On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 18:55:04 +0000 (UTC), .paul <[email hidden]>
wrote in message : said:Ok, I'm coming at this from the other end now. I am anti-
compulsion, but I can still see *some* merit in wearing a
helmet (not least because of my habit of trying to headbut
the tarmac). The thing is, I'm begining to worry that I
might be increasing the risk by insisting that my little
folk wear a helmet when on a bike. I am worrying needlessly
aren't I, I mean, I might not be reducing the risk, but
they're not actually dangerous are they?
Sane and intelligent question.
The Chapmen wear plastic hats most of the time. This is less
likely (for me) on trundly trips to the shops on the
mountain bike and more likely when thrashing along on the
drop-bar bike. The children wear hats where there is a
realistic chance of crashing or falling off
(e.g. Pete wears his wobbling round the park on his new bike
which he hasn't quite got the hang of yet). They
absolutely loved the freedom of riding round the field
at York last year without helmets. Can a child suffer
a significant head injury falling onto grass? Maybe,
but it seems unlikely.
We (the Chapmen) are completely convinced that a plastic hat
is good for one thing: prevention of cuts and scrapes. It
will not prevent a serious injury. That is what road sense
is for. It is also worth pointing out that serious cycling
injuries are actually quite rare; on the other hand, young
children in particular have less completely formed skulls,
so maybe the bit of additional protection could come in
handy. We don't know much about this because nobody is
researching it
- all the research seems to start by tryign to reproduce
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson and spends much of its time
coming up with explanations of why it fell short.
The Real World provides no evidence for any effect from
helmets at all: there is no known case where cyclist
safety has improved with increasing helmet use. I think
that is explained in part by the fact that most measures
of safety involve comparing the risk of serious injury or
death with the risk of slight injury, and helmets are very
unlikely to prevent serious injury or death; and with risk
compensation behaviour by helmeted cyclists. I have read
the evidence that helmets may make rotational injuries
worse. It is entirely plausible but I am not yet convinced
that it accounts for more than amarginal effect, because
serious injuries are so rare. Consider the concept of the
severity ratio (killed or seriously injured over all
injuries). In London the ratio has declined steadily over
the last 20 years, at about the same rate as for
pedestrians, but helmet use has risen to nearly 50%. If
helmets worked even half as well as their advocates claim,
I can't see how this would be.
I definitely ride faster on my drop-bar bike with a helmet
than without. I am considering going back to the wollen hat
for this reason.
On the recumbent I find it hard to think of any situation
where a helmet would do any good; I use one in winter
because it has a peak to keep the rain off my specs and it
gives me somewhere to attach my headtorch.
One crucial problem which muddies the waters: as far as the
Government are concerned, compulsion is a matter of when,
not if. They see every cyclist wearing a helmet as a vote
for compulsion. They are quite open about this.
So, should children wear helmets? Yes. No. Maybe. I really
don't know. As far as I'm concerned both "yes" and "no" are
perfectly defensible answers; the evidence is inconclusive,
so I take the CTC line that it should be a matter for
individual choice. Ultimately as long as they are riding
their bikes that is all that matters.
Should the Martlew bill be killed and Britain's cyclists
dance on its grave? Absolutely. A law founded on the premise
that allowing a child to ride a tricycle in the park without
"protective headgear" should be a criminal offence is just
too fatuous to pass.
Trust me, as a fully paid-up handwringer I have agonised for
many hours over whether I am right to devote as much energy
as I have into opposing helmet compulsion. Having analysed
the DoH data and measured the claims of BeHIT against
reality I am now much more firmly convinced that the major
achievement of the helmet lobby has been to raise an
entirely false view of cycling as something uniquely
dangerous to children. For that I will find it very hard to
forgive them. It is quite possible that untold damage has
already been done to British cycling simply through this
message and the deterrent effect it has had.
Enough said. Please do read Risk by John Adams, as well as
Cyclecraft by John Franklin if you've not read it, and Death
on the Streets by Bob Davis if you can find a copy.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
