Helmet use statistics

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet- [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Marc said:

I have never ever met anyone that has suggested that helmets should be worn

You are joking aren't you; in some areas of cycling helmets are compulsory (e.g. coaching
sessions, racing, etc.). Wouldn't that cound as a large suggestion that helmets should be worn?

I apologize that should be ... I have never ever met anyone that has suggested that helmets should
not be worn

Quoted message said:

cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer than walking to the shops.

Can you justify that statement?

Yeah sure - I've got that half arsed chart you pulled me up on. Way I look at is on this ng someone
will eventully point out a) where my half arsed postings are complete balls and b) what the real
answer is. Until then all this pro-compulsion stuff from BHIT et al has given me plenty bad habits
to promote my own view.

I'd be interested to know whether the gap between cycling and walking is still large, small (or
maybe even reversed) when you have similar populations doing each activity. My money's still on
cycling tho - it's got a big lead.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:16:27 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer than walking to the shops.

Can you justify that statement?

I suggest you use Google to look for "Death on the streets" and the absolute and relative rates of
injury and death for pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants. You can look up the references if you
like, but it is a fact that in absolute and relative terms cycling involves less head injuries than
walking or travelling in a car.

The references have been given in this group often enough.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

PK said:

I always enjoy such "innocent" misuse of statistics.

But while you're exposing such horrors you're missing a crucial point: the same argument of "why not
wear a helmet?" *should* apply to walking just as much as cycling if it has real merit. And using
stairs, and taking a bath, etc. etc. Do you wear a helmet around your home? And if not, why not? I
don't, because I don't think it's a dangerous enough environment for it to be worth my while. And
that despite I know how significant accidents in the home are in terms of cases presented to A&E.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

McBain_v1 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I don't see many cyclists who do not wear helmets around my neck of the woods. Guess it boils down
to individual choice and a person's vanity. If you'd rather increase your chances of smashing your
skull to shards and swallowing your tongue then don't wear a helmet.

Unfortnuately the helmet issue is only that simple in the cyclingforums.com universe.

--
Dave...

Quoted message said:

I apologize that should be ... I have never ever met anyone that has suggested that helmets should
not be worn

I've seen one, maybe two on the group, though they may have changed their minds by now.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004

@ Mark.

Thanks for that very clear and well put.

@ Dave Kahn.

Coming to this news group from cyclingforums.com is like stepping from the rabit enclosure to the lions cage at a Zoo. I think that the welcome would be a lot warmer the other way round. Some people in this news group treat you like the son of the devil if you ever contemplated turning up at a race or have a bike that doesn't run of chain saw oil! Its very funny really. 😉

Believe it or not, there are lots of cyclists that don't care if helmets are compulsary or not and just ride their bikes. For a new person visiting this news group it seems strange that a 'pro cycling newsgroup' would have such a problem over helmets - hence all the posts about it.

But thanks to Mark I stand corrected.

@ David Hansen.

I guess well have to agree to disagree as everyones perception and definition of *cycling* and *cyclists* is different.

For me (I've been riding 15 years) cycling has changes loads; kids have bought and stopped buying MTB's in favour of micro scooters, BMX's have been cool at least two different time periods, raceing has changed in every way (less police support and masters racing), few youngsters seem to ride on the road any more, few kids ride to school, Britain is good internationaly, the largest growth area in cycling is the 'unfit 40's', even the bikes look different, cycling is slowly taking off in schools/PE lessons, etc.

I've only started commuting recently (4 years) about 18 miles (<1 hour) each way and I'm convinced the traffic is worse in the lanes (I won't go on main routes as I fear for my life!). Also the M6 toll road has ruined lots of my old training/riding/club run ground.

But then again; the legs still go round in circles, your HR goes up and you lean to go round corners. At least the cakes in the usual cafe are still as good as ever!

McBain_v1 said:

I don't see many cyclists who do not wear helmets around my neck of the woods. Guess it boils down
to individual choice and a person's vanity.

Try a different neck of the woods... I was in Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago. I saw more cyclists
than I have ever done anywhere else, hundreds and hundreds over a long weekend. And I saw 10 with
helmets. 7 of those were roadies on performance race machinery and all the associated lycra, looked
like they were heading out for a Sunday blast and just getting through town before turning up the
power. 1 was an MTBer on a similarly serious looking piece of kit, also in head to toe lycra. The
other 2 looked like serious tourers passing through judging from pannier covered touring bikes they
were on. Everyone else just wore normal day to day clothes and no obvious protective clothing beyond
gloves. I think they're probably better informed about the relative risks of cycling than their
typical UK counterparts because they live in an active cycling culture.

Quoted message said:

If you'd rather increase your chances of smashing your skull to shards and swallowing your tongue
then don't wear a helmet.

Increase from how likely to how to much more likely? You'll have an "increased chance" of the above
if you don't wear a helmet to get in and out of the bath. I don't do that as I don't think it's
worth it as I like to feel I'm reasonably safe in the bath to start with. How about you? If your
reasoning above is really valid as a reason to wear a helmet cycling and you don't do so getting in
to the bath you should be asking yourself why not!

I've been in the "it's stupid not to" camp so I know how it feels. But a combination of looking at
actual numbers for effectiveness and realising my reasoning was *not* logically consistent with my
other activities led me to question my reasoning. A good reason to wear a cycle helmet is simply
because you prefer to do so, but you should *not* kid yourself about the real efficacy you can
expect in the event of a prang, and thinking there's significantly less chance of "smashing your
skull to shards and swallowing your tongue" is, I believe, doing just that :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:12:57 GMT, in
<[email hidden]>, 2LAP

Quoted message said:

At least the cakes in the usual cafe are still as good as ever!

Yes, someone with their cycling priorities right! WELCOME to URC!

Rich x

--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which appears in my inbox is mine to do what I
like with. Anything which is sent to me (whether intended or not) may, if I so desire, form a legal
and binding contract.

in message <[email hidden]>, 2LAP

(') said:

Peter Clinch said:

First, I wonder how many thousand times it has to be repeated that being against compulsory
helmet use is *not* the same thing as saying they shouldn't be worn. On the evidence often
posted in this group, at least several thousand, it would seem :-( Second, people have been
riding around woods and velodromes on bikes for *decades* without helmets, and neither was
known as a bad area of skull- smashing carnage.

1. While you might not be suggesting that helmets are worn, by stating that helmets offer little
protection, etc. you are discouraging their use. Surely helmet use should be encouraged (even
if its not made compulsary)?

Why? They certainly do not have any impact on accident statistics. It may even be that they kill
more people than they save - we simply do not know at this stage. So encouraging people to use them
is exactly as irresponsible as discouraging people from using them. This isn't a case of people
arguing against proven safety equipment; we're talking about something that has not proven to have
any real use in large populations - indeed, may actually increase risk.

Quoted message said:

2. While woods, BMX tracks, velodromes, etc. are not the scene of skull- smashing carnage (I
didn't suggest that someone else did) they are scenes where occasional serious injury occurs
(including deaths) in *real* cyclists and non cyclists. As such why wouldn't we encourage
helmet use if it makes these environments safer? Why shouldn't it be compulsary?

We should perhaps encourage helmet use *if* it makes these environments safer. And on balance, it
possibly does. But we don't know. There isn't enough evidence. Personally I do sometimes wear a
helmet off road, because it will save me from minor scratches and bruises, but it doesn't seem
likely that it's realistically going to protect from serious injury unless you're unbelievably
lucky. Helmets (even my MET Parachute) just aren't even nearly strong enough to protect against life-
threatening injury. Even their manufacturers don't pretend they are.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ ;; Generally Not Used ;;
Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

Quoted message said:

Coming to this news group from cyclingforums.com is like stepping from the rabit enclosure to the
lions cage at a Zoo. I think that the welcome would be a lot warmer the other way round. Some
people in this news group treat you like the son of the devil if you ever contemplated turning up
at a race or have a bike that doesn't run of chain saw oil! Its very funny really. 😉

Sorry if my reply seemed a bit unfriendly! Believe it or not this is one of the more pleasant
newsgroups I read - there's very little flaming etc and most of the 'aggro' you find is nitpicking
and of course the infamous urc pedantry. Little mercy is given in the helmet debates however, haing
been through several incredibly long threads in the recent past where the whole topic has been done
several times over. Hence long boring diatribes like mine - even if you're not convinced by the
argument the thought of having to wade through another overly long and badly written post should put
you off arguing the point :-)

Quoted message said:

Believe it or not, there are lots of cyclists that don't care if helmets are compulsary or not and
just ride their bikes. For a new person visiting this news group it seems strange that a 'pro
cycling newsgroup' would have such a problem over helmets - hence all the posts about it.

There's a private members bill going through parliament now seeking to make it madatory for kids
under 16 to wear helmets, before that there was an Early Day Motion about compulsory helmets for
people on bikes. BHIT, a rabidly pro-compulsion pro-helmet organisation is actively campaigning for
it to be made illegal to ride without a helmet. They have received a quarter of a million pounds of
public money to support their activities promoting helmets. They have also lied and mislead
parliament and actively and knowingly misrepresent figures, or failing that, just lie. To stop this
silliness we have, er, um well a few websites and letters to our MPs.

Helmets being compulsory would lead to a big drop in people cycling, less people taking up cycling,
and (strangely) no change in the safety of cylists. As a pro-cycling newsgroup this is a very good
reason to care if helmets are made compulsory!

Quoted message said:

But thanks to Mark I stand corrected.

Yeah sorry 'bout that. Stick smilies at the end of any bits that seem aggressive.

If you haven't been there already www.cyclehelmets.org tells you almost everything about the
whole issue

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:22:41 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I suspect it prevails amongst the paranoid part anti compulsion lobby as well.

Hmm. Why would an anti-compulsion activist be paranoid I wonder? Could it be because the experience
everywhere compulsion has been tried is a massive drop in cycling? And could it be that improvements
in cyclist safety coprrelate worldwide with increasing cycle numbers but never with increasing
helmet use? Ah, yes, that would be it.

Did you know that motorcyclist fatalities rose steeply by comparison with other ropad users when
compulsion was introduced?

Did you know that US states which have repealed motorcycle helmet legislation have experienced
relative drops in motorcyslist fatality rates?

I suggest you read Risk by John Adams.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:11:02 GMT, 2LAP
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I guess that people who suggest that helmets shouldn't be worn haven't visited a BMX track,
velodrome or woods recently.

I dunno. I think there is one such person in this NG but I can't remember who it is; I've come
across about three others who are opposed to helemt wearing per se, mainly because the more people
wear helmets the more likely it is that a law will be introduced, to the overall detriment of public
health. But most of those of us who are anti compulsion (and anti BeHIT propaganda) use lids some or
all of the time.

Quoted message said:

Quite often I have seen people hit their heads while wearing helmets without injury. I have seen a
number of riders (3) receive quite bad injuries from head impacts and far more cuts & bruses that
would have been prevented by wearing helmets.

I've seen a lot of poeple not wearing helmets and not hitting thier heads.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps there should be rules for cyclists that take part in dangerous forms of cycling and
children (who are more likely to take part in dangerous cycling activities and are least skilled).

Especially when walking. Children are substantially more likely to suffer a head injury when walking
than when cycling.

Quoted message said:

One problem with being amoung the anti-helmet wearing lobbies is that helmet wearing might be
discouraged in instances where helmets would be beneficial and so increase risk.

Who are these anti-helmet wearing lobbies? BeHIT talks about them as well. I'd like to contact
one of them.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:33:00 GMT, McBain_v1
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't see many cyclists who do not wear helmets around my neck of the woods. Guess it boils down
to individual choice and a person's vanity. If you'd rather increase your chances of smashing your
skull to shards and swallowing your tongue then don't wear a helmet.

And if you'd rather increase your subconscious risk-taking to the point that you end up killing
yourself, wear one :-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:16:27 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer than walking to the shops.

Quoted message said:

Can you justify that statement?

DfT do it for him. See Road Casualties Great Britain and Transport Trends.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:31:49 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Which of course applies to any riding at all, as if you are not riding you cannot fall off, if you
ride you increase your chances of falling off so why not wear a helmet?

Because it increases your subconscious risk-taking behaviour, thus potentially increasing the
overall level of risk.

You really need to read Adams.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:22:41 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I suspect it prevails amongst the paranoid part anti compulsion lobby as well.

Hmm. Why would an anti-compulsion activist be paranoid I wonder?

Beacuse that is what you called yourself a little while ago, Guy!

As your failing teo read and then got into rant mode so amply demonstrates.

Quoted message said:

Could it be because the experience everywhere compulsion has been tried is a massive drop in
cycling? And could it be that improvements in cyclist safety coprrelate worldwide with increasing
cycle numbers but never with increasing helmet use? Ah, yes, that would be it.

Did you know that motorcyclist fatalities rose steeply by comparison with other ropad users when
compulsion was introduced?

Did you know that US states which have repealed motorcycle helmet legislation have experienced
relative drops in motorcyslist fatality rates?

I suggest you read Risk by John Adams.

pk

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:16:27 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer than walking to the shops.

Quoted message said:

Can you justify that statement?

DfT do it for him. See Road Casualties Great Britain and Transport Trends.

no, those stats do not support that conclusion.

pk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect it prevails amongst the paranoid part anti compulsion lobby as well.

Hmm. Why would an anti-compulsion activist be paranoid I wonder?

Beacuse that is what you called yourself a little while ago, Guy!

As your failing teo read and then got into rant mode so amply demonstrates.

Or perhaps he read it correctly and so explained why he was justified in being paranoid? I think in
your excitement at getting one over on Guy you may have 'failed teo read' his post :-P

But seriously, lets stop the cheap point scoring.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Thompson
If you haven't been there already www.cyclehelmets.org tells you almost everything about the
whole issue

Thanks Mark, I'll have a good look at the site.

First impressions were they need some new pictures!!!