Weird stuff. Request for comment: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa029&articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2
May 10, 2007
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
Although you might not want to leave your protective gear at home, just know that if you do, drivers will be a lot more scared of hitting you.
Spring is in full swing now, and a number of the straphangers (read: subway riders) in New York City, as well as citizens in other locales, are getting new tubes and tires and dragging their bikes out of storage. Bicycle riding is the skill you reportedly never forget, but there's a raging debate about whether or not you should forget your helmet when you hop on your two-wheeler.
Last September a plucky psychologist at the University of Bath in England announced the results of a study in which he played both researcher and guinea pig. An avid cyclist, Ian Walker had heard several complaints from fellow riders that wearing a helmet seemed to result in bike riders receiving far less room to maneuver—effectively increasing the chances of an accident. So, Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. In the process, he was actually contacted by a truck and a bus, both while helmeted—though, miraculously, he did not fall off his bike either time.
ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)
His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists." The extra leeway granted to him when he pretended to be a woman, he explains, could result from several factors, including drivers' perceptions that members of the fairer sex are less capable riders, more frail or just less frequent bikers than men.
Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI), says that studies such as Walker's run the risk of misleading cyclists as to the effectiveness of helmets. "The cars were giving him, on average, a very wide passing clearance already," he explains, noting that most vehicles typically stayed well over three feet from the bikes, rendering the 3.35-inch discrepancy to be insignificant. "If you really want the greatest passing distance, you should wobble down the road," looking as inept as possible, he adds.
Walker actually reanalyzed his data recently to counter this line of reasoning. "I assessed the number of vehicles coming within one meter [roughly 3.3 feet] of the rider, on the principle that these are the ones that pose a risk," he says. "There were 23 percent more vehicles within this one-meter danger zone when a helmet was worn, suggesting a real risk."
Dorothy Robinson, a patron of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and a senior statistician at the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, published a 2006 review article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) about regions in Australia, New Zealand and Canada that introduced legislation that spurred an over 40 percent increase in bicycle helmet use among their populaces. The newly instituted laws, she found, did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries, the primary purpose of the gear. Her conclusion was "helmets are not designed for forces often encountered in collisions with motor vehicles" as well as that they "may encourage cyclists to take more risks or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists."
Coincidentally, around the same time as Walker announced his results, New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
gah definately a candidate for a South Park episode...of course an anti-cyclist cager sent the article to me.
LittleBigMan
I don't see why helmet issues are taboo. It's already on everyone's mind.
I see it as an individual choice by adults, not a requirement. But although I'm not afraid to ride without a helmet, I continue to wear it for safety.
A helmet will not protect you from being crushed to death by a truck or car, but it can make a simple fall a non-event, instead of a concussion, or maybe worse.
(Still, I admit not wearing one is a nice experience, sort of like not wearing a condom--which I haven't done in a very, very long time...) :D
markhr
helmets don't kill people - people kill people
Bikepacker67
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
Painful but True: Foreheads attract curbs.
I'll wear my helmet.
Raiyn
I don't see why helmet issues are taboo. It's already on everyone's mind.
Because there's another current thread on the same topic on the same page.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=297486
CB HI
Five or more threads on this study. It is starting down the path of the recycling impotence threads.
Bikepacker67
I don't see why helmet issues are taboo. It's already on everyone's mind.
Because there's another current thread on the same topic on the same page.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=297486
Boy, that joke went right over your head.
trickmilla
A helmet will not protect you from being crushed to death by a truck or car, but it can make a simple fall a non-event, instead of a concussion, or maybe worse.
According to this story (http://spluch.blogspot.com/2007/05/bike-helmet-crushed-but-head-fine.html) a helmet can actually prevent your head from being crushed.
From the article: "The truck ran over his head. "I didn't see it coming, but I sure felt it roll over my head. It feels really strange to have a truck run over your head." His helmet, a Giro, was crushed, but Lipscomb's head was fine."
trickmilla
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists."
On the article of this thread. I think it is important to point out that the science is totally schlocky and the conclusion that is drawn that wearing a helmet may increase danger just plain sloppy for a number of reasons:
1) cyclists have crashes that do not involve cars (mechanical failure, road conditions, operator malfunction)
2) some cyclists do not take more risks with helmets on
3) some accidents are caused by drivers that do not see cyclists at all
4) some bike/car crashes are intentional driver assaults
5) some bike crashes are caused by drivers that are drunk and or lose control of their vehicle
The researcher would have to support that enough fatal accidents are caused by drivers getting too comfortable and driving too close to cyclists to eclipse many other potential crash situations to support the above statement.
............................
I hope this doesn't devolve into another flame war. People need to make their own decisions for themselves based on their personal judgement and the facts. It doesn't do anybody any good for people to call each other stuipd or whatever because they have different ideas about safety.
I choose to where a helmet most of the time. I do so for my won reasons. I don't think any less of somebody who doesn't. If you are an adult you are able to make that decision for yourself.
On the other hand this study is just plain BAD SCIENCE and that is something worth discussing.
JohnBrooking
I'm not a scientist, but isn't it sloppy science to conduct an experiment with yourself as the only subject? It surprises me that Scientific American would give it credence.
JohnBrooking
Okay, looking at the original, I see that it is filed under the "Weird Science" heading. And hey, isn't that guy in the picture riding against traffic? I can't tell if that's a bike lane or just a shoulder. And he's drawing conclusions about bike safety?
Keith99
I'm not a scientist, but isn't it sloppy science to conduct an experiment with yourself as the only subject? It surprises me that Scientific American would give it credence.
Yes and no. It is beyond poor science to dol this and say if gives an answer. It is very acceptable science historically where a lot of science has started to do things like this and say it raises the question.
All the reasearcher did was notice that it seemed that on average cars passed him closer when he had a helmet on. He then decided to measure to be sure it was not just his perception. His feelings were confirmed, the question is now raises. Idiots writing subsequent articles have turned a question into an answer.
musician
I don't see why helmet issues are taboo. It's already on everyone's mind.
I see it as an individual choice by adults, not a requirement. But although I'm not afraid to ride without a helmet, I continue to wear it for safety.
what if a cyclist without medical insurance and without a helmet crashes and falls, and has a major brain injury -- don't our taxes pay for their recovery? what if an unhelmeted cyclist falls, is injured -- if we share an insurance company, i'm helping to pay for their choices.
if one chooses to go without helmet, then dies in a crash (and suppose a helmet would have saved them), what of family and friends left behind?
so, yes, it is an individual choice. but it may have profound effects both immediate and unseen upon others.
just saying that if one takes a personal risk (which i am all for, don't mistake me), they should be prepared for that risk and also ready to accept any consequences.
Pat
The methodology of the study is obviously flawed. Finding a difference is not any big deal. You take two means, even drawn from an identical population, you will not get the identical numbers.
The researcher did not apply a statistical test to find out if differences in his results could be explained solely by simple chance. The general statistical requirement is that you need a chance smaller than 5% that the results could be explained by chance to accept that something statistically significant is going on. Actually, if you have major effects, the probabilities go off the test's scales at something like a .1% chance or .01% chance. The fact that this guy did not apply statistics suggests to me that he is a completely novice researcher and he really does not know about methodology.
John E
Why are we subjected to this again?
My rule is simple: always wear a helmet when cycling, and always ride as though you just realized that you accidentally left the helmet at home.
chipcom
what if a cyclist without medical insurance and without a helmet crashes and falls, and has a major brain injury -- don't our taxes pay for their recovery? what if an unhelmeted cyclist falls, is injured -- if we share an insurance company, i'm helping to pay for their choices.
if one chooses to go without helmet, then dies in a crash (and suppose a helmet would have saved them), what of family and friends left behind?
so, yes, it is an individual choice. but it may have profound effects both immediate and unseen upon others.
just saying that if one takes a personal risk (which i am all for, don't mistake me), they should be prepared for that risk and also ready to accept any consequences.
Have been for over 40 years. What if pigs fly? :rolleyes:
Satyr
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms
I always love when someone like a psychologist thinks he is a statistician.
Satyr
I'm not a scientist, but isn't it sloppy science to conduct an experiment with yourself as the only subject? It surprises me that Scientific American would give it credence.
Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed science journal. It's just a popular science magazine, so it's not really out of line for them to publish something like this.
skanking biker
Weird stuff. Request for comment: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa029&articleID=778EF0AB-E7F2-99DF-3594A60E4D9A76B2
May 10, 2007
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
Although you might not want to leave your protective gear at home, just know that if you do, drivers will be a lot more scared of hitting you.
Spring is in full swing now, and a number of the straphangers (read: subway riders) in New York City, as well as citizens in other locales, are getting new tubes and tires and dragging their bikes out of storage. Bicycle riding is the skill you reportedly never forget, but there's a raging debate about whether or not you should forget your helmet when you hop on your two-wheeler.
Last September a plucky psychologist at the University of Bath in England announced the results of a study in which he played both researcher and guinea pig. An avid cyclist, Ian Walker had heard several complaints from fellow riders that wearing a helmet seemed to result in bike riders receiving far less room to maneuver—effectively increasing the chances of an accident. So, Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. In the process, he was actually contacted by a truck and a bus, both while helmeted—though, miraculously, he did not fall off his bike either time.
Thats all you need to know. Any "conclusions" from a "study" conducted by a "scientist" who observes the experiment, analyzes the data AND participates in the experiment as a "guinea pig" are not worth the lab coat the "scientist" purchased from the Dollar Store.
It is a known fact that the results of an experiment are seriously flawed when the participant knows the object of the experiment. Likewise, data collected and analyzed by someone familiar with the purpose of the study is inherently suspect.
I'm not saying it isn't true. I am just saying the "experiment" is not scientifically valid.
chipcom
I wish people would quit dredging up this 'study'. It was good for a laugh the first time, but I'm running out of ways to make riding with a wig funny.
Brian Ratliff
Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed science journal. It's just a popular science magazine, so it's not really out of line for them to publish something like this.
Yep. SA is a subject reporting magazine covering science related subjects. Kind of like National Geographic. The journals which are peer reviewed and publish scientific work are numerous and, for the most part, completely unknown outside the academic world. Now, if the article was published in the Transportation Research Record (http://trb.metapress.com/content/?k=bicycle) where it'd have to be peer reviewed, I'd give him some credence.
That said, perhaps this author is right. Perhaps there is a correlation between helmet useage and passing distance. It passes my smell test, though to form any lasting conclusions I'd need to see the data. Now, the question on my mind is: what is the correlation between passing distance and safety? Everyone assumes that closer passing indicates reduced safety, but most people's experiences are skewed because the main instances of close passing happen in a shared narrow lane situation. But if there is a clear path for two vehicles side by side, say a car in a full width lane and a bicycle in a bike lane, does passing distance correlate with safety?
Brian Ratliff
Thats all you need to know. Any "conclusions" from a "study" conducted by a "scientist" who observes the experiment, analyzes the data AND participates in the experiment as a "guinea pig" are not worth the lab coat the "scientist" purchased from the Dollar Store.
It is a known fact that the results of an experiment are seriously flawed when the participant knows the object of the experiment. Likewise, data collected and analyzed by someone familiar with the purpose of the study is inherently suspect.
I'm not saying it isn't true. I am just saying the "experiment" is not scientifically valid.
You know, validity is on a sliding scale. It is definitely less valid than a well funded, double blind experiment, but probably more valid than Forester's sidepath test, i.e. he quantified a variable and took a direct measurement of it. It is probably just a cheap little experiment to shallowly test a hypothesis in order to set the stage for a larger, more controlled (and hopefully better funded) experiment. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, and if it published in SA, the author doesn't even intend it to be the last word. But it passes my smell test, at least. Not to say that I will go about riding around without a helmet because of it though, but it is plausable that the "look" of the cyclist, to some extent at least, influences the passing distance a typical driver will give him or her.
I mean, the money for a study has to come from somewhere, and most research grants, in my experience, require that the researcher already have a good understanding of the phenomena under study. It is kind of an oxymoron, that. I work at an independent R&D engineering company, and the joke is that, to do the proposal, one must already have done the research we are trying to get funding for! And there is a grain of truth to it too.
Brian Ratliff
I take everything back. It was academically published and passed a peer review:
His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.
That it was published means his methods were adequately documented and controlled and his findings were statistically significant.
Brian Ratliff
I have half a mind to spend $30 to obtain the article. Unfortunately, I don't think it is legal to publish it here on the BF. Here's the link to it if anyone is interested. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235794%232007%23999609997%23638991%23FLA%23&_cdi=5794&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd8d89714830578440275d5b4094b5e2) Last entry (number 28) in the list.
Actually, anyone belong to a University around here? I'll bet that you can get the paper through the University library if you are interested.
Satyr
I take everything back. It was academically published and passed a peer review:
That it was published means his methods were adequately documented and controlled and his findings were statistically significant.
This is not always the case. Scientific rigor and method soundness run on a sliding scale. There are plenty of mediocre papers out there. For instance, almost every positive study for things like homeopathy, psychic ability, etc. have very flawed methodological approaches, yet they are still published. (As a note, the BEST studies in these areas hands down show no observable effect at all).
I see nothing wrong with his data collecting methods, though. That being said, just because it was published doesn't mean he actually did any statistical comparisons at all. A lot of preliminary and pilot studies just have the rudiments of statistical analysis done.
I have a feeling the guy collected data, then just said, "Maybe this mitigates the protection gained from helmets." I'd be surprised if he did any hard statistics in this first study. That would probably come in a subsequent study.
JRA
I'm running out of ways to make riding with a wig funny.Try wearing a pink wig. It always works for me.
bike2math
That it was published means his methods were adequately documented and controlled and his findings were statistically significant.
You place an awful lot of faith in the "peer" part of peer review. Countless papers have made it through missing one or more of these three things; particularly in the more subjective sciences.
In this case I'm guessing that his experiment and hypothesis concerned only him as a subject; I would be suprised if the true conclusions of his experiment lead to the statement he makes. In truth this should be looked at. This experiment is a sound basis for a grant application to study such effects in a large controlled experiment with multiple subjects.
I do think that mutually assured destruction for all road users (think no seatbelts and a rusty spike on the steering column of every car) would make our roads accident and injury free, although doing experiments on this theory lead to some "ethical problems".
richardmasoner
According to this story (http://spluch.blogspot.com/2007/05/bike-helmet-crushed-but-head-fine.html) a helmet can actually prevent your head from being crushed.
Not even the helmet nazi at the one-man Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute believes the truck really ran over the helmet. (http://www.helmets.org/truck.htm) They even post cool photos from their testing involving a car, a helmet and a watermelon (http://www.helmets.org/smush.htm).