[simonmb]

A balanced report; worth a watch: The Guardian – Should you wear a bike helmet?

 

Topic

[45 South]

The video is an interesting

The video is an interesting watch. It’s good to see a journalist attempting to present a balanced view of a subject (any subject).

However, the argument against compulsory helmet laws as presented is backed up by some pretty unconvincing science. 

Firstly, Dr Harry Rutter states that compulsory helmet laws “probably reduces the amount of cycling”. The word probably is the key here. Probably makes it an assumption, anecdata at best. His assertions are based on studies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand after the introduction of helmet laws, but the data presented in the film in relation to these countries only relates to cycling injuries, not any increase or decrease in the uptake of cycling, the reasons for which are a different and much more complex subject given that they deal with the many factors surrounding the perception of risk in relation to cycling, of which helmet wearing is only one.

The film provides no data indicating that compulsory helmet laws reduce the uptake of cycling, nor does it reference any study that suggests, let alone proves this. 

Secondly, we get to Ian Walker’s study of risk compensation. This falls firmly into the category of further study needed. It’s undoubtedly interesting that test subjects took more risks when performing a gambling task in a lab environment while wearing a helmet, but how this relates to real world scenarios is something that the study can only speculate on. 

Furthermore, the study suggests that the wearing of protective equipment causes cyclists to take more risks, to act in a way that is above their normal baseline assessment of acceptable risk as it were. However, it’s unclear whether the test subjects were habituated to wearing the safety equipment provided. 

Before these findings can be related to cycling, it would be necessary to repeat the study in a real world, cycling specific context. Furthermore, comparisons between non-habitual helmet wearers and habitual helmet wearers (those who have grown up with compulsory helmet laws and never cycled without one for example) would be extremely significant.

Thirdly, we come to Ian Walker’s second study into drivers’ perception of the risk to cyclists. The film makes it clear that there was only one test subject, Ian himself, so we’re looking at a fairly limited data set. This alone puts it into the category of further study needed. There is nothing to suggest that the data is based on repeated runs, at the same time of day in the same locations, with and without helmets. No specific, published study is referenced, so it is impossible to evaluate whether the study is good science or merely more anecdata. Furthermore, in the context of a debate on compulsory helmet laws, a comparison of driver behaviour towards helmet wearers in countries both with and without compulsory helmet laws is highly significant. 

In both of the areas Walker has studied, it is not unreasonable to hypothesise that normal perceptions of risk would reassert themselves once the population became habituated to cyclists wearing helmets as a matter of course. This is by no means a given, but is an area of study that should be addressed if the debate is to be approached in a reasoned an informed way.

In the interests of balance, I should point out that the film offers no hard data to back up the claim that helmets protect wearers in certain types of crash.

The film is not an example of bad science, as much as an example of bad reporting of science. Its assertions are made either with a total lack of evidence, or based on evidence which has been taken out of context, overblown and misrepresented.

Whatever your point of view on this subject, the film adds nothing to your argument. 

[FluffyKittenofTindalos]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Canyon48 wrote:

Why won’t this topic die.

We keep beating it over the head, but it seems to have some kind of protective layer.

 

Go for the torso.

[Canyon48]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Canyon48 wrote:

Why won’t this topic die.

We keep beating it over the head, but it seems to have some kind of protective layer.

touché 

[hawkinspeter]

simonmb wrote:

Actually, seriously, as the OP, I’d like to draw a line under this in much the same way Bryan Adams withdrew his single ‘Everything I Do’ from sale after 16 weeks at the top of the charts. Let’s give it a break and start again on helmets another time. 

Haven’t Rapha launched something everyone can bitch on about for being grossly overvalued or something like that?

You could always decide to delete the topic. (Please don’t, I’m saving my “Likes” for my retirement).

[simonmb]

Actually, seriously, as the

Actually, seriously, as the OP, I’d like to draw a line under this in much the same way Bryan Adams withdrew his single ‘Everything I Do’ from sale after 16 weeks at the top of the charts. Let’s give it a break and start again on helmets another time. 

Haven’t Rapha launched something everyone can bitch on about for being grossly overvalued or something like that?

There might even be a footingball game on to watch tonight.

[hawkinspeter]

Canyon48 wrote:

Why won’t this topic die.

We keep beating it over the head, but it seems to have some kind of protective layer.

[Canyon48]

Why won’t this topic die.

Why won’t this topic die.

[Anonymous]

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

This is my first post so please be gentle with me.

I recently retired after 30 years in the Police and during that time i’ve dealt with fatals, serious and generally basic rtc’s. I helped scrape bits of scalp off the road after cyclists have skidded along after coming off a bike, some through vehicles hitting them and some from generally not being careful and / or observant and obviously they haven’t been wearing a helmet.

But in the same breath i’ve dealt with cyclists with rotational injuries and strap burns who were wearing a helmet.

After seeing this i always wear a helmet as i’d rather have a rotational strain than lose part of my scalp or worse. 

Ultimately though it’s the individuals choice and should stay that way.  

Given the stats I posted upthread you will of course have seen many thousands more scalps being removed, many more fractured skulls, many more serious head injuries and deaths by head injuries outside of cycling. That from children in a playground to people on ladders, to pedestrians on the street, people on a night out and the big one people in motorvehicles.

Why do you not wear a helmet for any of these clearly dangerous activities (walking/driving/other), ones we know are the direct cause of approximately 161,000 hospital admissions for serious head injuries (which is not all serious head injuries as obviously many tens of thousands do not require an admission into hospital), or is it that the group with a relatively very low number of serious head injuries (circa 1000) would be the only group to make you feel the need to wear one, if so why?

Did you victim blame people on bikes for no his-vis and no helmet when struck by criminal motorists which is the usual police stance and has been for decades? 

Do you have to be sarcastic when all i did was offer my own view ? 

Clearly you have a dislike for my previous profession, which is entirely your choice so i’ll leave it at that. 

er, my comments are not sarcasm but genuine questions.

Read what I said, answer the questions, apply logic and then see how you show not only bias in what you said regarding head injuries thus ignoring where the vast majority of head injuries occur but also look at your ability to assess risk and your decisions on where you apply your ‘safety’ rules.

If you can’t see that by ignoring all other aspects where people suffer head injuries massively more yet apply it for an activity that is inherrenty safe where it not for criminals harming others then you typify the ‘i wear a helmet for cycling but not for any other activity and I won’t look at facts not apply any logic/common sense’ type.

It’s important to ask the questions because otherwise people like yourself will continue on thinking helmets are a great thing when they’re not. Will continue to undermine the safety of cycling, continue to ignore risk values, it’s not just you it’s me and everyone else that this subject matter effects. When a former police officer cannot even see their own bias/discrimination (replicated tens of thousands of times over in our police force) then it’s a pretty poor do to say the least isn’t it?

[Sniffer]

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

This is my first post so please be gentle with me.

I recently retired after 30 years in the Police and during that time i’ve dealt with fatals, serious and generally basic rtc’s. I helped scrape bits of scalp off the road after cyclists have skidded along after coming off a bike, some through vehicles hitting them and some from generally not being careful and / or observant and obviously they haven’t been wearing a helmet.

But in the same breath i’ve dealt with cyclists with rotational injuries and strap burns who were wearing a helmet.

After seeing this i always wear a helmet as i’d rather have a rotational strain than lose part of my scalp or worse. 

Ultimately though it’s the individuals choice and should stay that way.  

Given the stats I posted upthread you will of course have seen many thousands more scalps being removed, many more fractured skulls, many more serious head injuries and deaths by head injuries outside of cycling. That from children in a playground to people on ladders, to pedestrians on the street, people on a night out and the big one people in motorvehicles.

Why do you not wear a helmet for any of these clearly dangerous activities (walking/driving/other), ones we know are the direct cause of approximately 161,000 hospital admissions for serious head injuries (which is not all serious head injuries as obviously many tens of thousands do not require an admission into hospital), or is it that the group with a relatively very low number of serious head injuries (circa 1000) would be the only group to make you feel the need to wear one, if so why?

Did you victim blame people on bikes for no his-vis and no helmet when struck by criminal motorists which is the usual police stance and has been for decades? 

Do you have to be sarcastic when all i did was offer my own view ? 

Clearly you have a dislike for my previous profession, which is entirely your choice so i’ll leave it at that. 

He is like that with everybody, don’t take it personal.  I don’t post about helmets as the level of debate is just as bad as Brexit, IndyRef or anywhere that two sides shout at each other, don’t listen and can’t do nuance and grey.

[tugglesthegreat]

alansmurphy wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

 

I am sure some of the naysayers just think they have a superior level of skill that protects them. I just wish that half the energy some people put into debating the subject on this site was put into actual cycling and the world would be a better place.

 

I often wonder if they’ve suffered a bang on the head…

I did a race (MTB) in the Pyrenees and came off, wearing a hardshell helment and shattered all the inside.  Hurt my neck but other than than was okish.  I was pro helments before even more so after.

[alansmurphy]

Leviathan wrote:

 

I am sure some of the naysayers just think they have a superior level of skill that protects them. I just wish that half the energy some people put into debating the subject on this site was put into actual cycling and the world would be a better place.

 

I often wonder if they’ve suffered a bang on the head…

[hawkinspeter]

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

Do you have to be sarcastic when all i did was offer my own view ? 

 

Clearly you have a dislike for my previous profession, which is entirely your choice so i’ll leave it at that. 

You must be new here.

More seriously, police get a bad reputation with cyclists as they are seen to be pushing a helmet-wearing agenda. It seems that when a cyclist is involved in a RTC, one of the first questions asked is “were you wearing a helmet?” no matter the relevance to the situation.

It also doesn’t help when cyclists are pulled over by police for imaginary reasons (e.g. cycling 2 abreast) although that’s quite rare in this country which might be to do with the under-resourcing of police.

[hawkinspeter]

wycombewheeler wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Zeesy wrote:

I couldn’t agree more with those who have written in supporting the use of helmets. I watched the video, which tries to give a balanced view. I feel some things are so self-evident that they do not require evidence! In any type of impact to the head, the better protected the head the less severe or absent the head injury. Accidents do not occur only in road traffic situations. A fall can occur while swerving, sneezing or failing to see an obstruction. In such a situation I know I’d rather be with than without a helmet!

Many years ago I watched on a children’s programme a watermerlon being dropped on the floor from a height and spattering all over the place. Another melon was dropped from the same height inside a cycle helmet. It came out intact!

Do you wear one whilst walking?

no I carry one, so it’s ready to deploy when using stairs and crossing the road  obvs  😉

but its a lot harder to do this while riding

my big dimena is how to address the increased risk in the shower, when i need to wash my hair 

???

(I do actually wear one while cycling, not because I think it will save my life, but because concussion would be quite annoying, as would severe grazing of one of my ears.)

The obvious answer is to shave your head or to KickStart a helmet with some kind of rinse cycle.

[hawkinspeter]

bikeman01 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

This last crash was the one that convinced me to NOT wear a helmet for my daily commute. Not because it failed to protect my head, not because I got a neck strain, but because it happened while I was taking risks. After the crash I got checked out by the paramedics and continued. I slowed right down partly because my chance of qualifying was out the window, partly because I had lost a fair bit of skin elsewhere but mostly because I did not want to risk crashing again with a damaged lid. I realised that wearing a helmet causes me to ride in a more aggressive manner, however sub-conscious that may be. Each of my helmet destroying crashes have been self inflicted whilst partaking in risky behaviour.

For many years I rode a motorbike and I too shared your view that that when I felt ‘safe’ in my leathers and boots I rode more wrecklessly that when I felt vulnerable in Jeans & trainers. 

However I eventually realised that my safety wasn’t one directional and I couldn’t control others behavour. As such I realised that I could just as easily have an accident even when I drove less wrecklessly.

As such it was preferable to wear safety gear.

Seeing that helmets obviously reduce head injuries on impact I’d say it is foolish not to wear one.

I’m assuming you didn’t bother watching the video about helmets (maybe you watched it and were too stupid to understand it).

Yeah of course I just shared my opinion just so you could retort in this childish manner, dickhead.

 

Maybe you need to re-watch the video to get a better grasp on the finer points of the debate.

The important factors to consider is whether wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in a crash. There is some good evidence that drivers do overtake with less space on average when a rider is wearing a helmet and also good evidence that wearing a helmet makes the rider take more risks. The extra protection that a helmet provides seems to be out-weighed by these other effects, though there is variable evidence of this as we can only really measure numbers of head injuries over time versus the ratio of helmet to non-helmet wearing cyclists.

I do appreciate the irony of you referring to my childish retort and then resorting to name calling.

[wycombewheeler]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Zeesy wrote:

I couldn’t agree more with those who have written in supporting the use of helmets. I watched the video, which tries to give a balanced view. I feel some things are so self-evident that they do not require evidence! In any type of impact to the head, the better protected the head the less severe or absent the head injury. Accidents do not occur only in road traffic situations. A fall can occur while swerving, sneezing or failing to see an obstruction. In such a situation I know I’d rather be with than without a helmet!

Many years ago I watched on a children’s programme a watermerlon being dropped on the floor from a height and spattering all over the place. Another melon was dropped from the same height inside a cycle helmet. It came out intact!

Do you wear one whilst walking?

no I carry one, so it’s ready to deploy when using stairs and crossing the road  obvs  😉

but its a lot harder to do this while riding

my big dimena is how to address the increased risk in the shower, when i need to wash my hair 

???

(I do actually wear one while cycling, not because I think it will save my life, but because concussion would be quite annoying, as would severe grazing of one of my ears.)

[Author]

Replies