The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

Good.

I'm not proposing any compulsion, and last time I looked we don't have that in the UK.
I choose to wear one when I want and sometimes that means I'll wear one when cycling. Sometimes I don't wear one at all. I choose not to wear one as a pedestrian, it's down to me if I suffer a head injury whilst walking. And I don't use one in my car or van, yet again down to me my choice, I could if I wanted but I don't.
These are all choices based on my life's experiences and those of other people I know.

 

[Mugshot]

I'm not proposing any compulsion, and last time I looked we don't have that in the UK.
I choose to wear one when I want and sometimes that means I'll wear one when cycling. Sometimes I don't wear one at all. I choose not to wear one as a pedestrian, it's down to me if I suffer a head injury whilst walking. And I don't use one in my car or van, yet again down to me my choice, I could if I wanted but I don't.
These are all choices based on my life's experiences and those of other people I know.

That's a whole lot of waffle without an answer to @benb s question.

 

[philepo]

More people suffer head injuries as pedestrians than as cyclists. If you are proposing a public health intervention, then you will always look at absolute risk rather than relative, so even if cycling is relatively more risky than walking, pedestrian helmets (assuming you are correct that they are effective) would save a lot more injuries if they were worn by pedestrians than by cyclists. yet you are suggesting only cyclists ought to wear them. Why?

Why are you only attempting to protect cyclists?

It's not me being obtuse: you need to demonstrate why it's worth protecting one group from head injury but not another. The fact that you cannot, and resort to straw man arguments is illuminating.

This reply of yous is very interesting, so here's mine:

Source: National Travel Survey - Table NTS0305 - Average distance travelled by mode, Great Britain.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
==============================================================
Kilometres walked 311 316 294 301 290
Kilometres cycled 68 73 68 79 85
==============================================================

PEDESTRIANS (per 100 million kilometres walked)
==============================================================
Killed 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.4
Seriously injured 31.8 28.6 28.8 29.5 31.2
KSI 34.8 31.2 31.0 31.9 33.5
Slightly injured 114.4 107.6 112.0 109.7 107.9
All casualties 149.2 138.8 143.0 141.7 141.5
==============================================================

PEDAL CYCLISTS (per 100 million kilometres cycled)
==============================================================
Killed 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.3
Seriously injured 59.0 57.9 63.5 63.9 61.9
KSI 61.8 60.2 66.1 66.2 64.2
Slightly injured 330.9 319.1 343.9 332.1 302.8
All casualties 392.7 379.4 410.0 398.3 367.0
==============================================================

So, is a risk of 2x more likely to be seriously injured big enough a difference?

 

[Mugshot]

Not to mention the umpteenth repetition of the same thing.

I started typing that and decided it just wasn't worth the effort.

 

[ufkacbln]

This reply of yous is very interesting, so here's mine:

Source: National Travel Survey - Table NTS0305 - Average distance travelled by mode, Great Britain.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
==============================================================
Kilometres walked 311 316 294 301 290
Kilometres cycled 68 73 68 79 85
==============================================================

PEDESTRIANS (per 100 million kilometres walked)
==============================================================
Killed 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.4
Seriously injured 31.8 28.6 28.8 29.5 31.2
KSI 34.8 31.2 31.0 31.9 33.5
Slightly injured 114.4 107.6 112.0 109.7 107.9
All casualties 149.2 138.8 143.0 141.7 141.5
==============================================================

PEDAL CYCLISTS (per 100 million kilometres cycled)
==============================================================
Killed 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.3
Seriously injured 59.0 57.9 63.5 63.9 61.9
KSI 61.8 60.2 66.1 66.2 64.2
Slightly injured 330.9 319.1 343.9 332.1 302.8
All casualties 392.7 379.4 410.0 398.3 367.0
==============================================================

So, is a risk of 2x more likely to be seriously injured big enough a difference?

Sorry ..... You seemed to have missed people in libraries

 

[ufkacbln]

This reply of yous is very interesting, so here's mine:

Source: National Travel Survey - Table NTS0305 - Average distance travelled by mode, Great Britain.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
==============================================================
Kilometres walked 311 316 294 301 290
Kilometres cycled 68 73 68 79 85
==============================================================

PEDESTRIANS (per 100 million kilometres walked)
==============================================================
Killed 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.4
Seriously injured 31.8 28.6 28.8 29.5 31.2
KSI 34.8 31.2 31.0 31.9 33.5
Slightly injured 114.4 107.6 112.0 109.7 107.9
All casualties 149.2 138.8 143.0 141.7 141.5
==============================================================

PEDAL CYCLISTS (per 100 million kilometres cycled)
==============================================================
Killed 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.3
Seriously injured 59.0 57.9 63.5 63.9 61.9
KSI 61.8 60.2 66.1 66.2 64.2
Slightly injured 330.9 319.1 343.9 332.1 302.8
All casualties 392.7 379.4 410.0 398.3 367.0
==============================================================

So, is a risk of 2x more likely to be seriously injured big enough a difference?

Once upon a time there was a man who set up a "Road Safety" website called S@fespeed

This was a man who would suggest such road safety actions such as trawling the local obituaries and claiming one of the Recently deceased was driving your car when caught speeding as the Police were unlikely to upset the family by investigating

Having established his credentials....

He looked at fatalities and proved that the number of fatalities caused by cyclists was far greater than that caused by vehicles

He proved unequivocally that as a whole there was far more reason to clamp down on cyclists than any of the motoring misdemeanors such as speeding, dangerous driving, being on the phone and drink driving combined!

 

[mjr]

So, is a risk of 2x more likely to be seriously injured big enough a difference?[/COLOR]

Reread what you posted: people are cycling 85km being injured at a rate of 61.9 / 100Mkm = 0.000052615 injuries per person; but people are walking 290km being injured at a rate of 31.2 / 100Mkm = 0.00009048 injuries per person; which looks like walking has nearly 2x the injuries per person to me, so why aren't you demanding walking armour? I suspect it's because although less absurd than cycling armour, it's still absurd and more obviously absurd to more people.

 

[ufkacbln]

I am not pro helmet just anti poor anti arguments.

Whereas most of us are contesting poor pro-arguments

 

[MontyVeda]

Are these all head injuries?

beat me to it... but I have spent all afternoon recklessly risking my life, riding a bike

 

[Profpointy]

I hope you protected yourself from broken collarbones, wrists, and ankles by wearing a lump of polystyrene on your head .

Well didn't the oft quoted rivera thompson rivera results show a correlation between helmet wearing and a reduction in leg injuries. In fact I think it "proved" helmets reduced leg injuries even more than head injuries, although they didn't emphasise that part for some reason

 

[MontyVeda]

I hope you protected yourself from broken collarbones, wrists, and ankles by wearing a lump of polystyrene on your head .

kind of... i did have my cotton 'chav' hat on ...seems to have worked a treat

 

[growingvegetables]

Well didn't the oft quoted rivera thompson rivera results show a correlation between helmet wearing and a reduction in leg injuries. In fact I think it "proved" helmets reduced leg injuries even more than head injuries, although they didn't emphasise that part for some reason

Think you'll have to provide a little bit more than a vague memory of a mis-spelled reference?

 

[Justinslow]

Not to mention the umpteenth repetition of the same thing.

Is this not a case of hypocrisy? Talk about going round and round in ever decreasing circles.......

 

[MontyVeda]

Is this not a case of hypocrisy? Talk about going round and round in ever decreasing circles.......

well it's a very simple discussion with over 3000 posts... do you really expect something new?

 

[Profpointy]

Think you'll have to provide a little bit more than a vague memory of a mis-spelled reference?

Here you go - first line in my google search

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=356

Mind you, 2nd line of the search was my own post above