What’s wrong with bicycle helmets?

Paul J wrote:fukawitribe,
I

Paul J wrote:

fukawitribe,

I have read the paper. You’ll have to be more specific about what you mean.

Hi Paul, yep I kind of assumed you had read the paper even before i’d seen your blog and wasn’t really directed at you. It’s just that much of Otis Braggs post is spot on and this paper just seems to be brought out as some sort of talisman, sometimes by some who seem to not quite grasp the information in it – let alone that it’s a singular paper whose results are often taken out of context or quantified.

For example, if we were to give people of choice of overall difference in passing distance between a helmeted rider and non-helmeted one from the paper…

a. A little under 50%
b. A little over 20%
c. A little over 6%

..would they know which is correct ? Would they know the absolute value of that difference, in inches say ? Would they know about all the other factors in the paper such as the variance in passing distance between various vehicle types, apparent gender and road position and how that compares with the variance due to helmet wearing ? Would they be aware that one of the results indicates a greater passing distance past a helmeted rider ?… and so on and so on.

There are also other results which back up and others which differ from the ones in this paper – and it’s worth reading them even if to only understand the differences in testing environment and methodology. I’m not personally convinced that the paper shows no correlation – as some seem to have said – quite the opposite, but I think it’s worth people reading some of the discussions surrounding it, e.g. Gutierrez, to get a possibly more rounded view of the results than the headlines might otherwise give. I’m also of the view that it’s useful if people go and look for themselves and follow some of the directions the research goes and make up their own minds. Hope that clarifies things a tad.

racyrich wrote:…that

racyrich wrote:

…that typical non-real cyclist’s riding position, way too upright…

Fascinating to learn that one is not a “real” cyclist because one adopts a position that is comfortable when cycling hundreds of miles.

Tosser.

fukawitribe,
I have read the
fukawitribe,

I have read the paper. You’ll have to be more specific about what you mean.

Ian’s passing distance paper is but one prong of a growing mass of data and set of results that suggests helmet wearers can actually face increased risks of injury overall – negating at least some of the benefits of wearing them. E.g. this very recent paper notes such an effect is seen in the Netherlands too, and can not be fully explained by helmet wearers in the NL tending to be involved in riskier sports cycling (helmet wearers are over-represent by a factor of 6 to 10 in hospital admissions in NL IIRC): http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&repository=Overestimation+of+the+effectiveness+of+the+bicycle+helmet+by+the+use+of+odds+ratios .

(As a consequence of which, the main result of that paper is that helmet efficacy in preventing head injuries is likely overestimated, potentially greatly, by hospital admissions based studies which do not account for that effect. Interestingly, there was a paper published on the Australian helmet law, whose author draws pro-helmet-effectiveness conclusions from it, but which seems to suggest that the nature of accidents changed due to the law – and the rate of head injuries increased too after, despite a mostly stable overall injury rate, see my comment on it for more).

So there is something about helmets that we don’t completely understand yet that causes the wearer and/or others to take more risks with the wearer’s safety (there are other papers again that have shown probably risk-compensation effects in regular helmet-wearers, by noting they tend to cycle more slowly when not wearing them, so perhaps that is it – more thorough study would be good).

Anecdotally, I have observed this descending behind helmet wearers. I’ve seen them take big risks going into corners (bad technique anyway – often makes you slower, not faster!), and then crash when they couldn’t make the corner and ran out of road on the exit. Helping them pick themselves up, and surveying their wounds (gashes on their legs, back, and arms), I was flabbergasted to hear them complement themselves on wearing a helmet and how it had saved them. I didn’t have the heart to point out I was in better shape than them without a helmet, by taking the corner more slowly…

It’s hilarious to read some
It’s hilarious to read some comments claiming there is no science to the claim that drivers pass closer to helmeted riders, and that it would even be impossible to measure. Especially when the first comment mentions “University of Bath” a few times.

Given that first comment, I won’t link directly to that study by Dr. Ian Walker and the study he contacted at said university – googling will find it quite easily. Instead I will link to another (lesser known) study, conducted by Thobias Sando and Ren Moses with the University of North Florida and the Florida Dept. of Transportation, which found similar results using a completely different methodology to Dr. Walker: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1122764

As for the rest, helmets clearly are wonderful devices. This is why cycling is so safe in countries where helmets are often used (UK and USA) or even mandatory (AU, NZ, parts of CA?), – and where cycling is especially popular amongst those who just want to pootle around or get to places, rather than get sweaty climbing hills on epic rides for fun. This, of coure, is in stark contrast to places like the Netherlands, where very few people wear helmets and hence cyclists are being slaughtered at incredible rates (except for the few helmet wearing sports cyclists, who end up in hospital at much lower rates than the other roadkill).

Clearly, we need to do more “tut-tutting” at all those crazy unhelmeted riders. Maybe the oh-so-safe-for-cycling Anglo-phile countries should put pressure on the Netherlands to do something about its dreadful cycling safety record. Clearly the low helmet use rates must be a factor, and the Netherlands should consider following the shining safety example set by the Anglo-philes..

Given that half of all
Given that half of all threads turn into helmet-debates regardless of the topic, I was expecting this thread to involve discussing every possible cycling-related subject except helmets

Wow thisnsi gonna be a good
Wow thisnsi gonna be a good thread…I’m gonna go and make some popcorn. =)) =))

I’ve had a Croix de Fer 20
I’ve had a Croix de Fer 20 for about a month, it’s great. I intended it to be a winter bike but find I want to ride it every time.

Two small issues, the tyres are made of tissue paper and I found the saddle very uncomfortable.

Finally, I’ve learned never to mention helmets on this forum.

Welcome Pizzimperfect. Do
Welcome Pizzimperfect. Do what you think is right for you and you’ll be grand. You’ll actually find that those of us who are labelled ‘anti helmet’ are not actually against the things. We are only opposed to the wearing being legislated or organisations heavily impressing on cyclists having to wear them to participate in certain events. Any ways. Enjoy your new bike. That is the most important thing and may you enjoy many happy miles on it. I’m enjoying my current bike 5 years on as much as I did the day I bought her.

If you hang around you will find that helmets aren’t the only contentious subject. Wheelsets, disc vs rim brakes, saddles, electric mechs also rank amongst heated debates.