Video: Headcam user films cyclist crashing headfirst, urges riders to wear helmets

Kapelmuur wrote:

If the pressure to wear a helmet "keeps cyclists off the roads", how do we account for the increasing number of cyclists?

 

 

Simple - they aren't increasing very much, the proportion of journeys cycled is still very, very low.

Plus they aren't compulsory, outside of that ghastly sounding place on the other side of the world.

700c wrote:

Don't forget this guy isn't standing up in a court of law testifying to the efficacy of helmets.

Right, because contrary to your outraged declaration of "common sense" there is actually very little proof that helmets reduce serious brain injuries.  That's why the experts are pretty careful not to state that.  So, what we have here, is a story, illustrated by a video which suggests that we should all wear helmets in order to prevent exactly the sort of injury which they can do little to prevent.

700c wrote:

He's not suggesting that x joules of energy of impact were absorbed by the helmet and xyz medical injuries would definately have resulted had he not been wearing it.

Sure he is.  He's stating that without the helmet things "would have been worse", in a situation where the helmet (yet again) has manifestly failed to protect against concussion.

700c wrote:

By characterising your proponent's argument/position in this way you set him up to fail.

It's not my "characterising" that sets up the fail.  It's the over-confident,  unmeasured _assertion_ that sets itself up for failure.

700c wrote:

Because of course you will never disprove this negative hypothesis

Sure you can.  And if helmets have a large prophylactic effect then it will be easy to do so.  All you have to do is measure populations of helmeted and non-helmeted wearers injury rates and control for differences between those populations.  If it's a large effect, i.e. the sort of one that would justify me going around telling you that you should wear one, then it will be easily measurable.

700c wrote:

  Clearly however you need empirical proof of helmet efficacy to be convinced they might be of some concievable benefit.

That's right.  So,  where is your study showing that being hit hard enough on the head to cause TBI is significantly improved by wearing a bicycle helmet?

Ush wrote:

700c wrote:

Don't forget this guy isn't standing up in a court of law testifying to the efficacy of helmets.

Right, because contrary to your outraged declaration of "common sense" there is actually very little proof that helmets reduce serious brain injuries.  That's why the experts are pretty careful not to state that.  So, what we have here, is a story, illustrated by a video which suggests that we should all wear helmets in order to prevent exactly the sort of injury which they can do little to prevent.

700c wrote:

He's not suggesting that x joules of energy of impact were absorbed by the helmet and xyz medical injuries would definately have resulted had he not been wearing it.

Sure he is.  He's stating that without the helmet things "would have been worse", in a situation where the helmet (yet again) has manifestly failed to protect against concussion.

700c wrote:

By characterising your proponent's argument/position in this way you set him up to fail.

It's not my "characterising" that sets up the fail.  It's the over-confident,  unmeasured _assertion_ that sets itself up for failure.

700c wrote:

Because of course you will never disprove this negative hypothesis

Sure you can.  And if helmets have a large prophylactic effect then it will be easy to do so.  All you have to do is measure populations of helmeted and non-helmeted wearers injury rates and control for differences between those populations.  If it's a large effect, i.e. the sort of one that would justify me going around telling you that you should wear one, then it will be easily measurable.

 

700c wrote:

  Clearly however you need empirical proof of helmet efficacy to be convinced they might be of some concievable benefit.

That's right.  So,  where is your study showing that being hit hard enough on the head to cause TBI is significantly improved by wearing a bicycle helmet?

I take no issue with your decision not to wear a helmet  and your rationale for this choice (that there is no clear proof of their efficacy in preventing serious injury). That is entirely valid.

Where I disagree is that you can reliably measure the efficacy of helmets in their real-world context, since, I believe, by looking just at poopulation statistics you'll be confusing cause and effect and not sufficiently controlling environmental and individual variables.

I believe we need probably need live human crash test dummies to get reliable proof, to the standard that you will need, to sway your decision or views. This will never happen, hence you will never wear a helmet but that's fine - individuals judge risk differently and have require different standards of proof.

Thus a decision based on 'common sense' or even anecdotal evidence/ experience is not invalid and is to be expected in light of the above.

The fact I wear a helmet in the absence of absolute proof they will save my life or reduce injury is my decision - I will not wait for a 'study' to prove beyond any doubt that a helmet will save me and I am not prepare to test this theory for myself.

Yet you state in your earlier comments that as the helmet did not prevent concussion it was not helpful in preventing injury. This is an invalid conclusion, as you know. 

The logic and decision making process you apply with regards to wearing a helmet will be subject to 'human factors'- beliefs, prejudices, experiences, risk perception etc. Mine will be too. This is entirely reasonable, but means you should not rubbish another person's decision-making simply because they've not acted like a computer in evaluating available data. If you're honest with yourself, you'll realise that you don't apply this decision making equally and consistently to other matters potentially affecting your health and safety, about which you may have less strong views.

Just like being selective with quotes when debating a topic, or with the evidence you chose to accept or deny, 'Characterising' a proponent's argument or incorrectly extrapolating to lead to a false conclusion, is evidence of these human factors at work.

that is all.

700c wrote:

I take no issue with your decision not to wear a helmet

I have not actually said whether or not I do. But thank you for your courtesy. In return I will take no issue with your decision to whatever it is you do. In addition I would like to state that I am in no way calling for, nor have I ever supported legislation which would force you to remove your helmet for your own good.

700c wrote:

;and your rationale for this choice (that there is no clear proof of their efficacy in preventing serious injury). That is entirely valid.

It is not a matter of "proof" clear or otherwise. Little or nothing can ever be proven clearly. It is a matter of reasonableness in the face of evidence. In this case, despite a well-financed attempt to discern a link between helmet usage and the reduction of TBI the evidence remains highly ambiguous.

Anecdotes like the one posted here, which explicitly argue that we should wear a helmet because someone got a concussion while wearing one are frankly lies. They lie baldly in asserting that the outcome would be worse without a helmet, and they lie subtly by ignoring all the other anecdotes which result in the worst outcomes: namely that helmeted riders die at indistinguishable rates from non-helmeted riders.

Quote:

Where I disagree is that you can reliably measure the efficacy of helmets in their real-world context, since, I believe, by looking just at poopulation statistics you'll be confusing cause and effect and not sufficiently controlling environmental and individual variables.

That is always a problem in epidemiology, but it is not completely intractable. Where there are specific confounders identified attempts can be made to control for them. I do agree that it is an imprecise and difficult area though. However, if there were a very strong effect it would probably be identifiable by now.

Quote:

I believe we need probably need live human crash test dummies to get reliable proof, to the standard that you will need, to sway your decision or views. This will never happen, hence you will never wear a helmet but that's fine - individuals judge risk differently and have require different standards of proof.

Given that the main causes of TBI (rotation injuries) are identified by now I do not see why cadavers could not be used. Similary dummies can be fitted with accelerometers. Such things have been done for seatbelt testing -- the effects can be measured. IIRC some unfortunate spider monkeys were used as live subjects in the early seventies in helmet testing. I suspect that the ballpark outcomes are known and they suggest that an effective helmet... that is, one which prevents the concussions which we saw demonstrated in this video, would be very large, would enclose the head more and would be reasonably unpleasant to wear.

Quote:

you should not rubbish another person's decision-making simply because they've not acted like a computer

I reject that. For someone that has been talking about "characterising" you have repeatedly put words in my mouth. I don't rubbish another person's decision making simply because they don't act like computers. I rubbish their decision making when they claim that their decision making is anything more than a random emotional choice and that it ought to apply to anyone other than themselves.

Again: only in Helmet Land can a video which shows a piece of personal protective equipment _failing_ be interpreted as an argument to use that equipment!

Ush wrote:

Quote:

The uploader says the helmet took the main impact of the fall and without it the cyclist would have sustained far more severe injuries

Ah, an anecdote illustrated by a video. 

Did the uploader happen to provide his expert assessment of the energy involved in the fall and the amount absorbed by the helmet?

Only in helmet-land can people see someone get a concussion from falling on their head and conclude that the helmet worked.

Perhaps someone would be interested in seeing a video of the horribly squashed bag of marshmallows I was wearing on my head after I bungie jumped onto my head without a cord?  They were completely flattened and I feel certain that my injuries..

Ok, you realise how obtuse you're being equating marshmallows to a hard plastic-covered polystyrene shell. .

No wait... Perhaps you don't? !

Only in anti-helmet land could such rubbish be accepted as a valid argument..

To consider, for a moment, that you're making a serious point and not just trolling, let me address a couple of points:

Firstly the mountain biker 'genuinely believed he would have been in a much worse state had he not been wearing a helmet. .' That's not the same as asserting it definately saved his life or definately took all the impact. Its a perfectly reasonable belief but cannot be proved because the cyclist is not about to recreate his off without a helmet now is he?

Nor is he providing expert analysts on how much energy was absorbed. Why should be have to, to convince you a helmet might have helped?

We know from manufacturer tests, safety standards etc how much these should absorb. Enough to potentially make a difference. That's uncontroversial to all but the most vehement of the anti helmet brigade.

Where did common sense go in this discussion?

If we're to require absolute proof before stating helmets may reduce impact and therefore injury, how about I take a baseball bat to your head, and you choose whether it is marshmallow-covered or helmeted?!

(That was a facetious joke as opposed to a threat, by the way! )

700c][quote=Ush wrote:

Quote:

The uploader says the helmet took the main impact of the fall and without it the cyclist would have sustained far more severe injuries

Ah, an anecdote illustrated by a video. 

Did the uploader happen to provide his expert assessment of the energy involved in the fall and the amount absorbed by the helmet?

[snip]

Firstly the mountain biker 'genuinely believed he would have been in a much worse state had he not been wearing a helmet. .' That's not the same as asserting it definately saved his life or definately took all the impact.

Anyone can have an opinion.  In order for it to be useful to other people it helps to ground it in some sort of fact.  So, as is always the case with these anecdotes people claim that they can look at a helmet and tell how much energy it helped manage in the collision and what the medical outcome would have been without it.  That is very expert opinion.  In at least two specialized, expert fields. So expert, that I imagine actual experts would be loathe to venture such a statement (Dunning-Kruger Effect etc).

As for all the rest,  yes, we know for a very specific type of fall how much energy a helmet in mint condition will absorb.  And expert testimony before the courts in the UK (by Brian Walker, one of those experts whom you cite) suggests that unfortunately they do little, even at their best, to alleviate concussions.

Common sense is, sadly, often  nonsense.

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I see you are a new(ish?) contributor and have not experienced the expected tirade until now. You could be forgiven for thinking you are in the minority but I suspect you are not. The anti-helmet brigade come out in force when a story like this hits these pages and you get the same old stories. The only explanation is they must have tested the theory, survived to tell the tale but failed to realise their reasoning became impaired due to a bang on the head...

Leave them to it.

hectorhtaylor wrote:

I see you are a new(ish?) contributor and have not experienced the expected tirade until now. You could be forgiven for thinking you are in the minority but I suspect you are not. The anti-helmet brigade come out in force when a story like this hits these pages and you get the same old stories. The only explanation is they must have tested the theory, survived to tell the tale but failed to realise their reasoning became impaired due to a bang on the head...

Leave them to it.

I'm NOT anti-helmet, I'm against it being mandatory to wear one...

hectorhtaylor wrote:

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I see you are a new(ish?) contributor and have not experienced the expected tirade until now. You could be forgiven for thinking you are in the minority but I suspect you are not. The anti-helmet brigade come out in force when a story like this hits these pages and you get the same old stories. The only explanation is they must have tested the theory, survived to tell the tale but failed to realise their reasoning became impaired due to a bang on the head...

Leave them to it.

Wigster and Hector. 

You our will find that the "antihelmetbrigade" is actually more anti compulsion of the wearing of helmets. Many of them race or mountain bike and wear a helmet as regulations for those disciplines demand that this is so. When it comes to getting around. There is no need to get knitted up. After all. Motorists are not expected to don fire-retardant suits, neck braces helmets to go to the local shops or restaurant even with more motorist being injured per mile travelled than cyclists. 

I'm amazed that so many on this forum are prone to coming off their bikes and would suggest that they learn not to fall. Though if they insist that this is a requirement. I suggest that you all learn how to fall. 

MrWigster wrote:

I regret posting my original comment now — I had no idea so many people were anti-helmet.

Please kindly do not put your seatbelt on when you next get in your car either.

(I'm a cyclist myself) And I can confirm that you're always going to look like a pleb to the vast majority, not wearing a helmet doesn't make you look any better; just nonsensical. Stick a lid on your bonce.

Having had plenty of slips/falls and bails on my bike, I can confirm they will happen when you least suspect them — you can be going 10mph down a flat road, suddenly your chain will slip off whilst changing gear and the next thing you know you're leg over tit faceplanting the floor.

I think you may need to educate yourself a bit about helmets.  How they are made, how they work, what they do and what they don't do.  No one is anti-helmet.  They are just irrelvant to road safety and even counterproductive.  

The reason is that they frame the argument in terms of making cycling appear far more dangerous than it is.  It is statistically very safe.  There is lots we can do to improve it further but helmets aren't one of them.  Most cyclists just travelling on the road gain no benefit whatsoever from wearing a helmet.  But wear one if you like.  Wear a St Christopher medal if you like, splash yourself with holy water or keep a rabbits foot in saddlebag.  They'll all have about exactly the same usefulness to the average cyclist going to the shops or riding to work. 

What they do do however is signal that cycling is a dangerous activity in need of special protective equipment.  That image (which bears no relation to the actuality) keeps cyclists off the road.  The key element that keeps cyclists safe on the road is their ubiquity.  That there are lots of us.  That as a driver you know that it is likely that cyclists will be travelling on the road. That as a driver perhaps you also cycle.  

So people don't object to helmets they object to people equating road safety with helmet use and when it arguably has the opposite effect.   You may want to look at cycling in the Netherlands  or in Denmark and contrast it with cycling in Australia which has compulsory helmet laws.    How many people are cycling, how safe are they, how likely is a newbie to take up cycling to work. 

You may be new but this is far more complicated and issue than whether you think some polystyrene will keep the roads safe.  

For example how many cyclists have been killed or seriously injured on the road where a helmet would even have mitigated any injury.  They are rated to 50 joules of impact protection when brand new and properly fitted.  

So just to get this straight.  There are around 100 or so cyclists killed on the road each year. It has come down massively over the years as have all road deaths.  Of those 100 or so, only some are going to involve any head injury.  For example the 8 people killed in London so far this year 7 were crushed by lorries over their legs and lower torso.  There were no head injuries.  Even when there are head injuries you need to discern whether a helmet would have been of any use.  So if you are whacked at high speed your head will be injured no doubt but your back will be broken and you will have your vital organs ripped apart. The head injury would be fatal as would any of the other injuries.  A helmet would make no difference to the outcome.  So you then narrow further to find head injuries that were at low enough speed for the helmet to have any mitigating effect.  In that category the effect of mitigation is found to be 10 - 16%.  So in a sub set of a sub set where helmets might work they are 10% - 16% effective at mitigation.

You mentioned seatbelts.  In a number of road accidents had the driver been wearing race standard 5 point seat belts and a helmet they would have survived a fatal accident.    A life is a life right?  So it's worth saving anyone.  But if you then started saying that all drivers and passengers should have 5 point safety belts anchored to the chassis of their vehicle and wear a helmet because if they all did so you could save 3 lives a year  you would get short shrift.

That's the same shrift you are getting here and for the same reason.