SPlKE 

The shower could use some caulk in spots.

closetbiker

I'm sure you can see that answer adresses two of the most glaring problems with the perceptions on helmets; that relative risk isn't considered, and that helmets are effective protection in collisions with motor vehicles.

Because some would have others believe helmets are made to withstand such forces, simple falls commonly result in brain injury, and a helmet is not just as means to end, but the end itself, people will continue to suffer injuries they otherwise may have avoided just as they have in countries that have mandated, and enforced universal helmet use.

sudo bike

Just thought I'd point out, that is not an ad hominem. That's making a correlation between the two and questioning the logic of choosing one vs the other. Ad hominem is an attack on the character as an attempt to discredit the argument of the person. He's attempting to discredit your argument that a helmet is necessary for one and not the other. Two different things.

Six-Shooter

Some more data that may be of interest:

A detailed statistical breakdown of cycling injuries and deaths in the US from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, classed by age, gender, and state:

https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf

They also state:

Unfortunately, they don't provide stats regarding helmet use. But the IIHS, working with data from the US DOT, does:

https://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit.../bicycles.html

mconlonx

You say this like you assume that relative risk isn't considered when people decide to wear helmets, and that every single accident which involves motor vehicles don't include situations where the forces involved do not exceed a helmet's design parameters or incidental protective capacity.

Six-Shooter

Granted, but those sorts of posts go "to the man," being aimed (quite gratuitously in the case in point) at a particular poster instead of considering that issue in the abstract. And indeed, that has been an unfortunate pattern of this thread: someone will post their personal beliefs for wearing a helmet only to be ganged up on by two or three posters who try to undermine those beliefs and then disingenuously claim they believe in freedom of choice.

closetbiker

Here we have a fundamental problem.

It isn't failure fo yeild right of way, wrong way cycling, absence of lighting, it's a lack of helmet that is the single most important factor.

If this is true, how is it in the Netherlands where almost no one wears helmets, cyclists have the least injuries relative to exposure?

closetbiker

So, let me get this straight. Is your post an ad hominem attack?

For my part, I try to keep posts to an issue, or an argument, than directed at a persons character

mconlonx

Except when issues raised don't conform to your subjective views on the subject. Then you tend to drop the argument or not engage.

Six-Shooter

How is a comparison of relative risk across activities even relevant to what a bike helmet can or can't do during cycling? Whether cycling is or isn't more dangerous than other activities doesn't tell someone who wants to protect their head while cycling whether a helmet can help. Rather it speaks to a method of personal risk assessment, which is neither here nor there.

Six-Shooter

I think you perhaps misread what they said: not that a helmet prevents crashes (as the suggestions you offer might), but rather that "A helmet is the single most effective way to prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash"--a major difference. Either way, as I'm researching this issue, I do find it striking that one government and safety agency after another, from various countries, seems to recommend helmets.

As for the Netherlands, do we have sound data for that? A link would be appreciated. Re: the Netherlands, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but there's lots of interesting, detailed info here regarding Dutch cycling casualties and helmets:

https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...S_Cyclists.pdf
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...le_helmets.pdf

including, in the first link, a comparison of hospitalizations from crashes with and without motor vehicle involvement (the latter far outstrips the former) and, from the last,

mconlonx

Personal experience regarding helmet use in other endeavors, such as motorcycling, where there is also rabid helmet debate, informs personal decision.

If I'm an All The Gear, All The Time (ATGATT) type of motorcyclist, chances are I'm going to carry that over to bicycling. My experience; my choice; my decision.

Regardless of hypotheses indicating that helmet use is not necessary in either situation.

Personal judgment of relative risk assessment surely informs personal risk assessment when considering bicycle helmet use. There might not be some kind of direct correlative, but it certainly is relevant in the decision-making process of some who choose to wear helmets.

Six-Shooter

Sure. My point is that some people are conflating two different issues: what a helmet can or can't do while cycling and how/why someone chooses to wear one. You can investigate the former issue with facts; the latter issue falls in the arena of personal choice.

Six-Shooter

More data for those interested, this time from Queensland University's Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety. Some relevant excerpts:

https://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/publica..._safety_fs.pdf

mconlonx

Meh. I'm not willing to say the non-immediately-relevant experience I bring to the issue regarding my use of specific safety gear in a non-relevant safety situation (motorcycling) is any different than someone's equally personal experience in another non-relevant personal experience like walking. Or showering.

Dood, don't wear a helmet if you prefer, I'll continue to wear mine.

njkayaker

The problem is that it's stated with no support. hey appear to be merely echoing the "conventional wisdom". It's not clear that it's true.

Many cycle deaths are associated with not using lights at night (and being drunk!). Helmet users might be more safety conscious overall and either use lights or not ride at night. Is it the helmet reducing the fatalities?

The problem is that there really isn't good data. And it's quite likely that there won't ever be good data.

It seems "obvious" that there would be a benefit to wearing helmets and there's no down-side to agencies in recommending them.

A recommendation isn't really evidence that they have a real overall positive value.

Interesting. There's some notion that MHL reduce the number of cyclists. If it's casual (less skilled) cyclists dropping-out, the drop head-injuries might not be due to helmets.

Speedo

You might be surprised just how urban Australia is. The population of the country as a whole is 22.33 million. The population of the top five cities is 13.60 million. Of the big cities I've only been to Sydney, and it's no sleepy backwater. I'm from New York, so I know the city fairly well. Would I say that the meanest mean streets of New York compare to the meanest mean streets of Sydney? No, but not that far off, and most of New York City is not mean streets.

I don't know if MHL studies are in for Vancouver. Their MHL law is somewhat newer there than in Australia and New Zealand. That's not half a world away, but you could complain that as the subjects are Canadians those results would reflect a politeness not to be expected in New York.

Unfortunately MHL studies are the best evidence out there for what happens when helmet use becomes nearly universal. If the 85% effectiveness claim for helmets were true then, going from 30ish percent helmet use to 95% helmet use should have a dramatic effect on fatalities and injuries. The effect should be so dramatic that you wouldn't have to appeal to cultural differences between Australians, Canadians and New Yorkers. Totally ignoring those results would be dishonest, and as Mr. Pedantic, I'm sure you don't want that.

Speedo

njkayaker

One of his and meanwhile's basic assumptions is that every motor vehicle collision exceeds the "design parameters" of helmets.

njkayaker

The "fundamental problem" is your lack of reading comprehension. This quote isn't saying what you think it does.

Monster Pete

I think the main issue is all the energy spent in promoting helmet use, that would be much better spent on supporting safe cycling- 'a helmet is the single most important piece of safety equipment' etc (it's not.) You can be a safe cyclist or an unsafe one, helmet or not. If all the effort that was put into pushing for greater helmet use was redirected towards good road sense, using lights at night etc, it would probably have a much greater effect on cycling fatalities than any helmet.

njkayaker made a good point: while helmeted cyclists tend to be injured less, it's more likely because they're generally more safety conscious and so more likely to ride in a safe manner. This is only because there are so many 'people on bikes' (not cyclists) who ride in the wrong direction, don't use lights, ride when drunk etc etc distorting the stats for bare-headed riders. It's the mindset of the person riding the bike that makes the difference, not necessarily the helmet.

njkayaker

The advantage of promoting helmet use is that it's "simple" and "obvious" and "non-controversial". The recommendation is binary and easy to detect: use a helmet (versus not using one).

There are also PSA type things for "safe cycling" and there's not reason one can't easily do both (which is commonly done anyway).

A real effect might result in requiring people to take cycling classes but that's expensive and hard (and won't be well liked).

closetbiker

Our MHL came into effect in June of 1996, not that long after Aus and NZ passed theirs.

The evidence examined post law showed that despite a dramatic rise in helmet use, the proportion of head injuries did not change with the helmet law.

In 2010, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles admitted that fatalities had not fallen since introduction of the helmet law, but still claimed that helmets saved lives.

Controlled surveys of cycle use before and after the law were not carried out. However a survey to measure helmet use in 1999 suggested that the cyclist profile had changed, with around 30% fewer cyclists aged 16 to 30 years, a similar reduction in road cycles and a smaller reduction in the proportion of females cycling. For cyclists of all ages, total cyclist injuries from police attended collisions ( i.e. involving a motor vehicle) declined by 35% from 1995 to 1997 (31% by 1999) (ICBC).



https://cyclehelmets.org/1103.html

mconlonx

Thing is, I don't have a problem with people not wearing helmets, but as someone who was gifted the nickname "Mr. Pedantic" in a helmet thread, I do have a problem with internal logic inconsistencies. Like: helmet laws discourage ridership, but in places like NYC where there aren't MHLs and bike riding is on the increase, where safety should also be benefit, there's still an outsize portion of the riding populace who die while not wearing a helmet. I'm not basing my helmet use on such, but it is a compelling argument...

mconlonx

Dang, like in an earlier post, where you potrayed bare-headers as universally reasonable and benign, where they're not, you come off as perfectly sensible. As someone in the bike industry, I do take issue with your assertion that as much or more energy is wasted on helmet use vs. safe riding. In the LAB safety course, which instructs bike riders regarding safety issues, helmet use, while mandatory, is not unduly stressed and represents a minority of instructional time.

Also, in the shop while selling accessories incident to a bike purchase, I can personally attest to the fact that helmets are not sold any harder than any other bike add-on like a water bottle cage or flat repair kit.

RazrSkutr

Please specify the proportion of the population that wears a helmet in NYC. After that please control for the proportion of helmet non-wearers that are risk-takers in other respects and show that the resulting bare-headed, but otherwise cautious cyclists are an "outsize" portion.