I may have found a good reason for a bike helmet!

md6 wrote:

a.jumper wrote:

Not definitive, but when I'm a pedestrian, I get more wing mirrors passing me than when I'm on a bike, plus the mirrors pass at greater relative speed. This is obvious because I'm moving about 10mph faster when riding.

Do you walk in the road a lot then? Because when i am a pedestrian there are lots more wingmorrors passing me, but they are generally MUCH further away. So far away in fact that its a non issue 99.95%* of the time. Its only when i am waiting to cross the road that they are awaywhere near me, and even then unless I'm stood right on the edge of the curb they are still an additional 18 to 24+ inches further away than they would be on the bike.

Yeah, I live in a village so I walk in the road every time I want to walk anywhere from home. My previous home had an off-road footpath to its front door, but at one end was a roadside pavement that was parked on and the other was a road out of the village which had no pavements. I suspect most roads in this country now are either rural roads with no pavement or urban roads where the pavements can't be used because of parked cars. Those who are fortunate enough to be both outside London (where I understand they're tougher on parking) and able to walk their entire journey on footpaths are rare freaks.

And that's before I start on my pet hate of the number of tyre tracks along the only pavement in the village, alongside the main road: many drivers won't wait behind a right-turning vehicle and simply drive along the pavement a bit. If you're walking there, it doesn't matter, they expect you to get out of the way. Unsurprisingly, relatively few people walk in such a hostile environment.

Quote:

Re helmets, if you want to wear one do, applying the same logic to pedestrians and cyclists is, in my opinion, stretching the logic used to an absurd point. But i guess thats the intention. Make a decision based on the risk you percieve, your acceptance of that risk and the knowledge that a helmet is likely to lessen the severity of any impact to your head, how much difference that will make is again up to you to decide.

Even better, make a decision based on the measured risks and the knowledge that it's still unproven that helmets will "lessen the severity of any impact to your head" - they help in 0mph falls from the bike onto a flat surface or a kerb (not even onto a stone unless you've got the better Snell-standard helmet), but many have stickers in them saying they're not designs for car crashes, hitting spiky objects and so on, while there are also accusations that they may concussion and strangulation more likely.

I don't wear dayglo and helmets for walking or cycling, except for extreme conditions. They're almost irrelevant. It would do far more good to stop motor traffic running riot.

Paul J wrote:

fukawitribe: It's not fallacious. I'm taking the precise logic that commentators have used ("your life was just saved by a helmet, and you're still saying they're a daft idea?", "it's better than nothing", "without a helmet you'd almost certainly have [medical details]. … I'd be shopping for a replacement lid.", etc., etc.) and am simply applying it in another context, where the only difference is "pedestrian" instead of "cyclist". If it is fallacious to draw the same conclusion, then *bingo* - you've got the point!

..but I don't agree with the over extension of their claims either, I never said I did. That the helmet may have made a difference here, I think is not unreasonable here assuming the damage on the helmet was all caused by the strike, i.e. energy was adsorbed by the helmet. It was that over-extension that I objected to, the presumption that the one anecdote would prove the rule, that fallacy - perhaps I should have equally gone after those over-eager to promote the miracles of helmets.. but that jobs seemed to have been done already in this case.

Paul J wrote:

The question then is *why* is it fallacious? The only possibilities are that there is some significant difference between "pedestrian" and "cyclist" that makes it an error to swap one for the other, or otherwise that the logic is simply inherently flawed. If the logic is flawed, then it must be flawed for *both* cyclist and pedestrian!

Firstly, the fallacy i'm alluding to is the extrapolation from one incident, even given the injury rates of each group - a cyclist is hit with a wing mirror, a pedestrian is hit with a wing mirror therefore the risk of being hit by a wing mirror is the same or similar in both groups (and hence, the group supporting helmet wearing should argue for both). If the risk were not similar, you could not reasonably expect the group to make a similar risk assessment and e.g. argue for helmets in both cases.

I'm was also maintaining there is a significant difference the cyclist and the pedestrian. My logic was along the lines of - consider the environment in which they are normally to be found, viz the road vs the pavement, consider the average speed of both, the nearness of other vehicles travelling at speed close to them, even the average height of the head above the ground. What I am *guessing* is that the chance of head injury, in particular caused by a wing mirror, is higher, and of a more profound effect, in one environment than the other. That may not actually be as realistic as I thought in general, more on that later...

Paul J wrote:

You say the error is that the cyclist, in the specific case of wing mirror strikes, is more exposed to this risk than a pedestrian. Though, I don't know how we could evaluate this as I doubt statistics are kept on the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists hit by wing mirrors.

True, but unfortunately incredibly relevant as that is the only thing I was really objecting to. My supposition was based in part on the relative number of wing mirrors that might be found on the pavement and on the road, and an estimate of their average velocity relative to cyclist and pedestrian and an estimate of the proportion of pedestrians within a wing mirrors distance from the edge of the road.... i'm sure you can see where I was going with that (even though completely unproven, statistically)

Paul J wrote:

Statistics are available for head injuries admissions though and, AFAIK, though there are some small differences, there isn't a large difference in risk of head injury overall between the two groups[1].

That's very interesting, as are the conclusions, thank you for the link. What I can't find there, however, is the incident rate (e.g. head injury per group per mile or journey) which is directly related to my point about proportional risk (what risk per mile / journey of the injury) - that's what i'm looking at now. The conclusion was also a tad over-reaching for my liking, at least without further qualification, but pertinent to the wider debate perhaps..

Assuming that the difference between cyclists and pedestrians (3.6%) is attributable to helmet wearing, and with helmet wearing having increased by 5.8%, we estimate that helmets prevent 60% (3.6/5.8) of serious head injuries. An estimated efficacy of 60% is very consistent with that of 63%–88% obtained from case-control studies of cycle helmet efficacy. As evidence continues to mount, and consistency emerges between different study designs, the position of the sceptics becomes increasingly untenable.

That said, I had no idea that the rate of pedestrian head injury was so high, so learnt something there, tah.

Paul J wrote:

Increased use of helmets may have lead to a small decrease in rates in cyclists though, however the decreases in head injury tend to be accompanied by increases in other injuries[2]. It is not clear that helmets actually make cycling safer, indeed there is evidence the reverse may be true - KSI rates have not decreased amongst cyclists in the UK appreciably, and KSI rates in AU and NZ increased after helmet laws. All these high-helmet-use countries have significantly worse safety than low-helmet-use/high-cycling-rate countries like NL.

Agreed.

Paul J wrote:

So here's the fallacy: If you argue that helmets make a difference to head injuries, and "every little helps", then, presuming you accept the evidence that pedestrians face quite similar risks, you *must* also argue that pedestrians should wear them.

As above, I don't agree the risks are similar, so I would maintain it is not a fallacy. I'm open to persuasion though, which is why i'm looking more closely at the figures following your comments.

Paul J wrote:

I just don't understand people who try claim that "every little helps" and hence cyclists - and *ONLY CYCLISTS* - should wear helmets when on the road. I'd love to hear them explain their logic, or show *evidence* as to how the general cyclist faces different risks to pedestrians to justify the different safety approach (and merely speculating that cyclists might face some risk that pedestrians doesn't cut it, given we have actual statistics).

Fair point, although personally i've not - and never had - argued for helmets for cyclists. I am guilty of not checking the statistics closely enough however.

Paul J wrote:

Otherwise, it just seems hypocritical and perhaps part of the UK's "single out the cyclist" culture (usually for hate) that's so ingrained, even the cyclists themselves propagate it! Even if that is unintentional on the part of the commentator here, and they are well-meaning. Perhaps it's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome?

cisgil23 wrote:

In France they reduced the number of deaths from road accidents by starting to only count those deaths resulting from an accident in the first 15 days following the accident, and not a month, as had been done previously.
Statistics !

Hmm, in France they've also started banning people from driving if they're caught over the limit for alcohol as well as penalising those who speed. In the past, the French authorities rarely bothered to pursue all but the most dangerous offences as drivers could appeal and have most charges dropped.

The fatality rate on French roads dropped by 23% in four years of the system being changed. No, it's not about how the numbers are counted. It's about how the French police actually take traffic safety seriously these days. Jacques Chirac for all his many faults has left one lasting positive legacy and that is because family members of his died in car crashes. He vowed to improve French road safety and the policies were continued after he left office.

movingtarget wrote:

Statistics are merely numbers. There can be many different reason why road fatalities have decreased that have nothing to do with the relative safety or lack of safety on the road for vulnerable road users. If fewer people ride dangerous/poorly laid out/low visibility roads, the accident and fatality numbers will decrease simply based on decreased potential for interaction, ie there are fewer highway fatalities for cyclists and pedestrians than city streets which mathematically makes sense because if you're not allowed to be on a highway without motorized transport (most interstate freeways and state highways in the US make it illegal to use them as a pedestrian and some include bikes too), the possibility of a non-vehicular accident is minimized. Does this mean freeways and highways are safer for bikes/peds than city streets? Unlikely.

I used to cycle on a very busy high speed route near where I grew up. Looking back, I was stupid but then I was young and didn't appreciate the risk. I take a similarly busy route to my current place of work and though the distance (16 miles) isn't so much, that busy road and the lack of a direct alternative means I use my motorbike for the commute instead. I do pass a couple of roadies regularly on the way to and from work and I think they're nuts for cycling along such a busy highway.

It's all about perceived risk.

The death rate is lower now than it was on the UK network in the 1970s and when I was riding along some of those busy routes, which had fewer cycling facilities. But people didn't think about the risks back then.

Paul J wrote:

fukawitribe,

There are numerous comments in this thread effectively saying this kind of accident shows why you should, oops *cough*, the commentators would wear a helmet, even if couched in "I wouldn't force others". A direct quote: "every little helps".

If asking people to apply the *exact same logic* to accidents involving pedestrians getting head injuries is being a knob, then I'm proud to be a knob. If every little helps, I trust these same commentators are also wearing helmets when walking? If not, then *why not*?

Proportional risk. Get a grip. If you want me to spell it out to you I will, but surely you can get the basics yourself.

fukawitribe wrote:

Proportional risk. Get a grip. If you want me to spell it out to you I will, but surely you can get the basics yourself.

Please spell it out for me. As far as I am aware the risk of head injuries for pedestrians and car users is not much different to the risk for cyclists. The risk is not very different in proportions.

felixcat wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Proportional risk. Get a grip. If you want me to spell it out to you I will, but surely you can get the basics yourself.

Please spell it out for me. As far as I am aware the risk of head injuries for pedestrians and car users is not much different to the risk for cyclists. The risk is not very different in proportions.

Here's a start. The case is being hit in the back of the head with a wing mirror. More cyclists will find themselves in a traffic flow than pedestrians, other vehicles may be travelling faster than the cyclist, the cyclist is often alongside the other vehicles. More ?

fukawitribe wrote:

felixcat wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Proportional risk. Get a grip. If you want me to spell it out to you I will, but surely you can get the basics yourself.

Please spell it out for me. As far as I am aware the risk of head injuries for pedestrians and car users is not much different to the risk for cyclists. The risk is not very different in proportions.

Here's a start. The case is being hit in the back of the head with a wing mirror. More cyclists will find themselves in a traffic flow than pedestrians, other vehicles may be travelling faster than the cyclist, the cyclist is often alongside the other vehicles. More ?

The particular cause of head injury is obviously different in different modes of transport. Cyclists don't often smash their heads into the windscreen for instance. The overall rates of head injury from all causes are what are important if we want to assess the usefulness of a helmet in different modes. These are not significantly different.
Yes, more please.

felixcat wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

The case is being hit in the back of the head with a wing mirror. More cyclists will find themselves in a traffic flow than pedestrians, other vehicles may be travelling faster than the cyclist, the cyclist is often alongside the other vehicles. More ?

The particular cause of head injury is obviously different in different modes of transport. Cyclists don't often smash their heads into the windscreen for instance. The overall rates of head injury from all causes are what are important if we want to assess the usefulness of a helmet in different modes. These are not significantly different.
Yes, more please.

The point I was objecting to was was the extrapolation from 'people here seem to think the helmet helped' plus 'I know someone who got hit in the head as a pedestrian by a wing mirror' to 'that first group will surely argue pedestrians need helmets'. That's fallacious and I don't personally agree with the conclusion. As for the more general risk assessment, i'm not really in disagreement with you in general - but the original statement by PaulJ came across as antagonistic nonsense.

Paul J wrote:

A friend of mine had something similar happen. They were hit by the wing mirror of a Dublin bus. Though the mirror can move a bit, it was fairly rigidly mounted. He had to go hospital and suffered from a concussion for a couple of days.

Thing is, this happened to him as he was waiting at a bus stop, as a pedestrian. The bus had pulled in toward the kerb to stop at the next stop, perhaps 20 metres further down. He was looking away, and he got clattered on the back of the head.

All those commentators here who are so eager to draw the conclusion from the cyclist's story here that helmets should be worn, will they also conclude that pedestrians should wear helmets? I'm pretty sure that whatever efficacy helmets have for cyclists, they must equally apply to pedestrians who get knocked on the head. So, by the logic of many commenting here, they surely ought to also be calling for pedestrian helmets?

[[[[[ Spot on, squire!
P.R.

Paul J wrote:

All those commentators here who are so eager to draw the conclusion from the cyclist's story here that helmets should be worn, will they also conclude that pedestrians should wear helmets? I'm pretty sure that whatever efficacy helmets have for cyclists, they must equally apply to pedestrians who get knocked on the head. So, by the logic of many commenting here, they surely ought to also be calling for pedestrian helmets?

Sorry - edited. Lets keep it simple. No, they surely won't be calling for that and it's a logical fallacy you're using. Don't be a knob please.

"logical fallacy" - a fallacy is either a mistaken belief or in a case like this a failure in the reasoning or logic of an argument. That being the case "logical fallacy" doesn't quite make sense.

Then neither does calling anyone a knob!

Another article on here today involves an apology for calling someone a knob.

I may or may not agree with what people say but there is no need to insult them for what they say, is there?

shay cycles wrote:

"logical fallacy" - a fallacy is either a mistaken belief or in a case like this a failure in the reasoning or logic of an argument. That being the case "logical fallacy" doesn't quite make sense.

Please look up 'logical fallacy', it's not hard and there should be numerous links to examples of it that may indicate why I thought it applicable here.

shay cycles wrote:

Then neither does calling anyone a knob!

Another article on here today involves an apology for calling someone a knob.

I may or may not agree with what people say but there is no need to insult them for what they say, is there?

Fair point - but i'd grown tired of nonsense parading as logic, perhaps i'm just a grumpy old fuck but it gets wearing.

Good news they are looking into it properly

pakennedy wrote:

Just had a phone call from the police. They stopped a drunk driver a few miles away. Damage is consistent with my incident. They've called in the lady who was driving in the opposite direction for an identity parade she didn't get a good look at the driver either.

They are coming to pick up my bike and what I was wearing for scientific services to look at too. The white paint on my pedal and possible bits of mirror in my clothing could be useful.

If it is your guy then it looks like his day has just gone from bad to worse for been drunk as well, which probably will cause him more difficulty even he had taken u out completely (again assuming it is the same person) at least the old bill took it seriously (probably the fact another car was damaged really!!) but either way glad it worked out ok for u (well technically!) I believe the helmet certainly made a serious difference in how you are now.
Good health to getting back on the bike

movingtarget wrote:

Concussion effects can linger (headaches, dizziness, probs concentrating) and I'm assuming A&E gave you a list of warning signs to come back in for but hopefully you'll be back in the bike soon.

Absolutely.

Don't underestimate how long those effects can hang around, or even reappear.

pakennedy wrote:

My blood pressure was also really low which is odd for me since I can usually be used as a demonstration of text book normal.

That would be shock, your body does that.