njkayaker

Feel free to point out flaws where ever you see them.

A cyclist might only choose to ride on the road only with a helmet ("risk compensating") and still be more careful riding than some one who would ride without a helmet (who might be less safety conscious overall).

The anti-helmet group argues that the "risk compensation" induces the rider to ride like a crazy person (who would get into more accidents and be relying on the "magic hat" to keep them safe).

Speedo

I'm a little confused, what internal logic consistencies? In you're response you are connecting a few dots that I didn't connect. Is that what you think? Is that what you think I think?

It has been a while since I looked at that NYC report. This discussion prompted me to re-read it. A variety of things struck me. One was how similar the accident stats in NYC are to the rest of the country. Right down to the fact that it is middle aged male proto-geezers (such as myself) that are the most likely victims. Most of the fatalities (92%) were due to accidents involving motor vehicles. Again, that's typical, it's easier to survive fall down go boom injuries. Of the accidents involving motor vehicles 32% where with large vehicle. While 74% involved a head injury, 51% involved other injuries as well. 26% involved no head injury at all. No specific cross reference of helmet wearing with injuries. No mention of what the fatal injury was in the case of mixed injuries. Only 3% of the fatal crashes had no factors listed. These things don't just happen. There are reasons. 78% involved some kind of error on the part of the bicyclist (some of those had motor vehicle factors as well). That's pretty impressive.

So, 78% had some bicyclist causal relationship to the fact that there was a crash at all; as a group those fatalities demonstrated that they were not safe riders. 92% involved crashes with motor vehicles. 32% with large motor vehicles. 26% involved no head injury at all, given the stats there had to be helmet-less riders among that group. Not having a helmet did them no harm. The report lists injuries, not cause of death, 51% had injuries other than head injuries; we don't know how many of those died of their other injuries. Given the large percentage of motor vehicle crashes 32% large ones) we don't know how many of those crashes would not have been survivable even had a helmet been worn.

It's not simple.

Speedo

rydabent

The posts Im waiting to read is a personal expierence by a cyclist that said he was saved from injury by NOT wearing a helmet. Reports and studies are basically meaningless as so many have an agenda. Also "report" by the usual aniti helmet trolls are meaningless!!!!

buzzman

I don't have the stats for comparison but I would imagine if one were to break down the fatalities and injuries to soldiers in combat there would be somewhat similar ratios of body injury in combination with head injury, fatal body injury without head injury certainly a lot of times when having a helmet did them absolutely no good.

I am by no means drawing a comparison between the dangers and threats of being in a war zone with bicycling but I am asking the question of whether or not that same statistical evidence, that having a helmet would not prevent the lion's share of injuries and fatalities, would be a reason not to wear one at all.

Aren't most of us who do wear helmets wearing them with the full knowledge that it is but one factor in a variety of strategies to avoid, prevent or mitigate injury?

njkayaker

According to the antihelmet group, helmets keep you from riding and cause you to ride carelessly/recklessly!

sudo bike

We know the effect of risk compensation is real, we just don't know how much that applies to wearing a helmet. Also, I don't think anyone think it "induces the rider to ride like a crazy person". I think the effects are supposed to be far more subtle; not something you'd really notice unless you went to the trouble of looking. That's usually the case with risk compensation.

EDIT: For example, look at studies concerning anti-lock brakes. There are at least three I'm aware of that all show that their adoption actually had almost no effect on road safety, because people drove measurably faster and followed closer, presumably because the balance of risk vs reward changed; risk compensation.

Six-Shooter

What's interesting are the political ramifications. Be that as it may, your characterization is incorrect. The agencies and organizations to which I refer that support helmet use are doing so in the context of studies or statistics. You may disagree with their data or conclusions, but you can't rightly imply that they are merely "echoing conventional wisdom" with some sort of decontextualized pronouncement. Some examples with links so you can see the recommendations in their original contexts:

A Joint Report from the New York City Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and the New York City Police Department
https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/download...fatalities.pdf
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety -- Queensland
https://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/publica..._safety_fs.pdf
Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...le_helmets.pdf
Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Regarding Commission Vote on Bike Helmet Rule February 5, 1998
https://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml98/98062.html
British Medical Association
https://www.bma.org.uk/health_promoti...5#.TyLxMvn4IqY
American Medical Association
https://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf in conjunction with their other documents like https://www.ama-assn.org/resources/do...le-helmets.pdf
US CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr4401.pdf
etc.

One needs to differentiate between skill (unquantifiable, I would think) or experience (quantifiable) and behavioral choices. Someone may have lots of experience but take foolish risks that counteract any gains from their experience.

chipcom 

Pfft, if you weren't such a noob you'd remember the countless times I have shared my story of endoing head first into the rear of a motor home at 15mph because I was too busy ogling a jiggly-boobed jogger instead of paying attention to what I was doing. I usually only recount that story when someone just "knows" that a helmet saved their life, because I just "know" not having a helmet saved my life in that incident. Neither belief is knowable.

sudo bike

Sure he can. It's completely valid to point out that it's more "safe" from criticism to push helmets rather than come out and say, "Gee, you know what, helmets may not be so hot after all". Governmental organizations are not free from these pressures. In fact, I'd say they are far more vulnerable to them.

Again, with the data we have on injury rates, different conclusions can be drawn from that data. Is it all that unlikely that societal norms might just push them a little closer to one conclusion over another?

Not really taking a position on this particular tangent, just noting that it's a valid concern he's raising.

buzzman

I'm sorry but is this as lame an argument as it seems to be? If this is the best you can do then why not just pull the whole "risk compensation" theory out of the equation?

njkayaker

There you go!

And we don't know that, if helmets are the norm, that a difference in behavior isn't due to a risk decompensation (people being overcareful).

I'm exaggerating (it's called hyperbole).

I'm aware of one study that compared drivers of cabs with/without ABS in some German city, which didn't show a difference in accident rates (if I recall correctly). In this case, I suspect that the real reason is that ABS helps in situations that comprise a small percentage of accidents OR people don't know how to use them. That is, people extrapolated the benefits of ABS from idealized/research conditions that don't represent the real world.

njkayaker

You'd have to dig a bit deeper in many of them to see what real data they are using.

It's possible that they are not all independent. Some of them might be using the same statistics (which goes towards my "echoing" comment).

26% of fatalities with documented injuries had no head injuries.
74% of fatalities with documented injuries had head (sometimes other) injuries. (for some of these the head injury might have been irrelevant).
3% of fatalities with docmented helmet use were wearing helmets.

Something doesn't quite add up. Maybe, it's the non-helmet wearers in NYC that are displaying the risky behavior.

If you only look at the last statistic, helmets would seem to provide a huge benefit. If you also look at the first two statistics, the effect is nowhere near as large. And the data is incomplete (only in about half of the fatalities was helmet use known or injuries known).

This doesn't appear to be true for drivers generally (supported by insurance rates). It doesn't appear to be true of cyclists either.

In a large enough population, its easy to find "someone" as an example of anything.

njkayaker

Closetbiker's favorite word is "may".

skye

That's because science's favorite word is "may." Because science has far more rigorous standards than you do, njkayaker, about making absolute statements. You'll believe any old piece of **** so long as it agrees with your preconceived notions. However, those of us who value reason in making important decisions regarding our personal safety, are generally unlikely to make unequivocal statements about things (did you see what I did there?)

Or you can just abandon reason and follow the crowd. That works for a lot of people.

njkayaker

skye may be a pedophile!



Did you see what I did there?





If people are using the word "may" in claims to support strongly held opinions (eg, "helmets are bad"), they are blowing smoke up your butt.

buzzman

Wow. Do you really believe that there is even the remotest amount of evidence to apply "risk compensation" theory to bicycle helmet wearing?- I mean enough to qualify as good science?

I've seen studies that demonstrate exactly the opposite. In other words, that helmet wearing cyclists take fewer risks. Mind you not enough evidence that I would label it as absolutely conclusive but certainly enough to support my own personal observations that lead me to believe that the probability is that the greater percentage of safely riding cyclists also wear helmets.

sudo bike

If you'll go back and look rather than apply others' arguments to me, you'll see I've never pushed the risk compensation argument very hard because of exactly what I said here; there just isn't reliable data as to how it applies to cycling.

What I do take objection to is, 1) Saying or implying risk compensation isn't a factor. It obviously is, and this is measurable. To what extent, I don't know and I don't think a general conclusion can be made from such little data (I could be wrong). 2) That because we don't know, we should ignore it and "remove it from the equation". Doing either of these things is a mistake and shoddy science. As I said, risk compensation is real and measurable (see ABS systems in cars); this is not disputable and so not really able to be ignored. As such, I'm not sure how one could assume cycling is somehow immune to this effect?

I'm not sure what exactly you're driving at here.

EDIT: If I understand you correctly, that would actually be a desired effect, regardless of the norm. It doesn't matter whether you look at it from one point of view and see an increase in riskier behavior or another point of view and see that people outside that group are engaging in less risky behavior. Either way, the point is that one group is being less risky than the other. What the norm is has no bearing on anything, in terms of effects of helmet use on risk.

Indeed, and it's undesirable; it leads to defensiveness and a hostile environment.

Check the Wikipedia article on risk compensation; it has 3 studies cited covering Canada, Denmark, and Germany.

"There are at least three studies which show that drivers' response to antilock brakes is to drive faster, follow closer and brake later, accounting for the failure of ABS to result in any measurable improvement in road safety."

-----

Again, please don't mistake my admission that we don't know very well what effect risk compensation has in relation to cycling with an admission that it is unimportant. Again, we know this must be a factor because it's always a factor with safety equipment; we just don't know how much it is in this particular case. That's not cause to brush aside the argument as an invention of wacky science or as unable to be brought up in the helmet discussion.

And there is even at least one study showing it has a measurable undesirable effect; I just don't think that's really enough to conclusively say "This is the effect helmets have on risky behavior" with a degree of certainty.

Myself, I think the detriment of risk compensation is acceptable providing the device actually gives enough tangible benefit. From my own assessment, this is not the case in most everyday riding by predictable, safe cyclists; I believe these people stand to benefit the least from helmet use, to the point of being negligible. Now, there are exceptions to that, and plenty of other categories where there probably is more benefit: Small children, novice riders, people who actively engage in riskier behavior (stunts/cross or trail riding), poor weather conditions; people who are more likely to be involved in a solo or otherwise low speed crash.

Six-Shooter

As I said, "You may disagree with their data or conclusions," but these are nevertheless professionals in the fields of medicine, safety, traffic, statistics, etc., issuing these recommendations in the context of data. They are not merely Some Guy on the Internet spouting off personal opinion, without qualifications in the relevant fields, which was my point.

That goes without saying and is why I provided links instead of merely quotes out of context. Indeed, some of these people may have biases that override their objective assessment, some may have financial or political interests that skew their findings, etc. But, that is all strictly in the realm of worst-case hypotheticals. Without evidence to support such accusations, I will err on the side of assuming they are well-meaning and honest professionals taking the matter seriously--not infallible but at least qualified to make an educated recommendation based on study.

I should add that using the same statistics is not inherently bad if there is broad expert consensus asserting their validity.

But in the context of this discussion, you could argue it is not merely possible but common: many experienced cyclists choosing not to wear helmets

sudo bike

It isn't just about "disagreeing with their data or conclusions" though; it's about pointing out that the de facto position that helmets are effective is a "safer" option to forward for any organization, especially one connected with government, which faces greater public scrutiny.

As a tangent, a study I recently learned about: It was a study to see how people reacted in groups where a clear "norm" was established, and likelihood to go against that norm. They set up a series of groups, each drawing something on the whiteboard; in one case 3 lines, all the same length. Everyone but a few in the group, sometimes only one, sometimes more, were told to give the answer that all the lines were of different lengths. Sure enough, when it got to the people being tested, what answer did they give? Afraid to be met with confrontation and ridicule they went with the group answer of "different lengths" even though they were obviously the same length. This happened pretty consistently. Different drawings and tweakings in amount of people tested in a group, etc, but same idea.

Now, there are obviously different group dynamics going on in this situation, but I think it's at least partially applicable. It demonstrates that being the first few to overturn a widely accepted idea is difficult and there isn't much will to do it. The fear of ridicule in opposing an accepted idea can overcome opposition, even when there is evidence to warrant it.

mconlonx

Wow.

That's exactly as bad as those helmet wearers who claim a helmet saved their life.

Might be plausible to state such, but not with the conviction of your first sentence, or even the qualification of your last sentence.

So little text; so much fail.

mconlonx

Internal logic consistencies within this thread. It's not necessarily what I think, but a lot of it is what I think others think. I do not think you think that way. I hope you don't think I think you think that way.

Thanks for breaking down the NYC numbers.

No kidding...

mconlonx

Closetbiker has posted links to support his claim that it does...

Six-Shooter

The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes it to be the safer position of proffering conventional, palatable wisdom. Take for instance the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research I quoted earlier. They note

So how are they making a politically safe recommendation or merely echoing a conventional wisdom that is not, in fact, conventional in their nation?

Even in the US, this survey shows only an estimated 50% of cyclists wear helmets regularly, not some overwhelming majority. https://www.cpsc.gov/library/helmet.html And given the prominent American cultural streak of individualism and distrusting and disliking government intervention in private matters, I'm not sure recommending helmets is necessarily the easy route to take. They could just as easily remain silent on the issue.

sudo bike

Very honestly, I don't know about the Dutch either as a cycling culture or otherwise to feel I can make an informed comment. What I will say is that there are plenty of Dutch who take an opposing view that helmets aren't necessary.

Not wearing helmets doesn't mean people believe they aren't effective. Plenty of people don't put on a seatbelt for a short drive, but I'm sure they don't think they are ineffective (there does seem to be a very tiny percentage of people that are afraid of being trapped in the car, but I think this is a very insignificant number, even among people who don't wear a seatbelt every time they drive). The point is that saying "helmets aren't effective" is a much more controversial position (could even lead to liability in our litigious society). Repeating the mantra of "wear a helmet", in this fast food society that wants quick and easy answers, is met with praise from everyone from firefighters to teachers. Surely you must see this? We see it all the time... it's become a PR machine for many groups.

EDIT: All I'm saying is that it's fair to point out that there is a bias towards one answer over another in terms of societal pressures. That doesn't invalidate them, but it's a consideration when looking at their conclusions.

sudo bike

I think "engages in riskier behavior" != "ride like a crazy person".