How to stir up a hornets nest

So you’re allowed to give
So you’re allowed to give anecdotes, from a biased source, telling people to wear a helmet, but no one is allowed to reply with a contrary opinion? Nice…

Trauma consultants are:

a) Biased, by the nature of their job, to consider only a small sample of accidents, those which had the most severe outcome. They do not get to see a representative set of accidents and outcomes.

b) Though medical consultants have some scientific and statistical training, they are not scientists nor are they statisticians. While they may have great medical expertise in their field, they can be quite inexperienced at producing scientifically and statistically rigorous conclusions.

Saying “X says so” is arguing by appeal to authority (rather than reason or fact). That the authority being appealed to isn’t even working in a relevant field makes this an appeal to *false* authority.

Seeing as it seems to be acceptable to argue by anecdote, I was knocked down by a car. I wasn’t wearing a helmet. I hit my head, but I was OK. Many people, in fact, have fallen or been knocked off bikes and hit their heads and have been fine. There are likely about as many such anecdotes as there are for helmet-wearing. Each, of themselves, is meaningless.

The best thing to do is to look at the science. On just the question of helmets alone, while it is clear that helmets reduce head injury it is *not clear* they reduce injury *overall*. This is because other injuries (neck, face) *increase* amongst helmet wearers. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751100008X).

Further, it is frankly stupid to consider just head injuries as the only outcome. The outcome that matters is *overall health*. If cyclists wearing helmets saves 1 head, but then costs 1000 hearts because of people being put off cycling then you have a worse overall public health outcome. I don’t know of societal-level studies, but there have been computer model studies which suggest this is the case.

Going on about the need to wear helmets, as appears to be so common here in the UK – including by some cyclists, may be counter-productive. It helps reinforce the notion held by many here that cycling is dangerous. So likely depresses cycling rates. It deflects attention from the fact that helmets make little difference to overall injury rates, that the *root* cause of cyclist injuries tends to be motorised, vehicular traffic and the lack of segregation between them and cyclists.

E.g. the Netherlands has very high rates of cycling and very low rates of helmet use, compared to the UK. Despite this, the Netherlands has *much* better outcomes. They have significantly lower cyclist injury rates, despite the lack of helmets – so we know, for a *fact* that cycle-helmets are *not* a pre-requisite for safe cycling. Further, though their obesity rates have been rising, as everywhere, theirs are still significantly lower than in the UK (circa 11% v 25% – I don’t have exact figures).

The obsession in the UK on safety “talismans” – i.e. helmets and hi-viz – is sad and tragic. It seems to be a consequence of a broad feeling that cycling is odd & dangerous, which leads to low cycling rates, which leads to the remaining cyclists feeling threatened by other road users who lack understanding. It seems many cyclists, unable to affect substantive change in the road environment and road safety because of their dwindled numbers, turn towards ineffective safety equipment, to try reassure themselves. The really sad part is that in doing so, they may be helping reinforce the “Cycling is dangerous!!” culture that prevails in the UK – so helping to keep cycling rates depressed and making it hard for real change!

What’s really sad is when those talisman-embracing cyclists, no doubt well-intentioned, believe they should lecture other cyclists for not similarly investing their hopes in dubious bits of styrofoam.

(Another version of this rant is at http://pjakma.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/the-case-against-bicycle-helmets-quick-guide/ – which has some more links to interesting studies and articles).

I must admit – I do usually
I must admit – I do usually wear a helmet, but only to keep my wife happy

In over 5 years of ‘serious commuting’ (have fun defining that!) I have had three nasty accidents – only one of which involved my noggin in any way, when I face planted thanks to a pathway lemming and got a concussion *despite* my helmet

Take from that what you will

dave_atkinson wrote:andylul

dave_atkinson wrote:

andylul wrote:

Saying that, if I rode through a hornet’s nest, I’m sure my helmet would not afford me much protection from the stings :-)

yeah, especially a road lid with big vents. I’ve swallowed up all kinds of flying insects with mine up to and including a giant bumblebee. if you’re going to ride near a hornet’s nest, probably best to stick a piss pot lid on :-)

Road cyclists – the only animal that ‘eats’ wasps…

andylul wrote:Saying that, if

andylul wrote:

Saying that, if I rode through a hornet’s nest, I’m sure my helmet would not afford me much protection from the stings :-)

yeah, especially a road lid with big vents. I’ve swallowed up all kinds of flying insects with mine up to and including a giant bumblebee. if you’re going to ride near a hornet’s nest, probably best to stick a piss pot lid on 🙂

Another life saved. I can’t
Another life saved. I can’t think of a single rational reason not to wear a helmet. Was knocked off once in a race and was told when I came out of surgery that without question the helmet saved my life. I always wear one.

Here’s the rub. I have a son with a wobbly riding style and little road awareness. I make him wear a helmet. He says it’s “not cool” and that he “looks like an idiot”.

So is it all about what ‘other people’ think about you?

Sod other people – I’ll stay safe thanks… B-)

Saying that, if I rode
Saying that, if I rode through a hornet’s nest, I’m sure my helmet would not afford me much protection from the stings 🙂