels on cycling (we like cyclists - see the later paragraphs), and negative impacts on health (bad). It doesn't cover "the majority of children cylists do not wear helmets". If it did, it would be worded differently - the word "therefore" wouldn't be there.

Which is why I'm not persuaded by the argument that every helmet sale is a vote for compulsion.

 

[mjr]

Fortunately, I think that these days the UK government would be laughed out of parliament if it tried to use that argument. MPs see all around them in Westminster merry tourists on hire bikes riding in ordinary clothes without helmets and not getting mashed or becoming vegetables.

I hope you're correct, but there's been precious little sign of that beyond the usual suspects.

 

[srw]

I came across an interesting example of a council trying to force someone to wear a helmet. A foster mum contacted me and said her local council have recommended that a 15 year lad she's fostering should have to have some form of Bikeability training. Which is fine, but they've also said he should wear a helmet, which he says he won't wear and she doesn't want to buy.

After doing a simplified Bikeability training session for him, I sent her an email for her to pass on to the social worker:

"With regard to wearing a helmet, this should be entirely down to an individual. It's important to realise that cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to a rider travelling at 12 mph falling onto a kerb from a height of 1 metre. Helmets are not tested nor expected to be able to offer protection if you come into contact with a vehicle which is moving. In addition, when you look at accident data from RoSPA, it shows that pedestrians suffer more head injuries per distance travelled than cyclists, and yet no-one states that pedestrians should wear helmets.

In view of the fact that head injuries form a small part of any cycle related injuries, a far more effective way of reducing injury is ensuring that cyclists wear gloves, as generally in any fall, it is the hands which take the impact. Therefore my personal opinion would be to get a pair of cycling gloves rather than a helmet."

I can't see how legally the council can insist the lad wears a helmet anyway, but it's worrying that they're trying to enforce helmet use.

Speaking of evidence.....

As far as I can tell from your story, what we've got is a lot of hearsay. Unless the foster-mother has a letter from the council then this is the recommendation of a social worker, so it's impossible to tell whether the council are trying to enforce helmet use or not.

[edit]
"The Bikeability scheme delivering the training may stipulate that helmets are required for training, and may provide children with high visibility tabards to wear."
http://bikeability.org.uk/faqs/

As the training provider, it's your choice.

 

[srw]

I hope you're correct, but there's been precious little sign of that beyond the usual suspects.

Precious little sign of what? Of MPs seeing merry tourists riding away or of something else?

 

[Mugshot]

Unless he's a performance artist, building a character, then no it's not a joke.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cycling-helmets.205830/

Cor blimey

 

[ufkacbln]

Evidence of damaged helmets have been posted on this forum on numerous occasions. Every one has been dismissed with the usual disdain.

However its nice to know that your skull might apparently be more resilient than you think

Luckily for you it looks like your helmet prevented you from doing a skull resilience test

Only if dismissal means any discussion not agreeing 100% to the original post

There have been valid discussions about the vulnerability of present design and cracking due to weak points... These seem to have been overlooked

Ironic that valid points are being dismissed

 

[mjr]

Precious little sign of what? Of MPs seeing merry tourists riding away or of something else?

Of ridiculous anti-cycling arguments being "laughed out of parliament". MPs that have said mad stuff like "I used to watch about 50% of the cyclists go straight through red lights" are still there.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Speaking of evidence.....

As far as I can tell from your story, what we've got is a lot of hearsay. Unless the foster-mother has a letter from the council then this is the recommendation of a social worker, so it's impossible to tell whether the council are trying to enforce helmet use or not.

Fair comment! I've told her to come back to me if the person at the council insists, and to get it in writing.