The Great Helmet Debate

[alfablue]

Alfablue - this is the great problem with the helmet debate. Cunobelin invites the comparison between our response to head injuries to children to that to those from another source. The comparison gets rejected on the basis of some specious arguments - the helmet proponents never argue their case logically.

Sorry, I object to that; it is not a specious argument, if there is a single cause of such magnitude then it is much easier (and therefore ethically appropriate) to address than the more complex multiple causes that make up the remainder. There are many causes of lung cancer - smoking is accepted as being a single factor causing a significant proportion, we don't just ignore it because there may be a sizable proportion with different aetiology. Contrary to your view I was attempting to make a logical argument, please don't generalise and tar all helmet proponents with this "illogical" "specious" argument label - now that is illogical!

 

[ufkacbln]

Let's accept for a minute that'
a. The most comon cause for a head injury in these children is cycling
b. Helmets can prevent many of these head injuries
c. Children should therefore wear helmets.

So therefore if : Link

Falls are the most common cause of head injuries in children less than 10 years of age

Would we therefore accept that helmets were neccessary iin all activties that constitute risk of a fall?

Given that most of these falls will happen when "playing, running and other activities" - al playing children should wear helmets?

Young children are more likely to have an accident or fall as they learn new skills such as walking, running, and jumping.

Link

Children suffer more head injuries whilst playing than when on bicycles!

The total number of head injuries
from the recreational activities studied
(58 480) was even higher than the
number of head injuries from bicycling
(55 998) in the same age range.


Head injuries from the recreational activities
were more than twice as frequent as
bicyclists' head injuries for children
younger than 5 years

Link


By al means let's protect the children, but let's be consistent and identify and protect where the risks actually are, not where we are led by a small active group to believe they are!

 

[Tony]

Sorry, I object to that; it is not a specious argument, if there is a single cause of such magnitude then it is much easier (and therefore ethically appropriate) to address than the more complex multiple causes that make up the remainder. There are many causes of lung cancer - smoking is accepted as being a single factor causing a significant proportion, we don't just ignore it because there may be a sizable proportion with different aetiology. Contrary to your view I was attempting to make a logical argument, please don't generalise and tar all helmet proponents with this "illogical" "specious" argument label - now that is illogical!

So as Cuno and co have identified this single cause of such magnitude.....and it isn't cycling....

 

[alfablue]

The total number of head injuries
from the recreational activities studied
(58 480) was even higher than the
number of head injuries from bicycling
(55 998) in the same age range.

So, "recreational activities" is one single type of activity then (must be rather boring)...

And cycling makes up 49% of all head injuries...

hmmm, I do see your point!

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

I have a few reasons for my pro-helmet, pro-choice stance.

Pro-helmet
1) I have crashed on the road whilst wearing a helmet - I bashed my head twice. Once on the forehead (it was the first bit of me to touch down) and once on the side of the helmet. I know there is nothing to say it "saved me" blah blah blah, but one thing it absolutely 100% saved me from is road-rash on my head. And judging that the road-rash on my hip went to the bone, as did my elbow, I'm glad all I got was a bruise above my left eye from the helmet.

2) Motorbike helmets started out as a token effort, then got slightly better and slightly better over the years as more of them were bought. By weaing a helemt to cycle in, I hope to encourage more R&D into making better and more effective helmets in the future.

3) I think they look cool!

4) My helmet is light, comfortable and fits properly - I don't notice it after 5mins inside it, so why not afford myself (howerver little) extra protection if it doesn't bother me?

Pro-choice
1) Cycling = freedom. Helmet compusion = removing freedom

2) Cycling is a d@mn safe sport

3) I want to see as many cyclists on the road as possible, forcing them to wear a helmet will cut numbers who just want to pop to uni / shops / etc etc

4) No catagorical proof that they help, so I cannot support compulsion.

 

[ufkacbln]

So, "recreational activities" is one single type of activity then (must be rather boring)...

And cycling makes up 49% of all head injuries...

hmmm, I do see your point!

Not the case, the paper only covers informal recreational activities.

There is also a skew if you look at age groups

If you consider 49% to be a valid reason for cycle helmets, surely if a single activity were to cause 75% of injuries (when all age groups are considered) the case for helmets would be absolutely unarguable?

Except that the 75% is in fact not cycle related, but;

For all ages combined, three fourths (74%) of the head injuries occurred in connection with playground equipment

There is a far greater argument for helmets on playground equipment surely?

 

[alfablue]

Not the case, the paper only covers informal recreational activities.

Well you have extracted selected "highlights" from the paper, and your extract suggested that it was the case - but I have looked at the link now (I should have done earlier rather than responding at face value to your selected points). I had assumed this was from up to date DOH data, but I see the study is based upon 1991 US data - apart from the methodological problems with the paper, the age of the data alone makes this study virtually useless for generalisations to today, and in the UK. There are also obvious problems with interpretation, for example the higher rates of playground head injuries amongst the under fives probably reflects that playground play is far more common than cycling amongst this age group. I think it is fruitless to attempt a meaningful discussion of these issues based on a selection of "evidence" chosen to support ones own views. There is insufficent up to date and rigorous data available to us to draw firm conclusions either way (though there is some data from meta-analyses and systematic reviews these are still controversial and inconclusive).

If you consider 49% to be a valid reason for cycle helmets, surely if a single activity were to cause 75% of injuries (when all age groups are considered) the case for helmets would be absolutely unarguable?

Except that the 75% is in fact not cycle related, but;


There is a far greater argument for helmets on playground equipment surely?

This is confounding two seperate sources of statistics - the 75% relates to the second data set, which did not include cycling, however given the total number of head injuries from both sources of data (cyclist data and recreational activities data) the percentages were 49% for the first and 51% for the second - however the second data source included activities such as skate boarding and in-line skating.

The paper is all about recommending multi-purpose helmets, so they are indeed attempting to make a case for this, however in the 16 years since this study, in the UK at least, providers of playgrounds have stumbled upon the novel idea of fitting rubber or bark floors to playgrounds. If you can do this, then the call for helmets for playground use is somewhat redundant - the same possibilities don't exist in relation to cycling (unless we rubberise roads, pavements, kerbs, lamp posts and vehicles, which I don't believe is reasonably practicable). The multi-purpose helmet argument probably has more relevance to skateboarding and inline skating (and some youngsters do indeed use helmets for these activities).

 

[Tony]

I note from your reading of the stats it says "playground equipment".
That won't be the ground, then.

 

[alfablue]

I note from your reading of the stats it says "playground equipment".
That won't be the ground, then.

Oh this is so tedious...

The study says "associated with playground equipment", does one assume that cycling related head injuries are all caused by the head hitting the bike??? Please!!!

The study is not really worthy of debate anyway, but this level of pedantry is really dull.

 

[Tony]

No. What is dull is the assumption that helmets are A Good Thing because, er, it's obvious, innit?
Picking a figure that suits you and then ignoring the stats that don't is not debate.
Your comment "tedious" is unfortunately reminiscent of Bonj's debating style. Jacomus, above, has neatly put a rational position. He thinks helmets might be a good thing, and due to personal experience wears one. He also accepts that there is evidence pulling in both directions, and therefore opposes compulsion.
There are shedloads of stats showing how harmful helmet compulsion is, and how such legal coercion increases death and injury rates, but I won't bother quoting them as you will simply call them "tedious".

 

[alfablue]

No. What is dull is the assumption that helmets are A Good Thing because, er, it's obvious, innit?

I do not make this assumption - check my posts.

Picking a figure that suits you and then ignoring the stats that don't is not debate.

I have not done this, I have merely commented on the selected statistics offered by others - check my posts.

Your comment "tedious" is unfortunately reminiscent of Bonj's debating style.

What is tedious is the level of pedantry employed in a weak attempt to score points in the debate (I consider that the implication that "associated with playground equipment" excludes falls from said equipment to floor, pedantry of a high order, and adds nothing to the debate). To compare my debating style to bonj's is an insult of the highest order, I have merely pointed out the folly of the eroneous statistics cited (even when they actually support helmet use), in particular drawing attention to their poor validity and the folly of using them without consideration of the data sources and context - check my posts. You don't like it, fair enough.

Jacomus, above, has neatly put a rational position. He thinks helmets might be a good thing, and due to personal experience wears one. He also accepts that there is evidence pulling in both directions, and therefore opposes compulsion.

I am entirely with JAcomus, I am anti-compulsion (check my posts).

There are shedloads of stats showing how harmful helmet compulsion is, and how such legal coercion increases death and injury rates, but I won't bother quoting them as you will simply call them "tedious".

quoting studies is fine (however it is important to understand that correlations do not indicate causation); pedantry is tedious.

 

[Panter]

Sorry to reawake this but...........

After reading cyclecraft I got the impression the author didn't recommend wearing a helmet.

So, searched on here and found this thread.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but what are the "anti" arguements?

Is it just the risk of it snagging something on the road and causing neck trauma and that cars may not give you as much room?

As I say, sorry if I'm missing the point but as a newb I want to make an informed choice.

FWIW I always wear a helmet, at the moment.

 

[Jaded]

FWIW I always wear a helmet, at the moment.

Well, I think you are very sensible.

I've had several near misses when posting on an internet forum.

Wear it, and wear it proud.

 

[Panter]

pmsl

Hell, it keeps the dust off anyway

 

[KitsuneAndy]

Sorry to reawake this but...........

After reading cyclecraft I got the impression the author didn't recommend wearing a helmet.

So, searched on here and found this thread.

Sorry if I'm missing the point but what are the "anti" arguements?

Is it just the risk of it snagging something on the road and causing neck trauma and that cars may not give you as much room?

As I say, sorry if I'm missing the point but as a newb I want to make an informed choice.

FWIW I always wear a helmet, at the moment.

Some of the 'anti' arguments are based around the fact that it gives you a false sense of security. The sense of 'I'll be ok if I fall off/get hit by a car, I have a helmet' and detracts from the argument that being a better, more aware cyclist will protect you much more than a bit of polystyrene.