Bishop fractures skull after being doored while cycling - but says he should have worn his helmet

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Out of interest, and genuine question, based on the above why do you wear a helmet? 

I ask as I still refrain from wearing a helmet for much of my riding... MTB and fast group rides, race scenarios, yes, otherwise no. 

Reasons being... I don't see cycling as a dangerous activity, and certainly not one with a specific head injury issue that needs to be mitigated against. Raise that risk as in the examples I mention, then it maybe needs a fresh look... another reason is that the level of protection provided by a helmet is moderate at best... the final reason is plain stubborness; based on my first two reasons, I refuse to give in to peer pressure on this issue... I'm sure darwin may catch up with me at some point, put 30 years and god knows how many miles, and many, many crashes later, I'm still here! 

Mainly to appease my wife - she gets worried if I go cycling without a helmet.

I had a rare off the other week; I was cycling around Ashton Court MTB track on my MTB and not knowing the course and not having much skill, I went over a couple of drop-offs. I hit the deck and once again was grateful that I was wearing gloves. Got a few bumps and grazes on my legs and some bruises to my hands, but didn't need my helmet (shin guards would have been good). Personally, I think it's a good idea to wear a helmet for MTBing as there's a greater chance of hitting a tree or similar.

To sum up my views, I think that helmets do provide some head protection but that protection is exaggerated and gets way too much focus. There are down-sides to wearing helmets too and it's not clear whether the pros outweigh the cons despite lots of arguments and opinions. Road safety depends far more on what drivers do than whether or not people wear armour.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

And yet whenever helmets are raised on cycling websites, 90% of the comments are anti-helmet.

I've never seen an anti-helmet comment, so could you post a few quotes?

What I, and anyone who has examined the data are against, is the overwhelming propaganda about helmets.  They may prevent bumps and bruises in low speed collisions, but the data clearly shows that they do not reduce the risk of death, despite all the propaganda and "helmet saved my life" stories.

We know what works and we know what doesn't work, but people like you continually push what has been clearly demonstrated not to work.  Why?  Do you have shares in a helmet company?

eburtthebike wrote:

What I, and anyone who has examined the data are against, is the overwhelming propaganda about helmets.  They may prevent bumps and bruises in low speed collisions, but the data clearly shows that they do not reduce the risk of death, despite all the propaganda and "helmet saved my life" stories.

You fail to mention one crucial point.

You refuse to examine any data that contradicts your own beliefs.

For anyone who is actually interested in the evidence there are 2 recent studies showing a reduced rate of death and injury severity when helmets are worn.

We have discussed at least one of these studies in the past, you refused to read past the introduction.

Neither study is perfect, very few studies are, but pretending that these studies do not exist is dishonest and we all know how much you dislike liars Burt..

Link:
https://cyclingtips.com/2019/09/two-more-studies-support-the-use-of-cycl...

Rich_cb wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

You fail to mention one crucial point. You refuse to examine any data that contradicts your own beliefs. For anyone who is actually interested in the evidence there are 2 recent studies showing a reduced rate of death and injury severity when helmets are worn. We have discussed at least one of these studies in the past, you refused to read past the introduction. Neither study is perfect, very few studies are, but pretending that these studies do not exist is dishonest and we all know how much you dislike liars Burt.. Link: https://cyclingtips.com/2019/09/two-more-studies-support-the-use-of-cycl...

Thanks for those studies, and as you should know, they aren't just not perfect, they have glaring shortcomings, like both being hospital based studies of people who have already crashed; a bit like asking the opinion of the lottery based on interviewing the winners. 

These kinds of studies have consistently shown helmets to be effective, but the whole population, long term data stubbornly refuses to agree.  Hmm, which to believe?  Tricky.

That's just not true is it Burt.

The very best whole population long term data (UK) on helmet wearing and cycling casualties shows a correlation between increasing helmet use and decreasing cyclist fatalities. There was also no evidence of increased accidents overall.

That supports the hospital data and is
evidence against risk compensation (an unproven and controversial theory).

correlation does not imply causation though, there are long term worldwide data trends that show the increase in sales of ice cream correlates closely with the increased rate of drowning, so much so the US did issue health warnings to the effect you shouldnt eat ice cream before swimming as it increased your risk of drowning.

it doesnt of course link that way, one doesnt directly cause the other, people eat more ice creams in summer months, and are more likely to go swimming when the weather is warmer. So there maybe increased helmet use,and decreased cyclist fatalities, but that doesnt mean the two are cause & effect, decreased fatalities in all forms of road traffic accident are more likely down to the better emergency health care provision, ability to stabilise patients conditions and get them to hospitals to be treated quickly than the ppe they are wearing.

We've had this discussion a million times on here so I won't bother with too much detail.

Nobody is claiming that correlation = causation.

Burt is claiming that there is no correlation or a negative correlation.

That is demonstrably untrue.

The best data available (UK) shows a positive correlation. More helmet use correlates to fewer cyclist fatalities.

Burt has posted something he knows is incorrect, he is trying to mislead people.

At the risk of rehearsing old ground, even if the effect is causal, and the fact is that more helmets = fewer head injuries, it is still not necessarily a good result.

How can I possibly say that, helmets directly causing a reduction in cyclist deaths, and yet not good?

I won't try to make the case myself, but if you have time look at this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/

Then also look at what is killing people in this country:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-number-of-deaths-by-cause?coun...

Add up the two leading causes of death. Ask yourself what can cut them both by nearly half:

"But, during the course of the study, regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%, the incidence of cancer by 45% and heart disease by 46%."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

Thanks for those links. That's a very useful graph with the causes of death - looks like the UK have made progress in reducing cardiovascular diseases.

Sriracha wrote:

Add up the two leading causes of death. Ask yourself what can cut them both by nearly half:

"But, during the course of the study, regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%, the incidence of cancer by 45% and heart disease by 46%." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

Widespread active travel would surely have some impact almost all of the top dozen or so, before you even get to the number of road deaths.

Simon E wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Add up the two leading causes of death. Ask yourself what can cut them both by nearly half:

"But, during the course of the study, regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%, the incidence of cancer by 45% and heart disease by 46%." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

Widespread active travel would surely have some impact almost all of the top dozen or so, before you even get to the number of road deaths.

Well yes, and that is the point. Whereas obliging cyclists to wear helmets has been shown to reduce the numbers cycling. So even though it may reduce cyclist deaths, the more so for simultaneously reducing the numbers cycling, it will result in more people dying early from the leading causes (over two orders greater than all road deaths).

That risk compensation paper is fairly juvenile in its approach.

It's a reasonable theory but that's about it.

I've yet to see any decent evidence that risk compensation occurs with cycling helmets.

There are a lot of small scale poor quality studies but not much else.

Strangely the same people who dismiss helmets because of the 'lack of evidence' are often ardent believers in risk compensation despite the fact that there's far less evidence for it.*

* In the context of bicycle helmets.

The risk-compensation paper was one out of 20 papers cited in the research. There were many other factors, not least of which was that, where they looked at total numbers, the compulsory wearing of helmets caused a greater decline in numbers of cyclists - that is a sure way to reduce cyclist head injuries!

The risk compensation paper had 14 references.

10 of these were referenced in support of risk compensation.

8 of those were written the author himself...

Rich_cb wrote:

The risk compensation paper had 14 references.

10 of these were referenced in support of risk compensation.

8 of those were written the author himself...

So ignore it. Like I said, it was but one out of 20 papers referenced in this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/
And not one of the leading arguments by a long way. Perhaps it is just a good example of how one weak argument can be used by some to sink an otherwise robust case. The Boardman link given by Simon E is also very readable:
https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...

There is one major problem with that paper, it cannot correct for the change in cycling population after the introduction of compulsion.

It is therefore impossible to calculate the significance of any change in injury rate etc.

Consider this (entirely hypothetical) situation.

There are 200 cyclists in an area.

100 belong to group A. These cyclists are extremely dedicated to cycling. Some wear helmets and some do not. They suffer 10 head injuries a year.

100 belong to group B. These are casual cyclists. They suffer 5 head injuries a year.

This gives a head injury rate overall of 7.5% per year. (These are entirely arbitrary numbers and not intended to be realistic rates)

After helmet compulsion is introduced every single group B cyclist stops cycling. Every single group A cyclist continues to cycle and now wears a helmet.

Group A now suffer 8 head injuries a year.

Overall the percentage of head injuries has risen 7.5% - 8%.

But the rate of head injury in group A has fallen 10% - 8%.

Looking at head injury rate in isolation tells us nothing.

Whenever there is a thread about helmet efficacy people will endlessly link to studies looking at the effects of compulsion. These cannot be used to assess efficacy as the population invariably changes significantly post compulsion rendering any attempted comparison invalid.

And that's the point. If you only look at the effect of compulsory helmet laws on cyclist deaths, you miss the fact that half your B group (who give up cycling as a result) now die of cancer or heart disease. Whereas any reduction in cycling head injuries is lost in the noise. All deaths are deplorable.

Moreover, if you look to helmet wearing as the answer to cyclist head injuries you have already missed the underlying cause, exactly as our Bishop exemplifes, whilst doing nothing for all the other cyclist injuries. None of which is incompatible with the assertion that wearing a helmet can lower the risk of head injury.

I agree with you entirely.

Compulsion is entirely counterproductive because cycling has so many health benefits.

The only matter for real debate concerns the efficacy of voluntary helmet wearing.

In that particular debate there is a lot of misinformation and exaggeration on both sides.

My opinion is that voluntary helmet wearing produces a small but measurable degree of protection against serious head injury whilst producing little or no measurable increase in risk taking giving an overall positive effect.

I think this is supported by data on injury rates compared to helmet wearing rates and comparisons of the injuries sustained by helmeted and non helmeted riders.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Thus we may conclude that either 90% of cyclists and 99% of serious cyclists are complete muppets doing something that has no value whatsoever...

No we can't - even if they have no benefit in terms of safety, that doesn't mean they have no value at all. They protect you from having your ear bent by relatives, friends and others who think you're taking enormous risk by riding without one. And they may shield you from having blame shifted onto you by lawyers and judges should you be involved in a collision through no fault of your own.

I almost always wear a helmet, but I'm thankful that I do so out of choice. It wrankles when a car driver inflicts injury on a cyclist and the commentary suggests that it's ok, the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. "Ok" in the sense of "you can't really get into hot water for that, a cyclist not wearing a helmet is basically asking for it, poor motorist never stood a chance".

There is a very real sense that as a vulnerable road user it is the cyclist's responsibility to look out for themself. Pragmatically that will always be so, but it so readily becomes a reason for drivers not to care. That photo of the woman checking her Range Rover for damage having failed to stop after a collision with a cyclist sums up the attitude.

Good heavens, a voice of reason! I entirely agree, wearing a helmet isn't mandatory and shouldn't be made so, and no cyclist should be blamed for an accident that wasn't their fault if they weren't wearing a helmet. But the rabid anti-helmeteers here and elsewhere would have people believe that wearing a helmet is no protection or even (for the real extremists) more dangerous, and they are absurd.

For me cyclists sans-helmet are the canaries down the mine. If a canary drops off its perch it's not because the cage gave insufficent protection. And if you always focus on protecting the canary then more will die, paradoxically.

Sriracha wrote:

For me cyclists sans-helmet are the canaries down the mine. If a canary drops off its perch it's not because the cage gave insufficent protection. And if you always focus on protecting the canary then more will die, paradoxically.

So, apologies if I'm mis-interpreting you, but I see your analogy in these terms:

The canaries are cyclists; the cages are helmets; the mines are roads.

So, does this mean that helmets are a device to prevent the cyclists from being free and escaping the dangers of the roads (poisonous air being common to both mines and roads)? I'd have thought that canaries are probably safer when not being forced into a dangerous environment, but maybe that's just me.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

For me cyclists sans-helmet are the canaries down the mine. If a canary drops off its perch it's not because the cage gave insufficent protection. And if you always focus on protecting the canary then more will die, paradoxically.

So, apologies if I'm mis-interpreting you, but I see your analogy in these terms:

The canaries are cyclists; the cages are helmets; the mines are roads.

So, does this mean that helmets are a device to prevent the cyclists from being free and escaping the dangers of the roads (poisonous air being common to both mines and roads)? I'd have thought that canaries are probably safer when not being forced into a dangerous environment, but maybe that's just me.

Thanks for that; I didn't understand the analogy either.  Still don't.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

For me cyclists sans-helmet are the canaries down the mine. If a canary drops off its perch it's not because the cage gave insufficent protection. And if you always focus on protecting the canary then more will die, paradoxically.

So, apologies if I'm mis-interpreting you, but I see your analogy in these terms:

The canaries are cyclists; the cages are helmets; the mines are roads.

So, does this mean that helmets are a device to prevent the cyclists from being free and escaping the dangers of the roads (poisonous air being common to both mines and roads)? I'd have thought that canaries are probably safer when not being forced into a dangerous environment, but maybe that's just me.

No. Neither was the cage relevant to the use of canaries in the mines, nor is it relevant to the analogy. It was just a convenient way to carry the canary down the mine. Canaries were more susceptible to mine gas than were the miners, so they felt its effects before it became lethal to the miners. If your canary died you knew the mine was dangerous and got out sharpish. The state of the mine would then need to be addressed to fix the cause of the problem to make it safe. Of course it would be easier just to protect the canary a bit better (aka put a helmet on it) and carry on as normal. After all, no miner had actually died, only a canary.

In this instance it would be so much easier all round if the Bishop had been better protected. Man comes off bike, no harm done. Wouldn't have made the news. Better for the wellbeing of the Bishop too, undoubtedly saved by his helmet. Doors and cyclists issue is no closer to being addressed.

Cyclists without helmets are more susceptible to the dangers of traffic. That is not necessarily a good reason for all cyclists to wear helmets, nor to apportion any "contributory negligence". We need to work towards a state where helmets become redundant, not where they are encouraged or even mandatory. Then we will be spared all injuries, not just those to the head. And we will have a lot more cyclists, those who never trusted their life to a helmet.

I thought cyclists with helmets were more likely to be close passed and hence susceptible to the dangers of traffic

hirsute wrote:

I thought cyclists with helmets were more likely to be close passed and hence susceptible to the dangers of traffic

You are probably referencing Ian Walker's research, which he discussed with Jack Thurston during a recent edition of his podcast (http://thebikeshow.net/).

The animosity shown in the MSM and on social media towards 'lycra louts' will surely not help in this regard; helmeted roadies will be seen as having chosen to wearing 'armour'. The psychology of these decisions - both those of the cyclist in what to wear and the driver in how to treat them - and the subsequent interactions can be very revealing about the ideas and prejudices of each party.

Sriracha wrote:

Cyclists without helmets are more susceptible to the dangers of traffic.

In what way?

Sriracha wrote:

No. Neither was the cage relevant to the use of canaries in the mines, nor is it relevant to the analogy. It was just a convenient way to carry the canary down the mine. Canaries were more susceptible to mine gas than were the miners, so they felt its effects before it became lethal to the miners. If your canary died you knew the mine was dangerous and got out sharpish. The state of the mine would then need to be addressed to fix the cause of the problem to make it safe. Of course it would be easier just to protect the canary a bit better (aka put a helmet on it) and carry on as normal. After all, no miner had actually died, only a canary. In this instance it would be so much easier all round if the Bishop had been better protected. Man comes off bike, no harm done. Wouldn't have made the news. Better for the wellbeing of the Bishop too, undoubtedly saved by his helmet. Doors and cyclists issue is no closer to being addressed. Cyclists without helmets are more susceptible to the dangers of traffic. That is not necessarily a good reason for all cyclists to wear helmets, nor to apportion any "contributory negligence". We need to work towards a state where helmets become redundant, not where they are encouraged or even mandatory. Then we will be spared all injuries, not just those to the head. And we will have a lot more cyclists, those who never trusted their life to a helmet.

Thanks, that makes more sense, though I still prefer my interpretation.

Sriracha wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

For me cyclists sans-helmet are the canaries down the mine. If a canary drops off its perch it's not because the cage gave insufficent protection. And if you always focus on protecting the canary then more will die, paradoxically.

So, apologies if I'm mis-interpreting you, but I see your analogy in these terms:

The canaries are cyclists; the cages are helmets; the mines are roads.

So, does this mean that helmets are a device to prevent the cyclists from being free and escaping the dangers of the roads (poisonous air being common to both mines and roads)? I'd have thought that canaries are probably safer when not being forced into a dangerous environment, but maybe that's just me.

No. Neither was the cage relevant to the use of canaries in the mines, nor is it relevant to the analogy. It was just a convenient way to carry the canary down the mine. Canaries were more susceptible to mine gas than were the miners, so they felt its effects before it became lethal to the miners. If your canary died you knew the mine was dangerous and got out sharpish. The state of the mine would then need to be addressed to fix the cause of the problem to make it safe. Of course it would be easier just to protect the canary a bit better (aka put a helmet on it) and carry on as normal. After all, no miner had actually died, only a canary. In this instance it would be so much easier all round if the Bishop had been better protected. Man comes off bike, no harm done. Wouldn't have made the news. Better for the wellbeing of the Bishop too, undoubtedly saved by his helmet. Doors and cyclists issue is no closer to being addressed. Cyclists without helmets are more susceptible to the dangers of traffic. That is not necessarily a good reason for all cyclists to wear helmets, nor to apportion any "contributory negligence". We need to work towards a state where helmets become redundant, not where they are encouraged or even mandatory. Then we will be spared all injuries, not just those to the head. And we will have a lot more cyclists, those who never trusted their life to a helmet.

Can't help thinking that if a brief analogy needs three paragraphs to explain it to relatively literate and intelligent people, it could have been a bit clearer.

Point taken. Next time I'll lose the paragraph breaks