The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[swansonj]

I was in London last week I counted the first 25 riders, 24 wore helmets. Not large scale research I know, but strikes me wearing helmets hasn't had a negative effect on cycling numbers.
...

I'm struggling a bit to see how does that conclusion follow from that observation?

 

[david k]

I was trying to cross the road in Gloucester today, I had to wait for 5 minutes whilst a long stream of cars went by. Not large scale research I know, but it strikes me that the rising cost of petrol hasn't had a negative effect on car numbers.*

The trouble is, in isolation this tells us next to nothing about numbers as they stand, and absolutely nothing about where they might have been if you changed factor X, Y or Z.
You need something like the Australian data mentioned more than once already in this thread. Statistics is a complicated business and proving causality more slippery than a bucket of eels covered in olive oil in situations like this.


Sure. But you have to use rigorous statistical analysis to know exactly what affects which things. And even then the experts still get it wrong.

*This is not meant sarcastically nor unkindly, although I read it back and it reads somewhat so I'm afraid. I can't seem to find a more succinct way of doing it without losing the point in 15 paragraphs of TL DR.

Agreed which is why I said not large scale, I actually stopped counting but still watched and there are man many cyclists the majority wearing helmets, maybe it tells us little but there's no obvious effect

I'm struggling a bit to see how does that conclusion follow from that observation?

Again, I realise this is very small scale, but on the surface of it, the majority wore helmets and still lots of cyclists.
Just trying to make the point that many things affect cycling choice, we cannot only consider helmet use

 

[srw]

Agreed which is why I said not large scale, I actually stopped counting but still watched and there are man many cyclists the majority wearing helmets, maybe it tells us little but there's no obvious effect


Again, I realise this is very small scale, but on the surface of it, the majority wore helmets and still lots of cyclists.
Just trying to make the point that many things affect cycling choice, we cannot only consider helmet use

"Lots" might have been "lots and lots and lots" without the promotion of helmets. You can't know, and so your conclusion was logically flawed.

 

[Roxy641]

Agreed which is why I said not large scale, I actually stopped counting but still watched and there are man many cyclists the majority wearing helmets, maybe it tells us little but there's no obvious effect

Again, I realise this is very small scale, but on the surface of it, the majority wore helmets and still lots of cyclists.
Just trying to make the point that many things affect cycling choice, we cannot only consider helmet use

I did the same the other day while cycling in central London, sometimes the majority are wearing helmets, sometimes the majority are not wearing helmets. None of us have time to do a full time survey. But perhaps it would even out to 50/50 had there been a survey of people noting down this all over the country. Each of us on our own is so small an amount, it doesn't really mean anything.

 

[jefmcg]

I do want to read the full paper. But I'm b'd if I'm going to pay thirty quid for the privilege, so I'm waiting till I can get to a library where I can download it for free. A classic example of the iniquity of the conventional model of scientific publishing (which @Flying_Monkey have discussed before) - the authors can put out a press release and generate the alarm and concern, but no-one can check the data for themselves without contributing to the coffers of a publishing house, albeit in this case an academic one rather than a purely commercial one.

It needs to be pointed out that neither the authors or the peer reviewers receive any sort of monetary compensation from the publishing house. Also, back in the day the authors of papers would send a copy of their paper (they did get extra copies from the journals) to anyone that wrote to them requesting a copy - paying themselves or their department to send it to Russia or some other then benighted country where academics don't have access to journals.

I believe some authors still do this: has anyone reached out and asked for a copy?

 

[mjr]

I did the same the other day while cycling in central London, sometimes the majority are wearing helmets, sometimes the majority are not wearing helmets. None of us have time to do a full time survey. But perhaps it would even out to 50/50 had there been a survey of people noting down this all over the country. Each of us on our own is so small an amount, it doesn't really mean anything.

And the last whole-country official survey was 34% in 2008... they used to be every two years but there's not been another since... perhaps because the helmet zealots in government don't want the embarrassment if we're now heading towards the 15% in Germany or lower in the Netherlands, rather than their hoped-for majority of good little cowed-by-cars cyclists hiding under hard hats?

 

[Big Andy]

Who are the helmet zealots in government?

 

[mjr]

Who are the helmet zealots in government?

No-one outside really knows. Most pronouncements about cyclists being encouraged or forced helmets have not had named authors but appeared in departmental reports or been attributed to unnamed spokespeople. It's hard enough finding out who's responsible for the likes of Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership's tweets, let alone more official national stuff like that.

I have more respect for the people willing to put their pseudonym behind their helmet views in discussions like this than I do for the mostly-anonymous helmet-pushers in government (national and local) and British Cycling who simply refuse to explain their unjustifiable-by-evidence actions and in the case of British Cycling, sometimes claim that the insurance industry makes them do it, which seems unlikely and is basically unverifiable buck-passing.

 

[Brandane]

The One Show, doing helmets just now......

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The One Show, doing helmets just now......

With the interviewer asking people why they're not wearing one while wearing his own helmet incorrectly fitted.
Tit.

 

[mjr]

With the interviewer asking people why they're not wearing one while wearing his own helmet incorrectly fitted.
Tit.

Dangling chin strap and too big for him:

(thanks @irc for the screen capture)

It's a double whammy of evil from the BBC (Bike-Bashing Channel): promoting crash helmet use based on an irrelevant tragic anecdote (would a helmet law have been complied with when two of the bikes in the selfie were unlit?) and then implying it's OK to wear them incorrectly, thereby impairing whatever limited impact protection they offer.

 

[ufkacbln]

Dangling chin strap and too big for him:
View attachment 146840
(thanks @irc for the screen capture)

It's a double whammy of evil from the BBC (Bike-Bashing Channel): promoting crash helmet use based on an irrelevant tragic anecdote (would a helmet law have been complied with when two of the bikes in the selfie were unlit?) and then implying it's OK to wear them incorrectly, thereby impairing whatever limited impact protection they offer.

... and give the evidence that poorly fitted helmets may increase injury, failing in their duty as a Broadcaster

 

[ClichéGuevara]

My mate has broken his leg in a football match, and can't ride his bike.

That's conclusive proof that playing football can protect cyclists from head injury.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

And what if a large ornament falls off a shelf onto his head whilst he is watching telly whilst recovering from said broken leg?

He'd be immune, as he's no longer a cyclist.

 

[jefmcg]

My mate has broken his leg in a football match, and can't ride his bike.

That's conclusive proof that playing football can protect cyclists from head injury.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soccer-players-show-signs-of-brain/