Which Helmet

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The comparison is between the year or two before and the year or two after. Other factors are
essentially controlled out.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. I refuse to believe this without further evidence...

Provided for your comfort and convenience in RAGB and the Isles Report (written before the
legislation was made permanent but suppressed until after the vote). A nice summary here:
eirbyte.comseat belts.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I'm known to have chickened out on some downhills before and it's not because I was (or wasn't)
wearing a helmet. I just didn't think that I was in the right frame of mind to tackle them.

But would you have chickened out of other runs without a helmet? That's the crucial question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would feel the need to suggest they read both sides of the argument. As far as I can tell the
verdict on helmets is "not proven."

Quoted message said:

I don't think there is another argument, but let's agree to disagree.

Clearly. So here are a couple of questions to ponder:

* Where is the evidence - from anywhere in the world - that the rate of cycle casualties (i.e.
casualties per cycle mile, cycle trip or cycle hour) has ever declined in places where helmet
wearing has increased? There is plenty of evidence of the opposite occurring, i.e. the risks for
cyclists get worse as helmet wearing increases, and a whole host of possible explanations for this
counter-intuitive finding (notably the theory of "risk compensation", i.e. people take greater
risks when they believe they are "safe"😉.

* What evidence is there that there is any stronger case for promoting helmet wearing for
cyclists than for pedestrians and car occupants? One study found that this would save 12.5
times as many lives.

Much of the basis for the liddites' argument comes fro a study by Thompson, Rivara ad Thompson which
claimed 85% reductions in head injuries. This is still quoted, although the authors have repeatedly
revised their estimates downwards attempting to correct for flaws in their methodology.

Their figures also "prove" that helmets reduce lower body injuries by a similar amount. They must be
using whole-body helmets, which haven't quite made it over here yet...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a whole load of evidence.

Quoted message said:

Could you point me to this chart?

Here's a similar one from Kunich for the whole USA. British figures are pretty much the same.

magma.cakunich.htmlOpen ↗

and here's a bit of fuitehr analysis on the same data

furiosos.clMandatory%20helmets.docOpen ↗

The significance of children is that their behaviour is considered most likely to remain constant
over time.

Quoted message said:

Again "over a twenty year period". If cars and cyclists have (say) increased twofold then the same
number of casualties isn't a worse situation.

Wrong. First, if both decline together then clearly the helmet is irrelevant. Second, if gross
numbers of casualties decline it is usually down to reduced exposure: parents are now much less
likely to allow their children out on foot or on bikes. Mayer Hillman covers this in detail in "One
False Move."

To believe that helmets have an effect you must first believe that changes in cyclist behaviour or
numbers would have resulted in an increase in casualties,

Quoted message said:

Casualties = cuts+bruises, broken limbs, fatalities or head-injuries?

Doesn't make a lot of odds which yuo plot, but fatality figures are usually regarded as the most
accurate, followed by hospital stats. Even these have to be treated with care, as they can record
helmet / no helmet where the injury is completely unrelated (e.g. fell over loading bike onto car).

Quoted message said:

Well all I can say is that it's up to the individual. Call me chicken but I like to wear my
helmet. I don't like the heat/sweat/style of wearing one either but I don't see a choice.

Yes, it's up to the individual, and it's up to us as individuals to try to be as fully informed as
possible before making our choice - especially before we go advising others to follow that choice.
The body of evidence is large: if you can't see a choice you maybe need to look a bit harder ;-)

FWIW I used to think lids were a no-brainer as well. Hang around here long enough and you end up
finding out all sorts of stuff you never knew you didn't know...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Stairs will never be using mobile phones. Stairs aren't (for the most part) unpredictable. Stairs
will never try to speed up to make it through red lights. Stairs don't open doors on you without
looking in the rv- mirror.

You need to read the leaflet that came with your helmet. If you seriously expect a helmet to protect
you from careless motorists you are deluding yourself.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Well, I said that an earlier post would be my last post but...

Quoted message said:

I presume we are agreeing to disagree on the wearing, not on the level of risk.

Ah, yes.

Quoted message said:

Well -- I believe cycling is essentially safe. I accept there is a risk but I estimate it to be
acceptable -- obviously, otherwise I would not cycle. I estimate that the number of accidents
where a helmet would make a significant difference is small -- let's assume its10% of all
accidents -- which I suggest is a significant overestimate. (The vast majority of accidents do not
involve hitting ones head and a minority of accidents involve being hit with a large lump of metal
in such a way as the existance or otherwise of a helmet is immaterial.) So, you decide to wear a
helmet to protect youreslf from injury in 10% of a small number of accidents -- many do, fair
enough. I decide the difference is minor so go lidless.

Ok, well good luck to you and hope that we can both (all) enjoy our cycling as safely as possible.

Quoted message said:

See, we can agree.

: )

So we can! =o]

--
...meandering mule...

mule said:

I do say somewhere in one of my posts that I don't take risks beyond my capabilities as a rider.

How do you know this? Since risks beyond your capabilities include avoiding exactly the sort of
person you go on describe in your "stairs don't do this" points, then if that were *really* true
there would be no point in you wearing a helmet, QED.

Quoted message said:

Sorry if I sound patronising but I don't intend to be.

But in telling people it's a no-brainer, i.e., so obvious you don't even need functioning neurons to
come to that conclusion, by direct inference anyone who makes an informed choice otherwise is
effectively being called incredibly stupid. You may not *mean* to do that, but the implication is
there. And with all the evidence Guy is pointing you at you can hopefully now see for yourself that
it *isn't* a no-brainer.

And like Guy used to, and you do now, I used to think it too. But there again I used to believe that
Kendal Mint Cake was really nice: one has to revise one's opinions in the light of new (or at least
previously unread) evidence if maintaining any degree of intellectual credibility is on the agenda.

Quoted message said:

Stairs will never be using mobile phones. Stairs aren't (for the most part) unpredictable. Stairs
will never try to speed up to make it through red lights. Stairs don't open doors on you without
looking in the rv- mirror.

Yet despite this amazing numbers of people fall down them every year, some are killed, many are
seriously injured. In some cases it's head injuries that do most of the damage, so we have a
situation where wearing a helmet will quite possibly reduce your chances of getting killed going
downstairs. So if it's always a good idea to wear a lid in situations where it reduces your chance
of a serious injury at all, you should be wearing one on the stairs. Of course, most of us are happy
on stairs and don't feel any need. Though there is a danger, it isn't huge and it's entirely
possible a helmet might not help in any case. If this dismissal of a need to wear a helmet works for
stairs, it should work for cycling too. Cycling *is* reasonably safe (see
bmj.com1582Open ↗ for some informed comments and statistics on this if
you don't believe me), so it should follow the same arguments as stairs.

Quoted message said:

When you're out riding it's not simply a matter of avoiding static obstacles. You're not in total
control of what happens.

But nevertheless, cycling is reasonably safe whether or not you use a helmet. And it's also the case
that in a car you're not in total control, just as you outline for bikes. And in a bus, you're not
in any sort of control at all. So can we take it that you always wear supplementary head protection
in such vehicles? If not, why not? It was that very question that caused me to realise that cycle
helmets really are not a no-brainer, as I was clearly using different rationalisations for similar
circumstances. I wouldn't wear a helmet to drive or be a car passenger, so it shouldn't be the case
that I *must* obviously use one for cycling.

Quoted message said:

Anyway I can see that my arguments are futile so I guess I'll just do my own thing.

If you want to wear a helmet, as I often do, then be my guest: I have absolutely no problems with
you doing so. However, I do object to people declaring helmet use for general cycling is a
no-brainer when there is no clear evidence it is anything of the sort, and that declaration may
influence the possibility of compulsory helmet use in this country by spreading a "common sense"
misapprehension that helmets make cycling significantly safer, despite very good evidence that such
a move is truly counter-productive. Unfortunately it is the case that "just doing your own thing",
where that thing is spreading misinformed spin about helmet efficacy, is actually quite possibly
detrimental to public safety. As far as your own thing being wearing a helmet, no problem at all. As
I said, I often wear one myself.

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 ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stairs will never be using mobile phones. Stairs aren't (for the most part) unpredictable. Stairs
will never try to speed up to make it through red lights. Stairs don't open doors on you without
looking in the rv- mirror.

You need to read the leaflet that came with your helmet. If you seriously expect a helmet to
protect you from careless motorists you are deluding yourself.

Did I say that I had to be hit by a car?

I've been in a minor motorbike accident before where a car clipped the back wheel. I hit my head
(helmet) on the curb. It was at a slow speed but I don't want to think about what would have
happened had I not been wearing a helmet.

Like I said before, I guess we all have a choice.

Regarding the articles... Interesting and worth reading but you shouldn't always believe what you
read either.

"Early official studies claimed a success as head injuries declined significantly, but the studies
failed to take account of the large decrease in cycling brought about by the laws or the concurrent
trends in declining head injury across all road users."

At the same time I can point to the top chart and ask the same question: It doesn't indicate
whether the number of cyclists has actually increased, decreased or remained constant, so
meaningless surely?

--
...meandering mule...

big <snip>

Totally fair. I apologize for my "spin". I guess I am ignorant in that I don't see the need (for me
and only for me) to do any research. I suppose that I don't see the harm in wearing a helmet,
despite having read (okay, skimmed) the articles suggested by Guy.

Thanks for making me aware of the other side of the argument. For me it hasn't changed my mind but I
hope others are open-minded enough to take both into account and make their choice because it IS
worth doing so.

============
Also in answer to Guy's question earlier: "But would you have chickened out of other runs without a
helmet? That's the crucial question."

The answer is "no". I know what I can tackle when I see it. Sometimes I have an off-day where for
some reason I don't feel able to ride a certain part of a trail. On such days I go around that area
or carry my bike. It wouldn't make any difference if I was wearing a helmet or not.
============

--
...(stubborn) mule...

P.S. I intended "no brainer" as a casual remark, not to cause anyone offense. I would've thought
that THAT was a no-brainer in itself...

=oP

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stairs will never be using mobile phones. Stairs aren't (for the most part) unpredictable.
Stairs will never try to speed up to make it through red lights. Stairs don't open doors on you
without looking in the rv- mirror.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You need to read the leaflet that came with your helmet. If you seriously expect a helmet to
protect you from careless motorists you are deluding yourself.

Quoted message said:

Did I say that I had to be hit by a car?

No, to be fair you were alluding to any road user matching the following criteria:
- using mobile phone
- unpredictable
- try to speed up to make it through red lights
- open doors on you without looking in the rv- mirror.

So it is theoretically possible youcould have been talking about something else. Not quite sure
what, mind...

Quoted message said:

I've been in a minor motorbike accident before where a car clipped the back wheel. I hit my head
(helmet) on the curb.

Have you noticed the differences between motorcycle and bicycle helmets?

Quoted message said:

Regarding the articles... Interesting and worth reading but you shouldn't always believe what you
read either.

Esp[ecially not if it's written by Thompson, Rvara and Thompson ;-)

Quoted message said:

I can point to the top chart and ask the same question: It doesn't indicate whether the number of
cyclists has actually increased, decreased or remained constant, so meaningless surely?

Either there was a simultaneous and coincidentally precisely balancing effect, or the helmets
did nothing.

Occam's razor indicates the latter. Remember, this is only one of hundreds of similar studies.

The problem is that liddites always refer to the probability of injury given accident, whereas
lid-sceptics look at the probaility of injury overall.

Liddites also think lid-scpetics are anti-lid, but we're not, we just don't buy the grossly inflated
efficacy claims. Even the manufacturers don't. Their lawyers wouldn't let them make anything like
the claims liddites make.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Well, I said that an earlier post would be my last post but...

Quoted message said:

I presume we are agreeing to disagree on the wearing, not on the level of risk.

Ah, yes.

Quoted message said:

Well -- I believe cycling is essentially safe. I accept there is a risk but I estimate it to be
acceptable -- obviously, otherwise I would not cycle. I estimate that the number of accidents
where a helmet would make a significant difference is small -- let's assume its10% of all
accidents -- which I suggest is a significant overestimate. (The vast majority of accidents do
not involve hitting ones head and a minority of accidents involve being hit with a large lump of
metal in such a way as the existance or otherwise of a helmet is immaterial.) So, you decide to
wear a helmet to protect youreslf from injury in 10% of a small number of accidents -- many do,
fair enough. I decide the difference is minor so go lidless.

Ok, well good luck to you and hope that we can both (all) enjoy our cycling as safely as possible.

Quoted message said:

See, we can agree.

: )

So we can! =o]

The h*lm*t debate comes up all too frequently. Sadly, sloppy thinking by the uninformed (who have an
excuse) and by those who should know better (the Health & Safety Nazis and the medical profession
predominantly -- who don't) swallows whole the concept that helmets MUST be a good thing.

As I hope, given the information provided by Peter & Guy, you now appreciate their effect is at best
marginal -- they will help in a strictly limited set of circumstances. There is even some (disputed)
evidence that they can be harmful in other circumstances -- largely to do with increasing the
twisting force applied to the neck in the 'wrong sort' of fall.

Given that humanity is so successful -- in terms of being so numerous -- the protection that nature
has provided (i.e. one standard issue skull) has, by & large, been sufficient for all challenges
thrown at it. Of course, nature is more interested in the average than in the individual -- and,
like you, I would prefer not to test the protective capabilities of my particular skull too
thoroughly.

One reason I enjoy cycling is the freedom it provides -- freedom of movement, freedom to enjoy the
countryside and freedom to think. I hope the fitness benefits will also keep those freedoms
available to me for longer than if I slump into my chair and watch Eastenders.

Being forced, by legislation, insurance constraints or just the opprobrium of the great uninformed,
to wear a helmet would not eliminate those freedoms -- but it would reduce my freedoms.

I will continue to live dangerously and cycle bareheaded. Sunburn will continue to be the most
significant danger.

T

mule said:

The answer is "no". I know what I can tackle when I see it.

That is an *amazing* degree of certainty. I know what I'm willing to have a go at, but that isn't
the same thing. ISTM you are suffering from at least a little self delusion where it comes the
degree to which you are truly in control of events and risks. It is not the case that uncertainties
only arise when cars etc. piloted by others come into the equation.

Quoted message said:

have an off-day where for some reason I don't feel able to ride a certain part of a trail. On such
days I go around that area or carry my bike. It wouldn't make any difference if I was wearing a
helmet or not.

But there's no way to be sure, is one of the issues. You'd have to have a reproducible control of
your off-day, and that can't be done. You don't *think* it would, but that's not really the same
thing. You mustn't underestimate the human mind's ability to kid itself.

Quoted message said:

P.S. I intended "no brainer" as a casual remark, not to cause anyone offense. I would've thought
that THAT was a no-brainer in itself...

I didn't take any offense, as I could see none was intended. But I'm not the only person reading
that post, and I'm not having someone come up and tell me in the street in person that I'm showing a
bad example to kids because anyone can see it's common sense to wear a lid. That sort of thing
really can leave a bad taste, so I'm pointing out a risk of causing some offense, rather than
complaining I've been offended.

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 ↗

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The problem is that liddites always refer to the probability of injury given accident, whereas
lid-sceptics look at the probaility of injury overall.

Liddites also think lid-scpetics are anti-lid, but we're not, we just don't buy the grossly
inflated efficacy claims. Even the manufacturers don't. Their lawyers wouldn't let them make
anything like the claims liddites make.

I thought you were calling me a luddite.

Liddite didn't seem to exist at Dictionary.com - but I think I understand.

Liddite = someone that promotes use of a helmet regardless of whether contrary argument exists
stating that the use of a helmet does not necessarily decrease risk of a serious head trauma?

I know I may sound like one but I'm not a liddite. I've never preached it before (this occasion) and
won't again.

(=o]

--
...meandering mule...

Quoted message said:

The h*lm*t debate comes up all too frequently. Sadly, sloppy thinking by the uninformed (who
have an excuse) and by those who should know better (the Health & Safety Nazis and the
medical profession predominantly -- who don't) swallows whole the concept that helmets MUST
be a good thing.

As I hope, given the information provided by Peter & Guy, you now appreciate their effect is at
best marginal -- they will help in a strictly limited set of circumstances. There is even some
(disputed) evidence that they can be harmful in other circumstances -- largely to do with
increasing the twisting force applied to the neck in the 'wrong sort' of fall.

Given that humanity is so successful -- in terms of being so numerous -- the protection that
nature has provided (i.e. one standard issue skull) has, by & large, been sufficient for all
challenges thrown at
it. Of course, nature is more interested in the average than in the individual -- and, like you,
I would prefer not to test the protective capabilities of my particular skull too thoroughly.

One reason I enjoy cycling is the freedom it provides -- freedom of movement, freedom to enjoy the
countryside and freedom to think. I hope the fitness benefits will also keep those freedoms
available to me for longer than if I slump into my chair and watch Eastenders.

Being forced, by legislation, insurance constraints or just the opprobrium of the great
uninformed, to wear a helmet would not eliminate those freedoms -- but it would reduce my
freedoms.

I will continue to live dangerously and cycle bareheaded. Sunburn will continue to be the most
significant danger.

Nice post. Don't I know about legislation!

Within the motorcycling community there has been uproar regarding the ban of "dark visors". I won't
go into detail here but the main point is that motorcyclists should be given the freedom to choose
if and when to use them.

I certainly don't argue for making bicycle helmets compulsory.

--
...meandering mule...

mule said:

I certainly don't argue for making bicycle helmets compulsory.

Good for you, though do note there is a difference between saying, "you are free to choose, but
anyone can see it's common sense that you're daft not to", and, "you are free to choose". The first
position tends to lead to situations where one is pushed one way (even if only through peer pressure
and common practice) "for your own good", which is silly if such good is at best debateable.

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 ↗

mule said:

Quoted message said:

I've just spent an interesting hour or so reading through the debates on helmets which I think
are neatly summarised here greengas.u-net.comHelmetsByHillman.htmlOpen ↗
and here lesberries.co.ukeffectiveness.pdfOpen ↗

I don't believe in "risk compensation" myself.

Nobody themselves does that's why it happens.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

mule said:

Second: how do you come to the conclusion that the reduction in risk is that minor? Also if you
agree that there is even a minor reduction in risk, what makes you decide not to wear your helmet?
Discomfort, style, weight?

...If I was falling from my bike and knew that I would hit my head...and had the chance at that
moment "to wear" or "not to wear" a helmet I would definitely choose to wear it.

Thankfully I've never been in that sort of accident (and hope never to be in that situation).

Have you ever tripped over whilst walking and fallen to the ground? Were you wearing a helmet? Did
you feel later that you should have been?

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

mule said:

Quoted message said:

Then since a helmet will serve exactly the same function of protecting you in potentially
dangerous situations such as using staircases (check out domestic accident figures and find how
many people get injured falling downstairs...) then presumably you always wear a helmet on
stairs as well? If not, why not? *Exactly* the same arguments apply.

Stairs will never be using mobile phones. Stairs aren't (for the most part) unpredictable. Stairs
will never try to speed up to make it through red lights. Stairs don't open doors on you without
looking in the rv- mirror.

Once you exceed an accident potential of 12mph ( falling to the floor) all bets are off as far as
helmets are concerned.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The answer is "no". I know what I can tackle when I see it.

That is an *amazing* degree of certainty. I know what I'm willing to have a go at, but that isn't
the same thing. ISTM you are suffering from at least a little self delusion where it comes the
degree to which you are truly in control of events and risks. It is not the case that
uncertainties only arise when cars etc. piloted by others come into the equation.

Maybe it would have been better to word it differently. All I'm saying is that the decision to
tackle a certain part of a trail is never based on whether I'm wearing a helmet or not.

You make me sound like a control freak. I never guarantee myself an accident-free ride.

Quoted message said:

But there's no way to be sure, is one of the issues. You'd have to have a reproducible control of
your off-day, and that can't be done. You don't *think* it would, but that's not really the same
thing. You mustn't underestimate the human mind's ability to kid itself.

My "off days" are difficult to describe. Normally something along the lines of just not feeling as
confident (as usual) on my bike. Also sometimes the risks don't seem to be worth the rewards because
I'm not feeling that way.

I can't really deny that there is no way to be sure. All I can say is that I probably take more
risks than I should (off-road) because of the things that I don't do on the road. I do cycle on
roads but don't get the same satisfaction - maybe because I'm more frightened.

If you took my helmet away from me on my off-road rides (after a tough struggle and over my dead
body) I still think that I would tackle the same trail in the same way. Like you say though, I guess
it can't be measured.

Does any of this make sense?

--
...meandering mule...

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't believe in "risk compensation" myself.

Nobody themselves does that's why it happens.

That would make the basis of a good .sig :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Have you ever tripped over whilst walking and fallen to the ground? Were you wearing a helmet? Did
you feel later that you should have been?

Yes! Which is precisely why I wear one when I go cycling.

(=o]

--
...meandering mule...

P.S. This thread is more painful to me than landing on my head.

mule said:

Quoted message said:

Have you ever tripped over whilst walking and fallen to the ground? Were you wearing a helmet?
Did you feel later that you should have been?

Yes! Which is precisely why I wear one when I go cycling.

So, it's a "No- brainer" to wear a helmet at all times whilst walking?

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Liddite didn't seem to exist at Dictionary.com - but I think I understand.

I made it up as I went along :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗