Cycle helmet saved my life!

mike the bike wrote:

 

It's so refreshing to see the usual stereotypes rising to the surface when a completely new topic of conversation is introduced.  All the more so when it's time to talk about helmets, a subject none of us has ever encountered before.  Not ever.  Never.  No really, never.  I'm all ears.

What's your comment bringing to the debate?

drosco wrote:

Maybe the whole point of the post was that statistics aside, here's a practical example of a helmet saving someone from greater injury? No?

Greater in the sense of minor brusiing and abrations plus a headache maybe so but nothing more, but even then how do we know this as an absolute?

How about the head not even hitting the ground at all without the helmet (due to the extra circumference we know that head strikes are far more likely wearing them), how about as described those taking the greater risks simply because they are wearing a 'safety' device and if they weren't they wouldn't thus the incident not happening at all?

These are precisely why, along with the very meagre protection in reducing forces in best lab controlled circumstances as to why helmets are a massive failure and detrimental to cycling as a whole.

Bunch riding is no fun anymore, the risks riders take are ridiculous, the amount of crashing the pros and amateurs do is at a whole new level since the popularity of cycle helmets.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

drosco wrote:

Maybe the whole point of the post was that statistics aside, here's a practical example of a helmet saving someone from greater injury? No?

Greater in the sense of minor brusiing and abrations plus a headache maybe so but nothing more, but even then how do we know this as an absolute?

How about the head not even hitting the ground at all without the helmet (due to the extra circumference we know that head strikes are far more likely wearing them), how about as described those taking the greater risks simply because they are wearing a 'safety' device and if they weren't they wouldn't thus the incident not happening at all?

These are precisely why, along with the very meagre protection in reducing forces in best lab controlled circumstances as to why helmets are a massive failure and detrimental to cycling as a whole.

Bunch riding is no fun anymore, the risks riders take are ridiculous, the amount of crashing the pros and amateurs do is at a whole new level since the popularity of cycle helmets.

Minor bruising.. classic. I went into the edge of a car door at speed, I was in A+E for an entire day and underwent two cat scans. Your meagre protection just wasn't borne out in the real world, as was the guy above's. Don't wear one, fine, but I'll forever be grateful I was.

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

drosco wrote:

Maybe the whole point of the post was that statistics aside, here's a practical example of a helmet saving someone from greater injury? No?

Greater in the sense of minor brusiing and abrations plus a headache maybe so but nothing more, but even then how do we know this as an absolute?

How about the head not even hitting the ground at all without the helmet (due to the extra circumference we know that head strikes are far more likely wearing them), how about as described those taking the greater risks simply because they are wearing a 'safety' device and if they weren't they wouldn't thus the incident not happening at all?

These are precisely why, along with the very meagre protection in reducing forces in best lab controlled circumstances as to why helmets are a massive failure and detrimental to cycling as a whole.

Have to pick you up here as you are completely wrong. I can assure you my head smashed extremely hard onto the road. Being the person in it at the time I can most certainly assure you that the outcome would have been very much worse without a lid. I will give that I was indulging in risky behaviour which I would not have done without protection. In my defence this was a race on closed roads and up until the crash I was competitive for position.

You still can't know 100% what the outcome would have being without a helmet though however hard you hit your head, how can you know if the extra weight and circumference did not have any bearing, how can you know how much of the impact was absorbed by the helmet before it failed? 50, 60, 70 joules, how many joules was the total amount, how much of that was actually withstood by your skull (which WILL save your life). That is the problem, you cannot measure these things with any certainty except for statistics and the stats are pretty clear that helmets simply do not prevent serious head injury nor prevent death/TBI.

Despite you being in a race, something that was going on a 100 years before and more without helmets, the impact (parden the pun) that cycle helmets have had on the racing/fast leisure cycling fraternity in terms of increased numbers of crashes is down to one thing and that is the security that helmets impart onto people who ride. that's depsite better bikes, better brakes, better tyres etc.

If you've being in the game long enough you will have noticed how there are far more crashes than ever, far more injuries of all body parts than ever including the head. Those in racing/doing fast leisure riding are the ones who would benefit most from having helmets banned.

statistically this is valid.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

drosco wrote:

Maybe the whole point of the post was that statistics aside, here's a practical example of a helmet saving someone from greater injury? No?

Greater in the sense of minor brusiing and abrations plus a headache maybe so but nothing more, but even then how do we know this as an absolute?

How about the head not even hitting the ground at all without the helmet (due to the extra circumference we know that head strikes are far more likely wearing them), how about as described those taking the greater risks simply because they are wearing a 'safety' device and if they weren't they wouldn't thus the incident not happening at all?

These are precisely why, along with the very meagre protection in reducing forces in best lab controlled circumstances as to why helmets are a massive failure and detrimental to cycling as a whole.

Have to pick you up here as you are completely wrong. I can assure you my head smashed extremely hard onto the road. Being the person in it at the time I can most certainly assure you that the outcome would have been very much worse without a lid. I will give that I was indulging in risky behaviour which I would not have done without protection. In my defence this was a race on closed roads and up until the crash I was competitive for position.

You still can't know 100% what the outcome would have being without a helmet though however hard you hit your head, how can you know if the extra weight and circumference did not have any bearing, how can you know how much of the impact was absorbed by the helmet

Correct, we will never know 100% BUT try this and let us all know the outcome. Sit on a concrete floor, legs out in front. Put a cycle helmet on. Now simply fall backwards allowing your head to hit the floor. Remove helmet and repeat. Let us know which one hurt the most. Now repeat this again only this time on a stone chip road surface. Let us know which method resulted in the most blood. I think then we will all have some idea of the protection offered by a helmet or not.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To wear a helmet or not is easy:
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one.

If you don't want to wear one, don't. Just be sure to tell your family that the possibility exists that you will be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.

And enjoy your feeding tube.

I presume you and your family wear helmets for walking and getting into a motor vehicle or you're a massive hypocrite?

[/quote]

I presume you and your family wear helmets for walking and getting into a motor vehicle or you're a massive hypocrite?

[/quote]

I would hazard a guess that he does not do either of these activities at 30mph on the highway.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I presume you and your family wear helmets for walking and getting into a motor vehicle or you're a massive hypocrite?

You really don't understand relative risk.

Rich_cb wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I presume you and your family wear helmets for walking and getting into a motor vehicle or you're a massive hypocrite?

You really don't understand relative risk.

What is the 'relative risk' then? If you understand it so well, can you give figures?

Give the figures for how much 'not wearing a helmet' on a bike ride increases the risk of serious injury or death for someone, vs how much 'choosing to drive a journey you could walk or cycle' does, for example (including the health impact of the pollution, as well as the collision risk and cardiovascular effects).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

What is the 'relative risk' then? If you understand it so well, can you give figures?

Give the figures for how much 'not wearing a helmet' on a bike ride increases the risk of serious injury or death for someone, vs how much 'choosing to drive a journey you could walk or cycle' does, for example (including the health impact of the pollution, as well as the collision risk and cardiovascular effects).

It depends if you want to look at the risk of death/injury per mile travelled, per travel time or per journey.

Per mile cycling is slightly safer than walking but per journey and per hour it is far more dangerous.

Relative risk of death per mile for cyclists Vs pedestrians is about 0.8.

Per journey it's about 4.25.

Per hour it's about 2.5.

I think the per hour rate is the best comparator, going out for an hour long ride is 2.5 times more risky than a walk of equivalent duration.

Taking all risks into consideration cycling regularly is much safer than driving or walking with an all cause mortality risk of 0.59.

Transport figures are from the DfT and available on their website. Overall mortality figures are from recent BMJ article (reported on this site).

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

What is the 'relative risk' then? If you understand it so well, can you give figures?

Give the figures for how much 'not wearing a helmet' on a bike ride increases the risk of serious injury or death for someone, vs how much 'choosing to drive a journey you could walk or cycle' does, for example (including the health impact of the pollution, as well as the collision risk and cardiovascular effects).

It depends if you want to look at the risk of death/injury per mile travelled, per travel time or per journey.

Per mile cycling is slightly safer than walking but per journey and per hour it is far more dangerous.

Relative risk of death per mile for cyclists Vs pedestrians is about 0.8.

Per journey it's about 4.25.

Per hour it's about 2.5.

I think the per hour rate is the best comparator, going out for an hour long ride is 2.5 times more risky than a walk of equivalent duration.

Taking all risks into consideration cycling regularly is much safer than driving or walking with an all cause mortality risk of 0.59.

Transport figures are from the DfT and available on their website. Overall mortality figures are from recent BMJ article (reported on this site).

Er...that doesn't in any way answer the question I asked! Maybe read the question again?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Er...that doesn't in any way answer the question I asked! Maybe read the question again?

My original post about risk was in reply to Behindthebikesheds. Those DfT stats are relevant to that post.

Your next question asked something completely different.

There isn't, AFAIK, any reliable relative risk data available for cycling with a helmet Vs without.

The best data to respond to your question is the overall mortality data as that gives a relative risk for regular cycling Vs regular driving.

On any individual journey the variables are far too complex to work out a specific relative risk.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Er...that doesn't in any way answer the question I asked! Maybe read the question again?

My original post about risk was in reply to Behindthebikesheds. Those DfT stats are relevant to that post.

Your next question asked something completely different.

There isn't, AFAIK, any reliable relative risk data available for cycling with a helmet Vs without.

The best data to respond to your question is the overall mortality data as that gives a relative risk for regular cycling Vs regular driving.

On any individual journey the variables are far too complex to work out a specific relative risk.

I disagree that the question is 'completely different'. It's directly relevant to your response to BtB. Stats about the overall risk of cycling and other modes don't say anything about the 'relative risk' that was your retort to BtB. What matters is the effect on that risk of wearing a helmet or not.

If one is going to go on about the increased risk from cycling without a helmet as opposed to with one, one should apply equal fervour to the increased risks that result from all other sorts of choices, including the choice to drive a car at all. And one should at least be able to quantify what that increased risk is, compared to all those other risks.

(I realise you can't, because it's too difficult for anyone to work that out, but that's why your 'relative risk' response doesn't really work)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I disagree that the question is 'completely different'. It's directly relevant to your response to BtB. Stats about the overall risk of cycling and other modes don't say anything about the 'relative risk' that was your retort to BtB. What matters is the effect on that risk of wearing a helmet or not.

If one is going to go on about the increased risk from cycling without a helmet as opposed to with one, one should apply equal fervour to the increased risks that result from all other sorts of choices, including the choice to drive a car at all. And one should at least be able to quantify what that increased risk is, compared to all those other risks.

(I realise you can't, because it's too difficult for anyone to work that out, but that's why your 'relative risk' response doesn't really work)

Behindthebikesheds stated that it was hypocritical to advocate helmet use for cycling but not while driving or walking.

The relevant relative risk in that case was between cycling and walking/driving.

If the relative risk is different (which it is) then it isn't hypocritical to advocate helmet use for the riskier activity whilst not advocating it for the less risky activity.

Your other question then asked about the relative risks of helmet use Vs non helmet use in the context of both pollution and exercise on an individual journey basis.

That is obviously a completely different, and far more complex, question.

I gave the best data available in response.

I haven't at any point mentioned the increased risk of cycling with a helmet Vs without.

I was merely pointing out that Behindthebikesheds was wrong in his accusation of hypocrisy.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Er...that doesn't in any way answer the question I asked! Maybe read the question again?

My original post about risk was in reply to Behindthebikesheds. Those DfT stats are relevant to that post. Your next question asked something completely different. There isn't, AFAIK, any reliable relative risk data available for cycling with a helmet Vs without. The best data to respond to your question is the overall mortality data as that gives a relative risk for regular cycling Vs regular driving. On any individual journey the variables are far too complex to work out a specific relative risk.

I disagree that the question is 'completely different'. It's directly relevant to your response to BtB. Stats about the overall risk of cycling and other modes don't say anything about the 'relative risk' that was your retort to BtB. What matters is the effect on that risk of wearing a helmet or not. If one is going to go on about the increased risk from cycling without a helmet as opposed to with one, one should apply equal fervour to the increased risks that result from all other sorts of choices, including the choice to drive a car at all. And one should at least be able to quantify what that increased risk is, compared to all those other risks. (I realise you can't, because it's too difficult for anyone to work that out, but that's why your 'relative risk' response doesn't really work)

I think you're being a bit harsh here. Rich's response to BTBS was to provide some stats to show why, for example, sombody might wear a helmet cycling but not whilst walking. It directly addressed (at least part of) the point. In the context of helmet debates, that was a pretty good standard of response. 

I realise arguing on forums about helmets is a mug's game as people's views are so entrenched, but you have to concede when somebody has responded with a reasonable point .

As for yours; it's a valid point but nobody can prove the risk of cycling with a helmet as opposed to cycling without one - generally because a) no live crash test dummies exist to compare injuries in a controlled environment and b) reviewing population data usually results in erroneous and unreliable conclusions of cause and effect. 

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

What is the 'relative risk' then? If you understand it so well, can you give figures? Give the figures for how much 'not wearing a helmet' on a bike ride increases the risk of serious injury or death for someone, vs how much 'choosing to drive a journey you could walk or cycle' does, for example (including the health impact of the pollution, as well as the collision risk and cardiovascular effects).

It depends if you want to look at the risk of death/injury per mile travelled, per travel time or per journey. Per mile cycling is slightly safer than walking but per journey and per hour it is far more dangerous. Relative risk of death per mile for cyclists Vs pedestrians is about 0.8. Per journey it's about 4.25. Per hour it's about 2.5. I think the per hour rate is the best comparator, going out for an hour long ride is 2.5 times more risky than a walk of equivalent duration. Taking all risks into consideration cycling regularly is much safer than driving or walking with an all cause mortality risk of 0.59. Transport figures are from the DfT and available on their website. Overall mortality figures are from recent BMJ article (reported on this site).

Talk about cherry picking your stats, stick with the one that is used to represent all modes by the DfT.

Also what figures are you using, you're using deaths as a whole, not head injury only deaths aren't you in which case play the game properly and compare head injury only deaths, and those that are within the scope of a cycle helmet testing otherwise it's pure guesswork then right?

it's all too easy to use stats to prove your point but if helmets supposedly save so many lives so regularly why was this not reflected in the cycling death statistics previously, why has cycling serious injuries gone up with more helmet wearing in the UK? Why was this apparent in other countries like Australia and NZ?

As i said, risk has being proven to be greater by helmet wearers in plenty of studies but crack on with your bogus use of stats.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Talk about cherry picking your stats, stick with the one that is used to represent all modes by the DfT.

Also what figures are you using, you're using deaths as a whole, not head injury only deaths aren't you in which case play the game properly and compare head injury only deaths, and those that are within the scope of a cycle helmet testing otherwise it's pure guesswork then right?

it's all too easy to use stats to prove your point but if helmets supposedly save so many lives so regularly why was this not reflected in the cycling death statistics previously, why has cycling serious injuries gone up with more helmet wearing in the UK? Why was this apparent in other countries like Australia and NZ?

As i said, risk has being proven to be greater by helmet wearers in plenty of studies but crack on with your bogus use of stats.

The KSI rate has gone down in the UK.

I think you're getting confused between absolute rates and relative rates again.

The 10 years with the lowest KSI rates per mile cycled have all occurred since the year 2000.

The downward trend is remarkable.

Do you believe that helmet use has increased over that period?

If so doesn't that destroy your theory about helmet use and ksi rates rising together?

I don't know of any data that records head injury type sustained. Do you? If so please link to it. Please also link to your data showing helmet use increasing the risk of KSI.

Link to KSI data:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06224/SN06224.pdf

Rich_cb wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I presume you and your family wear helmets for walking and getting into a motor vehicle or you're a massive hypocrite?

You really don't understand relative risk.

More than you do sonshine given your inept response/s

I suppose a noddy hat wearing type like yourself is incapable of rational thought, I don't even pity people like that, i hate them because simply put, 'believers' and fact ignoring types like yourself have proven to be a danger not only to yourselves but others and detrimental to cycling as a whole. Way to fucking go!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

More than you do sonshine given your inept response/s

I suppose a noddy hat wearing type like yourself is incapable of rational thought, I don't even pity people like that, i hate them because simply put, 'believers' and fact ignoring types like yourself have proven to be a danger not only to yourselves but others and detrimental to cycling as a whole. Way to fucking go!

The fact you've had to respond with insults indicates the depth of your understanding.

Most of your posts on this topic demonstrate a complete inability to understand or interpret basic statistics.

Ignorance is clearly bliss in your case.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To wear a helmet or not is easy:
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one.

If you don't want to wear one, don't. Just be sure to tell your family that the possibility exists that you will be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.

And enjoy your feeding tube.

You are currently a massive intellectual and logical burden on the Web.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To wear a helmet or not is easy:
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one.

If you don't want to wear one, don't. Just be sure to tell your family that the possibility exists that you will be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.

And enjoy your feeding tube.

Wearing a helmet when riding a bike doesn't ensure that you will never 'be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.'

It might reduce that risk very, very slightly, but with an attitude that suggests the helmet will save you from any brain injury then I suspect it would increase the risk very significantly.

Podc wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To wear a helmet or not is easy:
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one.

If you don't want to wear one, don't. Just be sure to tell your family that the possibility exists that you will be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.

And enjoy your feeding tube.

 

Wearing a helmet when riding a bike doesn't ensure that you will never 'be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.'

It might reduce that risk very, very slightly, but with an attitude that suggests the helmet will save you from any brain injury then I suspect it would increase the risk very significantly.

Yes this. It's ridiculous to say that you won't suffer brain injury wearing a helmet. Schumacher wore one skiing after all ?

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

To wear a helmet or not is easy:
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one.

If you don't want to wear one, don't. Just be sure to tell your family that the possibility exists that you will be a financial and emotional burden on them, possibly for decades.

And enjoy your feeding tube.

Oh dear, another one who thinks helmets have magic powers. Worrying.