Helmet fixation distracts from effective safety strategies says US professor

Griff500 wrote:

why not do both?

Yes! Yes to doing all the good stuff based on evidence, and proportionately. So let's devote our efforts, debate, education etc along the lines of, say, 50% drivers being dicks, 25% politics and law enforcement, 25% quality infrastructure, and 0.1% helmets. Or something. 

The point loads of people are making is that the amount of attention helmets get misses the crucial points of cycling safety, is manipulatedm and is disproportionate at the very least. 

Griff500 wrote:

 

A couple of days ago you said on this thread "Yeah, helmets prevent some injuries"  You have also said that helmet encoyragement overall is harmful. Let me ask you, do you have kids, and if so, based on the two views you have expressed, do you encourage your own kids to wear?

I don't encourage them. They sometimes wear them, sometimes don't. Their mum tends to push it more. They own them; if they can be bothered picking them up with their bikes, they do so. I try not to make anything of it. I figure the chances of one of them having an accident without one, that might leave me thinking 'what if...' are smaller than having an accident stepping into the garage and picking their bikes up in the first place, and plenty of other activities that I don't push helmets for. 

BUT: I wear one about half the time. Sort of fell into it a few years back when British Cycling, club rides and British Triathlon started mandating them, and I was wearing one on training rides and commutes to try them out/get used to them. I find them useful for strapping a light to the back of (a safety feature I have time for, but that's another debate).

I feel a bit of a dirty hypocrite who decided he wanted to compete in tris unencumbered on race day more than make some silent stand against compulsion, but there we go. Had they not been mandated for tris anywhere, I doubt I'd've ever even tried one on.

Griff500 wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Seems to be most medical professionals and accident investigators. Also anyone involved with the Daily Fail and most people at the BBC. Random people in the street are often fond of shouting at cyclists and not wearing a helmet gives them an excuse to enjoy themselves.

Also, this girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Don't forget the headteachers who are banning their students from cycling to or from school unless they're wearing a helmet.

Where did any of these people say that helmets are the solution? Quote please?

What I think reasonable people are saying (and by reasonable I exclude the compusory wearing advocates), is that a bit of polystyrene between you and a hard object might just make a difference in some cases.  Of course it won't compensate for mass driver education or segregation, but these aint going to happen anytime soon for the majority of us.

 

I'm not going to bother finding a quote as you're just being ridiculous. If you really need a quote just read the comments on any article about cyclists/motorists and traffic incidents.

Are these "reasonable people" like true Scotsmen? Most of the comments I encounter from helmet advocates are about how people must be completely mad to not wear a helmet when cycling.

Would a "reasonable person" advocate that motorists and pedestrians would also gain the same benefits (head protection) from wearing helmets? I've never understood why they are only recommended for cyclists unless it's a ploy to disuade people from cycling by exaggerating the risks.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I'm not going to bother finding a quote as you're just being ridiculous. If you really need a quote just read the comments on any article about cyclists/motorists and traffic incidents.

Are these "reasonable people" like true Scotsmen? Most of the comments I encounter from helmet advocates are about how people must be completely mad to not wear a helmet when cycling.

[/quote]

I'm not being ridiculous at all. Nobody, repeat nobody, thinks that helmets are the answer. Helmest are simply the low hanging fruit, something easy and quick to achieve, which may be a waste of time, or might just help in an accident. As for "Most of the comments" you encounter, you obviously move in different circles to me. Most of my circle regard a helmet as a last resort, as it is.

Griff500 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm not going to bother finding a quote as you're just being ridiculous. If you really need a quote just read the comments on any article about cyclists/motorists and traffic incidents.

Are these "reasonable people" like true Scotsmen? Most of the comments I encounter from helmet advocates are about how people must be completely mad to not wear a helmet when cycling.

I'm not being ridiculous at all. Nobody, repeat nobody, thinks that helmets are the answer. Helmest are simply the low hanging fruit, something easy and quick to achieve, which may be a waste of time, or might just help in an accident. As for "Most of the comments" you encounter, you obviously move in different circles to me. Most of my circle regard a helmet as a last resort, as it is.

Okay, you've goaded me. I'll repeat that BBC link to the girl who thinks helmets are the answer (because a doctor told her so): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cyc...

Here's Tom Watson's opinion: http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4068/labour-party-deputy-shows-support-for...

Jesse Norman's bit: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/compulsory-helmets-plan-for-all-cycli...

Hampshire police: http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/hampshire-police-apologise...

Sandringham school: http://road.cc/content/news/232962-academy-school-makes-cycle-helmets-co...

Wiggins quote: “Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue…Once there is a law passed for cyclists then are protected and you can say, ‘Well I have done everything to be safe’.”

Now we can play word games and argue whether any of those people are literally saying "helmets are the answer", but it's quite clear that a lot of people think that cycle helmets are worthy of discussion, as evidenced by your "low-hanging fruit" comment.

The main argument as to why helmets aren't a solution is that forcing/imploring/persuading people to wear helmets for cycling invariably reduces the number of people cycling. There is some evidence that reducing the number of cyclists on the roads increases the danger for the rest , so I think you're not looking at the wider picture.

hawkinspeter]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=Pudsey Pedaller

wrote:

 

Are these "reasonable people" like true Scotsmen? Most of the comments I encounter from helmet advocates are about how people must be completely mad to not wear a helmet when cycling.

Would a "reasonable person" advocate that motorists and pedestrians would also gain the same benefits (head protection) from wearing helmets? I've never understood why they are only recommended for cyclists unless it's a ploy to disuade people from cycling by exaggerating the risks.

Not me Sir, ride with one on club rides because I like to hit 40+ on downhills and sometimes run out of talent (as has been proven). Don't wear one on a busier 2 mile commute as most of the drivers are just going to hit me at low speeds (as has been proven).

Those people that annoy me:

People that think they should be mandatory

People that (as the article suggests) use it to distract from the real issue

People that us it to victim blame

Headteachers putting in unlawful rules

People that think a helmet can't possibly serve some purpose sometimes

Also, I do think that motorists and pedestrians should be considered alongside cyclist for any mandatory wearing...

Griff500 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

Just out of interest, who are these people? I have never seen anybody on here or elsewhere suggest that helmets are the answer. 

Are you blind?
BHIT/HEADWAY, police, local authorities, cycling clubs who now force members to wear helmets or no longer allowed to participate in rides, sportive organisers, charity organisations, there are even four individuals at present with petitions on the .gov website to get mandatory helmets. Several MPs, certain people in the media, motoring organisations, even the EU Road Safety Commission think cycle helmets are a solution to the 'problem' of cycle related KSIs ... so much so they even stated in their 2016 annual paper that low helmet wearing countries were problematic AND NL and DK were more dangerous for riding a bike than in the UK.
The EU used absolute numbers in their mantra as helmets as a main solution totally ignoring that the amount of cycling in NL is about 12x per person than the UK.
Would you like more examples?
Australia, New Zealand, Jersey, Canada, parts of US government all see helmets as a solution and yet helmets have not just failed to protect, they've removed freedoms, pushed blame upon victims and other solutions have being neglected or simply not even considered.
HTH

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Well there are helmets and there are helmets. The one I use for BMX racing is a road legal MX type motorcycle helmet. It offers a lot of protection. If you ahve one of those plastic and foam shell type things with holes in, I'm sorry but you're deluding yourself if you think it offers you any proper protection.

I wear my BMX helmet when I'm racing and training because it's required and also because the sport is by its very nature, risky.

I don't wear a helmet when I'm commuting on my bicycle because it's not and it's not.

As you say, there are helmets and helmets. Back in the day, I used to design integrated display helmets for the miltary. In terms of protection, pilot's helmets need to meet two basic criteria, impact, and penetration. Penetration protection needs a hard shell (eg Kevlar), and impact protection needs shock absorption. Same for your road legal motorcycle helmet.  The cycle industry decided for whatever reason, that our risk comes from impact (hitting a smooth object) rather than penetration (hitting a sharp object), which is why we wear what is basically a bit of padding. Whether, as you put it, this offers "proper" protection, depends on what you are going to hit!

FACT: when the English British 'Tommy' started wearing the good old Brodie helmet in WWI (as opposed to a cap) it increased head injuries/injuries overall, the overall effect was worse and it costs more money and takes more manpower/resources to recover/treat an injured soldier than it does for a dead one in those situations.

Given the nature of the environment this is hardly a surprising outcome after the fact but I'm sure at the time and as with cycle helmet advocates they truly believe/d that it was going to help matters. The problem is now that those advocates will not look at the facts and desist from their damaging insistance that helmets are the solution to safety.

 

All this carp about the need for helmets tends to overlook the obvious truth that most injuries to cyclists are to the limbs and torso. Most deaths of cyclists occur due to major trauma and crush inuries. In most crashes involving cyclists, helmet use would not help in other words.

Bentrider wrote:

@Roadeagl, If you wish your offering to be taken seriously you should probably drop the 'Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson' paper from your list. I think you'll find it's attracted one or two adverse criticisms over the years.

Can you point me at some commentary on that, please  - I'd never heard of the paper, let alone any criticism of it. 

brooksby wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

@Roadeagl, If you wish your offering to be taken seriously you should probably drop the 'Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson' paper from your list. I think you'll find it's attracted one or two adverse criticisms over the years.

Can you point me at some commentary on that, please  - I'd never heard of the paper, let alone any criticism of it. 

I'm getting big numbers off the Wind-upometer here but on the off-chance that you're serious (and for the benefit of those new to the debate) start here

http://cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

and then try Google.

Bentrider wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

@Roadeagl, If you wish your offering to be taken seriously you should probably drop the 'Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson' paper from your list. I think you'll find it's attracted one or two adverse criticisms over the years.

Can you point me at some commentary on that, please  - I'd never heard of the paper, let alone any criticism of it. 

I'm getting big numbers off the Wind-upometer here but on the off-chance that you're serious (and for the benefit of those new to the debate) start here http://cyclehelmets.org/1068.html and then try Google.

Thank you

brooksby wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

@Roadeagl, If you wish your offering to be taken seriously you should probably drop the 'Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson' paper from your list. I think you'll find it's attracted one or two adverse criticisms over the years.

Can you point me at some commentary on that, please  - I'd never heard of the paper, let alone any criticism of it. 

You've got to be joking!  Either that or you really, really don't know anything about cycle helmets.  The most quoted, the most infamous, most disproved paper in the history of cycle helmets, and probably science in general, and you haven't even heard of it?

At the very least, posting a paper that you've never heard of is sloppy and demonstrates your lack of logic and knowledge.

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

@Roadeagl, If you wish your offering to be taken seriously you should probably drop the 'Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson' paper from your list. I think you'll find it's attracted one or two adverse criticisms over the years.

Can you point me at some commentary on that, please  - I'd never heard of the paper, let alone any criticism of it. 

You've got to be joking!  Either that or you really, really don't know anything about cycle helmets.  The most quoted, the most infamous, most disproved paper in the history of cycle helmets, and probably science in general, and you haven't even heard of it?

At the very least, posting a paper that you've never heard of is sloppy and demonstrates your lack of logic and knowledge.

Erm, I'm sorry but no I haven't heard of it (I also didn't post the first reference to it, hence why I was asking) 

Ive seen the helmet debates in here, and I don't wear a helmet myself unless it's icy or otherwise very cold, but I haven't really done much reading on the subject.

id thought it was better to ask people who know more than me on here rather than just hitting Google, and the vitriol that paper seemed to be attracting upthread made me think I'd want to find out more.

No wind up, honestly.

brooksby wrote:

You've got to be joking!  Either that or you really, really don't know anything about cycle helmets.  The most quoted, the most infamous, most disproved paper in the history of cycle helmets, and probably science in general, and you haven't even heard of it?

At the very least, posting a paper that you've never heard of is sloppy and demonstrates your lack of logic and knowledge.

Erm, I'm sorry but no I haven't heard of it (I also didn't post the first reference to it, hence why I was asking) 

Ive seen the helmet debates in here, and I don't wear a helmet myself unless it's icy or otherwise very cold, but I haven't really done much reading on the subject.

id thought it was better to ask people who know more than me on here rather than just hitting Google, and the vitriol that paper seemed to be attracting upthread made me think I'd want to find out more.

No wind up, honestly.

[/quote]

Then you've got a lot to learn.  As has been posted many time, start at cyclehelmets.org and compare their approach with that of the helmet promoting sites, i.e. it includes all research and critiques, but the others cherry pick and ignore anything critical of what they have selected.

burtthebike wrote:

Quote:

brooksby wrote:

You've got to be joking!  Either that or you really, really don't know anything about cycle helmets.  The most quoted, the most infamous, most disproved paper in the history of cycle helmets, and probably science in general, and you haven't even heard of it?

At the very least, posting a paper that you've never heard of is sloppy and demonstrates your lack of logic and knowledge.

Erm, I'm sorry but no I haven't heard of it (I also didn't post the first reference to it, hence why I was asking) 

Ive seen the helmet debates in here, and I don't wear a helmet myself unless it's icy or otherwise very cold, but I haven't really done much reading on the subject.

id thought it was better to ask people who know more than me on here rather than just hitting Google, and the vitriol that paper seemed to be attracting upthread made me think I'd want to find out more.

No wind up, honestly.

Then you've got a lot to learn.  As has been posted many time, start at cyclehelmets.org and compare their approach with that of the helmet promoting sites, i.e. it includes all research and critiques, but the others cherry pick and ignore anything critical of what they have selected.

Looks like I do. Thank you, and please consider my wrist well and truly slapped! 

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Quote:

brooksby wrote:

You've got to be joking!  Either that or you really, really don't know anything about cycle helmets.  The most quoted, the most infamous, most disproved paper in the history of cycle helmets, and probably science in general, and you haven't even heard of it?

At the very least, posting a paper that you've never heard of is sloppy and demonstrates your lack of logic and knowledge.

Erm, I'm sorry but no I haven't heard of it (I also didn't post the first reference to it, hence why I was asking) 

Ive seen the helmet debates in here, and I don't wear a helmet myself unless it's icy or otherwise very cold, but I haven't really done much reading on the subject.

id thought it was better to ask people who know more than me on here rather than just hitting Google, and the vitriol that paper seemed to be attracting upthread made me think I'd want to find out more.

No wind up, honestly.

Then you've got a lot to learn.  As has been posted many time, start at cyclehelmets.org and compare their approach with that of the helmet promoting sites, i.e. it includes all research and critiques, but the others cherry pick and ignore anything critical of what they have selected.

Looks like I do. Thank you, and please consider my wrist well and truly slapped! 

No problem, and it is refreshing to find someone who admits that they don't know it all and is prepared to learn.  Good luck, there are a lot of studies out there, and even more opinions.  One thing you might find useful and save you some time: if a study quotes Thompson, Rivara and Thompson uncritically, the study can be instantly dismissed.

rg9rts [at] yahoo.com wrote:

Learning the alphabet the second time is a baitch.. My riding partner had a slow speed  crash..split the helmet in two ...the nruro surgeon said he was lucky to be alive.. $40 can save you $40,000 in rehab costs...the choice is yours

Indeed it is...

rg9rts [at] yahoo.com wrote:

Learning the alphabet the second time is a baitch.. My riding partner had a slow speed  crash..split the helmet in two ...the nruro surgeon said he was lucky to be alive.. $40 can save you $40,000 in rehab costs...the choice is yours

At the age of 15 I was hit from behind by a drunk speeding motorist (no helmet; it was 1979, for gods' sake).  The bike absorbed the shock and was wrecked but although thrown into the road I got up and walked away with only a small scratch on my left hand.

There you are, proof that drunk driving may damage bikes but is harmless to cyclists.

So much for the power of anecdotal evidence.*

* a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.

rg9rts [at] yahoo.com wrote:

Learning the alphabet the second time is a baitch.. My riding partner had a slow speed  crash..split the helmet in two ...the nruro surgeon said he was lucky to be alive.. $40 can save you $40,000 in rehab costs...the choice is yours

Neurosurgeons are good at mending broken brains but don't usually know the effectiveness (or otherwise) of a polystyrene hat full of holes. If you want to wear one then fine but don't parade your ignorance on here and expect us to thank you for it. Patronising twat.

Simon E wrote:

Neurosurgeons are good at mending broken brains but don't usually know the effectiveness (or otherwise) of a polystyrene hat full of holes. If you want to wear one then fine but don't parade your ignorance on here and expect us to thank you for it. Patronising twat.

While I wouldn't wish to be as derogatory as Simon, I'd echo his basic message.  I was a doctor myself.  The curriculum at my Medical School contained no training in materials science or assessing the likely effect of a helmet on a head injury.  I've yet to find a Medical school which does give such training so I'd be disinclined to trust any "The Doctor said..." type 'evidence'.

As I recall, a few years ago, one of the country's most eminent neurosurgeons offered his opinion that bicycle helmets simply weren't strong enough to offer any degree of protection from serious head injury.  Rather than being treated as a valuable contribution from an expert in the field,  his opinion was howled down by the compulsionists and ignored.

rg9rts [at] yahoo.com wrote:

Learning the alphabet the second time is a baitch.. My riding partner had a slow speed  crash..split the helmet in two ...the nruro surgeon said he was lucky to be alive.. $40 can save you $40,000 in rehab costs...the choice is yours

yeah but you are lying so I believe you are the biatch. (Bot?)

Bikebikebike wrote:

rg9rts [at] yahoo.com wrote:

Learning the alphabet the second time is a baitch.. My riding partner had a slow speed  crash..split the helmet in two ...the nruro surgeon said he was lucky to be alive.. $40 can save you $40,000 in rehab costs...the choice is yours

yeah but you are lying so I believe you are the biatch. (Bot?)

Seriously, you think someone is using a bot to troll Road CC comments in favour of helmet use?  Who's behind this, Kask, Casco?  Obviously you don't want to wear a helmet as it'd bend your tinfoil hat out of shape.

This whole debate depresses me deeply.  There is no compulsory helmet law in this country and there never will be, yet cyclists, who should be supporting each other against the shared threats to our existence, seem to get far more passionate over insulting each other and points scoring over this issue than any other.  Both sides, wear a lid if you want, don't if you don't, but for God's sake shut the fuck up about it and start talking about something important!

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

There is no compulsory helmet law in this country and there never will be,

I dearly hope you're right but the threat seems very real to me - it has happened in other similar countries, victim-blaming is already rife in government publications and advice while contributory negligence has been used in previous court cases to reduce compensation payouts to victims.

I find that nearly everyone who disagrees with the helmet proponents is not anti-helmet per se but anti-compulsion. This includes the current situation in the UK which feels like 'virtual compulsion by stealth' where helmet protagonists, family  members and even strangers, having unthinkingly swallowed the hype, decry bare-headed riders are irresponsible, dangerous and stupid (as happened further up this discussion).

This thinking so pervasive that even drivers who close pass and stop to argue say it (because the c**ts can't bring themselves to apologise, certainly not to a cyclist!). I've seen it mentioned on here and heard it myself. It beggars belief why an entitled, selfish bigot piloting a 2-tonne vehicle thinks that putting a polystyrene hat on my head will make any fucking difference when he takes me out with his vehicle. One summer's afternoon a guy riding in a rapha jersey caught up with me at some lights and, instead of mentioning the lovely weather or my bike, he felt the need to ask why I didn't wear a helmet as he wouldn't ever ride without his. I was polite but was thinking that my choice was none of his fucking business!

I really don't mind whether people wear one or not. You won't catch me slagging a helmet wearer for their choice. And I'm willing to bet that I have spent a hell of a lot longer than you researching, reading and pondering my views the subject and I'm still unsure whether I've made the best choice.

The debate probably depresses you because you think the decision is unimportant, which suggests to me that you have a closed mind. If you want us to discuss something you consider more important then by all means get on with it and leave this thread to those of us who are prepared to articulate our thoughts (and yes, also to those who just want a slanging match).

Simon E wrote:

... 'virtual compulsion by stealth' where helmet protagonists, family  members and even strangers, having unthinkingly swallowed the hype, decry bare-headed riders are irresponsible, dangerous and stupid (as happened further up this discussion).

I remember at the end of last summer, riding home after work (about 6 pm, still bright sunlight, obviously) and some blokes sitting outside a pub in my village shouted out at me as I rode past that I should be wearing a f-ing helmet, common sense innit!   As you can imagine, I was very pleased that a group of slightly drunken complete strangers took such care in my safety (and rather hoped none of them decided to drive home... ).

Simon E wrote:

 

The debate probably depresses you because you think the decision is unimportant, which suggests to me that you have a closed mind. If you want us to discuss something you consider more important then by all means get on with it and leave this thread to those of us who are prepared to articulate our thoughts (and yes, also to those who just want a slanging match).

No, it depresses me because I believe it's entirely up to the individual if they wear a helmet or not (I do), I don't believe compulsory laws for helmets will ever come to pass in the UK and I'm fed up with watching cyclists bawling each other out with increased levels of pomposity from both sides (everyone on here's a bloody expert, it seems) when there are far more important issues facing us a group.  That's not having a closed mind, it's having a sense of priorities.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Simon E wrote:

 

The debate probably depresses you because you think the decision is unimportant, which suggests to me that you have a closed mind. If you want us to discuss something you consider more important then by all means get on with it and leave this thread to those of us who are prepared to articulate our thoughts (and yes, also to those who just want a slanging match).

 

No, it depresses me because I believe it's entirely up to the individual if they wear a helmet or not (I do), I don't believe compulsory laws for helmets will ever come to pass in the UK and I'm fed up with watching cyclists bawling each other out with increased levels of pomposity from both sides (everyone on here's a bloody expert, it seems) when there are far more important issues facing us a group.  That's not having a closed mind, it's having a sense of priorities.

We don't need laws for something to effectively be mandated. All it takes is the defence lawyer, or the headteacher, or the constable, or the rentagob, indulging in a bit of ignorant victim-blaming, or misguided compulsion, or deliberate obfuscation, or blatant lobbying.

Or the national authority mandating them in its competitions.

That stuff tends to sway public opinion.

And that's the real crux of the argument, for me. Forget the 'saved my life' and 'polystyrene? bitch, please' sideshows.

To believe personal choice isn't being eroded, just because the written law doesn't say you have to wear one, is to miss the point. Restrictions ARE currently being placed on cycling. Right now, with zero justification. That shit matters, so you can forgive people having an opinion about it.