Advocacy & Safety - Helmets cramp my Style - part 3

After years and years of debate, a couple of days was all it took to shut down this epic thread. All it took was a violation of basic forum guidelines.

The board is only as good as it's contributions. We're not going to learn anything unless we get along and listen to each other and think about a different point of view even if we don't agree with it at first. Even if we never agree, at least we can gain some understanding about why it is someone sees something in a different way.

This long thread started years ago, when jeff williams posted this little ditty:


I see more ladies than men, the guys tend to look often like work commuters, boots= like they might not even OWN a helmet.

The ladies however are often young, on cruisers or classics, doing the 'hair show'.
Less cyclists than voyeur -gers.
I find it has the reverse effect, I think of 'unprotected' riding as uncool, not sexy.

"When cycling...or in bed =put some protection over your head."
The babe in town that rides a Ritchey..she had a helmet....stone fox.

Maybe on the MUP or 'country lane'...city riding minus a lid is not so smart.
I've rarely seen a mtb'er offroad without.

Most KIDS are smarter than some adult cyclists.
It was nice to see so many riders today though. ....even the dumb ones.

My little bike+rant for today.

actually, this is not the exact, original post because jeff went back after a couple of days and edited out of it some bits that were a bit more offensive than what he left (including the point that said these people who went without helmets were airheads). The idea stuck; people who went without helmets were morons, idiots and organ donors.

There was a bit of piling on and lots of name calling.

Of course, there are any people who choose to not to wear helmets for all kinds of reasons and many found it offensive that there was intolerance of their choice. Further, it was (is) almost impossible to find the reciprocal position, that someone had to be an airhead to be wearing a helmet even if some thought wearing a helmet while cycling was ridiculous.

What's my position? Well, live and let live. Let people make their own choices and if you don't agree with them, try to learn about why they made the decision they did, particularly if it doesn't make sense to you.

I believe bicycle helmets provide the protection they were designed, made, and tested to uphold. I think many people believe they can provide protection beyond those standards, I don't know why they do, but I'd be better off gaining some understanding than giving them a hard time for thinking in a different way than I do.

I also believe that cycling can be about as safe as anything else you can do. Life is full of risks and managing them is a better way of life than worrying about them.

I hope this discussion can continue in a civil manner, because unless we can discuss it, it'll be hard to gain any insight into it, and we all know it'll be shut down if we don't participate nicely.

After years and years of debate, a couple of days was all it took to shut down this epic thread. All it took was a violation of basic forum guidelines.

The board is only as good as it's contributions. We're not going to learn anything unless we get along and listen to each other and think about a different point of view even if we don't agree with it at first. Even if we never agree, at least we can gain some understanding about why it is someone sees something in a different way.

This long thread started years ago, when jeff williams posted this little ditty:



actually, this is not the exact, original post because jeff went back after a couple of days and edited out of it some bits that were a bit more offensive than what he left (including the point that said these people who went without helmets were airheads). The idea stuck; people who went without helmets were morons, idiots and organ donors.

There was a bit of piling on and lots of name calling.

Of course, there are any people who choose to not to wear helmets for all kinds of reasons and many found it offensive that there was intolerance of their choice. Further, it was (is) almost impossible to find the reciprocal position, that someone had to be an airhead to be wearing a helmet even if some thought wearing a helmet while cycling was ridiculous.

What's my position? Well, live and let live. Lets people make their own choices and if you don't agree with them, try to learn about why they made the decision they did, particularly if it doesn't make sense to you.

I believe bicycle helmets provide the protection they were designed, made, and tested to uphold. I think many people believe they can provide protection beyond those standards, I don't know why they do, but I'd be better off gaining some understanding than giving them a hard time for thinking in a different way than I do.

I also believe that cycling can be about as safe as anything else you can do. Life is full of risks and managing them is a better way of life than worrying about them.

I hope this discussion can continue in a civil manner, because unless we can discuss it, it'll be hard to gain any insight into it, and we all know it'll be shut down if we don't participate nicely.

I think I speak for a lot of us when I say, "Dude, give it a rest."

I think I speak for a lot of us when I say, "Dude, give it a rest."

Well, I know that I'm enjoying that some of us are in fact, giving it a rest.

Welcome to the new and improved Trollheim.

-Kurt

Yeah. That's the concept. Trolling for tolerance (and myth-busting).

I've been a flip flopper when it come to always wearing a helmet. When I put on a kit and train on the road I always wear the helmet, when commute in Manhattan I always wear a helmet, when I commute around town or zip over to the store or just putz, I wear a helmet half of the time. When I was younger and rode BMX bikes I never wore a helmet unless required to in a skatepark. Alot of my decision to wear one has to do with risk factors including speed and motor vehicles. When danger does not appear to be an issue, wearing a hemlet is at least a good example to set for children, who typical forgo one due to the "uncool" factor (I probably don't look "cool" in spandex, but setting a standard aint bad). Regardless of skill, accidents happen all the time, it seems silly to suffer traumatic brain injury, paralysis or death when all that's necessary is to wear a "hat".

just a ramble.

If you're looking for help with simply falling over off your bike (without hitting anything along the way) wearing a helmet isn't a bad idea, but if your concern is suffering traumatic brain injury, paralysis or death, you might want to consider the limitations of what you're wearing.

Also, shouldn't a realistic assessment of the odds of actually needing this protection also enter into judgment? Sure, accidents happen, but just how likely do they, and what are the typical outcomes when they do?

If you're looking for help with simply falling over off your bike (without hitting anything along the way) wearing a helmet isn't a bad idea, but if your concern is suffering traumatic brain injury, paralysis or death, you might want to consider the limitations of what you're wearing.

Also, shouldn't a realistic assessment of the odds of actually needing this protection also enter into judgment? Sure, accidents happen, but just how likely do they, and what are the typical outcomes when they do?

Did you start this thread just to disagree with people who participate in it?

Did you start this thread just to disagree with people who participate in it?

Nope.

I've been a flip flopper when it come to always wearing a helmet. When I put on a kit and train on the road I always wear the helmet, when commute in Manhattan I always wear a helmet, when I commute around town or zip over to the store or just putz, I wear a helmet half of the time. When I was younger and rode BMX bikes I never wore a helmet unless required to in a skatepark. Alot of my decision to wear one has to do with risk factors including speed and motor vehicles. When danger does not appear to be an issue, wearing a hemlet is at least a good example to set for children, who typical forgo one due to the "uncool" factor (I probably don't look "cool" in spandex, but setting a standard aint bad). Regardless of skill, accidents happen all the time, it seems silly to suffer traumatic brain injury, paralysis or death when all that's necessary is to wear a "hat".

just a ramble.

Lets look at this the way the automotive industry looks at safety equipment, and you will see a problem. When a new car is designed, they intentionally take several copies and run them into things using crash test dummies, to see how well the safety equipment protects the occupants in a crash. Bicycle helmets are tested by putting the helmet on a 5lb weight, and dropping it from 6', it is then inspected for damage. If the damage is below a certain amount, it passes.

Realistically a good test for a helmet would be to strap it to a crash test dummy, put that dummy on a bicycle, increase the speed to 30km/h, then run it into a solid object, so the dummy goes flying off. You would then check the sensor data from the crash test dummies head to see if the forces generated would be sufficient to cause injury and to what level. To establish a baseline you would run the test without a helmet as well. The problem is that current bicycle helmet design would fail miserably, as is already shown by head injury statistics. Personally I think such testing would result in new designs that would work better.

Another test would be to take a bicycle in a stationary position and run a car into it at 60km/h, again your looking only at head injuries. One area where helmets do fail is that they sometimes transfer energy from the head to the neck, great, your brain survived and is intact but your paraplegic because of the broken neck.

Want to know what would really, really, really help, forget protecting one from injuries in the collision, lets prevent the collision in the first place.

*Yawn*

Next week... on HELMET WARS! More master debation, will anybody solve anything? No! probably not.. but you have to watch something, right!?

Yeah. Helmet Wars. A bit over-dramatic describing a call for tolerance and understanding, wouldn't you say?

Then again, it's not like the issue hasn't been over dramatized when there are those who shout out that cycling is extra-ordinarily dangerous and the solution to this danger is selling a cheaply manufacturable and highly profitable item that's recommended to be replaced frequently (even if it's in perfectly fine condition).

That's much more of a worthwhile venture than promoting responsibility in behavior if your goal is profit. Where's the profit in using rational analysis when discussing the issue?

I stay a way from Helmet's cramp my style for one week and look what happens!!

Personally, I think that parts one and two should be locked stickies, and be required reading for anyone desiring to post about helmets.

Speedo

I was surprised to see the sticky vanish yesterday. I thought the point was to keep it a sticky in order to direct debate here rather than have it permeate all over the board.

Then again, posters debate it anytime, anywhere.

It still is a good idea to have stickies on the thread as a point of reference for anyone who wants to learn.

I get a lot of that doom and gloom "you should be wearing a helmet!" type jibber-jabber from my mom and even my girlfriend. My mom pretty much never rides a bicycle and my girlfriend is a long ways behind me in road cycling experience. any time I ever hear a stranger say somthing about it its some middle aged soccer mom getting out of her SUV, or worse, some cop hassling me about it at a stoplight when I am trying to pay attention to traffic. Being rude in that sort of situation could easily cost you $30 here in B.C., where helmets are mandatory but the law is spottily enforced.

That said, I own a helmet and I wear it fairly often, mostly on my commute. I figure in a situation where I am riding every day to a fixed destination, and I have no reason to worry about my appearance or carrying a helmet around, It can't hurt to give myself a little more protection. I don't think it needs to be a law though. Think its gonna be repealed here any time soon Clostebiker?

I have the perfect solution two-part solution to the helmet debate.

Duck
Run

I get a lot of that doom and gloom "you should be wearing a helmet!" type jibber-jabber from my mom and even my girlfriend. My mom pretty much never rides a bicycle and my girlfriend is a long ways behind me in road cycling experience. any time I ever hear a stranger say somthing about it its some middle aged soccer mom getting out of her SUV, or worse, some cop hassling me about it at a stoplight when I am trying to pay attention to traffic. Being rude in that sort of situation could easily cost you $30 here in B.C., where helmets are mandatory but the law is spottily enforced.

That said, I own a helmet and I wear it fairly often, mostly on my commute. I figure in a situation where I am riding every day to a fixed destination, and I have no reason to worry about my appearance or carrying a helmet around, It can't hurt to give myself a little more protection. I don't think it needs to be a law though. Think its gonna be repealed here any time soon Clostebiker?

I doubt it. That would mean someone would have to admit someone made a mistake.

An attempt to try to gain an exemption from the law for the proposed large scale bike sharing plan is proving problematic even when the proponents of the plan say complying with this law could kill the bike sharing plan.

As it is now it doesn't seem to be too bad because of the lack of enforcement. It doesn't hurt that they decreased the fine from $100 to $29 either.

It also doesn't hurt that the media is starting to shine a light on the futility of these laws. I write for a local paper and have a regular column dedicated to cycling issues. Each year, I manage to write at least one column on the law and I've been surprised at the large amount of positive response I've received on them. From some unexpected places too. Organizations that had previously backed the law have written me and expressed gratitude for showing how they made a mistake. Of course some people still back the law, but fewer are with the passing of time.

One significant voice spoke out last spring questioning the law. Vancouver City policeman and Province columnist Marc Tonner.

Here is his peice:

Much to ponder over mandatory bike lids

BY MARK TONNER, THE PROVINCE MAY 10, 2009

Police officers become accustomed to being labelled. This month I find I'm
wearing another, square on the forehead.

Apparently I'm a "Liddite." An unthinking proponent of mandatory bicycle helmet
laws.

I'm not sure I'm done with it yet, though I am willing to think. Bicycle helmets
don't offer genuine safety, according to the anti-lid set. Most bike fatalities
involve collisions with cars, not falls onto hard surfaces. Helmets are rated
for simple falls, not collisions at speed.

The natural response, a call for better helmets, is said to be misguided.
Studies on more robust motorcycle helmets show mandatory laws elevate crash
rates, even cause fatalities. Something in a false sense of security is said to
bring trouble, while an elevated sense of danger actually providessafety for the
helmet-free.

Helmet laws are said to cause perceptions of danger, making people afraid to
cycle. Fear-driven preference for auto transport brings congestion, raises the
risk to pedestrians, other drivers, and you guessed it -- cyclists. The fewer
cyclists on the road, the more dangerous it is for those who do ride.

Social engineers would have us trained from childhood, to want to ride, and to
obey the law when we do. They'd have motor vehicles made to slow down and
respect cyclists, rather than impose helmets on riders.

It's no surprise to see anti-liddites pointing to the Netherlands. Drug liberals
have been bowing that way for years, though the bicycling issue may benefit more
clearly from Dutch insight. They restrict auto access to residential and
shopping districts. They support public transit, subsidize cycling, and you
guessed again, they don't insist on helmets.

Almost half of Netherlanders pedal to work without helmets, yet the country has
a uniquely low rider-mortality rate. They've addressed the real problem, as they
see it. The cars.

The extreme side insists that mandated helmets equal legislated fear. Auto
manufacturers sell more cars when people fear cycling. Oil companies sell more
fuel, helmet manufacturers sell to a market held captive by regulation and fear.

Past a certain point, the anti-helmet manifesto reads like a Michael Moore
script. Cigarettes kill 400 times as many people as bicycles, but smokers aren't
made to use filters. Skin cancer kills ten times as many as bikers, but
sunscreen isn't compulsory.

Add an alien and we'd get David Duchovny back. For my part, I'll admit to being
swayed. Police officers aren't lawmakers, but we're being asked to think
carefully about enforcement of helmet laws as weather improves.

The new Burrard bridge bicycle lane will provide some interesting moments,
almost certainly. I can guarantee a major portion of bridge riders will be
helmet-free. It's the same everywhere. A sizeable segment within the cycling
community simply isn't buying into this law.

I think about proposed bicycle exchange programs, with cycles available in
strategic locations around town. Spontaneity would be entirely removed if one
needed a helmet to take advantage.

I think about the will of the community, both riders and drivers, and whether or
not this law expresses majority beliefs. Is it time to reconsider? Let me know,
at the address below.

Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer, whose column appears biweekly in
the Province. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police
department or board. Mark may be contacted at marcuspt@shaw.ca

I've contacted him and discussed the issue and he's commented favorably on my helmet law columns. When a member of the enforcing body of a law enforcement comes out and publicly questions the law, you know enforcement of this law isn't a priority.

I get a lot of that doom and gloom "you should be wearing a helmet!" type jibber-jabber from my mom and even my girlfriend. My mom pretty much never rides a bicycle and my girlfriend is a long ways behind me in road cycling experience. any time I ever hear a stranger say somthing about it its some middle aged soccer mom getting out of her SUV, or worse, some cop hassling me about it at a stoplight when I am trying to pay attention to traffic. Being rude in that sort of situation could easily cost you $30 here in B.C., where helmets are mandatory but the law is spottily enforced.

That said, I own a helmet and I wear it fairly often, mostly on my commute. I figure in a situation where I am riding every day to a fixed destination, and I have no reason to worry about my appearance or carrying a helmet around, It can't hurt to give myself a little more protection. I don't think it needs to be a law though. Think its gonna be repealed here any time soon Clostebiker?

There are really 3 sides in the helmet wars, and you need to sometimes be careful to know which camp people are actually in.

1) Those who are pro-helmet laws, they make the assumption that cyclists are too stupid to know whether they need a helmet or not. I think the overwhelming majority of people in this camp have not travelled by bicycle in decades.

2) Those who are pro-helmet, but anti-helmet laws, these folks prefer to wear a helmet themselves, but will defend another's choice to not wear one. I fall into this camp myself.

3) Those who are anti-helmet.

Unfortunately people in the first group tend to lump people in the second group with those in the third and people in the third group tend to lump people in the second group with people in the first.

I find that soccer mom is usually holding a cell phone in texting mode as they say how dangerous cycling is......

I think there is another category (or two);

people who are not against helmets, but do not wear them and/or people who think that the risks taken while cycling do not warrant wearing a helmet.

I also think there are people who understand the limitations of helmets, and realize there are situations where the circumstances of an impact are simply beyond a helmets ability to protect and feel in the situations where they do have the ability to protect, that the injuries sustained in those situations are likely to be so minor, that concern is not an issue.

I don't think that is being anti-helmet.

There are really 3 sides in the helmet wars, and you need to sometimes be careful to know which camp people are actually in.

1) Those who are pro-helmet laws, they make the assumption that cyclists are too stupid to know whether they need a helmet or not. I think the overwhelming majority of people in this camp have not travelled by bicycle in decades.

2) Those who are pro-helmet, but anti-helmet laws, these folks prefer to wear a helmet themselves, but will defend another's choice to not wear one. I fall into this camp myself.

3) Those who are anti-helmet.


I don't know of anyone who is simply "anti-helmet".

I do know a lot of people that are aware that a bicycle helmet may mitigate minor injuries but not serious injury or death and therefore can't be bothered with them and wish to be left to exercise their own judgment on whether or not to wear them. That's hardly anti-helmet.

Personally I wear one in the shower and insist that my 2 year old wears a Thudguard at all times except when strapped in her car seat:
http://www.thudguard.com/

From Bike Commute Tips Blog:

Happy Bicycle Commuting Sans Helmet (http://bikecommutetips.blogspot.com/search?q=happy+commuting+sans+helmet)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jdgaGaDfeqE/SWlv7H-Pf_I/AAAAAAAABTc/9-iCIbeX02U/s400/bicyclist.jpg




More than half of U.S. cyclists forgo helmets

WASHINGTON (Reuters)-More than half of Americans admit they never use a helmet while bicycling and more than a quarter skip the sunscreen, even when they are in the sun all day, according to Consumer Reports National Research Center.

The risks of cycling without a helmet are even higher -- the group cited the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety as saying 92 percent of bicyclists killed in 2007 were not wearing helmets. Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent.

Similarly, sunscreen can prevent skin cancer, which is by far the most common cause of cancer, although the two most common types are rarely deadly. The American Cancer Society estimated that more than 1 million new cases of basal and squamous cell cancers were diagnosed in 2008.

The survey of 1,000 Americans has a margin of error of about 3 percent. It found that 58 percent of Americans never used a helmet while cycling and 27 percent claimed they never used sunscreen.

Helmets are an often heated topic among bicyclists. The proponents of strict helmet use and the proponents of helmet-optional cycling offer intense arguments in support of their respective positions.

And articles such as this indicate a clear bias in favor of helmet use: "cyclists admit riding without helmets...tsk, tsk." The media perpetuates a popular perception that bicycling is in itself a dangerous activity, and that riding without a helmet is wanton recklessness.

Of course, this is complete nonsense. Bicycling is safe. Bicycle-related fatalities each year are relatively few, and easily avoidable with proper riding technique (stay sober, ride with traffic, use lights when riding at night, etc.) Certainly bicycling kills fewer people each year than sedentary lifestyles.

Helmets are not, repeat not, necessary to happily bike commute. In much of the world where bicycling is more prevalent, helmets are rarely used. Bicyclists should use their own judgment; if they feel safer with a helmet, fine. Helmets are certainly justified in higher-risk cycling activities, such as high-adrenaline racing or mountain biking.

It is important to stress, however: helmets merely mitigate the consequences of a crash, they don't prevent a crash. Many of the minimal risks of bicycle commuting can be avoided or mitigated through effective maintenance, proper bicycling technique, attentive riding, and street smarts

from one of my favorite sites on bike safety,

How to Not Get Hit by Cars (http://bicyclesafe.com/)

Important lessons in Bicycle Safety

by Michael Bluejay

This page shows you real ways you can get hit and real ways to avoid them.

a side bar link,

Why you don't see "wear a helmet" advice plastered all over this site (http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html)

What's wrong with bicycle helmets?

Many readers are surprised that I don't make a big deal on this site of insisting that cyclists wear helmets, especially since wearing helmets is what most people equate with bike safety...

Three big problems with helmets

The main problem with helmets is not with the helmets themselves, it's with the attitude towards them, the idea that they're the first and last word in bike safety. If that's the definition (and that's pretty much how people view helmets) then there are two big problems with that:

*A helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car.
*The effectiveness of helmets in preventing injury is seriously exaggerated.

let me be clear about this: Saying that helmet effectiveness is exaggerated is not the same thing as saying that helmets are useless. I don't believe that helmets are useless. ...

Helmet use among U.S. cyclists was nearly non-existent before the 1990's. Nobody wore helmets in the 80's and before. So what happened when helmet use skyrocketed in the 1990's? Head injuries went down, right?

No, head injuries went up....

I'm not suggesting that helmets caused the head injuries; there are other plausible explanations for why head injuries increased (more attention to helmets and less attention to safe riding skills being one of them). But what I am saying is that the protective value of helmets is so small it's hard to measure.

Most of us have heard that "bicycle helmets can prevent up to 85% of head injuries". Many times the phrase is printed without the "up to", stating flatly that bike helmets "prevent 85% of head injuries"...it came from a flawed 1989 study... not a single helmeted cyclist considered in the study was involved a collision with a motor vehicle!...

countries with the most helmeted cyclists also have the highest rate of cycling head injuries. And of course the converse is true: cycling head injuries are much lower in countries where cyclists don't wear helmets very much.

And that brings us to the third problem with helmets: *Helmet-wearing may actually promote injury.

Another problem with the focus on helmets is that they encourage state and local governments to enact helmet laws.

Unfortunately many people don't understand that just because something is a good idea that doesn't mean it should against the law if you don't do it.

The most significant result of a helmet law is to discourage cycling....

Ironically, helmet laws thus make cycling more dangerous...

But one of the biggest problems with helmet laws is that the shift the blame onto the cyclist in car-bike collisions, even if the motorist was clearly at fault. The idea is that if a cyclist gets hit by an at-fault motorist, it was the stupid cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet...

The UK Department for Transport produced a review of helmet effectiveness in which, Section 7: Opinion Pieces (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=11) examined


the range of arguments that have been deployed in the bicycle helmet debate and to consider some of the ways in which this debate has been conducted. A selection of papers from the late 1980s/2002 were chosen for analysis...

The sample was not scientifically selected but aimed to capture the flavour of the debate as it has emerged in the 1990s onwards. In the interests of balance, approximately half the sample were for and half against bicycle helmet wearing...

Although this information should be seen as presenting only very broad indicators, it does reflect certain characteristics of the debate...

Key points

* The pro-bicycle helmet group base their argument overwhelmingly on one major point: that there is scientific evidence that, in the event of a fall, helmets substantially reduce head injury.

* The anti-helmet group base their argument on a wider range of issues including: scientific studies are defective, compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in bicycling, risk compensation theory negates health gains, the overall road environment needs to be improved.

* The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.

My only comment on this presentation is the use of the term anti-helmet group is misleading and incorrect. I think it's more fair to suggest that this group that is in opposition to anothers opinions isn't against the helmet, but is against the arguments others use to impose their will on others. I would prefer the term pro-choice group to ant-helmet group.

Anyway, to this point the UK D of T raised of conflicting scientific evidence in the debate, I'll link an article from the UK by transportation planner Richard Burton printed in TransportXtra (http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=14073) a traffic mamnagement trade magazine.


Just over a year ago I started work on an MSc dissertation about cyclists' views of cycle helmets and the risks of cycling and, as part of that, I undertook a wide literature review. Although aware of the controversy about helmets, and sceptical of the claims made for them, I was unprepared for the overt bias in much research, with some researchers apparently reaching conclusions before starting work...

Burton continues on, expanding on the harm done by such bad, and misleading research


I surveyed over 300 cyclists, and interviewed ten, and concluded that most cyclists have an exaggerated view of the protective effect of helmets, which was likely to lead to risk compensatory behaviour. Most cyclists also had an exaggerated view of the risks of cycling, which appeared to be associated with the exaggerated view of helmets...

Why should this matter? Cycling may not be a panacea for the ills of modern society but it addresses a huge number of them...

In health terms, one researcher has said that, if the benefits of cycling could be bottled, it would be the most popular drug in the world. The promotion of cycle helmets has one single effect: a reduction in the numbers of cyclists. Given cycling's clear and massive benefits, anything that might depress levels of cycling would have to demonstrate benefits of an even greater scale before it was even tolerated. The proponents of cycle helmets cannot demonstrate any such benefit, except with fatally flawed evidence, but many of them call for a law to force the wearing of them.

If that wasn't absurd enough, many of the people demanding a law are health professionals, e.g. the British Medical Association. Health professionals calling for a law that will inevitably result in reduced public health!...

Anyone with a passing interest in helmets will have noticed two things: helmet manufacturers make very few claims for the effectiveness of their products and helmet proponents make huge claims. Manufacturers cannot make inflated claims because their advertisements have to be truthful but the helmet proponents are under no such stricture and blithely repeat claims that they know to be false, such as the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust's claim on its website that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. BHIT is a publicly-funded organisation that attempts to change the law, which is highly questionable on moral grounds, if not actually illegal.

Helmet proponents also exaggerate the risks of cycling, thus deterring many people who then see cycling as highly dangerous, but only by exaggerating the risk can helmet promotion be justified. The only thing that has been shown to improve the safety of cyclists is having more cyclists and, by deterring many, helmet promotion increases the risk for those who are left.

Cycle helmet promotion is a massive and increasingly serious own goal for many of the policy aims of any civilised society, in economic, health and other areas. Just because helmets are promoted by health professionals and politicians does not mean that they are effective, only that those people consider them so to be, without having had to go to the bother of examining the evidence.

It is time for action by our politicians to cease public funding for helmet promotion. Likewise, the health promotion bodies that currently promote helmets should cease to do so, unless their aims are other than an improvement in the public health.

But, above all, transport professionals should promote cycling as healthy, quick and non-polluting, ignoring helmets as an annoying distraction caused by a few well-meaning, misguided, do-gooders.

You can promote cycling, or you can promote helmets, but you can't do both.

and from copenhaganize.com, a post asking readers to consider what they want -

Helmets or Health? (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/08/helmets-or-health.html)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2743351167_d999fe7b1b.jpg

For those who follow this blog it can hardly be a secret that we firmly believe that bicycle helmets should be a private matter and a personal choice - and that helmet promotion and legislation are the greatest threats to bicycle culture since the dawn of the automobile age.

I had a discussion the other day with a friend from England regarding our campaign against helmet promotion here in Denmark on Cykelhjelm.org. We agreed that it's a weighty task and the message is a challenge to get across. There's all the science about what protection a helmet actually provides and then there's the whole societal issue about the effects of helmet promotion.

We ended up agreeing on what the issue is all about. Our society here - and elsewhere - has a simple and important choice:

What do we want for society as a whole?
A. More people in bike helmets?
B. More people on bikes?



You can't have both as common sense and the existing data will suggest.

For me B. is the obvious choice. The health and societal benefits are far greater when more people get onto bikes. A fall in illnesses like diabetes, heart disease and certain forms of cancer, a fall in obesity and a rise in productivity and life expectancy. Good for society.

What do you choose? One answer only, please.


One of the perks of having this blog is that I've made the acquaintence of many bicycle advocates from around the world. Either visiting Copenhagen to research our bike culture or through ongoing email conversations. Advocates, urban planners, policy makers in transport departments, municipal officals, bike organisations, what have you, from all over the world. It's amazing to exchange views and experiences.

Many of you know how touchy the helmet debate can be. This was underlined for me the other day. I've had a pleasant, extended email conversation with a municipal offical in a medium-sized American city that is making an effort to plant the seeds of bike culture. It was, for ages, a fine and good exchange punctuated with enthusiasm and good karma.

It all changed rather rapidly when I started blogging more about helmet promotion and helmets. I recieved a 'Dear John' email stating that our 'relationship' was over. Ridiculous and childish, yes. It was cause to roll my eyes and sigh, but nothing more than that. Helmets had come between us and my opinions about them were too much for this policy maker.

It made me wonder about the differences between helmet advocates and bicycle advocates. You'd think they were one in the same but I don't reckon they are. Here's why:

- Helmet advocates sell helmets and fear is their greatest marketing tool.
And legislators who vote for helmet laws sell helmets through a sad cocktail of ignorance and 'passing the buck' - exposing their own inability and unwillingness to develop safe infrastructure for bicycles.

- Bicycle advocates, on the other hand, sell urban cycling and they do so for the greater good. And they use science to sell their wares. Period.

So if you meet a 'bicycle advocate' who starts waffling on about helmets - run. Or rather ride away.


I know, I know. Things are different here in Europe. We have 100 million daily cyclists and very, very few wear helmets. We do have vocal political bodies and organisations like the EU, the WHO and the European Cyclists' Federation who all warn against helmet promotion and legislation because it effectively kills off bicycle culture and because the health and societal benefits of people cycling are much more important.

Once again. Choose A. or choose B. As above.

Now that Australia has become the fattest nation in the western world [26% of the population are obese - 25% in the USA], the country's destructive helmet laws are in the spotlight once again.

In addition to gaining a fruitful network of bicycle advocates, starting this helmet research and analysis has put me into contact with a growing number of people who share the same concerns. Information and experience is exchanged, research studies that can be difficult to obtain are made available. Words of encouragement fly electronically across borders and seas.

There are a couple of good interviews over at Cykelhjelm.org in English. One is with Morten Lange, head of the Icelandic Cyclists' Federation, member of the European Cyclists' Federation's Helmet Group. The other interview is with Carlton Reid Esq. of Bikebiz.com and quickrelease.tv fame.

One kindred spirit emailed this interesting point: For every one life 'allegedly' saved by a bike helmet on a bike we could save 20 lives of motorists and passengers if they, too wore the helmets. And don't forget the pedestrians.

Come on people!!! Don't we want to save lives!!?? And where are the helmet manufacturers on this issue? Think how many helmets they could sell!

Alas, if only helmet advocates were equipped with logic and science. I read the other day 37,000 people drown each year in Europe. A helmet is not an effective piece of equipment for saving lives but a lifevest most certainly is.

I want to see all these people branch out into lifevest promotion and legislation. No child left unprotected in the swimming pools and on the beaches. Come on. Get started.

from one of my favorite sites on bike safety,
...
*A helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car.


...

Straw man argument. Who says that they do?

Straw man argument. Who says that they do?

no one, but by bringing this point up, it raises the mitigation vs. prevention argument to the fore.

No one is saying helmets don't mitigate some injuries from some falls, but when it comes to safety, one has to wonder at what the end game is for some who argue for helmet use.

Safety, or helmet use?

At what point do we come concerned with a particular type of injury, and what is the best way to avoid such an injury? Is it realistic to expect every bump and bruise be eliminated? Isn't it possible that one can learn from a small injury in order to avoid a larger injury?

It's a complex question and one we should all consider

CB, part 3? Let's see how long before this thread runs the gamut, and is shut down. I wouldn't be surprised to see it having it's own subforum like the way VC went.

We'll see, but I think it's a fair statement to say that the debate on helmet use will go on for some time.

I believe the decision to make it a sticky was to deflect the most acrimonious posts on the topic to a single thread rather than to have it invade and harm a number of threads, but it seems to me that maybe that issue has changed and maybe that's why the sticky has been taken off the thread.

Fair enough. If nobody wants to talk about tolerance and myth busting on the helmet issue, it can drop off the board, but as for it being shut down, it's happened only once in this most contentious thread in hundreds of pages and years of debate. I think that's pretty remarkable considering how touchy and emotional a subject it is.

no one, but by bringing this point up, it raises the mitigation vs. prevention argument to the fore.
If it isn't a "point" being made by anybody, why bring it up? No safety "crash" equipment prevents crashes. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that anybody says that it does.


Is it realistic to expect every bump and bruise be eliminated?
Straw man argument. Who is expecting this?

If it isn't a "point" being made by anybody, why bring it up? No safety "crash" equipment prevents crashes. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that anybody says that it does.

because even with a rise in helmet use (that can reduce minor injury) recorded head injuries have not gone down. The question is, do we want safety, or do we want to wear helmets? Wearing helmets does not seem to have resulted in less head injuries (as to the injuries that have been recorded). Preventing collisions from occurring can be far more effective if safety and injury are a concern



Straw man argument. Who is expecting this?

I hope no one is, but it seems that helmet supporters hold the position that any injury is an injury that must be prevented; it seems some helmet supporters are doing their best to try to eliminate any possible bump and bruise, and the trouble is when this is attempted that there is some negative, unexpected or unintended consequences to this quest.

ABC aired a segment on this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdoE2YCvwdM

Ian Walker expands on this idea on Tom Vanderbilts blog (http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/10/01/to-wear-or-not-to-wear-and-is-that-even-the-right-question-ian-walker-on-cycle-helmets/)


Over to you, Dr. Walker:

“The apparently simple query ‘Do bicycle helmets work?’ turns out to be the most complex question I have ever encountered...

First, let me deal with this matter of interest: I have none. I do not make bicycle helmets, nor do I sell them, and nor do I have anything to gain from their demise. It really doesn’t matter to me one way or the other if they ‘work’. I am a scientist, and what interests me is getting at the truth, whatever that is. This leads me straight onto the big issue: I do not know whether or not bicycle helmets save lives. And, critically, nor does anybody else....

all the evidence we will ever have on this matter is indirect: casualty figures, surveys and observational studies, all of which are riddled with biases. And for every piece of evidence we can find in one direction, there is another telling us the opposite. Let me outline just a few of the many reasons why the topic is so complex.

First, I am not going to deny that putting some padding on your head will absorb some energy in an impact. It would be crazy to suggest otherwise. The actual amount of energy absorbed is almost certainly smaller than you think, but the fact is there has to be some cushioning: if a particularly weird kidnapper made it clear I had absolutely no alternative but to be hit on the head with a hammer, I would definitely choose to wear a bicycle helmet rather than go bareheaded. This all leads us to the ‘common sense’ position which at one extreme says ‘obviously’ helmets are useful and which, at its most conservative, would say it ‘cannot hurt’ to wear a helmet.

The difficulty with this position is twofold. First, even if a helmet absorbs a lot of energy in an impact, this benefit might be cancelled out by the helmet making the impact more likely in the first place. If you have read Tom’s excellent book, you will be familiar with the idea that people might adapt their behaviour to take more risks whenever they start to feel safer. We have no hard evidence on this, but it is plausible, given what we have seen elsewhere in traffic, that helmets make riders feel safer and they respond to this by taking more chances. And even if the riders don’t change their behaviour, my research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs: whenever I put a helmet on, other things being equal, drivers got measurably closer as they passed my bicycle. This will almost certainly translate into a higher likelihood of accidents across large numbers of people.

The second issue with the ‘common sense’ position is this: if helmets do work, why is this proving so difficult to see? In countries where helmets have been made mandatory, and where usage went from low to high levels almost overnight, there is just no real evidence of a concomitant drop in injuries. Indeed, what we see instead is a big drop in the number of people cycling, which is a disaster – far worse for public health than the few head injuries the helmet laws tried to prevent. Whenever a person gives up cycling, they get far less day-to-day exercise. This means they trade a very small risk of dying from a head injury (almost certainly smaller than you think – I can almost guarantee it won’t be a bicycling head injury that sees you off) for a greatly increased risk of dying early from heart disease or cancer (almost certainly larger than you think – I’d lay good odds that one of these two will get you).

Matters are further complicated in other ways. It is possible to find evidence from hospital records suggesting bicyclists who wear helmets hurt themselves less often. But it is equally possible to find evidence that bicyclists who wear helmets ride more cautiously, and are much less likely to mix with motorized traffic – which is where most of the danger comes from in the first place.

These have just been the headlines. There are any number of other complexities which further muddy these waters, but I won’t go into them for fear of taking over Tom’s whole blog. ...

So to sum up, nobody knows for certain whether bicycle helmets work, overall, to protect bicyclists. They must absorb some amount of energy in a collision, and although I’m not sure how much of the energy they touch from a 2-ton car, even if they removed a lot of it, there are plausible ways in which that benefit gets cancelled out by helmets making accidents more likely in the first place. Most bicyclists who die with head injuries also have fatal chest injuries too.

I’d always recommend helmets for children, whose accidents are slow-speed falls in the absence of traffic. But for adults, who travel at higher speeds, often in the presence of motor vehicles, we will never have a 100% reliable answer about whether they decrease or increase risk...

And finally, having said all that, I would like to suggest that this is all the wrong question to be asking anyway. Nearly all of the serious danger to bicyclists comes from drivers. Instead of fretting about the utility of helmets after collisions happen, bicyclists should be focusing on the careless or reckless driving that causes those collisions in the first place. Consider burglary for a moment: I would suggest the prime responsibility for this social ill lies with the burglars who choose to perpetrate it rather than the householders who are the victims. I can’t help feeling bicyclists are in a very similar position when they allow themselves (ourselves!) to get drawn into this debate.”

because even with a rise in helmet use (that can reduce minor injury) recorded head injuries have not gone down. The question is, do we want safety, or do we want to wear helmets? Wearing helmets does not seem to have resulted in less head injuries (as to the injuries that have been recorded). Preventing collisions from occurring can be far more effective if safety and injury are a concern

If it's a straw man argument, it's a false argument.

Many of the (fatal) head injuries are (might be) occurring in people who do things like ride at night without lights and the wrong way. These people aren't wearing helments. Also, if we don't know what kinds of "head injuries", we don't know whether the number of severe ones have declined. No one has any idea of whether helmets help at all because the data isn't there.


I hope no one is, but it seems that helmet supporters hold the position that any injury is an injury that must be prevented; it seems some helmet supporters are doing their best to try to eliminate any possible bump and bruise, and the trouble is when this is attempted that there is some negative, unexpected or unintended consequences to this quest.
Lots of waffling in this statement. You need to make up your mind. Either no one is making the argument or some one is. This is a straw man argument. Find one "helmet supporter" who says this (keep in mind that "bumps and bruises" occur on other-than-head body parts too).


First, even if a helmet absorbs a lot of energy in an impact, this benefit might be cancelled out by the helmet making the impact more likely in the first place. If you have read Tom’s excellent book, you will be familiar with the idea that people might adapt their behaviour to take more risks whenever they start to feel safer. We have no hard evidence on this, but it is plausible, given what we have seen elsewhere in traffic, that helmets make riders feel safer and they respond to this by taking more chances.
The "risk compensation" is certainly a popular hypothesis. Yet "ninja salmons" don't typically wear helmets.


Indeed, what we see instead is a big drop in the number of people cycling, which is a disaster – far worse for public health than the few head injuries the helmet laws tried to prevent. Whenever a person gives up cycling, they get far less day-to-day exercise.
It looks like one sees a drop-off with mandatory helmet laws. It's not at all clear whether those number recover over time. Also, the people who are most easily discouraged are probably not cycling enough to have any real implact on their health. It's a complete guess as to the negative effects on health of mandatory helment laws (which no one here is advocating).


Nearly all of the serious danger to bicyclists comes from drivers. Instead of fretting about the utility of helmets after collisions happen, bicyclists should be focusing on the careless or reckless driving that causes those collisions in the first place.
It doesn't appear that you, closetbiker, are focusing on anything but helmets.



we will never have a 100% reliable answer about whether they decrease or increase risk

Setting aside the couple of speculative points, what Ian Walker says is sensible.

Many of the (fatal) head injuries are (might be) occurring in people who do things like ride at night without lights and the wrong way. These people aren't wearing helments.

That's a big assumption on your part. I've seen it plenty of helmet wearers doing absolutely stupid things, included a helmeted father and child on a tandem riding against traffic.

That's a big assumption on your part. I've seen it plenty of helmet wearers doing absolutely stupid things, included a helmeted father and child on a tandem riding against traffic.

it is a big assumption and you're right, there at least as many examples of helmeted cyclists doing things just as badly as non helmeted cyclists, one could argue that with the amount of protection a helmet provides and little evidence that helmeted cyclists receive less head injuries that the helmeted may be taking more risks than non helmeted or their injury data would be different than it is.

I think more important is weather the point of helmets not preventing accidents is relevent to the issue. I think it is.

Kinda wish I was wearing my bicycle helmet while walking to work. I slipped on some ice and hit my head. Boy, do I have a headache now.

Kinda wish I was wearing my bicycle helmet while walking to work. I slipped on some ice and hit my head. Boy, do I have a headache now.

We had ~30 inches of snow fall this weekend. The scariest part of my commute to work yesterday was negotiating the icy steps trying to bring my bike inside at work. I managed not to fall but came quite close. I would have felt just a little dumb getting hurt doing that after cycling 16 miles through the snow without incident.

If it's a straw man argument, it's a false argument.

I don't think M Bluejay was making an argument, I think he was making a point.

I don't think M Bluejay was making an argument, I think he was making a point. He wrote that it was a problem.
"Making a point" is presenting a position (ie, "making an argument").

That's a big assumption on your part. I've seen it plenty of helmet wearers doing absolutely stupid things, included a helmeted father and child on a tandem riding against traffic.
It looks like there is data that shows that a large proportion of fatalities occur at night for riders without lights and without helmets (it's just a correlation). None of the ninja riders I see have helmets.

Your "plenty" (whatever "plenty" means) doesn't contradict my statement nor does my statement preclude that "plenty" of riders with helmets ride badly.

I'd guess that the "plenty" of riders you happened to observe would be riding exactly the same way with or without a helment.

I'm not arguing that riders with helmets never ride badly. I just don't think the "risk compensation" assumption is valid.


it is a big assumption and you're right, there at least as many examples of helmeted cyclists doing things just as badly as non helmeted cyclists, one could argue that with the amount of protection a helmet provides and little evidence that helmeted cyclists receive less head injuries that the helmeted may be taking more risks than non helmeted or their injury data would be different than it is.
Again, we don't know the kinds or severities of head injuries you are talking about. This is a common criticism of yours. The "risk compensation" hypothesis is a big assumption too!

Anyway, as Ian Walker implies, there isn't really good data to establish whether or not helmets work.

"Making a point" is presenting a position (ie, "making an argument").

semantics


...Anyway, as Ian Walker implies, there isn't really good data to establish whether or not helmets work.

on this we agree and the basis for my position that the posters who call helmetless cyclists, airheads, morons, and organ donors are being unreasonable.

semantics
No.


on this we agree and the basis for my position that the posters who call helmetless cyclists, airheads, morons, and organ donors are being unreasonable.
I don't call people these things (by the way).

It looks like there is data that shows that a large proportion of fatalities occur at night for riders without lights and without helmets (it's just a correlation). None of the ninja riders I see have helmets.

Your experience differs from mine. Ninja riders are all over Philly wearing helmets. I see them every time I'm in town. I don't know if it's risk compensation or not but it's certainly a backasswards approach to safety.

[...]None of the ninja riders I see have helmets.[...]


Your experience differs from mine. Ninja riders are all over Philly wearing helmets. I see them every time I'm in town. I don't know if it's risk compensation or not but it's certainly a backasswards approach to safety.
If anything, this brings up a good point: We can't make up blanket statements based on what we "see" or perceive.

From where I sit, I see just as many helmeted ninjas as I do non-helmeted ninjas. I actually quite often see ninjas dressed in full roadie kit with helmets. Go figure.

Now, it would matter if someone could come up with some good statistics on the number of ninjas that do and don't wear helmets.

No.

well if you can define "argument" as presenting reasons for or against something, looking back at M. Bluejays page, one can see "a helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car" is a statement, and not followed up by any reasoning.

I see it as a point, or a simple statement, but I guess I can see others look at it differently and accept that, but the salient point remains. Prevention is a far more effective method of what we hope a helmet will do, and focusing on a helmet lowers our chances of what we hope to achieve


I don't call people these things (by the way).

I know, and appreciate that.

... it would matter if someone could come up with some good statistics on the number of ninjas that do and don't wear helmets.

well, for what it's worth, my provincial insurer (ICBC) publishes yearly traffic collision reports on their website (ICBC.com) and in the bicycle section, they do note whether or not the bicycle riders involved in collisions with motor vehicles were wearing helmets at the time of the collisions.

It's pretty even; a 50/50 split, so we can guess that wearing, or not wearing a helmet, is not a good indicator that collisions with motor vehicles are more or less likely (at least here in BC).

And, for what it's worth, I see helmeted salmon ninjas on the street all the time (this is BC after all). I was even hit (at full speed) head on by one and when people came over to offer assistance, the first comment I heard was, "Thank God they were wearing helmets!"

If anything, this brings up a good point: We can't make up blanket statements based on what we "see" or perceive.
Which is what I wanted people to figure out.


From where I sit, I see just as many helmeted ninjas as I do non-helmeted ninjas. I actually quite often see ninjas dressed in full roadie kit with helmets. Go figure.
Well, you might figure that helmets aren't the cause of this reckless behavior! (People commonly assume that helmets cause "risk compensation", ie, an increase in risky behavior.)


Now, it would matter if someone could come up with some good statistics on the number of ninjas that do and don't wear helmets.
There is a serious lack of all sorts of data. (Including data that shows road riders with helmets engage in "risk compensation.)

well if you can define "argument" as presenting reasons for or against something, looking back at M. Bluejays page, one can see "a helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car" is a statement, and not followed up by any reasoning.

Note that the statement is provided as a "reason" in support of an argument.

"A helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car."

It's not followed up by any "reasoning" because it is a tautology. The result (clearly intended) of making this statement is the suggestion that there are people who believe that "helmets do prevent getting hit by a car" (which is an absurd belief).


I see it as a point, or a simple statement, but I guess I can see others look at it differently and accept that,
Keep in mind that you (in particular) are going to look at things differently from people new to the discussion.


but the salient point remains. Prevention is a far more effective method of what we hope a helmet will do, and focusing on a helmet lowers our chances of what we hope to achieve.
So, how hard would it have been to say something like this, instead?

It's pretty even; a 50/50 split, so we can guess that wearing, or not wearing a helmet, is not a good indicator that collisions with motor vehicles are more or less likely (at least here in BC).
Well, without knowing what the helmet usage is in the overall population of cyclists, one can't draw any conclusions from this one statistic.

Note that the statement is provided as a "reason" in support of an argument.

"A helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car."

It's not followed up by any "reasoning" because it is a tautology. The result (clearly intended) of making this statement is the suggestion that there are people who believe that "helmets do prevent getting hit by a car" (which is an absurd belief).

of course it's absurd. As absurd as people who think wearing a helmet is more important than not getting hit by cars



Keep in mind that you (in particular) are going to look at things differently from people new to the discussion.

I think everybody has a different slant on things and it affects their understanding


So, how hard would it have been to say something like this, instead?

Not very, but considering that his site devotes itself almost entirely to this point, I think the statement aligns with the site

Well, without knowing what the helmet usage is in the overall population of cyclists, one can't draw any conclusions from this one statistic.

we don't conclusively know the exact rate of use, but from what I understand, I'd be very surprised if it is not in the neighborhood of 50%