Tatááááá´-----Originally Posted by Josh B
Chance x consequences = low enough to ignore.
See
I can see you walking down the stairs, crossing a zebra, cleaning the windows, stepping out of the train etc. Where do you normally have your helmet? On you belt?
Chance x consequence = variable, don´t be sily about dogmas. And years of experience? With all due respect, that is not proof. Many people get old doing the same thing, learning nothing.
Fair enough.
Same here. I wear one, and a LOT more gear, when needed too.
Now, we only need to acknowlegde that wearing a hemet does chance, increase, risk behavior.
Disagree. As I have said numerous times, the Peltzman effect is not shown to apply in relation to cycle helmets.
but even if that was not the case, FOR ME, it does not make a difference to the way i ride whether or not I wear a helmet. (And because sometimes I do not I know this.)
so for me it makes sense to wear one (and am surprised at people who come to a different general conclusion) But again, as I've said all along, I accept some situations may be different and consequently support personal choice rather than legislation.
Ok, so you are convinced that wearing a helmet does not influence the behavior of the wearer.
As a general rule that is my view, yes.
there are, of course, exceptions to every rule. But if anyone is stupid enough to think that a helmet is going to make them safe from traffic then natural selection is going to get them sooner or later anyway.
The latter is no proof of your view, but alas, you see it that way.
I see it differently. In my experience the cycling helmet affects the behavior of both wearers and traffic. No not álle, but in general.
I have experienced this pérsonally to the extreme both on the bicycle and on the horse.
Let us agree to disagree.
It does illustrate why you are convinced that the cycling helmet is only and per definition a good thing and why I am seeing it as a good thing with serious problems.
Now, on the méta level, they are a very VERY bád thing for cyclists.
Pointing the finger at cycling helmest is an alibi for governments to not take respeonsibility for making motorists conscious about and roads safer for cyclists. So yes, in that sense the áre dangerous. They ´cause´ more accidents.
There is no doubt about this bit sadly enough.
Both the Netherlands/Belgium and Australia are clear cut cases proving this.
Sadly enough Spain too. The mandatory use of the helmet where most deadly accidents occur is adressing accidents for which the helmet makes NO difference. It diverts attention from them not doing ánything to adress the cause of the accidents and sadly enough the number of accidents increases because the cyclists feel entitled, safe.
Again; just look at the Netherlands. Why think you knw better? They have already proven the point!
Bottom line;
- do wear a helmet when you go risk cycling
- no need for low risk/ utilitarian use
- government needs adress safer roads and motorists consciousness, not drop the helmetted ball with cyclists
Úse your head, don´t think protecting is it the solution
But these chaps are.
Lardelli-Claret, P; De Dios Luna-Del-Castillo, J; Jiménez-Moleón, JJ; García-Martín, M; Bueno-Cavanillas, A; Gálvez-Vargas, R (2003). "Risk compensation theory and voluntary helmet use by cyclists in Spain". Injury Prevention 9 (2): 128–32. doi:10.1136/ip.9.2.128. PMC 1730952. PMID 12810738.
Phillips, Ross Owen; Fyhri, Aslak; Sagberg, Fridulv (2011). "Risk Compensation and Bicycle Helmets". Risk Analysis 31 (8): 1187–95. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01589.x. PMID 21418079.
Goverde, Marcel (September–October 2009). "Helmets Make You Bicycle Faster". Annals of Improbable Research 15 (5): 6–9.
Do you not see the irony...
Actually, no.
I am véry much, well ´upset´ just about covers it, about how extreme the effect of attire of the rider/cysclist is on behaviour of the motorist.
Being dutch and having used bicycles just about daily in the Netherlands for about 30 years, I am thóroughly conscious of the fundamentals of cyclist safety and that a helmet is only a usefull extra for sóme situations.
The two key aspects in reducing risk are:
1. behaviour; of both the cyclists and motorists
2. design of infra structure
Over here in southern Spain cyclist are ´forced´ to use the N340. Do look that road up. I use the word ´forced´ as in many places there is no practical alternative for them.
They are far and few between so motorists are not acutely aware and even if they were, they have nowhere to gó and slowing down to cycling speed is downright dangerous for all concerned.
Cars/busses/truck cannot avoid whizzing very close past cyclist and if one would te get struck a helmet is useless.
As the government has adressed the safety issue with a law, by making the helmet mandatory, they wash their hands of not adressing the two real causes.
As I am looking to buy a retro bike (if I can get the helmet issue sorted) and possibly one for my dutch gf, I had the idea of buying one in Madrid and ride them home. making a romantic road trip of it.
My gf vetoed it because the spanish situation is too dangerous. To travel distances there is no alternative to using provincial roads. Since there are NO cycling paths one needs to ride on the main lane of 80 km/h roads which are by and large only just wide enough for two cars.
This:
is typical.
On horseback in spectacular attire or in uniform you get way more noticed/respect/space than is normal riding attire with cap et al.
As a cycling helmet offers nó protection against accidents with cars on provincial roads, we will not take the risk of the spanish roads/traffic.
You should. You reject anyone else's experience and real-life stories as being unproven then just harp on about your feelings and experience, deciding as a blanket statement that what you perceive to be true is fact.
There is nothing to be gained from discussing a topic on which you have made your mind some time ago, I just find it rather amusing.
Here are a couple of papers that suggest otherwise, so not that clear cut.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21418079
It's unfortunately the "real-life" statistics don't correspond with your "real-life" experience stories.
And one example when they are dangerous is when you aren't on your bike, a number of children have strangled wearing them. Although it is not inconceivable that this could occur while riding a bike.
http://cyclehelmets.org/1227.html
The "real-life" statistics support the "real-life" fact that wearing a "real-life" lid makes you more likely to actually have a "real-life" in the event of a "real-life" accident.
Even the biggest hackneyed, militant sources of info like the one quoted above concede that there is no data. The trial in the link above yours used 35 cyclists that volunteered. 35. Volunteers. That's not statistically any use whatsoever :)
The link you've posted has absolutely nothing to do with cycling. I could present a list of a similar amount of deaths and injuries due to toothbrushes then conclude that brushing one's teeth is foolhardy. It isn't - it stops you looking like a Spanish farmer for one thing ;)
I can't really add anything to this debate & I've read it from start to finish - the decision to wear/not wear a helmet is surely down to personal preference? If you've learnt to ride without one why shouldn't you continue riding like that if you're comfortable with it?
I bought a new bike last year (a Whyte Cambridge hybrid for those interested) & I now try & cycle into work whenever I can. It's a 20ish mile round trip & I'm trying to get into a regular 1 day a week (at least) routine. I used to exercise/cycle regularly but have fallen into lazy ways & I'm already the feeling the health benefits.
When I first started riding bikes (probably over 40 years ago now, I'm 50) helmets didn't exist so I never wore one, though I dare say that had they been available my Mum & Dad may well have bought me one & tried to make me wear it. I'm lucky in that I've never had a serious accident on any of my bikes, in fact I've never had a serious accident/injury at all unless you can call biting through my tongue when I was about 5 a serious injury!?
Traffic volume has increased hugely from my childhood/teenage years & I now wear a helmet as my route into work takes me along some quite busy roads. I don't consider myself to be a more inattentive/complacent rider because of me wearing a helmet I just think it's better to have the extra (possibly perceived) protection that the helmet offers. It's not a particularly expensive helmet though so whether it'll do me any good in an accident or not is open to debate, I've certainly no wish to put it to the test that's for sure! If it's a particularly cold morning I've been known to wear a fleece cap instead of the helmet; I'm bald, so find things cold initially, though even the uncovered bits soon warm up & I usually end up taking the cap off part way through the ride.
Occasionally I'll decide to cycle along the canal towpath which is much quieter but a lot rougher on both me & the bike (no suspension) so this isn't my preferred route really. I still wear my helmet though - it's polystyrene so might help me float if I ever end up in the canal - & the towpath doesn't, unfortunately, take me straight to work so there are are still roads to negotiate & traffic to ride through after I've got off the towpath.
Cars seem to pass me now just as they ever did irrespective of whether I'm wearing a helmet or not, sometimes they'll drive on the wrong side of the road when they pass me (which seems a bit excessive but at least they're giving me some room), sometimes they'll scrape the ends off my handlebars as they pass, but mostly they're sensible enough & give me a reasonably wide berth without being daft about it. On the few occasions I've not worn my helmet I've not become a reckless rider & ride just as I've always done (defensively most of the time). Similarly I always stop at red traffic lights - unlike many (most?) other cyclists I see - I suspect this is a different topic of debate though.
I can see why many people choose to wear a helmet, just as I can see why many people choose not to wear a one - it's my choice that I wear one (99% of the time) as it seems sensible to me even if the safety benefits may end up being negligible - I don't find it uncomfortable, heavy or an encroachment on my personal liberty. Obviously it's best not to have an accident in the first place, or ride in a manner that's likely to get you into that sort of situation, but surely it's good old common sense to minimize the risks involved if you ever do end up having one?
It's your bike so ride it the way you want but ride safely :)
Last edited by pauluspaolo; 4th July 2014 at 11:59.
No they don't:-) They are inconclusive, that is why we can debate for so long.
IIHS Bicylist deaths by helmet use, 1994-2012
I fail to see how this is different to UK roads? No one would cycle anywhere here if that was their attitude!
To be fair, I cycle a hell of a lot, and many of the roads in South Spain I would never ride on.
There were lots of riders heading west on the main road out of Malaga when I was there a couple of week ago. It's a 120kph road with no allowance given to cyclists.
There's no protective gear that would make me comfortable there.
but the drafting would be absolutely ace!
Seen it on umpteen helmet threads.
http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/p908.pdf
Is the risk of death still 1 death per 20 million miles cycled?
There is no conclusive proof, one way or the other, if they offered any meaningful protection and had to meet any meaningful standards then there might be.
What more do you want?
That data, which is good, real data, shows that of the cycle deaths, more were non-helmeted users. If you are in an accident you are More likely to die when not wearing a helmet than when wearing one. It is that simple.
No it's not. That data is quite obviously flawed, for lots of reasons already discussed within this thread.
Even your beloved helmet site says that the most factually accurate data we have (California post-94) shows that less than 20% of cycle fatalities were helmet-wearers.
Deny it all you want, it's there in the data on your fave site.
Incredible statistics.
Can we agree that there is more helmet use than non helmet use in the UK? And yet there are more non helmet fatalities. Seems pretty simple, helmet use is a no brainer.
I agree, they've left out all the other stats that would enable a person to arrive at a sensible conclusion:-) After all, the graph shows deaths increasing for helmet users as helmet use increases. Many variables have already been discussed on here.........
Risk, a good article
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11...inator-neglect
Last edited by MarkF; 4th July 2014 at 16:32.
Because in order to escape taking their réal responsibilities the State tells you that it is for your own good that you múst wear one outside of urban zones
Thát is why bicycling helmets are more dangerous for more riders than they are safer.
It does not convert to more likely when riding a bicycle though.
It totally rules out risk behaviour.
It is indeed a no brainer.
Even Josh B acknowledges that in low risk situation a helmet is not necessary and that was in the context of relatively high speed use.
Beháviour is a far more critical factor in avoíding accidents than partial protection against some of the potential consequences of a possible mishap.
The way I see it, they are harmfull to the safety of cycling in general and good for sóme individual cyclists.
Thanks.
I lóved it!
The last commentary was sensible. Including the ´sub Dutch´.
The helmets-are-safe argumentation always reminds me of the discussions about visibility gear when horse riding on the street. The idea of ´I am visible´ is a dangerous assumption about that óthers will see them. It lulls the riders in a false sense of security, leading risk behaviour ánd not seldom does the visibilty gear add up to a décrease of rider recognition by motorists due to confusion. Cyclist can do the same sometimes....
As ever, the non wearers are happy to accept the non-conclusion and make an informed personal choice, but the wearers, nope, they'll still file us under "no brainers" even when every fact and stat is rebuffed, as they always are, all that is left is emotional blackmail and silly crash anecdotes.
Quote- "But the one point I could not find any sort of consensus on is cycling helmets and whether they actually reduce accidents in a real world setting. A researcher for the DOT told me that he looked at the issue for years, it was the most complex thing he had ever studied and he had still not come to any conclusion."
Another A&E Doctor:- http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...lbeing.health1
British Medical Journal:- http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02Februa...al-report.aspx
NHS:- http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02Februa...al-report.aspx
Not one shred of evidence to support the claims that they save lives or reduce injuries.
Yet there is plenty that government can do a lót to SERIOUSLY improve cyclists safety by improving the infrastructure and increasing awareness amongst motorist.
The helmet is an alibi not to do so.
Also; the helmet makes the State money!! in revenue taxes and vat.
Ah, but that is their right, even obligation from the presumed higher moral.
The problem is that their freedom treads those of others.
Worse still when the State politically abuses it as a ruse to make money by ' adressing' the safety issue with the mandatory use.
Cycling helmets HARM the interest and safety of cyclists in general. And ditto mine in particular.
Can't say that on the couple of occasions I've been knocked off and hit my head, ending up with stitches, that I've thought "thank f**k I wasn't wearing a helmet".
After witnessing the road craft of numerous cyclists in Central London today, they could do a lot more to protect themselves than wear a helmet..... No wonder so many get squished.....
Cheers..
Jase
I must admit I don't follow your line of thought at all.
The evidence from Australia is that mandatory helmet laws have not made a huge difference in relation to the numbers cycling. Any reduction that did occur was tempered by the fact that the numbers cycling reduced at the same time. But then Australia must be one of the safest places to cycle with all that helmet wearing.
Really, they were just wearing cycling helmets because they loved wearing them?
What have you got against Spanish farmers wives?
Last edited by deryckb; 4th July 2014 at 20:22.
Australia is a good case for why cycle helmets are ´dangerous´.
The risk of cycling is quite low and the risk of accicents in whic a helmet has a protective role is almost nil.
Nót cycling however has no beneficiary effect on health of just about áll.
The amount of people not cycling because of helmets is húge, despite the pro brigade not being able to imagine that.
Ergo; the helmet has an ENOURMOUS compound negative effect on the australian population whereas the benefit is very limited.
The was a university study made that the health cost for the Oz government runs into the hundreds of millions annualy.
Now before the pro-brigade get on a high moral bike; nobody is stopped from donning a helmet.
Non users do not say ANYTHING to yoú.
The problem is the higher moral imposing them on others, resulting in the helmets overall harming the interests of cyclists.
The question is why on éarth would the pro-brigade want to convince theose who are not even against?? with the ende result being a serious moral or legal restriction of personal freedom and harm to the interest/health. That seems a rather lów moral postion imo.
I suggest you learn how to ride a bike in traffic as the cycling helmet is only a token protection in traffic as is is not intended as such in traffic at all.
Again;
The helmet only is false security in traffic.
Safety in traffic comes from behavior. If the motorists behave badly, the cyclist should behave even better.
The government is seriously lacking it its role and poiting at helmets will only serve to make that wórse.
Yes, cycle helmets áre dangerous for cyclist.
Those who chose to ignore that, need protective glasses as well. They are safe no so must be good?!
The college of optricians will be happy to support the safety argument as théy see the effects of not wearing protective glasses.
Remember when Jan Jansen won the Tour. Everybody was amazed, éxtra impressed, as he was wore glassess.
See? You can even win the Tour with them, lets make them mandatory so cyclist can see the motorists about to clobber them overall léss easily....
Right. Did you guys know that in the Netherlands it was seriously suggested that for over 55 helmets should be mandatory for cyclists ánd joggers?
Statistics show that the chances of a fall increase with age and thus the protective value of a helmet.
I hear echos of australia. One might think that it is a con to increase the profits of the hospitals/insurers as the health costs will go up spectacularly if 55+ stops cycling/jogging.
Maybe they were. I hail them for wearing their outfits for whatever reason.
As those guys were about 10 years my junior and their wives likely to be younger still, nothing. That is why I think itWhat have you got against Spanish farmers wives?that the blokes don their ´cool´ kit
How do you know? Have you studied every accident in Australia?
The few stats that are available are inconclusive and there appears to be a high incidence of rotational brain injuries. The body is pretty well designed to prevent head injuries.
Well we've come to opposite conclusions after our respective research then.
I presume you do not wear a helmet in that case?
As a bike racer mine have saved me a few times, so thumbs up for me!
Which is just a case of projecting the risk behavior on all.
A fellow student turned up with his hand bandaged and a patch on his forehead. He had tripped leaving an underground carpark. I suggested he wears a helmet in future.
As I said in my first post on this subject - I don't wear a helmet every time I ride, but over 90%. It's not logical, I know. Also, I definitely ride more conservatively when I am not wearing a helmet. Also not logical, but that's folks for you.
Point is there is no compelling argument for legislation and this should remain a matter of personal choice.
I`m not a cyclist, never wanted to be and never will be.
Common sense tells me that wearing a helmet has to provide some measure of protection against certain types of head injury, so on that basis it clearly makes sense to wear one. I worked in industry for 35 years and often had to wear a safety helmet; the fact that I never experienced an impact to the head doesn`t mean I didn`t need to bother with a helmet, does it?
What really cracks me up is seeing parents and kids together on their bikes. The young child is wearing a helmet but the adult isn`t. That's one I can`t figure out, the parent recognises the risk but doesn`t protect himself. An adult has further to fall and more energy to dissipate, so the adult is more likely to suffer a head injury than the child in a bike-related fall.
Lots of people make safety-related decisions on an emotive rather than a rational basis, and there's no way to convince those people to do otherwise. It's the way their brains are wired.
Paul
There really is some crap being spouted in this thread.
Clearly there is no definitive proof - there've not been enough studies carried out over a sufficient period of time to prove either case.
Wearing a seatbelt in an aircraft won't save you on impact from a 35,000ft stall, neither will a helmet under a lorry wheel. But face-planting into the seat in front by not wearing a seatbelt, or 20 stitches to a forehead would suggest that there is so merit in them, just no guarantee.
No point arguing about it - just ride!
Recently came off my bike and reckon without my helmet I would have been in a very bad place, did it contribute to me having the crash .... No, would I ever cycle without wearing one....No, do helmets make/allow me to take extra risks ..... No.
But do I think it should be mandatory to wear a helmet, no. I firmly believe that given all the evidence people should make their own choice in wearing one. If you make it mandatory then less people cycle, that's a proven fact, and I really don't want that to happen, I want everyone to enjoy cycling.
As far as I have read helmets are only tested to 12mph impacts but I can attest to its benefits far beyond that.
Anyway just my tuppence worth
ScottA
its funny to think that people will decide not to cycle if they must wear a helmet. i can't imagine what sort of person might make that choice. very odd.
I don't get that some folks would wear any other piece of clothing other than the first shirt, trousers, trunks and shorts that come to hand. But some people care about such mindless things.
This is just the same sentiment taken further.
Wearing a hat won't stop me cycling, but having to wear matching smart clothes would stop me accepting a job.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
