Wiggle rides into Twitter storm over 'make helmets compulsory' blog

Quote:

Mate, quit whilst your sort of ahead and read all the previous posts about helmets, its constant name calling by both sides - i hold my hands upto this -. Just accept that no matter what you type there will always be someone who disagrees from both sides.

I just don't get why people have to be so rude to each other. I get that people are passionate about their opinions but there's no need for abuse.

I need to check my bike insurance but I'd be interested to know if I was insured against injury caused by not wearing a helmet.

In the same way I wouldn't be insured if I didn't have my seat belt on in my car.

The comparison between seatbelt and helmet will always be there because they are both designed to prevent serious injury whilst using a mode of transport

I understand you are against compulsory seat belts, for that matter, as an example. But maybe you are right, the helmet should be voluntary, since it only protects your head. But lights, hi-viz and stuff that makes you visible, should be law.

And yes, I think there should be (and are) regulations regarding food ingredients to make life safer and healthier. And I think this is a good thing.

What good is reducing speed limits, if drivers don't stick to them? I raised this too. Sure, I'd love them to stick to them. By the way, can you imagine the buzz if someone would suggest that?;-)

Smoking is banned to some extent already, and is that such a bad thing?

It is not a stupid piece of foam. It saved my head. So tell me, why would you not wear one?

Maciej001 wrote:

Seriously? I am less likely to hit my head? Going over the handlebars, my head will stop the inch or so away from the road, the thickness of the helmet? Come on.

So if my head in the helmet hits the road the right way, it will save me, if the wrong way, it won't. Maybe. But if my head without the helmet hits the road, it doesn't make a difference which way it hits.

Is cycling far less dangerous then, let's say, golf?

So you give me these arguments against helmets and you still wear one, usually?

You asked, these are not necessarily my own views. As I understand it most crashes at speed result in the rider tumbling along the ground rather than hitting the tarmac head first, which can potentially lead to the situation where the helmet is more likely to catch the ground than an unprotected noggin, which in turn can cause it to twist the neck violently. Personally although I can accept this I would prefer to be wearing one if I crash as I think this particular set of circumstances is quite unlikely, therefore my decision of whether or not to wear one is related to route, distance and choice of bike, no need if I ride a shopper half a mile down a Sustrans path but if I am commuting ten miles into Manchester on a road bike then I'll definately have one on, along with other bike specific gear.

If you break down statistics in a certain way golf has more fatalities per total hours of participation than any other sport, most are heart failure but there are also occasional lightning strikes and Darwin Award winners, I know this is true because I read it on the internet.

Maciej001 wrote:

Yes, I was asking for reasons not to wear one.

Even if they don't reduce the number of deaths, they may help reducing other injuries. As mine did. So don't tell me they aren't any good.

The study most quoted by helmet proponents uses a method, which applied to the statistics in the study shows that helmets reduce leg injuries!
This is the study which shows 85% effectiveness for helmets.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1027.html

felixcat wrote:

ColT wrote:

Every time someone mentions helmets, the same old stuff gets trotted out by...

...oh, never mind, I can't be bothered.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

Are you familiar with John Adams's work? Do you know it all already? Do you understand risk homeostasis?

I suppose you have made up your mind and will not change it.

Nope you've lost me there. I'm an art historian.

Careful before you make assumptions, my friend. The point is precisely the opposite to what you are supposing; I have not made up my mind and will happily change it as and when incontrovertible evidence is presented one way or the other.

What I am getting at is that each time the H word comes up we get the same old stuff:

- anecdotal evidence about how 'my helmet saved my life'. It may well have done, but there is no way of knowing this, so why keep trotting out this kind of information. I've previously cited evidence about people wearing hard hats on building sites and the increase in the occurrence of head banging incidents (head made bigger etc, etc.) to illustrate the point.

- rabid pro vs rabid anti helmet use. Let's face it, the scientists and experts cannot agree, so why do so many spring up on some forum trying to berate/belittle others for not agreeing with their particular stance? By all means have an opinion, but keep it to yourself unless there is incontrovertible evidence. (See above re experts unable to agree.)

- the dropping a rock on a bare head vs helmeted argument. Meaningless.

- the perpetuation of the primacy of vehicle use. i.e. this is what demonisation of cyclists - with or without helmets - contributes to each time this comes up.

It is really unhelpful for we cyclists to be fighting amongst ourselves on this. Every post could simply be redirected at getting drivers to take more care and/or getting certain idiot cyclists to engage their brains.

For what it's worth, I wear a helmet when training, largely because I have to wear one when racing. As a design engineer explained to me, in the event of a fall/accident, a helmet may save you, it may cause you injury, but most likely it will make no difference at all. My concern is that people continue to bang on about compulsory helmets as if they are always going to save your life.

In the end, what I find most exasperating in this debate (hence my initial 'can't be bothered') is that so many seem able to accept that they could be wrong. I'd love to see this 'evidence' I've been alluding to, but I shan't be holding my breath.

Joeinpoole wrote:

700c wrote:

... Or when you come off unexpectedly. in a proportion of these accidents you will hit your head. And in a proportion of these head impacts the helmet will lessen the damage to your head.

What is wrong with you helmet-wearing types that makes you keep falling off your bikes? .

ha! Clearly you have stronger views than me on the subject. I advocate personal choice, but if wearing helmet makes me a 'type', then fair enough..

Anyway, the point I was making was that humans are fallible and error prone. Whether you drive a car or cycle, walk, whatever. It's my belief that a helmet affords some protection in the event of being hit on the head, whether an impact is caused by me or someone else. The level of risk posed by hazards that are out there must be assessed by each individual and of course people will come to different conclusions and that's fine.

Maciej001 wrote:

What good is reducing speed limits, if drivers don't stick to them? I raised this too. Sure, I'd love them to stick to them. By the way, can you imagine the buzz if someone would suggest that?;-)

Indeed. What good _is_ reducing speed limits when drivers don't stick to them? That's why speed limits alone are nowhere near enough and why you need real physical changes to road layout to make speeding impossible (a lot more speed cameras would be good though).

Heck, the police openly refuse to enforce them, so they are indeed of limited use.

Demazter wrote:

The comparison between seatbelt and helmet will always be there because they are both designed to prevent serious injury whilst using a mode of transport

In one case the risks to the user are intrinsic to their own choice of transport mode, in the other the main risks come from the choices of others.

The main risk to cyclists is not that due to cycling, its due to motoring, whereas the risk on motorists is due to motorists. Your wording conceals this difference, which I suppose is why you word it like that.

Legally forcing someone to take precautions against a risk they impose on themselves is different from forcing them to take precautions against a danger created by others.

ColT wrote:

Every time someone mentions helmets, the same old stuff gets trotted out by...

...oh, never mind, I can't be bothered.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

I'd love to see this 'evidence' I've been alluding to, but I shan't be holding my breath.

There is a bit of a contradiction here. You would "love to see this evidence", but you can't be bothered to look for it. It is wise for you to not hold your breath.
You are sure, without being bothered to look, that there is nothing to see.

I asked whether you were familiar with Adams's work because I thought it might be helpful, if it was new to you.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Demazter wrote:

The comparison between seatbelt and helmet will always be there because they are both designed to prevent serious injury whilst using a mode of transport

In one case the risks to the user are intrinsic to their own choice of transport mode, in the other the main risks come from the choices of others.

The main risk to cyclists is not that due to cycling, its due to motoring, whereas the risk on motorists is due to motorists. Your wording conceals this difference, which I suppose is why you word it like that.

Legally forcing someone to take precautions against a risk they impose on themselves is different from forcing them to take precautions against a danger created by others.

When motorists use the extra protection that seat belts (and air bags etc.) give them to improve their performance instead of accepting the safety bonus, they increase the danger to vulnerable road users but not to themselves.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/23/open-letter-to-executive-director...

Adams shows that seatbelts increased the casualty rate for cyclists and pedestrians. This is now accepted by members of the PACTS.
(Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety )

They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”

Helmets do not impose extra risk on other road users to any extent.

I agree with your last paragraph.

felixcat wrote:

ColT wrote:

Every time someone mentions helmets, the same old stuff gets trotted out by...

...oh, never mind, I can't be bothered.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

I'd love to see this 'evidence' I've been alluding to, but I shan't be holding my breath.

There is a bit of a contradiction here. You would "love to see this evidence", but you can't be bothered to look for it. It is wise for you to not hold your breath.
You are sure, without being bothered to look, that there is nothing to see.

I asked whether you were familiar with Adams's work because I thought it might be helpful, if it was new to you.

Forgive me, but you are making assumptions again and, dare I say, missing my point. I have done plenty of looking, thanks. I put together a pros and cons dossier for the Royal Mail (a temporary employer while finishing my thesis) and concluded that - and forgive me for repeating myself - there is no incontrovertible evidence either way. The experts do not agree, so why should the ramblings and rantings of cycling laymen be of any greater worth?

Clearly, I wasn't being specific enough for you, but the point I was making was that I couldn't be bothered with countering the same old same old that crops up every time the helmet debate hits this site. That said, on balance, I can be bothered and I do care, but I do despair at the (often) really unhelpful nonsense that I force myself to read on here.

Is that a more acceptable response or am I still contradicting myself?

Thanks for the clarification. I did not mean to offend.

I see the problem of contradictory evidence as there being a conflict between whole population studies and case controlled studies.

The case controlled studies depend upon the groups being compared having the same characteristics, which they quite evidently don't. None helmet wearers tend towards being a different sort of cyclist to wearers. Attributing the whole of the difference in accident outcomes to the wearing or not of helmets is wrong. This is why the study method and figures can be used to show the evidently ridiculous conclusion that helmets protect against leg injuries.

But you must know this.

The whole population studies in the real life experiments in NZ or Oz seem to me to be much more reliable.

Why do you conclude that the two types of study are of equal validity?

Risk homeostasis seems to me to provide a feasible explanation of why helmets don't reduce the casualty rate in helmet madating countries.

That is why I asked about Adams.

Maciej001 wrote:

It is not a stupid piece of foam. It saved my head. So tell me, why would you not wear one?

Basically because I'd already been cycling for nearly 30 years before Halfords started selling helmets. Even then they were only intended for mountain bike use because of the danger of stunts going wrong or crashing into trees at high speed.

Don't forget that even professional road cyclists largely didn't wear 'proper' helmets until it became compulsory for endorsed races in 2003 following the death of Andrey Kivilev. Must admit that if I were riding in a peleton at 40mph or descending at 70mph ... I'd definitely wear a helmet. But I don't.

For the type of cycling that I do, mainly recreational, and with the experience that I have (to hopefully sense potential danger ahead and take appropriate measures) I don't feel that strapping a piece of foam to my head is of much benefit.

There's a Strava segment in my area which covers a 30mph descent down a narrow, winding country road. I am truly staggered at some of the times being recorded on it. The road starts relatively straight and the bends all come towards the end of the segment. The road is nearly always wet at that point too due to run-off from the fields. I know that I can't improve much on my time because I HAVE to apply the brakes before entering the blind bends. If I didn't and there was a tractor in the road (or a boy-racer coming the other way) then I'd probably be dead. The only way possible that the quickest times are being recorded is by people going balls-out and presumably just hoping for the best. They are probably wearing helmets though.

The piece of foam you all hate so much, saved my head at only 25mph, and though it was the driver's fault, I thank god I had one. Simple. So helmets do improve safety.

Maciej001 wrote:

The piece of foam you all hate so much, saved my head at only 25mph, and though it was the driver's fault, I thank god I had one. Simple. So helmets do improve safety.

I once touched wheels and banged my head on the tarmac but luckily I was wearing a Festina cap. I urge all cyclists to wear a cap, even if Festina ones are hard to come by.
You make think your anecdote is more valid than mine, but it is not.

No, I don't think mine is more valid. But is equally, and if my helmet was cracked under the impact, then I assume my head would be. Probably there are different ways a head can hit the tarmac, I am glad your was the one that could be saved by the Festina cap.

Maciej001 wrote:

No, I don't think mine is more valid. But is equally, and if my helmet was cracked under the impact, then I assume my head would be. Probably there are different ways a head can hit the tarmac, I am glad your was the one that could be saved by the Festina cap.

I think you will find that your skull is a lot tougher than a scrap of expanded polystyrene. Cracking is a failure mode for a cycle helmet. It is meant to absorb energy by being crushed.
I take it that you will join my Festina cap promotion group?

Sorry, crushed, I used the wrong word. Anyway, it worked.

And I don't plan to check how hard my skull is;-)

I would have to find one first... and see if I like the colour;-)

Maciej001 wrote:

Sorry, crushed, I used the wrong word. Anyway, it worked.

And I don't plan to check how hard my skull is;-)

I would have to find one first... and see if I like the colour;-)

All you can say is that it worked in the same way my Festina cap worked. i.e. you survived.

You will be lucky to find a Festina cap, all nine riders were thrown off the 1998 TdF for drug issues, (as they say these days).

Two things:

1. Polystyrene absorbs energy by crushing. It absorbs very little however when it cracks. Indeed, if the polystyrene cracks, the helmet loses structural integrity and loses its ability to spread impact forces over more of the polystyrene where they can be absorbed by its crushing.

A good helmet has a hard, crack resistant outer shell, to hold the polystyrene shell together in an impact and and spread the forces, as a motorcycle helmet does. Based on my observations, most roadies in the UK wear the much flimsier soft-shell types.

2. This means that if your helmet cracked into pieces it actually *failed*. It was exposed to loads that exceeded what it was designed for.

Given two polystyrene helmets after a similar crash, one cracked to pieces and the other not, the *uncracked* helmet may very likely have absorbed *more* energy - the uncracked helmet showing more crush deformation would confirm this.

Also, note that while helmets help prevent some types of injuries, they also *increase* the risk of others (neck and rotational injuries, which can be quite bad for your brain). This is because helmets add significant width to the human head. Because of that width, some accidents will result in significant blows to the head (perhaps even cracked helmets) where the rider would otherwise not have received any significant blow.

Meta-studies suggest the additional injuries caused are commensurate with those saved, such that, population wide, there is negligible benefit to injuries from wearing helmets. (See Elvik 2011).

Joeinpoole][quote=Maciej001 wrote:

Seriously, I don't understand all you people.

Where should they stop? Should they ban smoking, drinking, fatty foods, sugary drinks, restrict all motor vehicles to 25mph? After all far more lives (including those of cyclists) would be saved by restricting motor vehicles to 25mph than making cyclists wear a ridiculous piece of foam on their heads.

Yes to all of the above and it would save the NHS millions.

Demazter wrote:

Are you for real? How many more people are you going to call morons?

I was just throwing "moron" out there to see who would apply it to themself.

Demazter wrote:

How is a bag of crisps a safety device?

It's common sense: is it going to hurt more or less if you bang your head into a brick wall wearing a bag of crisps or without? Have you tried it?

Demazter wrote:

How many safety standards does it pass?

The International Crisp Hat Manufacturers Guild has a publicly available testing standard Smell B-90 in which they demonstrate that a pumpkin with a bag of crisps sellotaped to it will withstand a 25cm drop onto a variety of surfaces. At exactly 25cm the bag of crisps bursts.

I don't know what else you're looking for.

I hear the kids are using a thing called the internet, which has "search engines" on it, which can be used to find answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

@Maciej001

Enforcing more-and-more restrictions on cyclists helps to deter anyone from cycling, and hence hugely lessens the chance of ever getting better infrastructure or better driving.

Its symbolic of car-supremacy and reinforces a culture of victim-blaming, which would likely lead to even worse driving.

Which do you think is better: Enforcing better male behaviour on the streets and prosecuting harrassers, or passing a law saying women must all wear burkas if they go outdoors so as not to 'provoke' men?

Do you think the latter is somehow totally unrelated to the former and that doing the latter would not in any way reduce the likelihood of doing the former?

Also - nobody is saying you can't wear a helmet. I think many of us against a mandatory helmet law do actually wear one.

Also - why should cyclists have to collectively 'earn' respect? That's like the argument that says black people can't object to racism until every single one of them has become 100% law-abiding.

kcr wrote:

I really think you can crack it this time, folks.

Not a patch on these guys...

We've got a long way to go to catch them. Keep typing!

Joeinpoole wrote:

What's going on here? Does the wearing of a helmet induce cyclists to take absurd risks or what?

Yes

700c wrote:

logically a helmet must provide a measure of protection against impact, considering for a moment the physics, independent of external factors such as driver behaviour.

Logically: a helmet provides a longer lever on the head and spinal column.

Empirically: no reduction in serious head injuries are recorded in helmet. wearing populations.

Empirically: helmet wearing populations have lower levels of cycling.

Empirically: pedestrians suffer roughly the same proportion of head injuries.

Ush wrote:

I hear the kids are using a thing called the internet, which has "search engines" on it, which can be used to find answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

Yes. And we apply safety measures to this as well.

It's nice to see you are grown up enough to have a proper debate.

It's not victim-blaming. It's caring about safety of citizens, no matter how pompous it sounds (and selling more helmets by Wiggle;-). I am not saying we should be required to wear full body armour. You may as why, since I am pro other laws. No, the laws must be reasonable, just as no-one wants drivers to wear helmets. But if wearing a safety belt in a car is OK, why is wearing a helmet not?

As I say, infrastructure and driving should be massively improved, but this is a different issue.

Why earn respect? Just as I said. We would love the drivers and pedestrians not to do stupid things which put us, cyclists in danger. And we "collectively" hate drivers for not doing so. So let's not do the same thing. All I said was, and what I always do, always look at your own sins first, before you blame others.

FatFreddie wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

What's going on here? Does the wearing of a helmet induce cyclists to take absurd risks or what?

Yes

No, not absurd risks.
The protection given by a helmet is marginal. This is accepted by most helmet believers. ( the 85% figure for protection is only usede by the most rabid and ill informed compulsionists)
In any trip there are many moments when a slight misjudgement might cause an accident. Should I take this corner abit more slowly, in case there is gravel on the road? It looks a bit icy, there could possibly be black ice so perhaps I should take it a bit easier. Is this gap in the traffic large enough to pull out? etc.etc.
If one believes the seatbelt and airbags, or the helmet, increase the safety margin one may be tempted to take a slightly bigger risk.
Accidents are rare.
The change in risk assessment required to negate any safety given by a helmet is very small.

felixcat wrote:

FatFreddie wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

What's going on here? Does the wearing of a helmet induce cyclists to take absurd risks or what?

Yes

No, not absurd risks.
The protection given by a helmet is marginal. This is accepted by most helmet believers. ( the 85% figure for protection is only usede by the most rabid and ill informed compulsionists)
In any trip there are many moments when a slight misjudgement might cause an accident. Should I take this corner abit more slowly, in case there is gravel on the road? It looks a bit icy, there could possibly be black ice so perhaps I should take it a bit easier. Is this gap in the traffic large enough to pull out? etc.etc.
If one believes the seatbelt and airbags, or the helmet, increase the safety margin one may be tempted to take a slightly bigger risk.
Accidents are rare.
The change in risk assessment required to negate any safety given by a helmet is very small.

Why then do helmet proponents make (very common) statements like "I would never ride my bike without wearing a helmet"? Or why do they berate me for not wearing a helmet as though I am taking a massive risk? (answer - they need to validate their own decision process).

Surely, if they thought that helmets made only a small difference they wouldn't have such a binary attitude.

I think you grossly underestimate how much protection people believe helmets provide.