Would You Be Here Today If You Hadn't Been Wearing A Helmet?

[billy1561]

No winners in here. Would like to say i bashed my head wearing a helmet in a crash and it definately saved some skin. Did it save my life? Doubtful, but needless to say but i'll say it anyway i wear my helmet on every ride.

 

[david k]

Just because someone says "I fell off, the helmet saved my life" doesn't make it true. Not ignoring or trivializing it, but how do you know?
Anecdote ≠ data

i said reduced injuries and you said save life, once again proof of trying to change the meaning to make it sound more ridiculous

I dont know, im taking peoples comments on face value, however i do know my son fell off his bike and bumped his head and the helmet was badly damaged, it was all scratched, this would have been him if not wearing one so in this case it definitely reduced the injury

 

[david k]

Redlight spends all his time reading reports. He must be right

i cannot believe he reads and knows so many reports, he either works in this industry or he is bordering on obsessive. Not having a go redlight, just an observation

 

[benb]

i said reduced injuries and you said save life, once again proof of trying to change the meaning to make it sound more ridiculous

I dont know, im taking peoples comments on face value, however i do know my son fell off his bike and bumped his head and the helmet was badly damaged, it was all scratched, this would have been him if not wearing one so in this case it definitely reduced the injury

I was just making the point that when people are seriously suggesting compelling people to wear helmets, we can't take a bunch of anecdotes and use them to formulate public policy.

In some crashes I have no doubt that a helmet reduced the injury. In some it may even have saved someone's life. But when you consider:

1. all of the evidence shows that mandatory helmet laws significantly reduce cycling
2. thousands of lives would be saved from reducing heart disease if we could encourage people to switch to bikes for short journeys
3. mandatory helmet use would only save at best a handful of lives
4. there is some evidence that wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of injury, when looking at the data at a population level
5. helmets are only rated for very low energy impacts; certainly less than that which you would encounter in a collision with a moving motor vehicle

You can see why people are so vehemently against mandatory helmet laws.

No-one is suggesting that people who wear helmets are wrong, but many are misinformed or plain wrong about the level of protection they offer.

And BTW I usually wear a helmet, but haven't bothered for the last couple of days as it's been too hot.

 

[david k]

i agree, good post.
i would like to see improvements and further study

 

[Bman]

there seems to be a direct attempt to discredit anyone who has fallen off and felt the helmet reduced their potential injuries, whilst i accept one offs cannot be taken to prove the whole case it cannot be ignored or trivialized either

All four of them?

 

[Red Light]

I was just making the point that when people are seriously suggesting compelling people to wear helmets, we can't take a bunch of anecdotes and use them to formulate public policy.

Hey, look at this.....we should have mandatory smoking for everyone.

In some crashes I have no doubt that a helmet reduced the injury. In some it may even have saved someone's life. But when you consider:

1. all of the evidence shows that mandatory helmet laws significantly reduce cycling
2. thousands of lives would be saved from reducing heart disease if we could encourage people to switch to bikes for short journeys
3. mandatory helmet use would only save at best a handful of lives
4. there is some evidence that wearing a helmet actually increases the risk of injury, when looking at the data at a population level
5. helmets are only rated for very low energy impacts; certainly less than that which you would encounter in a collision with a moving motor vehicle

You forgot that cycling is no more productive of head injuries than walking and many other activities we do daily where the suggestion that a helmet should be worn would be met by ridicule (including I strongly suspect by all those arguing for cycle helmets here).

And cycling is responsible for a tiny percentage of head injuries overall with no-one suggesting helmets to protect against the vast majority of head injuries (motor vehicle accidents, trips and falls while walking and in the home and physical assaults)

 

[Red Light]

Redlight spends all his time reading reports. He must be right

I'd rather argue from the evidence base than from fatih and ignorance.

 

[Red Light]

i cannot believe he reads and knows so many reports, he either works in this industry or he is bordering on obsessive. Not having a go redlight, just an observation

I've been doing this for some long time but if you are going to help stop mandatory helmet laws being introduced then you need to know the evidence base to make the case and counter the lies. Being called obsessive about preventing mandatory helmet laws for me is a compliment and but for the efforts of a few "obsessives" you would probably have had a mandatory helmet law by now as part of the Road Safety Act 2006.

I have the slight advantage that reviewing research used to be part of the day job so its not particularly difficult to do plus I have the advantage of having access to online publications that are not available to most people without charge and am happy to contribute those skills and assets to the cause of freedom of choice. Remember I am obsessive about informed freedom of choice - I'm not trying to ban helmets and I know of no-one who is.

Also remember in the past 12 months Jersey passed a mandatory helmet law, Northern Ireland came very close to having one and an attempt is in progress in Parliament at the moment.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I've been doing this for some long time but if you are going to help stop mandatory helmet laws being introduced then you need to know the evidence base to make the case and counter the lies. Being called obsessive about preventing mandatory helmet laws for me is a compliment and but for the efforts of a few "obsessives" you would probably have had a mandatory helmet law by now as part of the Road Safety Act 2006.

I have the slight advantage that reviewing research used to be part of the day job so its not particularly difficult to do plus I have the advantage of having access to online publications that are not available to most people without charge and am happy to contribute those skills and assets to the cause of freedom of choice. Remember I am obsessive about informed freedom of choice - I'm not trying to ban helmets and I know of no-one who is.

Also remember in the past 12 months Jersey passed a mandatory helmet law, Northern Ireland came very close to having one and an attempt is in progress in Parliament at the moment.

Well said.

It is so easy to just sleep walk into compulsion if nobody challenges the wild and unsubstantiated claims made about the effectiveness of helmets. Why people can't just live and let live and mind their own business beats me. Nobody has any need to try and prove the benefits of a crash helmet - if you think they are a good thing just wear one, no-one is trying to get them banned.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm not trying to ban helmets and I know of no-one who is.

The evidence you present suggests however that they should be banned. Why is it that the Government is choosing to ignore all of this evidence and plod along advocating helmet wearing. I am genuinely curious now as the evidence you have shown presents a great argument for not wearing them.

 

[david k]

If it proves to be true that wearing a helmet leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have them banned?

 

[Red Light]

If it proves to be true that wearing a helmet leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have them banned?

Why does everything have to be banned or mandated? The risks of cycling are so low that it really doesn't matter whether you wear one or not at the end of the day. Let people make their own minds.

What we really need to do is to stop telling everyone how dangerous cycling is and how they need to armour up and cower in segregated facilities. We need to start to promote the joys and benefits of cycling instead. Compare the British approach to that in the Netherlands.

Transcript of Stockton Borough Council advert on Galaxy FM:

"One day whilst he was cycling to school Timmy saw Daniel with a cycle helmet on. Timmy laughed at Daniel and said to him: "Look at you with your helmet on, you big 'nana!" Daniel felt bad, but he went on wearing his cycle helmet anyway. The very next day Timmy saw Daniel wearing his helmet again and began to laugh out loud. Then, all of a sudden, a car came round the corner and knocked them both to the ground. Bounce! went Daniels helmet on the kerb. Smash! went Timmy's fragile head. Splosh! went his brains as they spewed onto the path. Oh dear! Timmy wasn't laughing any more. Timmy would never laugh again."


Dutch cycling video:

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHIOGA2dDSY[/media]


Which do you think is more likely to make people want to cycle and which put them off?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Why does everything have to be banned or mandated? The risks of cycling are so low that it really doesn't matter whether you wear one or not at the end of the day. Let people make their own minds.

What we really need to do is to stop telling everyone how dangerous cycling is and how they need to armour up and cower in segregated facilities. We need to start to promote the joys and benefits of cycling instead. Compare the British approach to that in the Netherlands.

Transcript of Stockton Borough Council advert on Galaxy FM:

"One day whilst he was cycling to school Timmy saw Daniel with a cycle helmet on. Timmy laughed at Daniel and said to him: "Look at you with your helmet on, you big 'nana!" Daniel felt bad, but he went on wearing his cycle helmet anyway. The very next day Timmy saw Daniel wearing his helmet again and began to laugh out loud. Then, all of a sudden, a car came round the corner and knocked them both to the ground. Bounce! went Daniels helmet on the kerb. Smash! went Timmy's fragile head. Splosh! went his brains as they spewed onto the path. Oh dear! Timmy wasn't laughing any more. Timmy would never laugh again."


Dutch cycling video:

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHIOGA2dDSY[/media]


Which do you think is more likely to make people want to cycle and which put them off?

The question still remains. If all the reputable reports say helmet wearing is more dangerous than not wearing a helemt why do you think the government et al failed to encourage the non wearing of helmets?

Also this is a helmet safety debate not a "encouraging people to cycle" debate so the examples above, whilst interesting, are irrelevant.

 

[Dan B]

If it proves to be true that wearing a helmet leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have them banned?

If it proves to be true that drinking alcohol leads to more injuries is it not right to lobby to have that banned too?

How about giving people the facts and letting them make their own minds up?