Helmets

Peter Taylor said:

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

No. It depends on the reasons for wearing a helmet. I can think of a
few good reasons to wear one - however, most of the reasons usually
given, particularly by those who haven't studied the data, are not good
reasons.

Quoted message said:

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

It's a nice simplistic argument. However, the whole population studies
of serious brain injury do not show any benefit from wearing a helmet.
So it's as effective as carrying a rabbit's foot, or a St
Christopher. I'm not saying don't carry a rabbit's foot or a
helmet, but as all the whole population studies have shown, helmets
(and, I would imagine, rabbits' feet) are not effective precautions
against serious injury.

Quoted message said:

Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

May I suggest you visit www.cyclehelmets.org?

R.

On 2/12/04 4:41 pm, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Taylor said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.

Against over promotion of helmets. Against overstatement of the effects of
helmets. And definitely against anyone trying to make us wear helmets when
we don't want to.

And we wear helmets when we feel it is appropriate (me - sometimes, oters
most of the time, some never)

Quoted message said:

Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Not at all. You are perfectly free to do what you want. It has frequently
been stated that helmets will provide good protaction against minor
scratches and bruises. A perfectly good reason to wear one.

They also provide protection against nagging. ANother reason to wear one.

Quoted message said:

And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
fairytales)

I would refer you to the conversation in question. A list of papers which
had been presented uncritically, without any reasoned arguement were
rebutted with arguments. The OP then took to calling anyone questioning his
'holy writ' Troll.

Quoted message said:

One character recently posted

"How can this happen - I was wearing my h*lm*t, surely that protects
one from all injuries ? It must be true - its in peer reviewed journals
;-)

Dou"

There was irony here. It was taking the [censored] out of the T, R&T paper whose
emthodology indicated helemts prevent 75% of leg injuries.

Quoted message said:

Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
very good idea.

We could actually test your intuition by seeing whether they work in
practice. The only way to do that reliably is to look at whole populations
to get an idea of whether there are a significant proportion of accidents in
which they make a difference.

Quoted message said:

Just to clarify things for "half pint" and "discoduck". A helmet will not
save you from falling under a bus, and accidends are one off events, and
cannot be averaged over a number of rides. And a helmet will not help in
the vast majority of accidends which result in road rash or the odd broken
limb or collar bone.

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

Bit like carrying a portable lightning conductor then? 10,000 volts can
really fry your brain.

Quoted message said:

Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

I'll do what I want with my kids. I hope yours wear a properly designed
helmet when walking. Head injuries as a pedestrian vastly outstrip the
number as a cyclist.

It is always uncomfortable having your preconceptions challenged. If you
feel there have been mistakes made in interpretation then feel free to point
them out. Expect a vigorous response.

...d

Peter Taylor said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

I don't think I've seen anyone here argue that a helmet wearer is a wimp.

I make no apologies for being opposed to helmet wearing for
non-competitive cycling, but mainly on the grounds that by wearing one
you effectively voting for compulsion.
Compulsion will lead to all manner of problems (well documented) but not
least the move towards the responsibility for 'accidents' being placed
on the victim.

Quoted message said:

Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

My children would probably not cycle if they were forced to wear
helmets, and they are keen cyclists.
Which is best? would you prefer they don't ride?
And quite honestly what is it to do with you anyway.

Quoted message said:

Peter Taylor (not a troll, probably)

Nope, I reckon you probably are.

John B

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:13:14 +0000,

Richard said:

Peter Taylor said:

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

It's a nice simplistic argument. However, the whole population studies
of serious brain injury do not show any benefit from wearing a helmet.
So it's as effective as carrying a rabbit's foot, or a St
Christopher.

I don't think it is in the same class. Helmets may work in some individual
cases, however it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

"Peter Taylor" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

<Regulars, stop reading here cos you've heard or said it all before.>

Quoted message said:

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.

They aren't against helmets per se. They are against helmet compulsion
and also against the exaggerated claims made by some helmet proponents.
Some of these have been shown to be false.

Since the pressure for helmet compulsion will increase when a higher
proportion of people wear them, helmet wearing could be seen aas a
silent vote for compulsion.

Quoted message said:

Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Few actually do this.

Quoted message said:

And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
fairytales)

This is because the evidence chosen was rather selective, discredited,
or both.

Quoted message said:

One character recently posted

Quoted message said:

"How can this happen - I was wearing my h*lm*t, surely that protects
one from all injuries ? It must be true - its in peer reviewed journals
;-)

This was a tongue in cheek swipe at a discredited study which is still
being used by helmet compulsion proponents.

Quoted message said:

Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
very good idea.

That's the problem. It *seems* like a good idea until you realise:
1) That helmets cover only a small part of the head
2) Helmet design standards/specifications are so low that they are
unlikely to afford meaningful protection.
3) Helmet fitting for some head shapes makes it unlikely that a helmet
*will* protect in the event of a crash.
4) Helmets make the head larger and more likely to strike things
5) It is possible that helmets *worsen* some types of brain injury or
transfer impact to the neck. etc

Quoted message said:

Just to clarify things for "half pint" and "discoduck". A helmet will not
save you from falling under a bus, and accidends are one off events, and
cannot be averaged over a number of rides. And a helmet will not help in
the vast majority of accidends which result in road rash or the odd broken
limb or collar bone.

We know this. We also think people's behaviour might be altered by this
so-called 'safety' equipment by a risk compensation mechanism.

Quoted message said:

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

Most people here thought much the same and wore helmets for the same
reasons. Then they read a bit more widely and then found the case _for_
helmets was rather weak, even for isolated head injuries.

Some then became anti-helmet because they were anti-compulsion.

Quoted message said:

Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

If you're going to impose a helmet on a child:

- Check it fits properly and cannot ride up over the head. Make sure the
straps are a snug fit.
- Instruct your child to remove it in playgrounds as some kids on
climbing frames get strangled by helmets.
- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.
- Make sure the bike's brakes are in good condition and child is strong
enough to use them.
- Check the bicycle's general condition for any dangerous faults

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Andy Leighton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

Now there's a challenge :-)

cheers,
clive

Peter Taylor said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Bzzzt, thankyou for playing. I am against people wearing helmets for
this reason:

http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter1.gif
http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter2.gif

Read the highlighted paragraphs (sorry they're on two pages) and think
about whether you should be wearing one next time you ride, for the sake
of your fellow cyclists who don't want compulsion.

Guy - if this letter is useful for your site feel free to copy,
thumbnail, etc.

In message <[email hidden]>, Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.

Off the topic of helemts, took Elinor (3 3/4) to the park today with her
new bike so she could ride around. were going along a park 'road'
which met another one at a 'T' junction. without prompting, Elinor
stopped and looked and said we have to stop and check for cars coming
across.

I was impressed - obviously does pay attention when sitting in the
trailer- better be careful of any bad habits....
--
Chris French, Leeds

chris French <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.

Quoted message said:

Off the topic of helemts, took Elinor (3 3/4) to the park today with her
new bike so she could ride around. were going along a park 'road'
which met another one at a 'T' junction. without prompting, Elinor
stopped and looked and said we have to stop and check for cars coming
across.

Hopefully, she won't bomb off a pavement into the traffic...
.... with non-existent brakes -
- causing some coroner to call for <expletive deleted>

Quoted message said:

I was impressed - obviously does pay attention when sitting in the
trailer- better be careful of any bad habits....

Yup; they are memory machines at that age (so anything you say/do may be
taken down and used as evidence at any embarassing time...)

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Taylor"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

Not a site, a group. This is Usenet.

Quoted message said:

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.

I think you will find that this is not the case. The accusation of
being anti-helmet is a straw man raised by zealots who are unable to
distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic. I personally only
know one person who is genuinely anti-helmet, but I know very few
cyclists who accept more than a fraction of the pro-helmet evidence,
whether they wear helmets or not.

Quoted message said:

But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

No, not presumably anything. Actually on the grounds that there is no
solid evidence from anywhere in the world that wearing a helmet is a
"very good idea". The Road Safety Minister is pro helmet and even he
admitted that he knows of no evidence that cyclist safety has ever
improved with increasing helmet use.

Quoted message said:

And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
fairytales)

I think you will find that the most recent case was the precise
opposite. And if you don't know what a troll is then you've not been
around Usenet very long :-)

John D'oh has made it a habit to post a one-liner, "Troll.", in
response to any well-argued post disagreeing with him, but I think
we've established by now that this is not an accusation but a
placeholder.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/johndoh

Quoted message said:

Frankly I really do not give a flying f**k whether anyone wears a helmet or
not. It's a bit like insurance - 99.9% of the time they will be absolutely
fine. But that 0.001% of the time, when they fall on their head, a bit of
foam sandwich between their cranium and the road / rock / tree seems like a
very good idea.

Unless the crash only happens because they were wearing the bit of
foam so rode less carefully (Risk compensation in children’s
activities: A pilot study; Mok D, Gore G, Hagel B, Mok E, Magdalinos
H, Pless B. 2004. Paediatr Child Health: Vol 9 No 5 May/June 2004).
The key authors are strongly pro-helmet, by the way.

Quoted message said:

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

And ours is that robust evidence for any efficacy of helemts in
reducing these injuries is very hard to find. Nor do the
manufacturers claim it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Peter Taylor said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

Back under your bridge.

If you're capavble of reading enough to understand that some people
oppose compulsion, you know full well that they do not do so on teh
grounds of being a wimp. Hence, you must be deliberately
misrepresenting, and are teh sort of person that probably used to
enjoy pulling the legs of things to watch them die slowly.

[censored].

Quoted message said:

And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse
them of being a Troll

You self-evidently are a troll.

Quoted message said:

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not.

Exactly. Now, out of skin and brain, which one are helmets effective
at protecting?

Quoted message said:

Peter Taylor (not a troll, probably)

Self-evidently a grade-A troll, for the reasons highlighted above.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Andy Leighton said:

I don't think it is in the same class. Helmets may work in some individual
cases, however it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

But conversely, there's no credible way it could make the injuries
worse, unlike helmets.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 02 Dec 2004 17:43:06 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

And there is more discussion of this all the time. There are two
studies into the locations where helmets get hit, and they come out at
an average of about 2/3 of impacts being on the side of the helmet,
not the straight frontal or top impact modelled in the drop tests.
And there is yet another report on oblique impacts out:  Injury
tolerances for oblique impact helmet testing,  Aare M, Kleiven S,
Halldin P. Int J Crashworthiness 2004. I haven't read the original
yet, but the abstracts talk about the current standards not even
measuring oblique / rotational forces (which we knew) despite their
being strongly implicated in the worst kinds of brain injury.

We also know that almost all modern helmets have a tendency to grab
tarmac surfaces.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:46:33 +0000 (UTC),

Ian Smith said:

Andy Leighton said:

I don't think it is in the same class. Helmets may work in some individual
cases, however it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce their
effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any accident.

But conversely, there's no credible way it could make the injuries
worse, unlike helmets.

Errm... My lucky rabbits foot could save me from every single possible
accident 100% of the time. Shame I lost it. I'd have been able to cycle
the wrong way down the outside lane of the M1 safely if only it weren't
illegal. OTOH, being able to cycle safely up the inside of lorries,
cycle across junctions with the lights on red, pull out into fast
flowing traffic without looking etc were useful. Unfortunately I have to
pay more attention now.

(Ok so I exagerate but I think it is just conceivable that risk
compensation could work with a rabbits foot - somebody must (have)
believed in them at some time)

Tim.

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Taylor

(') said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed
to read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets.
Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity
to argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good
idea (presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

I don't think there's anyone who is 'very much against helmets'. There
are a lot of people who are aware of the fact that, on the currently
available statistical evidence, cyclists who wear helmets are slightly
more likely to be killed or injured than cyclists who don't, despite
the existence of a number of small scale academic studies predicting
the opposite. No-one knows why wearing a helmet is more dangerous than
not.

I wrote a fairly full and unexciting article on this issue which you
will find here:
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_20.html>

The reason you see people making sarcastic remarks about helmets is that
people who clearly have not given the matter much thought keep popping
up and assuming that a polystyrene hat sold with an explicit warning
that it will not protect from 'reasonably foreseeable accidents' to
quote the label which came with mine, are a serious contribution to
cyclist safety.

In summary, if you're wearing a helmet to protect yourself from minors
scratches and bruising, carry on, it's very good at that job. But if
you're wearing it because you think it may save your life, read the
manufacturer's warnings which came with it and read up on the standard
test procedures it's tested to. Don't believe me, believe them.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

in message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

On 02 Dec 2004 17:43:06 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

it seems that there are confounding factors (be it risk
compensation, rotational injuries or some other factors) that reduce
their effectiveness (to below a significant level) when viewed on
whole populations.

And there is more discussion of this all the time. There are two
studies into the locations where helmets get hit, and they come out at
an average of about 2/3 of impacts being on the side of the helmet,
not the straight frontal or top impact modelled in the drop tests.
And there is yet another report on oblique impacts out:  Injury
tolerances for oblique impact helmet testing,  Aare M, Kleiven S,
Halldin P. Int J Crashworthiness 2004. I haven't read the original
yet, but the abstracts talk about the current standards not even
measuring oblique / rotational forces (which we knew) despite their
being strongly implicated in the worst kinds of brain injury.

Please could someone post a review of this paper? Is it available
anywhere online, or only to people with access to good libraries? And
might an offprint be available?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

Peter Taylor said:

As an occasional browser and poster, but a regular cyclist, I am amzed to
read some of the postings on this site.

There seem to be a number of people who are very much against helmets. Fair
enough. But they go further, and ridicule anyone who has the timerity to
argue that wearing a helmet while cycling may just be a very good idea
(presumably on the gounds that they must be a timid wimp).

And if anyone should just happen to cite some evidence, they accuse them of
being a Troll (which until recently I took to be something from Nordic
fairytales)

That's strange because ISTR that you have been accused of trolling in
urc in the past. The helmet issue is one of the few things that seems
to wake you up to post in here.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

chris French said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

- Make sure your child knows how to act in any traffic he may encounter.

Off the topic of helemts, took Elinor (3 3/4) to the park today with her
new bike so she could ride around. were going along a park 'road'
which met another one at a 'T' junction. without prompting, Elinor
stopped and looked and said we have to stop and check for cars coming
across.

Excellent! :-)

Quoted message said:

I was impressed - obviously does pay attention when sitting in the
trailer- better be careful of any bad habits....

Yes, you'd better. You are the role model and it looks as though
you've been a positive one so far. I get so annoyed when I see adult
pedestrians with a child in tow darting across the road dodging
between the cars.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:03:12 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Please could someone post a review of this paper? Is it available
anywhere online, or only to people with access to good libraries? And
might an offprint be available?

I don't have a copy yet, but I am trying to get one.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University