Jumbo-Visma to wear helmets with “healthy brains” at Paris-Roubaix to encourage helmet wearing

hawkinspeter wrote:

Just had a quick search for studies that estimate the injury reduction for cycle lanes and found this one: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/10/22/study-protected-bike-lanes-reduce-injury-risk-up-to-90-percent/

Haven't really got the time to delve into this, but the articles summary of the study sounds as if they studied straights, not intersections. That would tend to minimise the risk, and the gains through proper continous cycling infrastructure. (Vehicular cycling is mainly about the risks at intersections through inept bike infrastructure.)

marmotte27 wrote:

Haven't really got the time to delve into this, but the articles summary of the study sounds as if they studied straights, not intersections. That would tend to minimise the risk, and the gains through proper continous cycling infrastructure. (Vehicular cycling is mainly about the risks at intersections through inept bike infrastructure.)

Presumably that's due to the lack of cycling infrastructure at junctions.

Yes. And so the gains from Dutch style infrastructure should be higher.

marmotte27 wrote:

"I'd rather have infrastructure that keeps me safer and a helmet that keeps me safer."
The first is 98% of safety, the second 2%.
So let's start with the first to then find we don't really need the second. Rather than as it is now push for the second to actually avoid ever doing the first.

Taking your 98%/2% at face value for a moment (despite it being a number you plucked out of thin air), if cycling infrastructure is as woeful as it appears, doesn't that make it even more important to wear a helmet? And therefore presumably you would applaud the efforts of a cycling team to encourage helmet use.

Or are you suggesting that cycling infrastructure is already excellent, therefore there is no need to worry about helmets?

"And therefore presumably you would applaud the efforts of a cycling team to encourage helmet use."
I'd applaud the efforts of a cycling team that campaigned for road safety without associating themselves with a victim blaming campaign from one of their sponsors entitled "Use your head" that ridicules itself straight away by citing numbers from the worst ever cycle helmet study.

marmotte27 wrote:

"And therefore presumably you would applaud the efforts of a cycling team to encourage helmet use."
I'd applaud the efforts of a cycling team that campaigned for road safety without associating themselves with a victim blaming campaign from one of their sponsors entitled "Use your head" that ridicules itself straight away by citing numbers from the worst ever cycle helmet study.

If you consider the campaign to be 'victim blaming', that's on you. It's not 'victim blaming' to say that wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of a head injury in the event of an incident. It's also not victim blaming to say that cyclists should wear helmets.

"Use your head" means that someone who doesn't wear a cycle helmet is an idiot. I call that victim blaming.

marmotte27 wrote:

"Use your head" means that someone who doesn't wear a cycle helmet is an idiot. I call that victim blaming.

Calling someone that understands that putting a protective device on your head provides benefits in the reduction of risk of head injury smarter than someone that does not is just calling a spade a spade.

We live in a very tolerant society nowadays though. Stupid people can do all sorts of things, which is great. They can become Prime Minister of the UK, or even President of the US. The world is their lobster.

"Calling someone that understands that putting a protective device on your head provides benefits in the reduction of risk of head injury smarter than someone that does not is just calling a spade a spade."

I have a feeling we've been here with you before, many times. Please tell me, do you wear a helmet during activities that have a comparabale risk of head injury than cycling, such as getting in and out of a shower, climbing stairs, driving a car, walking in ste street, etc.? If not, why not?

It has actually nothing to do with being smart or not, as that would have to be based on fact, which is not possible. It has however everything to do with creating and entertaining (for whatever reason in each individual case) a scaremongering, victim-blaming culture around the totally normal, everyday activity of cycling that carries absolutely no increased risk.

Those who actually use their heads for thinking beyond the "it's obvious, innit" state of mind come to very different conclusions about cycle helmets and road safety (as outlined above by several people).

Personally I will therefore continue to call a spade a spade and to call a victim-blamer a victim-blamer.

There is a difference between absolute risk and relative risk.

Most people get in and out of the shower at least once a day.

Most people don't cycle at all.

Rich_cb wrote:

Most people don't cycle at all.

In Britain. They do in other places. Show me there is an increased risk for head injury while cycling comparatively to other everyday activiteis in the Netherlands. You can't.

I'm getting a bit tired of this... See you all under the next helmet discussion....

In the Netherlands cyclists account for 59% of moderate to severe head injuries in RTAs. Cycling's modal share in the Netherlands is 27%.

Cycling has a high relative risk for head injury. When cycling numbers are low, as in the UK, the absolute risk is low allowing people to make ill judged comparisons to head injuries when driving, showering etc. When cycling numbers are high, as in the Netherlands, the relative and absolute risk of head injury from cycling are both high demonstrating the error in the aforementioned comparisons.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355124528_Incidence_causes_and_...

marmotte27 wrote:

"Calling someone that understands that putting a protective device on your head provides benefits in the reduction of risk of head injury smarter than someone that does not is just calling a spade a spade."

I have a feeling we've been here with you before, many times. Please tell me, do you wear a helmet during activities that have a comparabale risk of head injury than cycling, such as getting in and out of a shower, climbing stairs, driving a car, walking in ste street, etc.? If not, why not?

It has actually nothing to do with being smart or not, as that would have to be based on fact, which is not possible. It has however everything to do with creating and entertaining (for whatever reason in each individual case) a scaremongering, victim-blaming culture around the totally normal, everyday activity of cycling that carries absolutely no increased risk.

Those who actually use their heads for thinking beyond the "it's obvious, innit" state of mind come to very different conclusions about cycle helmets and road safety (as outlined above by several people).

Personally I will therefore continue to call a spade a spade and to call a victim-blamer a victim-blamer.

 

I do use a helmet in other activities where a helmet is likely to reduce the risk of head injury, yes. Especially where I am advised to, which, if you live in the UK you are advised to when cycling on the road iaw highway code.

For example when climbing, when playing cricket and on job sites.

And advising others to wear a helmet in those instances is not 'victim blaming'' either.

Neither me or Jumbo Visma have suggested that the lack of a helmet absolves a dangerous driver of responsibility. That would be victim blaming. What you are doing, honestly, is just mindless bleating about an absolute non-issue.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

If you consider the campaign to be 'victim blaming', that's on you. It's not 'victim blaming' to say that wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of a head injury in the event of an incident. It's also not victim blaming to say that cyclists should wear helmets.

In isolation, those statements aren't strictly victim blaming, but in context of road danger, they most definitely are. As Saint Boardman puts it, "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe", so for people to focus purely on helmets and not any of the more useful measures, then you have to question why they do that.

It's generally because other measures might cost some money or de-prioritise motorised traffic or even be seen as 'favouring' cyclists. The reason that the narrative is so often around bike helmets is because it's an easy way to point fingers at cyclists and blame them if they don't buy and wear a helmet. Unfortunately, that narrative ends up being used by police and courts to try to blame cyclists even when the fault for the collision is obviously with the other party (e.g. drivers hitting cyclists in bike lanes).

Consider if society just focussed on women's clothing when there's any discussion of sexual crime taking place in certain areas. Dowdy clothes may provide a lesser risk of being a victim, but there's clearly better topics such as street lighting, police patrols and prosecution of the crimes. (Helmets are actually a poorer precaution as they do nothing to lessen the risk of collisions and there is even some evidence that they can increase the risk of collisions due to drivers passing closer and/or risk compensation).

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

If you consider the campaign to be 'victim blaming', that's on you. It's not 'victim blaming' to say that wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of a head injury in the event of an incident. It's also not victim blaming to say that cyclists should wear helmets.

In isolation, those statements aren't strictly victim blaming, but in context of road danger, they most definitely are. As Saint Boardman puts it, "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe", so for people to focus purely on helmets and not any of the more useful measures, then you have to question why they do that.

It's generally because other measures might cost some money or de-prioritise motorised traffic or even be seen as 'favouring' cyclists. The reason that the narrative is so often around bike helmets is because it's an easy way to point fingers at cyclists and blame them if they don't buy and wear a helmet. Unfortunately, that narrative ends up being used by police and courts to try to blame cyclists even when the fault for the collision is obviously with the other party (e.g. drivers hitting cyclists in bike lanes).

Consider if society just focussed on women's clothing when there's any discussion of sexual crime taking place in certain areas. Dowdy clothes may provide a lesser risk of being a victim, but there's clearly better topics such as street lighting, police patrols and prosecution of the crimes. (Helmets are actually a poorer precaution as they do nothing to lessen the risk of collisions and there is even some evidence that they can increase the risk of collisions due to drivers passing closer and/or risk compensation).

Still not victim blaming. Saying 'wear a helmet to reduce your risk of head injury' is not a dog whistle for 'drive into any cyclist you see not wearing a helmet - they deserve it'.

Take some responsibility for your own safety on the roads. Cars have NCAP safety ratings and seatbelts for exactly the same reason. No one calls that victim blaming.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Still not victim blaming. Saying 'wear a helmet to reduce your risk of head injury' is not a dog whistle for 'drive into any cyclist you see not wearing a helmet - they deserve it'. Take some responsibility for your own safety on the roads. Cars have NCAP safety ratings and seatbelts for exactly the same reason. No one calls that victim blaming.

NCAP safety ratings and seatbelts are designed to protect against collision with motor vehicles at high speed, whereas that doesn't apply to bike helmets. Also, the drivers are as likely to be the cause as the victim, whereas cyclists are mainly at risk from drivers, so you can see that you're comparing different things entirely.

Taking responsibility for my own safety on the road is often impossible as there's situations created by drivers that are not possible to predict or avoid and bike helmets do very little against high speed collisions, or at least they are not designed for that.

You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.

hawkinspeter wrote:

You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.

Lol. You don't think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I'm the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done.

For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.

Lol. You don't think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I'm the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done. For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.

As soon as the manufacturers can design a helmet that scores even 1 NCAP star in collision tests with a motor vehicle I'm sure everyone will rush out to buy it and all these arguments will be forgotten, but don't hold your breath on  that design being imminent.

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.

Lol. You don't think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I'm the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done. For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.

As soon as the manufacturers can design a helmet that scores even 1 NCAP star in collision tests with a motor vehicle I'm sure everyone will rush out to buy it and all these arguments will be forgotten, but don't hold your breath on  that design being imminent.

Hahaha. Yes, a piece of polystyrene performing as effectively as decades of mechanical and materials engineering with 2 tonnes of metal to play with. If that's where you set the bar then you deserve the head injury.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.

Lol. You don't think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I'm the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done. For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.

As soon as the manufacturers can design a helmet that scores even 1 NCAP star in collision tests with a motor vehicle I'm sure everyone will rush out to buy it and all these arguments will be forgotten, but don't hold your breath on  that design being imminent.

Hahaha. Yes, a piece of polystyrene performing as effectively as decades of mechanical and materials engineering with 2 tonnes of metal to play with. If that's where you set the bar then you deserve the head injury.

You're the one claiming they are comparable, if they are actually not really comparable due to "physics" then perhaps we should investigate other mitigations as suggested by many other posters on here?

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.

Lol. You don't think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I'm the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done. For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.

As soon as the manufacturers can design a helmet that scores even 1 NCAP star in collision tests with a motor vehicle I'm sure everyone will rush out to buy it and all these arguments will be forgotten, but don't hold your breath on  that design being imminent.

Hahaha. Yes, a piece of polystyrene performing as effectively as decades of mechanical and materials engineering with 2 tonnes of metal to play with. If that's where you set the bar then you deserve the head injury.

You're the one claiming they are comparable, if they are actually not really comparable due to "physics" then perhaps we should investigate other mitigations as suggested by many other posters on here?

Well for a start I shall compare the ways they are different. One is a piece of polystyrene and the other is 2 tonnes of metal designed in a way to provide an increased level of safety.

The ways they are similar include:
- they both provide some level of protection for first parties.
- they both protect against some, but not all risks. In a similar way as a helmet would not protect against a car being driven over your head, a crumple zone or seatbelt would not protect against a head-on collision with an articulated lorry. In both cases, they are better than or the same as nothing, however.
- they both require advertising campaigns to be employed by the general public. In much the same way that some cyclists eschew helmets, some people used to moan and bleat about being forced to use seatbelts. At least in that case, they were actually being forced (by law) though, so at least their complaining was understandable from a 'government overreach' perspective.
- The absence of either should not prevent the application of 'cause and effect' or the apportionment of blame in the even of a collision. A third party causing a collision remains the cause of the collision whether a helmet is worn or not, and where the vehicle has a high safety rating or a low one, and whether seatbelts are worn or not.

So yes, some differences and some similarities.

I think a lot of the heat in this discussion comes from mixing several different but linked issues.  However I'm sure a holistic approach to the freedom and safety of vulnerable road users would bring the most benefit.

It would seem - from Dutch experience (see here - in Dutch but worth the effort) - lots of incidents and subsequent injury sustained can be traced to essentially "falls".  So important factors are stability, the height of the head above ground, the position you fall in (eg sideways, forwards) and what you can do to recover from or mitigate a fall.  (Possibly less if your limbs are tangled up in a bike).

I recall seeing a film a while back with the following engineering solution proposed.  (Disclosure - I do own a recumbent).

eburtthebike wrote:

One thing is for sure though, proper cycling facilities do work, and helmets are just a distraction and victim blaming.

I do agree, the benefits from proper cycling facilities are too great to be overlooked. I am a slow cyclist now after a long break, and without the relatively good bicycle infrastructure for my work commute, I wouldn't have started it again. And yet some people believe all safety issues will be solved with helmets..

But there is no crazy science behind helmets, it is better than nothing to have some kind of soft material between your head and the asphalt if you are about to hit it. I have had a few nasty falls at slow speeds caused by slippery tarmac, and while at none I had head contact, it was close, and if I made contact, I would like to have something soft at my head.

The point of meta-analyses is to minimise scope for manipulation. So the search method and inclusion/exclusion criteria should be pre-set and objective, etc.

That helmets would reduce serious head injuries by 60% seems quite believable to me. In line with other meta-analyses I've read.

The thing is that that serious head injuries are _rare_ (least, without other life-threatening injuries). So a 60% reduction is a reduction from one small number to another slightly smaller number.

I remember discussing this with a doctor at a cycling org once, and he didn't agree with my view. He looked up injuries in his data at his cycling org and found something like 2 serious head injuries out of (IIRC) ~620 injuries overall in accidents his organisation had recorded. With a 60% reduction due to helmets, that means that without helmets, there would have been 621 injuries in total, with 3 serious head injures. The helmets saved *1* serious head injury out of 621.

A large reduction in a tiny number is a /very slightly/ tinier number. Basic arithmetic.

Paul J wrote:

The point of meta-analyses is to minimise scope for manipulation. So the search method and inclusion/exclusion criteria should be pre-set and objective, etc. That helmets would reduce serious head injuries by 60% seems quite believable to me. In line with other meta-analyses I've read. The thing is that that serious head injuries are _rare_ (least, without other life-threatening injuries). So a 60% reduction is a reduction from one small number to another slightly smaller number. I remember discussing this with a doctor at a cycling org once, and he didn't agree with my view. He looked up injuries in his data at his cycling org and found something like 2 serious head injuries out of (IIRC) ~620 injuries overall in accidents his organisation had recorded. With a 60% reduction due to helmets, that means that without helmets, there would have been 621 injuries in total, with 3 serious head injures. The helmets saved *1* serious head injury out of 621. A large reduction in a tiny number is a /very slightly/ tinier number. Basic arithmetic.

I think the larger problem is that the data is just taken from hospital admissions which is pre-selecting for people having bike injuries, so it could easily be skewed if people wearing helmets are wearing helmets due to more dangerous cycling (e.g. hitting a tree is quite common when mountain biking, whereas falling off is uncommon in road cycling/commuting). The classic example is in the Netherlands where head injuries are strongly correlated with wearing a helmet - this is due to the sports, racing cyclists being the group that are most likely to wear a helmet and also most likely to be involved in a crash. Conversely, it may be that amongst commuters, the most risk averse/cautious may be the most likely to wear a helmet and thus skew the data to show unreasonable effectiveness of helmets.

So, to remove the hospital admission self-selection problem, it makes sense to look at population wide counts of cycle injuries and helmet wearing. The problem here is that in countries that mandated cycle helmets (i.e. relatively easy to infer cycle helmet wearing rates), the rate of head injuries did not reduce by 60%, so there's a big disconnect between meta-analyses and the real world. Note that the cycling population is likely to change a bit after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, but there's still a huge discrepancy between the real world and meta-analyses.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8870773/

Hospital studies match the cyclists with head injuries to those without.

Eg they'll find all cyclists with two broken arms and then compare rates of head injuries between the helmeted and non helmeted.

The two populations being compared will therefore have experienced collisions with a similar energy.

This approach can actually underestimate the efficacy of helmets as those helmeted cyclists who avoid a significant head injury due to their helmet and have no other injuries requiring hospital treatment and therefore are missed from the studies.

If helmets did provide a 60% reduction in head injuries then you'd only see that big a reduction post mandatory helmets if the wearing rate pre law was 0%. If the wearing rate was 50% pre law then you'd see a 30% reduction. As the cycling population changes significantly post mandatory helmet laws there is no reliable data on helmet wearing rates pre law in those who continue to cycle post law.

Those who wore helmets pre law would be least likely to stop cycling post law. This means that the relevant pre law helmet wearing rate would be far higher than the overall pre law wearing rate and, as a consequence, the reduction in head injuries you'd expect to see would be far smaller than 60%.

To be clear I don't support mandatory helmet laws and I'm using 60% as an arbitary example.

Rich_cb wrote:

Hospital studies match the cyclists with head injuries to those without. Eg they'll find all cyclists with two broken arms and then compare rates of head injuries between the helmeted and non helmeted. The two populations being compared will therefore have experienced collisions with a similar energy.

I'm only aware of one hospital study that did that, and all the rest I've seen did a straight comparison, with the only criterion being helmet wearing.  If there are more which have used the method you describe, I'd love to see them if you could post some links please.

Those are case control studies Burt.

I've posted you the links to several before. One you refused to read because it referenced TR&T... in the introduction.

Another you dismissed because you refused to accept that case control studies were good quality evidence because TR&T once did a case control study.

Here is a TR&T free example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280891070_Bicycle_helmet_effica...

Rich_cb wrote:

Those are case control studies Burt. I've posted you the links to several before. One you refused to read because it referenced TR&T... in the introduction. Another you dismissed because you refused to accept that case control studies were good quality evidence because TR&T once did a case control study. Here is a TR&T free example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280891070_Bicycle_helmet_effica...

Thank you, that makes two at least.  The study you reference is of course, hospital based, and as HP has already so kindly pointed out, therefore limited.