Head protection - the case against

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for the
purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is apparently
a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or wherewithal
to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who has followed
this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently :-), the
reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

Mike

Matt B said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

Mike

Mike Causer <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:29:44 +0000, Matt B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Quoted message said:

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

Methinks Mr Troll should purchase a cycle helmet and wear it while
walking and motoring, which AIUI are more likely to result in a head
injury than cycling.

The resulting discomfort will not need to be explained thereafter.

How about a Rohloff carbon fibre/Kevlar model?

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

Mike Causer <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:29:44 +0000, Matt B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Quoted message said:

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

Methinks Mr Troll should purchase a cycle helmet and wear it while
walking and motoring, which AIUI are more likely to result in a head
injury than cycling.

The resulting discomfort will not need to be explained thereafter.

How about a Rohloff carbon fibre/Kevlar model?

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

"Mike Causer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone
who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

OK, now that we've got that little ritual out of the way, and I'm happy,
Mike, that I gave you the opportunity to chip-in with that little winner,
can we now move on to the subject.

--
Matt B

"Mike Causer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone
who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

OK, now that we've got that little ritual out of the way, and I'm happy,
Mike, that I gave you the opportunity to chip-in with that little winner,
can we now move on to the subject.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or wherewithal
to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who has followed
this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently :-), the
reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

"Inadvisable" is perhaps the wrong word...

That they are not a "no brainer" boils down to no clear evidence that
they reduce serious head injury rates amongst their wearers. It is less
clear how they work against non-serious injuries, but such injuries
aren't serious (obviously!) and one must ask to what extent are they
more desirable to a cyclist than to a pedestrian, since pedestrians
suffer similar injuries (both minor and major) at similar injury rates
as cyclists, and nobody seems to think they're worth wearing as a
pedestrian.

Given that, why would I want to pay money to wear a foam box on my head
for one activity when nobody dreams of it for another of similar levels
of danger?

That's at the personal level. The extent to which we can move to
"inadvisable" isn't as easy, but /can/ be centred on the way that some
folk at DfT and in parliament see wearing a helmet as a vote for making
them compulsory, with current low wearing rates sometimes cited as the
main reason not to mandate helmets in the UK. Everywhere a country
/has/ mandated helmets and enforced the ban there has been no clear
improvement in cyclists' serious injury rates so no clear practical
benefit, but cycling /has/ dropped, so the whole exercise has a track
record of being an own goal for public health. That doesn't stop people
who don't believe the evidence from everywhere it's been tried from
trying to mandate helmets in the UK, so some people prefer not to wear
them as a message to the government not to mandate helmets and to other
cyclists and potential cyclists that it is quite possible to safely
negotiate UK roads on a bike without one.

That's about as concise as I can do. The summary info at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 has quite a bit more detail and
is a good place to start if you do want to research it yourself.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Matt B said:

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or wherewithal
to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who has followed
this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently :-), the
reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

"Inadvisable" is perhaps the wrong word...

That they are not a "no brainer" boils down to no clear evidence that
they reduce serious head injury rates amongst their wearers. It is less
clear how they work against non-serious injuries, but such injuries
aren't serious (obviously!) and one must ask to what extent are they
more desirable to a cyclist than to a pedestrian, since pedestrians
suffer similar injuries (both minor and major) at similar injury rates
as cyclists, and nobody seems to think they're worth wearing as a
pedestrian.

Given that, why would I want to pay money to wear a foam box on my head
for one activity when nobody dreams of it for another of similar levels
of danger?

That's at the personal level. The extent to which we can move to
"inadvisable" isn't as easy, but /can/ be centred on the way that some
folk at DfT and in parliament see wearing a helmet as a vote for making
them compulsory, with current low wearing rates sometimes cited as the
main reason not to mandate helmets in the UK. Everywhere a country
/has/ mandated helmets and enforced the ban there has been no clear
improvement in cyclists' serious injury rates so no clear practical
benefit, but cycling /has/ dropped, so the whole exercise has a track
record of being an own goal for public health. That doesn't stop people
who don't believe the evidence from everywhere it's been tried from
trying to mandate helmets in the UK, so some people prefer not to wear
them as a message to the government not to mandate helmets and to other
cyclists and potential cyclists that it is quite possible to safely
negotiate UK roads on a bike without one.

That's about as concise as I can do. The summary info at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 has quite a bit more detail and
is a good place to start if you do want to research it yourself.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Causer <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:29:44 +0000, Matt B wrote:

[serious question snipped]

Quoted message said:

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

Methinks Mr Troll should purchase a cycle helmet and wear it while
walking and motoring, which AIUI are more likely to result in a head
injury than cycling.

The resulting discomfort will not need to be explained thereafter.

Guffaws all around - I'm sure.

Quoted message said:

How about a Rohloff carbon fibre/Kevlar model?

Are you suggesting I wear a hub on my head, or are you encouraging Mike in
his little bit of bullying?

--
Matt B

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

... can anyone who has followed this debate please explain for me
(concisely and pertinently :-), the reason(s) that such devices are
deemed to be inadvisable.

"Inadvisable" is perhaps the wrong word...

[interesting detail snipped]

That's about as concise as I can do. The summary info at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 has quite a bit more detail and
is a good place to start if you do want to research it yourself.

Thanks Peter, I won't be reading all the research data, but have got, I
think, the gist of your particular take on it.

Presumably those, in government, road safety groups, or wherever, who
support the use of helmets have a reason for ignoring or disagreeing with
the views you express. Presumably they have counter evidence to support
their stance, or do you think it is purely political, and with little or no
sound reasoning?

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Peter, I won't be reading all the research data, but have got, I
think, the gist of your particular take on it.

Why not read around a bit more? Are you interested in finding out the truth,
or merely in having an argument?

Quoted message said:

Presumably those, in government, road safety groups, or wherever, who
support the use of helmets have a reason for ignoring or disagreeing with
the views you express. Presumably they have counter evidence to support
their stance, or do you think it is purely political, and with little or
no sound reasoning?

If you read around a bit more, you'll find the answers to these questions.
They've been covered at length in this NG, achives of which can be found on
groups.google.com.

(short answers : yes, they think they do. They have evidence, but it is
flawed, so the deductions they draw from it are wrong. No, not political -
that's part of the problem, they actually believe what they write. No sound
reasoning either - that's the bit they missed out.)

clive

Quoted message said:

Presumably they have counter evidence to support their stance, or
do you think it is purely political, and with little or no sound reasoning?

I view the debate as being like that currently raging here in the USA
about evolution vs. creationism. On one side we have a mountain of
solid science and engineering, on the other a brand of faith that
simply does not believe demonstrable facts that do not fit a specific
world view (and, indeed, is quite willing to tell bare-faced lies).

For me, the most telling point is that compulsory helmets for children
riding in cars would be hugely more likely to do some good, but no-one
wants to go near that one; cyclists are a conveniently-sized minority
for people whose real motivation is enforcing their will upon others (a
popular modern pastime).

For the record:

- Number of times a helmet has saved me from injury = 0.

- Number of times an insect has flown into my helmet causing me to
nearly have an accident at speed (the though that it might be a wasp is
a powerful one) = 2.

--
Peter Headland

Mike Causer said:

Matt B said:

Whether or not one should wear an artificial device whilst cycling, for
the purpose of protecting one's head in the event of an accident, is
apparently a controversial issue here.

Not having either the appropriate time, resources, knowledge or
wherewithal to comprehensively research this subject myself can anyone who
has followed this debate please explain for me (concisely and pertinently
:-), the reason(s) that such devices are deemed to be inadvisable.

Damn! I knew the Troll-o-Meter had been overstressed recently. Now it's
completely bust. Got to get a tougher one. Is the Hope titanium one
worth the money?

Blancmange. On that topic, how about rides out of Lower Snoring this
weekend?

R.

Clive George said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Peter, I won't be reading all the research data, but have got, I
think, the gist of your particular take on it.

Why not read around a bit more? Are you interested in finding out the truth,
or merely in having an argument?

I think Matt B's track (sic) record speaks for itself.

R.

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Peter, I won't be reading all the research data, but have got, I
think, the gist of your particular take on it.

Why not read around a bit more?

As I 'said in the OP time, resources and knowledge mainly.

Quoted message said:

Are you interested in finding out the truth, or merely in having an
argument?

I'm certainly not arguing - I am not equiped to comment one way or the
other. I see/hear road safety groups etc extolling the virtues, and I've
seen posts here condemning them, I'm interested in the reasoning.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably those, in government, road safety groups, or wherever, who
support the use of helmets have a reason for ignoring or disagreeing with
the views you express. Presumably they have counter evidence to support
their stance, or do you think it is purely political, and with little or
no sound reasoning?

If you read around a bit more, you'll find the answers to these questions.
They've been covered at length in this NG, achives of which can be found
on groups.google.com.

Too much data, and too much "hot air" to trawl through. I'm being lazy and
waiting for it to be given to me on a plate :-)

Quoted message said:

(short answers : yes, they think they do. They have evidence, but it is
flawed, so the deductions they draw from it are wrong.

Yet they do not realise - or it isn't obvious to all?

Quoted message said:

No, not political - that's part of the problem, they actually believe what
they write.

Very interesting.

Quoted message said:

No sound reasoning either - that's the bit they missed out.)

Driven by the heart not the mind?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Presumably those, in government, road safety groups, or wherever, who
support the use of helmets have a reason for ignoring or disagreeing with
the views you express. Presumably they have counter evidence to support
their stance, or do you think it is purely political, and with little or no
sound reasoning?

My impression (which could be wrong) is that those pushing for helmet
use are well meaning but misguided and/or misinformed. To some people
it is an obvious thing, a given, that cycle helmets /must/ improve
safety, and if safety can be improved at any level it should be.
This comes in at two levels, the typical man in the street level is it's
common sense they're a good thing, so he's generally in favour of it.
This is quite understandable given the degree of ignorance of the
details of the subject, and certainly used to be where I stood before I
got reading, but it's underpinned by making assumptions rather than
looking in any detail. Next level is the zealot level, typified by the
likes of BHIT, who will not admit to the possibility that they are not a
Big Win. Since their baseline is that that is the truth they will grasp
at any supporting data, however badly flawed, and say it reinforces
their case, and will reject any conflicting argument out of hand.

The latter groups and individuals have *seen* The Answer, and reject any
possibility that they are wrong because they Believe, as an article of
faith, that their answer *must* be the right one. Any doubting of it is
heresy. To illustrate this, Angela Lee of BHIT has said "it is
nonsensical that anyone can be opposed or critical of helmets"[1] so
she's pretty much saying up front that she won't even consider any data
that doesn't conform to her personal belief. If you deliberately blind
yourself it's not surprising it can be hard to see things.

I used to always wear a helmet. I used to think I was necessarily
better off with one. It was responding to leading questions in this NG
that I did the reading myself and revised my opinions. I'm not the only
person who's done that.

Pete.

[1] http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4886
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks Peter, I won't be reading all the research data, but have got, I
think, the gist of your particular take on it.

Why not read around a bit more?

As I 'said in the OP time, resources and knowledge mainly.

The resources are there. If you're not prepared to increase your knowledge,
that's your lookout. The rest of us have managed it, so it seems there isn't
a terribly large barrier to be overcome.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you interested in finding out the truth, or merely in having an
argument?

I'm certainly not arguing - I am not equiped to comment one way or the
other. I see/hear road safety groups etc extolling the virtues, and I've
seen posts here condemning them, I'm interested in the reasoning.

You've seen the posts, but haven't bothered reading them. The reasoning is
included.

Quoted message said:

Too much data, and too much "hot air" to trawl through. I'm being lazy
and waiting for it to be given to me on a plate :-)

www.cyclehelmets.org

There you are, the answers on a plate. There's imformation on there ranging
from the simple summaries you're asking for to the full data for those who
actually want to know what's going on.

But you've already been pointed there - so why are you back asking for more
even though you obviously haven't read what's there?

clive

"Peter Headland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably they have counter evidence to support their stance, or
do you think it is purely political, and with little or no sound
reasoning?

I view the debate as being like that currently raging here in the USA
about evolution vs. creationism. On one side we have a mountain of
solid science and engineering, on the other a brand of faith that
simply does not believe demonstrable facts that do not fit a specific
world view (and, indeed, is quite willing to tell bare-faced lies).

Similar to the two sides of many other debates too, including that on the
difference mankind can make to the course of climate changes.

Quoted message said:

For me, the most telling point is that compulsory helmets for children
riding in cars would be hugely more likely to do some good, but no-one
wants to go near that one; cyclists are a conveniently-sized minority
for people whose real motivation is enforcing their will upon others (a
popular modern pastime).

All it takes though is significant interest by one influential newspaper, in
one or two cases, and the whole course could change entirely.

Quoted message said:

For the record:

- Number of times a helmet has saved me from injury = 0.

- Number of times an insect has flown into my helmet causing me to
nearly have an accident at speed (the though that it might be a wasp is
a powerful one) = 2.

You wear one then?

--
Matt B