Helmet related observations

gds said:

So, with all the arguments over who wears helmets, who doesn't, and so
on I thought I'd just do some raw counts on what I observe locally.

This morning I tallied 14 cyclists that I noticed while drivng to work
and then to a meeting. 10 cyclists were wearing helmets, 4 were not.
Interestingly all 4 non wearers were riding on the sidewalk, 2 of those
opposing traffic.

What I see around me is very, very similar. The commuter cyclists are
very distinct groups. You have the professionals (mainly engineers and
software people), high school and college students, who invariably are
wearing helmets, and riding with traffic, and have good lights when
riding at night. You have the service workers for supermarkets and
restaurants, that are usually not wearing helmets, and riding against
traffic or on the sidewalk, and riding without lights at night. And you
have the middle school and elementary school students, who are all
wearing helmets, and are riding on the sidewalk, against traffic, etc.
One crossing guard near my daughters school was telling her and I to
cross the street to where he was, because it's "safer" to be riding on
the sidewalk and against traffic.

Helmet use varies greatly by region. When I'm in Florida visiting
relatives, I often go out riding, and I don't see nearly the helmet use
that I see in California (or nearly the amount of cyclists, as it's
usually so hot and humid). Of course when I was growing up there, we
rode our bicycles everywhere, helmet-less, despite the heat. No one
would chauffeur us a mile or two to our friend's house, to 7-11, or to
the mall.

SMS said:

gds said:

So, with all the arguments over who wears helmets, who doesn't, and so
on I thought I'd just do some raw counts on what I observe locally.

This morning I tallied 14 cyclists that I noticed while drivng to work
and then to a meeting. 10 cyclists were wearing helmets, 4 were not.
Interestingly all 4 non wearers were riding on the sidewalk, 2 of those
opposing traffic.

What I see around me is very, very similar. The commuter cyclists are
very distinct groups. You have the professionals (mainly engineers and
software people), high school and college students, who invariably are
wearing helmets, and riding with traffic, and have good lights when
riding at night. You have the service workers for supermarkets and
restaurants, that are usually not wearing helmets, and riding against
traffic or on the sidewalk, and riding without lights at night.

Yes, this generally agrees with my observations. What's amazing to me
is that you can see these differences in the groups but yet
uncritically accept the claims of the case control studies on the
effectiveness of helmets in preventing injury when their data is based
on ascribing all differences in the observed injuries to the presence
or absence of a helmet. I.e. ignoring differences in riding patterns,
safety habits, likelihood of seeking medical care, etc. that may
greatly affect the types of accidents they experience and the resulting
injuries seen in the people appearing at an ER.

Quoted message said:

And you
have the middle school and elementary school students, who are all
wearing helmets, and are riding on the sidewalk, against traffic, etc.

Are you perhaps seeing the students very near the school? Part of my
bike commute is along a well-used biking route that passes an
elementary school, middle school, and high school. Essentially all the
students riding there have helmets, but at least 90% of those helmets
are dangling from their handlebars until they get to the schoolyard.

peter said:

Yes, this generally agrees with my observations. What's amazing to me
is that you can see these differences in the groups but yet
uncritically accept the claims

I do not uncritically accept the claims. The studies are what they are,
and they shouldn't be extrapolated from. Do any of the _authors_ of
these studies claim that their results will be consistent outside of the
specific data that they evaluated? I doubt it.

Contrast with the "studies" that are often mentioned regarding the
situation in New Zealand and Australia. In those studies, there isn't
even valid data to begin with. It's junk science from the start.

SMS said:

peter said:

Yes, this generally agrees with my observations. What's amazing to me
is that you can see these differences in the groups but yet
uncritically accept the claims

I do not uncritically accept the claims. The studies are what they are,
and they shouldn't be extrapolated from. Do any of the _authors_ of
these studies claim that their results will be consistent outside of the
specific data that they evaluated? I doubt it.

Wow. That is absolute proof that you have not read the pro-helmet
studies. The entire point of the studies is to prove that helmets are
miraculous for _everybody_.

Many (perhaps most) of them go further, to recommend that it be illegal
for anyone to ride without a helmet. Here are just three I dug out
quickly, which are typical:

LeBlanc, "Effect of legislation on the use of bicycle helmets",
Canadian Medical Association Journal, March 5, 2002: "... only 5
provinces ... mandate the use of helmets by cyclists... Deaths due to
head injuries while riding a bicycle are eminanntly preventable at low
cost and with little inconvenience. ... physicians and provincial
medical associations ... should advocate for helmet legislation."

McDermott, "The Effectiveness of Bicyclist Helmets: A Study of 1710
casualties," Journal of Trauma, Vol 34, no 6, 1993: "The findings
of the present study provide evidence of the benefit to be obtained by
legislation for mandatory helmet wearing by bicyclists." [This
despite the statement in the paper saying (for age 18 or more) "...
wearing of either approved or non-approved helmets was not associated
with a significant reduction in head injury."]

Snell Memorial Foundation, "Circumstances and Severity of Bicycle
Injuries" (not sure if this was ever published in a reputable
journal): "Our research clearly indicates that bicycle helmets
should be worn by all riders, regardless of their age, experience as
cyclists, the distance they plan to ride, or any other factor."

Quoted message said:

Contrast with the "studies" that are often mentioned regarding the
situation in New Zealand and Australia. In those studies, there isn't
even valid data to begin with. It's junk science from the start.

I'm convinced you have no idea, because I'm convinced you haven't read
them. So far, despite repeated calls for specific quotes and
citations, you've been unable to give any.

Quit the charade, Steven. You're looking very foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

peter said:

The Thompson/Rivara and similar ER studies don't prove anything of the
kind, although they certainly claim to. Their data compares the
injuries seen among the group of people who chose to wear helmets and
subsequently had an accident that resulted in a visit to an ER to the
injuries in another, quite different, group of people who chose not to
wear a helmet.

I'd like to refine that idea. Rather than say the first group "... had
an accident that resulted in a visit to an ER ..." I'd say " ... had an
accident and _chose_ to visit an ER ."

I believe the main finding of the T&R paper should be this: that, at
least in Seattle in 1989, people in helmets chose to go to the ER far
more than people who were not wearing helmets.

This is the only way to explain D. Robinson's finding from their data,
that helmet wearers were 75% less likely to suffer broken legs. It's
also the only way to explain that the percentage helmet wearing in the
ER study _greatly_ exceeded the percentage helmet wearing in
contemporaneous street surveys.

The "self selection" was not just whether to wear a helmet; it was also
in whether to make a trip to the ER "just to be sure" after a bike
crash.

- Frank Krygowski

Around here, in my southeastern city of a million, I see not only
unhelmeted riders on the sidewalks, but supposedly more veteran racer
dudes with $200 Giros running stop signs when they don't have the right
of way, and riding the wrong way on one way streets.

I wore a lid when I messengered, but I prefer a jaunty Italian cap
these days--so I try to ride very defensively and reduce risk in that
manner--by being a good trafficant.

They're not magic beanies and can't be compared to seatbelts--it's more
impportant, imho, to get people to ride more responsibly and avoid the
whole accident thing altogether.

I ride in a fairly low-risk mileu these days, so the statistics are in
my favor, if I was messengering on Michigan Ave. again, the stats might
make me put on styrofoam again.

That said, I don't judge cyclists by their headgear, but by their road
manners.

SMS said:

What I see around me is very, very similar. The commuter cyclists are
very distinct groups. You have the professionals (mainly engineers and
software people), high school and college students, who invariably are
wearing helmets, and riding with traffic, and have good lights when
riding at night.

As a college student, I'm going to take issue with this. I'd say 75% of
people on bikes at GT are riding on *crowded* sidewalks, weaving through
pedestrians, and pedaling with their heels. They don't use lights and
when they do venture off the sidewalk, they stick to the wrong side of
the road and look at me funny. I'll generously put the helmet usage
around 20%. My time spent in Athens, GA doesn't seem in indicate that
UGA is any better.

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

gds said:

So, with all the arguments over who wears helmets, who doesn't, and so
on I thought I'd just do some raw counts on what I observe locally.

This morning I tallied 14 cyclists that I noticed while drivng to work
and then to a meeting. 10 cyclists were wearing helmets, 4 were not.
Interestingly all 4 non wearers were riding on the sidewalk, 2 of those
opposing traffic.

There is no way to extrapolate anything from this very small
observation but I thought it interesting.

I would be interested to see a similar survvey, scientific or otherwise,
conducted in summer.
Helmets do seem to be very effective for keeping one's head warm.

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

Paul Hobson said:

SMS said:

What I see around me is very, very similar. The commuter cyclists are
very distinct groups. You have the professionals (mainly engineers and
software people), high school and college students, who invariably are
wearing helmets, and riding with traffic, and have good lights when
riding at night.

I notice a large difference in the hat-wearing habits of faculty, versus
those of students. All the faculty I see riding around here (being one of
them, I know most of them) wear helmets, often 20-year-old helmets. Fewer
than half of the students are so equipped. Most do, however, ride on the
street, and on the right side of the street. Most of the people around
here who ride on the wrong side, or on the sidewalk, are either kids or
guys who probably lost their drivers' license for DUI.

Quoted message said:

As a college student, I'm going to take issue with this. I'd say 75% of
people on bikes at GT are riding on *crowded* sidewalks, weaving through
pedestrians, and pedaling with their heels.

I remember that was a big problem at Texas A&M, where I used to work.
They seemed to think that the sidewalk ramps the university had installed
were for bikes, not wheelchairs. It was also a big, flat campus, and
students had 10 minutes to get from one class to another. Lehigh has very
little problem with students riding on sidewalks -- probably due to the
facts that the campus is not as large, and is very hilly. Here, they
drive from one class to another, instead...

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's be straight here. If we find something we can't
_`\(,_ | understand we like to call it something you can't understand, or
(_)/ (_) | indeed even pronounce. -- Douglas Adams