Re: Helmets

On Wed, 25 May 2005 21:46:55 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

I have to presume your helmet-while-driving-a-car thing is facetious.

Not particularly, in the US at least the head injury rate in car
crashes is higher than in bike crashes.

Quoted message said:

Can you name lower-hanging fruit in cycling?

I have yet to see any credible quantitative evaluation of the merits
of different cycle safety interventions which put helmets anywhere
other than last.

As far as I can tell, *all* the other fruit is lower hanging!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:30:34 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>
wrote in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel safe (from a research, not political, POV) in saying that a
helmet offers *some* measure of protection from *some* types of
injury. It's directionally fairly well proved out, though
quantitatively wildly in flux.

Correct. But you must also be aware that the fact of wearing one will
also make it more likely that you will have a crash in the first
place. So there are two effects of opposite sign and unknown
magnitude.

I have heard that offered. Other than in kids, have you seen that
proved?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel comfortable with an assertion that current, well-fitting
helmets offer *minimal* downside (as opposed to the *no downside*
section of your page).

Really? Hmmm. I have a helmet, it is hanging on the hook by the
side of the bike. You know that I have understood the research, you
know that I accept that helmets prevent some injuries. Why do I
usually not wear the helmet? I think the downside must be bigger than
you suppose (certainly bigger than I used to suppose).

Ok, what would that downside be? Where do you ride? How long have
you ridden? What's the weather like? Traffic? Bike lane
availability, width, and condition?? Get my point (and it *is*
consistent with what I've been saying)?

Telling a newbie that they shouldn't worry . . . without knowing any
of this . . . especially when the person implying that is doing so to
prevent onerous legislation or attrition from the sport (??) . . .
seems a bit suboptimal to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a judgment call, and each
should make it for themselves, but a potential wearer should both try
on a new helmet, properly fitted to their head, and do a little soul
search (is it really uncomfortable, or do I just think I look "silly"
with it on) before deciding.

LOL! You think looking silly is a concern? I ride a Brompton folder,
a recumbent and a double-childback triplet! Image is *far* from my
mind!

Again, that's you. I happen to agree with your position, but you
*don't* think some (many? a $hitload of??) cyclists are *very* "cool"
or "style" conscious? You don't think some would take incremental
risk *solely* to avoid standing out?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- there should be ready access to accurate information for those
trying to decide whether or not to wear, especially new cyclists who
may or may not have mastered vehicular/effective/safe cycling skills.

Indeed. At the moment what they get is the 1989 Seattle study and
"use it or lose it" [censored].

I've found more. One challenge is: who's going to fund and provide
unbiased, accurate info? Government? Helmet manufacturers??
Cyclists??

How about the National Academy of Sciences?? They happen to like (it
would seem) Elliott and Rodriguez, and Thompson and Rivara's study,
no?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- Everybody should make a well-informed risk:reward decision. If
Frank has mastered cycling in his part of Ohio, he likely has to
consider far less risk than somebody relatively inexperienced doing a
pas de deux with 7,200# Ford Excursions (or potholes or other
bike-commuters or . . . ) on their Southern California commute might.

The best solution is to get trained.

And meanwhile? Like training *wheels*, do you view a helmet as a good
idea during "training" periods?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things that I think are *not* helpful in this discussion:
- calling cycling dangerous
- saying that cycling is *not* dangerous (eg, using the exceptionally
impressive fatality statistics to imply that you cannot be hurt on a
bicycle)

Why? A dominant feature of helmet debate is the false perception that
cycling is unusually dangerous and unusually productive of head
injury.

Why? Because stats with context are far more helpful than labels.

Quoted message said:

Cycling is safer than a range of activities which we happily
undertake every day without batting an eyelid. A realistic
appreciation of risk is key to making an informed choice, after all.

Thank you for proving my point ;-) Stats (on your site) with context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- concluding that advocating an individual's right to an informed
choice is somehow hurting our sport

Who has ever said that? OK, I know one example: a helmet zealot once
told me that discussing the failure of helmet laws to reduce head
injury rates was interfering in their making an informed choice.

We have an r.b.m. contributor who has implied that. The NZ
cost-to-society study seems to imply it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- legislation requiring helmet wear

Has a place in debate, because of the opportunity it gives us to study
the effect of helmet use on those who are not inherently risk-averse.

I'll buy that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- the whole "We have bigger fish to fry" argument. We should fry
those fish, too, but that has no bearing on the relative truth of this
issue

No, you are wrong here. Helmets have dominated the cycle safety
debate for years, to the point that over 85% of "cycle safety"
interventions in the UK are helmet campaigns, according to one of our
accident surveillance reports. It is vitally important to reintroduce
a sense of perspective.

I'm only wrong if I advocate dropping this issue. I don't. I
advocate keeping it in perspective, as you say.

Quoted message said:

CS Downing's "Pedal Cycle Accidents in Great Britain" (TRRL, 1985)
rated the efficacy of interventions in reducing cyclist casualties
thus:

Road engineering (Cycling facilities, blackspot treatment) 10%
Education, training, publicity, and enforcement 5%
New initiatives aimed at improving road user behaviour 5%
Area wide low cost engineering measures 5%
Car external softening 3%
Heavy goods vehicle side guards 2%
Bicycle engineering/construction (including helmets) 1%

Do you think this is accurately reflected in current cycle safety
campaigns you encounter?

Efficacy is different from availability. Low hanging fruit with one
hand. High efficacy solutions with the other. Resources,
unfortunately, are limited.

I'd rather get the drivers off their phones, and their minds and eyes
on the road. Meanwhile, though . . . I'd better do a few other things
myself ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- taking individual parts of studies out of context to make one's
point (or dismissing a study *solely* on the basis of its disagreement
with one's position)

Bill who? ;-)

Just zis Guy said:

I have yet to see any credible quantitative evaluation of the merits
of different cycle safety interventions which put helmets anywhere
other than last.

As far as I can tell, *all* the other fruit is lower hanging!

What?

Now I think we must have met with a definitions issue.

Define "helmets" in this context. Do you mean:

- mandatory helmet legislation?

- an individual's voluntary purchase and proper use of a well-fitting
$30 helmet

- ??

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

The reason bicycle helmets are as light and ventilated as they are is
because people wouldn't wear them otherwise. You could easily make
automobile helmets for everyday use follow the same standards.

Or you could make airbags more affordable, or transfer DOD radar
technology, in an affordable way, to alert you to potential crash
situations, or you could legislate against cell-phone use while
driving, or . . .

This doesn't really answer my question of why people in cars (say, existing
cars without air bags) don't wear light foam helmets.

Quoted message said:

I have to presume your helmet-while-driving-a-car thing is facetious.

Partly. I'm not actually advocate that drivers and passengers wear
helmets. However, I suspect if they all did so, and driving habits did not
change because of it, many more total lives would be saved every year.

Quoted message said:

Too many other, better bang-for-the-buck opportunities. Can you name
lower-hanging fruit in cycling?

- education (both for cyclists and drivers)
- road design (e.g. wide curb lanes, getting rid of rumble strips, etc.)
- more industry concern about potential safety issues, such as cranks or
handlebars breaking
- legislation against cell-phone use while driving 🙂

There are probably others, but I believe even some small changes in those
areas could result in much more improvement than anything helmets can
offer.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Neil Brooks said:

Just zis Guy said:

LOL! You think looking silly is a concern? I ride a Brompton folder,
a recumbent and a double-childback triplet! Image is *far* from my
mind!

Again, that's you. I happen to agree with your position, but you
*don't* think some (many? a $hitload of??) cyclists are *very* "cool"
or "style" conscious? You don't think some would take incremental
risk *solely* to avoid standing out?

I believe that in North America at least, this is no longer issue. The
prevailing fashion seems to include helmets now.

I've logged many more kilometers with a helmet than without, and although
I've never heard any snarky comments while wearing a helmet, I've heard
many while going without, from all manner of people including
trendy-looking cyclists.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

The reason bicycle helmets are as light and ventilated as they are is
because people wouldn't wear them otherwise. You could easily make
automobile helmets for everyday use follow the same standards.

Or you could make airbags more affordable, or transfer DOD radar
technology, in an affordable way, to alert you to potential crash
situations, or you could legislate against cell-phone use while
driving, or . . .

This doesn't really answer my question of why people in cars (say, existing
cars without air bags) don't wear light foam helmets.

Quoted message said:

I have to presume your helmet-while-driving-a-car thing is facetious.

Partly. I'm not actually advocate that drivers and passengers wear
helmets. However, I suspect if they all did so, and driving habits did not
change because of it, many more total lives would be saved every year.

I haven't seen the data. If you can provide it, I'd love to see it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Too many other, better bang-for-the-buck opportunities. Can you name
lower-hanging fruit in cycling?

Remember: I'm looking at an optional helmet, purchased by a cyclist
who made a risk:reward decision, and then used on a voluntary basis.

- Time to implement: trip to the store
- Cost to implement? from $20

That's the bar . . . and *that* option prevents against the (thingy
caught in my wheel and flipped me over the bars) scenario better than
most....

Quoted message said:

- education (both for cyclists and drivers)

Great idea . . . and exceptionally difficult, slow to implement, and
costly (government). Not low-hanging fruit.

Quoted message said:

- road design (e.g. wide curb lanes, getting rid of rumble strips, etc.)

ibid

Quoted message said:

- more industry concern about potential safety issues, such as cranks or
handlebars breaking

If the industry isn't responsive, how quickly do you think that can be
changed?

Quoted message said:

- legislation against cell-phone use while driving 🙂

Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please. That's *all I* want for Xmas.
But low hanging fruit it ain't.

Quoted message said:

There are probably others, but I believe even some small changes in those
areas could result in much more improvement than anything helmets can
offer.

If you *don't* start with the assumption that I want to mandate them
(again: I don't), the low-hanging fruit for a cyclist looking to add
some margin of injury protection for some incidents is a helmet.

I want the rest of the things that you mentioned . . . badly enough to
give a big chunk to our local advocacy group to enable those changes.

Meanwhile, my use of a helmet is low-hanging fruit.

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

Yes. A lot of bikes don't get used much, and this has done two

things: it's raised an additional bar to dusting off that bike, and
it's sent a strong message that cycling is really dangerous.

OK. But doesn't that imply that the simple statement that the law
caused a drop in cyclists that was larger than the increased number of
helmet wearers. I mean if lots of the "dropped" cycliste weren't really
riding more than once or twice a year (my supposition I admit) how can
the loss of such a person be equated to the increase to that of a
frequent cyclist who nows wears a helmet?

And sure this is still more about your issue of compulsion but it still
stikes me as a classic apples/oranges arguemnt.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:11:51 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

I have yet to see any credible quantitative evaluation of the merits
of different cycle safety interventions which put helmets anywhere
other than last.
As far as I can tell, *all* the other fruit is lower hanging!

Quoted message said:

Now I think we must have met with a definitions issue.
Define "helmets" in this context. Do you mean:

Quoted message said:

- mandatory helmet legislation?
- an individual's voluntary purchase and proper use of a well-fitting
$30 helmet

I mean, the promotion and use of bicycle helmets.

Road engineering (Cycling facilities, blackspot treatment) 10%
Education, training, publicity, and enforcement 5%
New initiatives aimed at improving road user behaviour 5%
Area wide low cost engineering measures 5%
Car external softening 3%
Heavy goods vehicle side guards 2%
Bicycle engineering/construction (including helmets) 1%

as stated below, and I'll pick it up there.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 25 May 2005 15:31:54 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

OK. But doesn't that imply that the simple statement that the law
caused a drop in cyclists that was larger than the increased number of
helmet wearers. I mean if lots of the "dropped" cycliste weren't really
riding more than once or twice a year (my supposition I admit) how can
the loss of such a person be equated to the increase to that of a
frequent cyclist who nows wears a helmet?

Two separate questions.

First, did the law result in a measurable reduction in head injury
rates? No.

Second, what was the major effect of the law? More people stopped
cycling than started wearing helmets.

In theory, if more high-mileage cyclists wore helmets and all the
low-mileage cyclists stopped, you'd expect that to result in much
bigger drops in injury rates, as experienced cyclists have lower
injury rates to start with. But that's speculative.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Quoted message said:

I have to presume your helmet-while-driving-a-car thing is facetious.

Partly. I'm not actually advocate that drivers and passengers wear
helmets. However, I suspect if they all did so, and driving habits did
not change because of it, many more total lives would be saved every
year.

I haven't seen the data. If you can provide it, I'd love to see it.

There isn't any data, I said "I suspect". However, there is ample data
that there are many more car passengers with head injuries per year than
there are cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Too many other, better bang-for-the-buck opportunities. Can you name
lower-hanging fruit in cycling?

Remember: I'm looking at an optional helmet, purchased by a cyclist
who made a risk:reward decision, and then used on a voluntary basis.

- Time to implement: trip to the store
- Cost to implement? from $20

That's the bar . . . and *that* option prevents against the (thingy
caught in my wheel and flipped me over the bars) scenario better than
most....

I'd just like to remind you that this time and cost can still apply equally
well to drivers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- education (both for cyclists and drivers)

Great idea . . . and exceptionally difficult, slow to implement, and
costly (government). Not low-hanging fruit.

But many times more effective than helmets, IMO.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- legislation against cell-phone use while driving 🙂

Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please. That's *all I* want for Xmas.
But low hanging fruit it ain't.

I put that one there because it was one *you* cited for drivers over
wearing helmets.

Quoted message said:

I want the rest of the things that you mentioned . . . badly enough to
give a big chunk to our local advocacy group to enable those changes.

Meanwhile, my use of a helmet is low-hanging fruit.

Not any lower than, say, reading "Effective Cycling" or similar, and not
nearly as effective (although not without its flaws, but I digress).
Education doesn't have to be mandated at a societal level for it to be
effective at a personal level either.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:48:08 GMT, Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca>

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I know two seventy-year-olds
who suffered similar crashes at similar speeds and landed
head-first, the helmeted rider died, the unhelmeted one is fine.

So what was this a side by side simultaneous crash....how neat and
coincidental. Sounds bogus no matter how (if) it happened.

It must have been the original double mint twins :-)

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Just zis Guy said:

LOL! You think looking silly is a concern? I ride a Brompton folder,
a recumbent and a double-childback triplet! Image is *far* from my
mind!

Again, that's you. I happen to agree with your position, but you
*don't* think some (many? a $hitload of??) cyclists are *very* "cool"
or "style" conscious? You don't think some would take incremental
risk *solely* to avoid standing out?

I believe that in North America at least, this is no longer issue. The
prevailing fashion seems to include helmets now.

I've logged many more kilometers with a helmet than without, and although
I've never heard any snarky comments while wearing a helmet, I've heard
many while going without, from all manner of people including
trendy-looking cyclists.

Ask kids.

Don't know about where you are, but around here . . . at about 2:45pm,
you'll see kids riding home from school with their helmets hanging
from the handlebars. They don't want to get razzed by their friends
for wearing them.

That's an issue.

Just zis Guy said:

In theory, if more high-mileage cyclists wore helmets and all the
low-mileage cyclists stopped, you'd expect that to result in much
bigger drops in injury rates, as experienced cyclists have lower
injury rates to start with. But that's speculative.

That may be true for a part of the experience spectrum but certainly
not for all of it. I'd guess that the highest skilled cyclists-racers-
also have the highest accident rates. I have nothing but anecdotal info
but certainly one reads about more crashes and broken body parts in
major international races than anywhere else.
And at other points of the spectrum like fast recreational riders I
also imagine that the rate of crashes and injuries is higher than for
those with a bit less experience but also a bit less competitive zeal.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:11:51 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

I have yet to see any credible quantitative evaluation of the merits
of different cycle safety interventions which put helmets anywhere
other than last.
As far as I can tell, *all* the other fruit is lower hanging!

Quoted message said:

Now I think we must have met with a definitions issue.
Define "helmets" in this context. Do you mean:

Quoted message said:

- mandatory helmet legislation?
- an individual's voluntary purchase and proper use of a well-fitting
$30 helmet

I mean, the promotion and use of bicycle helmets.

I'm not even advocating that. I just think that people who only
*mean* to deter legislation (or religious attachment to a helmet)
sometimes push too far and get people wondering why they would ever
wear one at all.

There are some reasons . . . why some people . . . should wear helmets
.. . . some of the time. Whether they choose to, IMHO, should be up to
them.

But let's give them the full facts....

Meanwhile, advocacy is wonderful, but it's slow, expensive work. I'm
back to saying . . . full facts (and elimination of loaded
terminology) while we advocate to get at root causes of cycling
accidents.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:09:25 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

you must also be aware that the fact of wearing one will
also make it more likely that you will have a crash in the first
place. So there are two effects of opposite sign and unknown
magnitude.

Quoted message said:

I have heard that offered. Other than in kids, have you seen that
proved?

Risk compensation is a theory, not a provable fact, but it's been
documented in so many cases that I find it hard to believe that adult
cyclists would (unlike child cyclists) be exempt.

So I have no citations to offer other than discussions by John Adams,
Mayer Hillman, Bob Davis and others, in various books.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel comfortable with an assertion that current, well-fitting
helmets offer *minimal* downside (as opposed to the *no downside*
section of your page).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Really? Hmmm. I have a helmet, it is hanging on the hook by the
side of the bike. You know that I have understood the research, you
know that I accept that helmets prevent some injuries. Why do I
usually not wear the helmet? I think the downside must be bigger than
you suppose (certainly bigger than I used to suppose).

Quoted message said:

Ok, what would that downside be? Where do you ride? How long have
you ridden? What's the weather like? Traffic? Bike lane
availability, width, and condition?? Get my point (and it *is*
consistent with what I've been saying)?

The downside is heat, discomfort (and yes it does fit well, but hard
polystyrene is less comfortable than my fleece hat), problems in
providing effective cover for ears, storage (it is about 1/4 the
volume of my bike!), and the fact of having to car it around the whole
time.

I ride almost exclusively on heavily trafficked roads with no bike
lanes.

Quoted message said:

Telling a newbie that they shouldn't worry . . . without knowing any
of this . . . especially when the person implying that is doing so to
prevent onerous legislation or attrition from the sport (??) . . .
seems a bit suboptimal to me.

Not really. Ever tried encouraging a child to do something scary for
the first time? Like go down the big flume at the swimming pool or
try the rollercoaster?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think looking silly is a concern? I ride a Brompton folder,
a recumbent and a double-childback triplet! Image is *far* from my
mind!

Quoted message said:

Again, that's you. I happen to agree with your position, but you
*don't* think some (many? a $hitload of??) cyclists are *very* "cool"
or "style" conscious? You don't think some would take incremental
risk *solely* to avoid standing out?

Seriously? No I don't. That applies really only to teenaged boys.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- there should be ready access to accurate information for those
trying to decide whether or not to wear, especially new cyclists who
may or may not have mastered vehicular/effective/safe cycling skills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. At the moment what they get is the 1989 Seattle study and
"use it or lose it" [censored].

Quoted message said:

I've found more. One challenge is: who's going to fund and provide
unbiased, accurate info? Government? Helmet manufacturers??
Cyclists??

In the UK? Cyclists. http://www.ctc.org.uk - LAB is [censored] by
comparison (stand for office, I'd vote for you!)

Quoted message said:

How about the National Academy of Sciences?? They happen to like (it
would seem) Elliott and Rodriguez, and Thompson and Rivara's study,
no?

Sure, they are interventionist and they don't want to rattle the cage
of the auto lobby. They like to define the problem as one of cycling,
when actually it is primarily one of driving.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The best solution is to get trained.

Quoted message said:

And meanwhile? Like training *wheels*, do you view a helmet as a good
idea during "training" periods?

Hell no! Training wheels are a Work of Stan and should be Shunned. A
perfect example, in fact - orthodox opinion is flat wrong! The way to
teach a child to ride a bike is to take the pedals off, put the seat
down and let them scoot until they get the hang of balancing.
Balancing is the *only* new skill they need to learn (assuming they've
ridden a trike), and training wheels effectively prevent them from
learning it!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things that I think are *not* helpful in this discussion:
- calling cycling dangerous
- saying that cycling is *not* dangerous (eg, using the exceptionally
impressive fatality statistics to imply that you cannot be hurt on a
bicycle)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why? A dominant feature of helmet debate is the false perception that
cycling is unusually dangerous and unusually productive of head
injury.

Quoted message said:

Why? Because stats with context are far more helpful than labels.

Frank provides stats with context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is safer than a range of activities which we happily
undertake every day without batting an eyelid. A realistic
appreciation of risk is key to making an informed choice, after all.

Quoted message said:

Thank you for proving my point ;-) Stats (on your site) with context.

So? Cycling is not, objectively speaking, dangerous. Why pretend it
is?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- concluding that advocating an individual's right to an informed
choice is somehow hurting our sport

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who has ever said that? OK, I know one example: a helmet zealot once
told me that discussing the failure of helmet laws to reduce head
injury rates was interfering in their making an informed choice.

Quoted message said:

We have an r.b.m. contributor who has implied that. The NZ
cost-to-society study seems to imply it.

In what way does the NZ study imply any such thing?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- the whole "We have bigger fish to fry" argument. We should fry
those fish, too, but that has no bearing on the relative truth of this
issue

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, you are wrong here. Helmets have dominated the cycle safety
debate for years, to the point that over 85% of "cycle safety"
interventions in the UK are helmet campaigns, according to one of our
accident surveillance reports. It is vitally important to reintroduce
a sense of perspective.

Quoted message said:

I'm only wrong if I advocate dropping this issue. I don't. I
advocate keeping it in perspective, as you say.

How many helmet threads have you seen? How many on road position?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CS Downing's "Pedal Cycle Accidents in Great Britain" (TRRL, 1985)
rated the efficacy of interventions in reducing cyclist casualties
Do you think this is accurately reflected in current cycle safety
campaigns you encounter?

Quoted message said:

Efficacy is different from availability. Low hanging fruit with one
hand. High efficacy solutions with the other. Resources,
unfortunately, are limited.

Training is low cost (mainly paid for by the trainees), high benefit.
I'd say that is the thing which should be supported. If all the cash
spent on helmet studies in the last 20 years had been spent on
training, I reckon we'd have much more cycling and many fewer crashes
by now.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:09:25 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>
wrote in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I feel comfortable with an assertion that current, well-fitting
>helmets offer *minimal* downside (as opposed to the *no downside*
>section of your page).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Really? Hmmm. I have a helmet, it is hanging on the hook by the
side of the bike. You know that I have understood the research, you
know that I accept that helmets prevent some injuries. Why do I
usually not wear the helmet? I think the downside must be bigger than
you suppose (certainly bigger than I used to suppose).

Quoted message said:

Ok, what would that downside be? Where do you ride? How long have
you ridden? What's the weather like? Traffic? Bike lane
availability, width, and condition?? Get my point (and it *is*
consistent with what I've been saying)?

The downside is heat, discomfort (and yes it does fit well, but hard
polystyrene is less comfortable than my fleece hat), problems in
providing effective cover for ears, storage (it is about 1/4 the
volume of my bike!), and the fact of having to car it around the whole
time.

I ride almost exclusively on heavily trafficked roads with no bike
lanes.

Quoted message said:

Telling a newbie that they shouldn't worry . . . without knowing any
of this . . . especially when the person implying that is doing so to
prevent onerous legislation or attrition from the sport (??) . . .
seems a bit suboptimal to me.

Not really. Ever tried encouraging a child to do something scary for
the first time? Like go down the big flume at the swimming pool or
try the rollercoaster?

.. . . didn't say it'd be difficult. A blanket statement from a
cyclist in rural Ohio about the wisdom of helmet use for a Usenet
poster who lives who-knows-where is suspect.

I think it's better to present info, along with some "You might
consider wearing a helmet IF . . . " questions is a better idea.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think looking silly is a concern? I ride a Brompton folder,
a recumbent and a double-childback triplet! Image is *far* from my
mind!

Quoted message said:

Again, that's you. I happen to agree with your position, but you
*don't* think some (many? a $hitload of??) cyclists are *very* "cool"
or "style" conscious? You don't think some would take incremental
risk *solely* to avoid standing out?

Seriously? No I don't. That applies really only to teenaged boys.

Don't we want them to become cyclists, too? Veggies aren't as cool as
pizza, but there are some who are trying to change that perception to
allow kids to make different choices with less opprobrium (is that a
word?). http://snipurl.com/f5el

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - there should be ready access to accurate information for those
>trying to decide whether or not to wear, especially new cyclists who
>may or may not have mastered vehicular/effective/safe cycling skills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. At the moment what they get is the 1989 Seattle study and
"use it or lose it" [censored].

Quoted message said:

I've found more. One challenge is: who's going to fund and provide
unbiased, accurate info? Government? Helmet manufacturers??
Cyclists??

In the UK? Cyclists. http://www.ctc.org.uk - LAB is [censored] by
comparison (stand for office, I'd vote for you!)

I have *such* a checkered past ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about the National Academy of Sciences?? They happen to like (it
would seem) Elliott and Rodriguez, and Thompson and Rivara's study,
no?

Sure, they are interventionist and they don't want to rattle the cage
of the auto lobby. They like to define the problem as one of cycling,
when actually it is primarily one of driving.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The best solution is to get trained.

Quoted message said:

And meanwhile? Like training *wheels*, do you view a helmet as a good
idea during "training" periods?

Hell no! Training wheels are a Work of Stan and should be Shunned. A
perfect example, in fact - orthodox opinion is flat wrong! The way to
teach a child to ride a bike is to take the pedals off, put the seat
down and let them scoot until they get the hang of balancing.
Balancing is the *only* new skill they need to learn (assuming they've
ridden a trike), and training wheels effectively prevent them from
learning it!

But not all newbies are kids (sadly). Same method for an adult?
Maybe *they* would prefer a helmet and a low-traffic park with smooth
trails running through it. I don't really see that as a
risk-compensation scenario. Dunno.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Things that I think are *not* helpful in this discussion:
> - calling cycling dangerous
> - saying that cycling is *not* dangerous (eg, using the exceptionally
>impressive fatality statistics to imply that you cannot be hurt on a
>bicycle)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why? A dominant feature of helmet debate is the false perception that
cycling is unusually dangerous and unusually productive of head
injury.

Quoted message said:

Why? Because stats with context are far more helpful than labels.

Frank provides stats with context.

Wasn't going to single him out, but he also implies that people who
aren't *actively defending against* helmet legislation (even if
they've expressed no support *for* the notion) are declaring cycling
to be dangerous.

I think that's dirty pool.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is safer than a range of activities which we happily
undertake every day without batting an eyelid. A realistic
appreciation of risk is key to making an informed choice, after all.

Quoted message said:

Thank you for proving my point ;-) Stats (on your site) with context.

So? Cycling is not, objectively speaking, dangerous. Why pretend it
is?

Oy. Dangerous is a term to be determined by the beholder. It's based
on many, many variables. A blanket statement just doesn't fit. Even
national statistics don't fit if the would-be cyclist begins his
cycling life in an area notorious for cycling accidents.

My wife just started her bike commute. There are four freeway
on-ramps that she has to cross within her first two miles. All have
two lanes turning onto the freeway. All have high average speeds as
motorists leave a 40mph street for the safety and comfort (!) of the
freeway. This is a very frightening for a newbie, or for a relatively
inexperienced cyclist.

Now, I'm not advocating that the helmet teaches them how to navigate
this (I've suggested that my wife walk the bike until she's gained
comfort at other-than-rush-hour times). I'm also not ignoring the
"Uh, I have a helmet. I'll just shoot across with my eyes closed"
*concept*. What I'm saying is: her commute is fraught with potholes,
street debris, idiot drivers, bad road surfaces, etc., etc. The
alternate routes involve either of two of San Diego's more difficult
climbs.

Whatever she does, she has decided a helmet's a good idea. So might
many others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - concluding that advocating an individual's right to an informed
>choice is somehow hurting our sport

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who has ever said that? OK, I know one example: a helmet zealot once
told me that discussing the failure of helmet laws to reduce head
injury rates was interfering in their making an informed choice.

Quoted message said:

We have an r.b.m. contributor who has implied that. The NZ
cost-to-society study seems to imply it.

In what way does the NZ study imply any such thing?

Quitters. That notion, by definition, says that--with helmet laws
(did I mention that I don't advocate those??)--people quit, or fail to
enter, bicycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> - the whole "We have bigger fish to fry" argument. We should fry
>those fish, too, but that has no bearing on the relative truth of this
>issue

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, you are wrong here. Helmets have dominated the cycle safety
debate for years, to the point that over 85% of "cycle safety"
interventions in the UK are helmet campaigns, according to one of our
accident surveillance reports. It is vitally important to reintroduce
a sense of perspective.

Quoted message said:

I'm only wrong if I advocate dropping this issue. I don't. I
advocate keeping it in perspective, as you say.

How many helmet threads have you seen? How many on road position?

Responding to *that* question is incredibly simple: start some.
Advocacy, change (regime change!), and reform begin at home. Think
globally, act locally. IF somebody starts advocating for mandatory
helmet laws on r.b.m., then defend, if you wish.

Otherwise, if somebody asks whether they should get a helmet, give
them information, ways to think about it, criteria to help them make a
risk:reward decision, access to unvarnished facts and stats . . . and
then start a road position thread instead of summarily dissing helmets
or arguing based on *fatalities* or loss of cyclists or
risk-compensation or . . .

Start some "effective cycling" threads just based on contrived
situations ("So today while I was riding . . . . "😉 to generate
activity. People will participate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CS Downing's "Pedal Cycle Accidents in Great Britain" (TRRL, 1985)
rated the efficacy of interventions in reducing cyclist casualties
Do you think this is accurately reflected in current cycle safety
campaigns you encounter?

Quoted message said:

Efficacy is different from availability. Low hanging fruit with one
hand. High efficacy solutions with the other. Resources,
unfortunately, are limited.

Training is low cost (mainly paid for by the trainees), high benefit.
I'd say that is the thing which should be supported. If all the cash
spent on helmet studies in the last 20 years had been spent on
training, I reckon we'd have much more cycling and many fewer crashes
by now.

Training who, how, where, and when?? You think it's easy? Ask my
local chapter of the bike club how it's going for them. It's a tough
row to hoe . . . and woefully underfunded. How would you get that $$
shifted from Bell and Giro over to the advocacy groups?? They'd love
to hear that.

You're right . . . in theory . . . but that's really *not* low-hanging
fruit, IMHO.

Neil Brooks said:

A blanket statement from a
cyclist in rural Ohio about the wisdom of helmet use for a Usenet
poster who lives who-knows-where is suspect.

Neil, I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance of Ohio. Like all
states, it has plenty of rural area. But I live in a decidedly urban
area. I work in the center of a large city, and my home is within a
few tenths of a mile of a 35,000 car-per-day five lane, one of the
larger retail areas in the state, and one of the states most trafficked
intersections. I deal with these regularly - for example, on the
evening ride from which I just returned.

Beyond that: While I most enjoy riding peaceful rural roads, I also
enjoy riding big city centers, and have ridden through the busiest
parts of many multi-million cities, both here and in other countries.
I've ridden in literally hundreds of cities, plus many small towns,
villages, boroughs, etc. I've also toured other countries, sometimes
for weeks at a time.

In brief: Don't portray me as inexperienced. Don't imply I'm not
knowledgeable about cycling in urban (or any other) environments.

The only exception to that is racing. I've only done a little of that,
and you won't find me saying very much about racing helmets - except
that neither NASCAR nor the Tour de France are much like ordinary road
use.

- Frank Krygowski

Neil Brooks said:

Just zis Guy said:

Frank provides stats with context.

Wasn't going to single him out, but he also implies that people who
aren't *actively defending against* helmet legislation (even if
they've expressed no support *for* the notion) are declaring cycling
to be dangerous.

I think that's dirty pool.

Whoa! Speaking of dirty pool!

Do I think that promoting helmets implies cycling is dangerous? Yes,
definitely - because people _never_ propose safety equipment except to
avert danger. (Reread Benjamin Lewis's "meteorite helmet for lying in
bed" post to see how silly anything else would be.)

But where have I said "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is
declaring cycling to be dangerous"? Hell, most people - including most
cyclists - aren't even aware this is an issue!

Since I _know_ you're not going to be able to provide a citation, I'd
appreciate a retraction.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

A blanket statement from a
cyclist in rural Ohio about the wisdom of helmet use for a Usenet
poster who lives who-knows-where is suspect.

Neil, I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance of Ohio. Like all
states, it has plenty of rural area.

I'm from Detroit and have been to Ohio dozens and dozens of times. My
statement did not, in any way, paint Ohio with the broad brush you
indicated. Rural Ohio is just that: rural. Urban Ohio, not
surprisingly, is quite urban ;-)

Quoted message said:

But I live in a decidedly urban
area. I work in the center of a large city, and my home is within a
few tenths of a mile of a 35,000 car-per-day five lane, one of the
larger retail areas in the state, and one of the states most trafficked
intersections. I deal with these regularly - for example, on the
evening ride from which I just returned.

Beyond that: While I most enjoy riding peaceful rural roads, I also
enjoy riding big city centers, and have ridden through the busiest
parts of many multi-million cities, both here and in other countries.
I've ridden in literally hundreds of cities, plus many small towns,
villages, boroughs, etc. I've also toured other countries, sometimes
for weeks at a time.

In brief: Don't portray me as inexperienced. Don't imply I'm not
knowledgeable about cycling in urban (or any other) environments.

I sincerely apologize if that's how it came across. I may have
implicitly used you as an example, but I really intended to indicate a
hypothetical Frank, living in rural Ohio, and dealing more with Amish
buggies and tractors than with frenetic, high-volume roadways.

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

Just zis Guy said:

Frank provides stats with context.

Wasn't going to single him out, but he also implies that people who
aren't *actively defending against* helmet legislation (even if
they've expressed no support *for* the notion) are declaring cycling
to be dangerous.

I think that's dirty pool.

Whoa! Speaking of dirty pool!

Read on. I feel pretty justified.

Quoted message said:

Do I think that promoting helmets implies cycling is dangerous? Yes,
definitely - because people _never_ propose safety equipment except to
avert danger. (Reread Benjamin Lewis's "meteorite helmet for lying in
bed" post to see how silly anything else would be.)

Again, read on. I still feel justified.

Quoted message said:

But where have I said "anyone who doesn't defend against legislation is
declaring cycling to be dangerous"? Hell, most people - including most
cyclists - aren't even aware this is an issue!

Since I _know_ you're not going to be able to provide a citation, I'd
appreciate a retraction.

Well, you're going to quibble because -- since I wasn't *quoting*, I
don't have a quote, but . . .

A simple Google search produces: http://snipurl.com/f5ik , where you
say (and I quote)

- "the data shows two things:
1) Cycling is NOT dangerous enough to require special protective
equipment"

- "don't make cycling seem like a horror story waiting to happen!"

- "Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
is"

- "There are legions of people working as hard as they can to make
others believe bicycling is inherently dangerous."

- "People do NOT routinely die in 5 mph bike crashes either! Note
how easily you assume cycling is terribly dangerous!"

- "Wearing a helmet isn't necessarily restricting cycling (although
it may provide ammunition for those who wish to do so)."

- "Furthermore, the idea that cycling is very dangerous doesn't
appear to be true! The risk of fatality per hour is no greater than
that for motoring" [1]

- it's just not as dangerous as people are made to believe! [2]

- "Do you have data on the risk of serious head injury per hour for,
say, bicycling, motoring and walking near traffic? I ask because such
data is quite hard to find - and because the only data I've been able
to find shows cycling is NOT unusually dangerous regarding such
injuries." [3]

- Once there was money to be made by selling protective headgear, the
publicity started, claiming that bicycling is actually quite
dangerous, and that protective equipment is necessary

- "So if you want to scare people by saying their bike is more
dangerous than their sofa, go right ahead. But please, let them know
it's safer than their basketball!" [4]

- "I fight hard against the idea that ordinary cycling is so
dangerous that one should never ride without a helmet" [5]

- "Face it, you too believe cycling is very dangerous. Fine way to
promote the activity!" [6]

- "I object to making people think that cycling is so dangerous that
they shouldn't ride without a helmet"

The bottom line here is that you don't get your retraction. I'm
pretty sure I could find dozens and dozens of similar quotes.

I think this approach is doing you a disservice. When somebody
suggests the notion of helmet use, you just drag out your old, tired
D-word. It's inflammatory and unproductive. I think it needs to be
retired in favor of a new approach (e.g., Note #4 below).

Neil

-----------------------
[1] And here, yet again, is the imposition of one's personal beliefs
about the definition of the word "dangerous:" Risk of fatality.

Let's just use Webster's for grins: Dangerous - "able or likely to
inflict injury, pain, harm, or loss."

So you're definition is somewhere between loaded and wrong. At the
*very least*, you're trying to force *everybody* to play on your home
court: your definition of dangerous.

[2] How dangerous *do* people believe it to be, and how extreme *are*
the measures that they are discussing in this forum for mitigating
this risk?

[3] When drawn out, you get a bit more accurate, IMHO. Not
"unusually" dangerous. That's quite a bit different, and
substantively misleading to somebody considering the helmet equation
for the first time. At least you're starting to imply *relative*
danger here (though I'm sure you're still talking fatality).

[4] "Scare" is a wonderful term. Perhaps the better option for *all*
would be to inform people of the statistical risks of injury and death
for the respective pastimes--along with the variables that they might
evaluate (training, traffic, road conditions, tolerance for risk,
etc.) that might influence *their* risk, then letting them make an
informed decision.

[5] Are people really saying that? Really??

[6] This gem is in response to "...the common sense reality that some
protection is better than none--" a statement that *seems to be*
supported by most available research, incidentally.