Swedish safety research recommends three helmets out of 23 tested

Actually, the culpability of vermin has already been covered in this thread!

yupiteru wrote:

Do you realise how many people kill themselves getting out of the bath every year and do you want them to wear a helmet?

Go on, how many?

Nearest I can find is

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statisti...

29

5 from Accidental suffocation in bed

hirsute wrote:

Nearest I can find is

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statisti...

29

5 from Accidental suffocation in bed

Yes, I saw that but that's accidental drowning in the bathtub, which can be as a result of seizures, bathing whilst drunk etc. I would imagine the number actually dying of falling whilst de-bathing is quite small and I would guess mainly confined, sadly, to the elderly and infirm. Which is why these comparisons ("I suppose people in cars should wear car helmets" is another stupid one) just don't work: as a (relatively) young and (again relatively) fit person I know that I am highly unlikely to have a fatal fall getting out of the bath, indeed the likelihood is so small it's not worth protecting against; as a cyclist I know that it is highly likely that at some stage, riding around 5,000 kms a year, much of it in urban environments, it's virtually a certainty that at some point I will have a fall either through my fault, someone else's or just plain bad luck, and so I protect against it.

Anyone who has read about the subject knows the evidence for helmets is unclear and there are others factors including psychological ones involved.

A lot of push back occurs as they are presented as some pancea for all ills by people who are commenting outside of their expertise and experience.

Are you Judge Adams ?

They protect your skull not your brain.

Try yesterday's blog too.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

No idea who Judge Adams is - is that a new series on freeview daytime?

You can read a good introduction to helmets at Headway - https://www.headway.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/campaigns/cycle-safety/

Helmets protect your brain in the event of a crash - I've certainly been glad I've been wearing one in the past. Just because people mention whether a cyclist was wearing a helmet when an accident occurs doesn't make them ineffective, any more than whether someone was wearing a seat belt in a car crash.

You can read a good introduction to Headway here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jul/30/jersey-com...

Few people (if any) are "anti-helmet".  Anti-compulsion, perhaps; arguing that there is insufficient evidence of real benefit to warrant such a measure (among other things) or perhaps "anti-bullshit"; of which there is plenty when helmets are being discussed.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

Few people (if any) are "anti-helmet".  Anti-compulsion, perhaps; arguing that there is insufficient evidence of real benefit to warrant such a measure (among other things) or perhaps "anti-bullshit"; of which there is plenty when helmets are being discussed.

That's fine, but journalists are perfectly entitled to comment on whether you were wearing one in the event of you crashing and questioning your intelligence if you weren't.

I thought journalists had grown up about questioning the attire of the victims of violent crime...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

Few people (if any) are "anti-helmet".  Anti-compulsion, perhaps; arguing that there is insufficient evidence of real benefit to warrant such a measure (among other things) or perhaps "anti-bullshit"; of which there is plenty when helmets are being discussed.

That's fine, but journalists are perfectly entitled to comment on whether you were wearing one in the event of you crashing and questioning your intelligence if you weren't.

Only if it's relevant.  Somebody not wearing a helmet doesn't mean the injuries they suffered would have been sufficiently mitigated - or even mitigated in any way - had they worn one.  And that comment from the journalist shouldn't be presenting the factoid as a given conclusion that the cyclist was the author of their own misfortune.  Those that do aren't journalists, they're just cheap-rent hacks.

I would question their credentials if they presented such a superficial understanding of the topic.

hirsute wrote:

I would question their credentials if they presented such a superficial understanding of the topic.

Bloody armchair expert.

A reasonable description of the journalist in this instance

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Bentrider wrote:

Few people (if any) are "anti-helmet".  Anti-compulsion, perhaps; arguing that there is insufficient evidence of real benefit to warrant such a measure (among other things) or perhaps "anti-bullshit"; of which there is plenty when helmets are being discussed.

That's fine, but journalists are perfectly entitled to comment on whether you were wearing one in the event of you crashing and questioning your intelligence if you weren't.

No, it's not fine when, having been killed through the actions of a car driver, a judge says, in so many words, you killed yourself by your own choice.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If I fell off my bike, wasn't wearing a helmet, and gave myself brain damage as a result, I'd want this advertised to stop others doing the same. That's all I'm saying here.

I haven't mentioned blame, victims, being hit by someone else, or anything else spurious. I'm talking about an event such as the squirrel incident where there are no contributory factors.

I'll repeat: people who deny the efficacy of helmets are in the same league as anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers.

Cyclist fell off bicycle unaided, injured head, wasn't wearing helmet - I don't recall ever reading such a report.

Helmetless cyclist suffers head injury in collision with motorist - only has himself to blame. Seems a more familiar tale.

Vermin in your spokes? We're down to the, "if it saves just one life..." fallacy.

If people choose to wear a helmet that's fine. I do. Most of the cyclists I see do too. But it stops being a choice as soon as it becomes a point of censure or a question of legal liability.

The helmet argument has been looked at time and time again.  I choose to wear a helmet, but I do so knowing that in anything other than a very minor collision a helmet is going to be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I wear a helmet because in the event I am involved in an accident I want to give the other party absolutely no chance to argue that i am partly to blame for any injuries.  As was shown in the case in the blog the other day where the judge apportioned some of the blame to the victim because they chose not to wear a helmet.

On the flip side, studies in other countries (Australia if memory serves) found that drivers were more likely to close pass cyclists who were wearing helmets because of the perceived security that the helmet provides.

The only way for a cyclists head to have anywhere near a sensible level of protection would be for them to wear a motorcycle helmet because they are designed with higher impact speeds in mind whereas bicycle helmets are designed to withstand minimal impacts whilst still be light.

I have had a look at some bicycle helmet testing protocols and most of them test at up to 16mph of impact velocity....  The test in question here looked at a velocity of 14 mph.  So if they perhaps looked at double those speeds you would see how limited the protection provided by a bicycle helmet in a motor vehicle accident actually is

It's almost as though we have never, ever, discussed helmets on here before...

"a study in the Netherlands"

"75% of accidents THERE"

And how does cycling in the UK compare with cycling in the Netherlands?

Apples.  Oranges.

Exactly, and this Dutch argument I see used time and time again by almost every anti (you don't need a) helmet mob.

Facts they all miss: 

1) The Dutch cycle much more slowly on upright bikes (they even wear jeans they go so slow), mostly on cycle paths and with few downhills to build up any speed.
2) On the rare occasion when they mix with cars, other motorists are very likely cyclists and there is a culture to be kind to them and the infrastructure favours them.

None of this is like the UK. 

 I only have 200 FB friends, as keep it for close friends, yet two of them recently had bad crashes and concussions. Took time to recover and both are still not fully over it yet (some brain damage).  Imagine if they were not wearing a helmet! 

A YTer I watch (Katey K) recently had a nasty crash and was knocked out cold. Again imagine if she had no helmet. 

Think! If you get a concussion injury with a helmet on it's going to be much worse without one. 

Then they come up with the totally stupid argument that your helmet may stick out a bit and you would have knocked you would have missed totally if you had no helmet on. Can they not think most of the time you will hit your head without a helmet - which is more lethal. But nom that one time when you might catch the edge of a helmet makes all the difference according to them! I swear these people do not have a brain worth protecting!

All Doctors I have heard speak on this subject say helmets save lives.  

Yet we have these know it alls who always comment about the Dutch. And link to dodgy websites anyone could set up to show the "science". 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Absolutely there are cases where helmets are completely useless, but it's dangerous anti-science to deny their efficacy in many scenarios.

I think that puts you in " in the same league as anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers."

Trying to fit in as many logical fallacies as you can ?

Your example of the Netherlands shows where you are going wrong.

I do not doubt that wearing a helmet reduces the consequences of a blow to the head. And yet in comparing the Netherlands with the UK we see that low rates of helmet use correlates with reduced head injuries amongst cyclists. The Netherlands, with the lowest rates of helmet wearing and the highest rates of cycling nevertheless is about the safest place to cycle.

So in terms of public policy (as opposed to individual choice) helmet wearing is clearly the wrong place to invest. In other words, whilst wearing a helmet may save your life, lives are not saved by diverting public resource towards making people wear helmets.
https://cyclingindustry.news/london-has-highest-helmet-use-in-europe-net...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So we're in agreement - if you scroll back you'll see that we both agree wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of a head injury and that compulsion isn't a sensible policy decision.

My point was that although compulsion is undesirable, it's important to ensure the public have the full facts to make an informed decision, including pointing out when someone has unfortunately sustained a preventable head injury through not wearing a helmet.

we are very nearly in agreement. We don't have helmet laws in the UK, but we are approaching compulsion by other means, as when the "preventable" in your statement becomes the burden of the cyclist and not the perpetrator.

You know that is an utterly stupid comparison completely unrelated to the evidence. I see you are going on about brain injury so I guess you didn't bother to read the links in here.

I did reckon that 50% of what you post you don't actually believe so I guess I need to up that %.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Thanks for this article and the link to relative comparisons between helmets. Disappointing to see to usual anti-helmet (the cycling equivalent of anti-vaxxers) in the discussion, but the more research we get into efficacy the better.

with you one this Nigel, but Hirsute loves to argue against not wearing helmets. Also Hirsute will take offence if mildly profane language is used, requesting I think filters to be used. One to many punches to the face for being deliberately obtuse, was going to sat a dick but found my filter.

You take a very binary approach on a subject that has grey areas.

I argue where people make assertions about the efficacy of helmets and fail to understand their limitations or just make wild claims with no evidence. I've never said "don't bother to wear a helmet".

Perhaps you are Judge Adam's brother.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

hirsute wrote:

You take a very binary approach on a subject that has grey areas.

Sadly, lots of people do that.

I guess it saves them having to make the effort to engage with facts they were unaware of (or don't want to know); or recognise that it may be useful to consider a different perspective on such an important topic.