Helmets worn

Blonde said:

Danny Colyer said:

This would suggest that Fabian may have something when he comments that
more experienced riders wear helmets. It looks (from my small sample)
as though the masses who don't consider themselves serious cyclists also
don't bother with helmets.

That's totally the opposite to my experience though. The younger
cyclists and children on hybrids and mtbs I see commuting every day
are seen wearing helmets, but almost my entire club, and most of those
I know who do audax and are considerably (older and) more experienced,
do not wear them.

i think the genral public as was mine idea was that helmets do work, i
didn't wear helmets as i got too hot and sticky with on them when
climbing up the hills that i grew up on.

but my and others assumtion was that they worked. but then i didn't
think massivly about it.

so when folk do go and get all the kit the helmet gets added as it's
needed right?

roger

Roger Merriman said:

so when folk do go and get all the kit the helmet gets added as it's
needed right?

I think so. And if you look at the adverts in the rags then it's pretty
clear that the assumption is the Proper cyclist wears one, and if you're
doing it Properly then /obviously/ you will too. It's common sense, you
never know what might happen, if only one life etc. etc.

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/

Danny Colyer said:

iarocu said:

Anybody else seeing big variations in helmet wearing rates in
different areas?

I seem to be seeing more helmets recently, but I keep forgetting to count.

One thing I've noticed on recent rides is that helmets seem to be more
common on a flat cyclepath than on hilly roads.

That'd be the kind of flat cyclepath where my dad got a full-depth scalp
laceration in September, because it curved sharply to avoid a gully, and
he wasn't concentrating quite hard enough.

Of course, the actual serious injury was a broken shoulder, but no-one
noticed that.
--
A

burt said:

I cycle the Gloucester Road in Bristol, a busy commuter route, every day,
and sometimes count the cyclists wearing helmets, which has on occasion
reached 50%. Very worrying.

Today was not so good. Precisely 50% of the 46 cyclists I saw this
evening were wearing helmets, as were a majority (16) of the 22 this
morning.

I'm forming the impression that there are 4 groups who are particularly
likely to wear helmets:
1) Children accompanied by parents.
2) Parents wishing to set a good example.
3) Serious/experienced commuters.
4) Racers who are obliged by their governing bodies to be lidded.

Group 3 worries me. urc regulars, and knowledgeable people well known
to urc regulars, have put a great deal of effort into countering the
misinformation thrust upon the first two groups. There's not a lot we
can do about group 4. But group 3 tends to be ignored - there seems to
be an assumption that serious cyclists will investigate the evidence for
themselves.

A few days ago a new poster shared his observation that experienced
cyclists tend to wear helmets. Everyone who responded told him he was
wrong on the basis that people who have investigated the evidence tend
not to wear helmets. What none of them seems to have considered is that
"serious cyclists" and "people who have investigated the evidence" are
two distinct groups, albeit with some overlap.

While it seems likely that the majority of people who have investigated
the evidence are serious cyclists, I imagine the converse to be rather
unlikely. I would speculate that the majority of experienced cycle
commuters have not seriously considered whether helmets are necessarily
a good thing, and will not be familiar with the evidence. Some of these
are well respected and influential people - think Jon Snow.

ISTM there may be a need to target commuters with accurate information
about the risks and benefits associated with helmet wearing. I have no
idea what might be a good way to go about this, though.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

Danny Colyer said:

This would suggest that Fabian may have something when he comments that
more experienced riders wear helmets.

Experienced? Or gullible? It seems to me that wearing a cycling helmet
would indicate one or all of the following characteristics:

LA Wannabes/fashion victims
Ignorant sheep
er, that's it...

Sorry to be so blunt, and of course although I don't agree to being a
wannabe/fashion victim/ignorant sheep I will defend anyone's right to be
so. Oh, except an ignorant sheep... that position is indefensible.
Look where it gets us... although of course the whole of "civilised"
society is based on the fact that we are ignorant sheep that need
professionals to look after us; no wonder Joe Public thinks helmets are
a Good Thing (tm).

This is NOT meant to be a troll, in any way - it's my considered opinion
after reading and trying to digest both sides of the MANY threads
concerning helmets I've seen over the last couple of years.

Now, let's get back to wheel hubs - hang down off spokes above or
propped up by spokes below? :-) sorry, just a little jest...

bfn,

Tony B

Danny Colyer wrote:
I have no

Quoted message said:

idea what might be a good way to go about this, though.

How about if a well know national chain of cycle shops took all the
helmet stock off the shelves and offered refunds to the poor saps that
have paid hundreds of pounds for he useless things? Maybe Jon Snow would
like to be the first to get his money back?

Sorry, wild fantasy there...

bfn,

Tony B

Tony B said:

Experienced? Or gullible? It seems to me that wearing a cycling helmet
would indicate one or all of the following characteristics:

LA Wannabes/fashion victims
Ignorant sheep
er, that's it...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

This is NOT meant to be a troll, in any way - it's my considered opinion
after reading and trying to digest both sides of the MANY threads
concerning helmets I've seen over the last couple of years.

But the point is that you *have* read and tried to digest those threads.
Most of those LA wannabes/fashion victims/sheep will never have seen
such a thread or read a convincing argument that helmets may not always
be a good thing.

We should never forget that, if you don't think too hard about it,
common sense says that helmets must be a good thing. People will tend
to go with common sense unless that common sense is challenged. It's
just, well, common sense.

That's why it's so hard to get people to accept the scientific evidence
surrounding helmets. People don't like to have their common sense view
of the world challenged, but it's essential to challenge it when it
turns out to be wrong.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

Danny Colyer said:

People don't like to have their common sense view
of the world challenged, but it's essential to challenge it when it
turns out to be wrong.

Couldn't agree more, and not just regards cycling helmets either!!

Tony B

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny

Colyer (') said:

I'm forming the impression that there are 4 groups who are particularly
likely to wear helmets:
1) Children accompanied by parents.
2) Parents wishing to set a good example.
3) Serious/experienced commuters.
4) Racers who are obliged by their governing bodies to be lidded.

Group 3 worries me.  urc regulars, and knowledgeable people well known
to urc regulars, have put a great deal of effort into countering the
misinformation thrust upon the first two groups.  There's not a lot we
can do about group 4.

I don't agree. In fact, doing something about group 4 might have the
biggest impact on group 3, and so should be a priority.

I don't know of anyone who is collecting serious data on racing casualties,
and that's a shame; but I don't think that there's any evidence that the
number of casualties has dropped since mandatory helmets for racing were
introduced. If racers didn't have to wear helmets, racers wouldn't wear
helmets (both for aerodynamic and for thermal reasons); and if racers
stopped wearing helmets, then a lot of other people might start wondering
whether they needed them.

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

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

(Ziggy) said:

I went out a little later than usual this morning and hit the school influx. I
gave up counting the children after about a dozen but there were five cycle
mounted posties.

Number of helmets being worn *None*.

A pleasant start to the day.

This is starting to sound like the "no helmets" personal site. Every
other thread is "ooh look ive counted lots of/no helmets" and really
its starting to get dull. Helmets are personal choice - choose not to
have them, or choose to have them - but dont bore the [censored] out of
everyone else by telling us all time and time again.

Not aimed at you personally, but since you're the first one ive
spotted this morning I figured "as good a place as any".

CoyoteBoy said:

This is starting to sound like the "no helmets" personal site. Every
other thread is "ooh look ive counted lots of/no helmets" and really
its starting to get dull.

I can see why it would get dull. Use the killfile to mark helmet
threads read, and that'll be quite a lot of the load gone.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

CoyoteBoy said:

This is starting to sound like the "no helmets" personal site. Every
other thread is "ooh look ive counted lots of/no helmets" and really
its starting to get dull.

I can see why it would get dull. Use the killfile to mark helmet
threads read, and that'll be quite a lot of the load gone.

Tis a fair point. I'll shut up! Seems the commute has left me low on
sugar and I'm grumpy!

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny

Colyer (') said:

4) Racers who are obliged by their governing bodies to be lidded.

misinformation thrust upon the first two groups. ?There's not a lot we
can do about group 4.

I don't agree. In fact, doing something about group 4 might have the
biggest impact on group 3, and so should be a priority.

I agree with Simon.

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained :
if it was done as a result of pressure from the usual suspects then
that was a major PR victory and needs serious attention.

-adrian

Adrian Godwin wrote on 09/05/2007 10:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained :
if it was done as a result of pressure from the usual suspects then
that was a major PR victory and needs serious attention.

Probably got a lot more to do with sponsorship than with any efficacy
argument.

But regardless do you argue for wearing a full harness, helmet and
fireproof overalls in a car because race drivers do?

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Adrian Godwin said:

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained

It's quite simple, someone died from head injuries in a high profile
event without one, there existed a wide variety of head protectors that
were generally assumed to be better than none, so it made some sort of
sense to insist on them. AFAIK there was no systematic testing of their
suitability, not has there been any systematic study of their success or
otherwise.

Quoted message said:

if it was done as a result of pressure from the usual suspects then
that was a major PR victory and needs serious attention.

Not directly, though the pressure from the Usual Suspects has created
the general air of thinking they're surely better than nothing that I
suspect has as much to do with it as anything.

In dialogue with British Cycling about their suggestion that helmets are
"essential", the numpty I was talking too just could not accept the
merest possibility that they didn't do good and thus assumed you'd be an
idiot not to wear one. I think that mind set is quite common and just
picked up from background radiation. Look at the ads in the rags
selling you tasty goodies: it's "obvious" that Proper Cyclists wear
helmets, or at least people trying to sell stuff to Proper Cyclists
think they will respond to that image.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

In dialogue with British Cycling about their suggestion that helmets are
"essential", the numpty I was talking too just could not accept the
merest possibility that they didn't do good and thus assumed you'd be an
idiot not to wear one. I think that mind set is quite common and just
picked up from background radiation. Look at the ads in the rags
selling you tasty goodies: it's "obvious" that Proper Cyclists wear
helmets, or at least people trying to sell stuff to Proper Cyclists
think they will respond to that image.

Race administrators have their policies influenced by images of people
who are behaving in a way demanded by those same administrators ?

PR victory was perhaps not a strong enough term ...

-adrian

Tony Raven said:

But regardless do you argue for wearing a full harness, helmet and
fireproof overalls in a car because race drivers do?

A good point, but not convincing enough :

It helps with the anticompulsion argument, emphasising that you need
not use the protection out of proportion to risk.

But it's not immediately apparent that the racing driver is worse
off than the 'normal' driver when not in a race - some people will
still see the extra protection as OTT but still, ultimately, helpful.

Which it isn't, exclusively : a race helmet severely restricts the
view of the surroundings but it doesn't matter in a race because
there's limited need to look out for dangers from the sides.

So is the same true of the racing cyclist ? His helmet may be helpful
in some proportion of circumstances. It may also be unhelpful in
others. Are the conditions in a race sufficiently different from
that of a leisure cyclist (however fit and keen) that the balance
of the two is wrong, and the example should not be followed ?
If so, perhaps images of racers required to wear a helmet should
carry a health warning in case they unduly influence non-racers ..

(I'm trying to undermine the reason for insisting on racing helmets
here, but in the process I'm finding I'm taking a position that
embarrassingly approaches another recent poster. I think I'd better
desist before I get defensive :-)

-adrian

Adrian Godwin said:

So is the same true of the racing cyclist ? His helmet may be helpful
in some proportion of circumstances. It may also be unhelpful in
others. Are the conditions in a race sufficiently different from
that of a leisure cyclist (however fit and keen) that the balance
of the two is wrong, and the example should not be followed ?

So where are the casualty figures for either flavour that demonstrate
they are a Good Thing? There aren't any, you're working on unproven
assumptions. Why make assumptions about the differences between leisure
and sport when you can't even demonstrate that *either* are actually
ahead of the game from wearing them.

Quoted message said:

(I'm trying to undermine the reason for insisting on racing helmets
here, but in the process I'm finding I'm taking a position that
embarrassingly approaches another recent poster. I think I'd better
desist before I get defensive :-)

The reason not to insist on racing helmets is that they are of no proven
value as far as I know.

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/

Adrian Godwin said:

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained :
if it was done as a result of pressure from the usual suspects then
that was a major PR victory and needs serious attention.

An argument could be made that in mass-start or bunch races one is
riding in very close proximity to other cyclists and more likely
therefore to be involved in an accident which does not involve being run
over by a motor vehicle. Racing cyclists also cite "road rash" as one
reason for shaving their leg hair - this would suggest to me that they
are concerned about some classes of injury which the average
commuter/leisure/touring cyclist has no reason to fear, and if they
additionally want to wear helmets to reduce the likelihood of road rash
on the head, that shouldn't have any bearing on what the rest of us do.

(I fell during a race (skating, not cycling) on Sunday when clipped by
another skater who was trying to claim the same place in the pace line
as me. It's probable that sliding down the road on my back reduced my
speed to less than 12mph by the time my head hit the ground: the back of
my helmet is noticeably crushed and slightly split, but I was able to
get up and limp away. I did not repeat the experiment without a helmet
to see what difference it made)

Obviously this still doesn't make much of a justification for wearing
helmets in time trials.

-dan

Adrian Godwin said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Danny

Colyer (') said:

4) Racers who are obliged by their governing bodies to be lidded.
misinformation thrust upon the first two groups. ?There's not a lot we
can do about group 4.

I don't agree. In fact, doing something about group 4 might have the
biggest impact on group 3, and so should be a priority.

I agree with Simon.

I don't dispute that doing something about group 4 would probably have a
big impact on group 3, but that doesn't contradict what I wrote. I
wrote that there's not a lot we can do about group 4, not that I didn't
think anything /should/ be done about group 4.

I still don't think there's much that we can do about group 4, unless a
sizeable number of racers can be persuaded that they would rather give
up racing than be required to wear helmets to race. The members of
racing organisations are the people who can force racing organisations
to change their rules.

I would be happy to be proved wrong, and if you and Simon believe that
you can do something about group 4 then I urge you to do so.

Quoted message said:

I find it difficult to argue that helmets have little or no benefit
above 12mph on the road when racing bodies insist on using them. If
they have good reasons for this, I would like them to be explained :
if it was done as a result of pressure from the usual suspects then
that was a major PR victory and needs serious attention.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2