View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
#1227
Senior Member
I'm sure you can see that answer adresses two of the most glaring problems with the perceptions on helmets; that relative risk isn't considered, and that helmets are effective protection in collisions with motor vehicles.
Because some would have others believe helmets are made to withstand such forces, simple falls commonly result in brain injury, and a helmet is not just as means to end, but the end itself, people will continue to suffer injuries they otherwise may have avoided just as they have in countries that have mandated, and enforced universal helmet use.
Because some would have others believe helmets are made to withstand such forces, simple falls commonly result in brain injury, and a helmet is not just as means to end, but the end itself, people will continue to suffer injuries they otherwise may have avoided just as they have in countries that have mandated, and enforced universal helmet use.
#1228
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This thread would benefit from refraining from these diversionary, ad hominem arguments that speak to (or slyly attempt to belittle) a particular person's behavioral choices, and instead keep the focus on bike helmets and cycling. If the stance is pro-choice, why not let the other guy be and not try to alter or undermine his beliefs or practices?
#1229
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Some more data that may be of interest:
A detailed statistical breakdown of cycling injuries and deaths in the US from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, classed by age, gender, and state:
https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf
They also state:
Unfortunately, they don't provide stats regarding helmet use. But the IIHS, working with data from the US DOT, does:
https://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit.../bicycles.html
A detailed statistical breakdown of cycling injuries and deaths in the US from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, classed by age, gender, and state:
https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf
They also state:
All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every time they ride. A helmet is the single most effective way to prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash.
Bicyclist deaths by helmet use, 1994-2009
No helmet use Helmet use
Year Num % Num % Total Num
1994 776 97 19 2 796
1995 783 95 34 4 828
1996 731 96 27 4 761
1997 785 97 23 3 811
1998 741 98 16 2 757
1999 698 93 42 6 750
2000 622 90 50 7 689
2001 616 84 60 8 729
2002 589 89 54 8 663
2003 535 85 58 9 626
2004 602 83 87 12 722
2005 676 86 77 10 784
2006 730 95 37 5 769
2007 646 92 50 7 699
2008 654 91 59 8 716
2009 574 91 53 8 630
*Total includes other and/or unknowns
No helmet use Helmet use
Year Num % Num % Total Num
1994 776 97 19 2 796
1995 783 95 34 4 828
1996 731 96 27 4 761
1997 785 97 23 3 811
1998 741 98 16 2 757
1999 698 93 42 6 750
2000 622 90 50 7 689
2001 616 84 60 8 729
2002 589 89 54 8 663
2003 535 85 58 9 626
2004 602 83 87 12 722
2005 676 86 77 10 784
2006 730 95 37 5 769
2007 646 92 50 7 699
2008 654 91 59 8 716
2009 574 91 53 8 630
*Total includes other and/or unknowns
#1230
Senior Member
You say this like you assume that relative risk isn't considered when people decide to wear helmets, and that every single accident which involves motor vehicles don't include situations where the forces involved do not exceed a helmet's design parameters or incidental protective capacity.
#1231
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just thought I'd point out, that is not an ad hominem. That's making a correlation between the two and questioning the logic of choosing one vs the other. Ad hominem is an attack on the character as an attempt to discredit the argument of the person. He's attempting to discredit your argument that a helmet is necessary for one and not the other. Two different things.
#1232
Senior Member
All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every time they ride. A helmet is the single most effective way to prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash.
It isn't failure fo yeild right of way, wrong way cycling, absence of lighting, it's a lack of helmet that is the single most important factor.
If this is true, how is it in the Netherlands where almost no one wears helmets, cyclists have the least injuries relative to exposure?
#1233
Senior Member
Granted, but those sorts of posts go "to the man," being aimed (quite gratuitously in the case in point) at a particular poster instead of considering that issue in the abstract. And indeed, that has been an unfortunate pattern of this thread: someone will post their personal beliefs for wearing a helmet only to be ganged up on by two or three posters who try to undermine those beliefs and then disingenuously claim they believe in freedom of choice.
For my part, I try to keep posts to an issue, or an argument, than directed at a persons character
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-25-12 at 12:04 PM.
#1235
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You say this like you assume that relative risk isn't considered when people decide to wear helmets, and that every single accident which involves motor vehicles don't include situations where the forces involved do not exceed a helmet's design parameters or incidental protective capacity.
#1236
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here we have a fundamental problem.
It isn't failure fo yeild right of way, wrong way cycling, absence of lighting, it's a lack of helmet that is the single most important factor.
If this is true, how is it in the Netherlands where almost no one wears helmets, cyclists have the least injuries relative to exposure?
It isn't failure fo yeild right of way, wrong way cycling, absence of lighting, it's a lack of helmet that is the single most important factor.
If this is true, how is it in the Netherlands where almost no one wears helmets, cyclists have the least injuries relative to exposure?
As for the Netherlands, do we have sound data for that? A link would be appreciated. Re: the Netherlands, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but there's lots of interesting, detailed info here regarding Dutch cycling casualties and helmets:
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...S_Cyclists.pdf
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf
https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...le_helmets.pdf
including, in the first link, a comparison of hospitalizations from crashes with and without motor vehicle involvement (the latter far outstrips the former) and, from the last,
One third of the cyclists who are admitted to hospital with serious injury after a traffic crash are diagnosed with head/brain injury. Approximately three-quarters of these cyclists sustain this head/brain injury in crashes not involving a motor vehicle. As many as nine out of ten young children who sustain head/brain injury, do so in crashes not involving a motor vehicle. In the majority of cases these are bicycle-only crashes.
Research has shown that a bicycle helmet provides protection against serious head and brain injury. The best estimates that are presently available indicate that the use of bicycle helmets decreases the risk proportion of sustaining or not sustaining head injury by 42%, that of sustaining or not sustaining brain injury by 53%, that of sustaining or not sustaining facial injury by17%, whereas the odds ratio for sustaining or not sustaining does on the other hand increase by 32%.
...
All in all, the SWOV concludes that a bicycle helmet is an effective means of protecting cyclists from sustaining head and brain injury in a fall with a bicycle.
Research has shown that a bicycle helmet provides protection against serious head and brain injury. The best estimates that are presently available indicate that the use of bicycle helmets decreases the risk proportion of sustaining or not sustaining head injury by 42%, that of sustaining or not sustaining brain injury by 53%, that of sustaining or not sustaining facial injury by17%, whereas the odds ratio for sustaining or not sustaining does on the other hand increase by 32%.
...
All in all, the SWOV concludes that a bicycle helmet is an effective means of protecting cyclists from sustaining head and brain injury in a fall with a bicycle.
Last edited by Six-Shooter; 01-25-12 at 01:24 PM.
#1237
Senior Member
How is a comparison of relative risk across activities even relevant to what a bike helmet can or can't do during cycling? Whether cycling is or isn't more dangerous than other activities doesn't tell someone who wants to protect their head while cycling whether a helmet can help. Rather it speaks to a method of personal risk assessment, which is neither here nor there.
If I'm an All The Gear, All The Time (ATGATT) type of motorcyclist, chances are I'm going to carry that over to bicycling. My experience; my choice; my decision.
Regardless of hypotheses indicating that helmet use is not necessary in either situation.
Personal judgment of relative risk assessment surely informs personal risk assessment when considering bicycle helmet use. There might not be some kind of direct correlative, but it certainly is relevant in the decision-making process of some who choose to wear helmets.
Last edited by mconlonx; 01-25-12 at 01:27 PM.
#1238
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Personal experience regarding helmet use in other endeavors, such as motorcycling, where there is also rabid helmet debate
informs personal decision.
If I'm an All The Gear, All The Time (ATGATT) type of motorcyclist, chances are I'm going to carry that over to bicycling. My experience; my choice, my decision.
Regardless of hypotheses indicating that helmet use is not necessary in either situation.
informs personal decision.
If I'm an All The Gear, All The Time (ATGATT) type of motorcyclist, chances are I'm going to carry that over to bicycling. My experience; my choice, my decision.
Regardless of hypotheses indicating that helmet use is not necessary in either situation.
#1239
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
More data for those interested, this time from Queensland University's Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety. Some relevant excerpts:
https://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/publica..._safety_fs.pdf
Each year, an average of 35 cyclists are
killed and over 2,500 are seriously injured on
Australian public roads.
killed and over 2,500 are seriously injured on
Australian public roads.
There are approximately 6,000
emergency department
presentations and almost 10 deaths
each year from bicycle-related injury
in Queensland.
emergency department
presentations and almost 10 deaths
each year from bicycle-related injury
in Queensland.
Australia was the first country to
introduce compulsory cycle helmet
legislation in 1991. It was a major safety
improvement. The Cochrane review of
bicycle helmet effectiveness10 found
that helmets provide a 63-88%
reduction in the risk of head, brain and
severe brain injury for cyclists of all
ages. An examination of admitted
patients suffering a bicycle-related
injury at Brisbane’s Mater Children’s
Hospital, shows that in the two years
preceding the introduction of
compulsory helmet wearing in
Queensland, head injuries made up 34%
of admitted bicycle injuries, whilst in
the 10 years following, the percentage
fell to 17%.
introduce compulsory cycle helmet
legislation in 1991. It was a major safety
improvement. The Cochrane review of
bicycle helmet effectiveness10 found
that helmets provide a 63-88%
reduction in the risk of head, brain and
severe brain injury for cyclists of all
ages. An examination of admitted
patients suffering a bicycle-related
injury at Brisbane’s Mater Children’s
Hospital, shows that in the two years
preceding the introduction of
compulsory helmet wearing in
Queensland, head injuries made up 34%
of admitted bicycle injuries, whilst in
the 10 years following, the percentage
fell to 17%.
#1240
Senior Member
Dood, don't wear a helmet if you prefer, I'll continue to wear mine.
#1241
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
The problem is that there really isn't good data. And it's quite likely that there won't ever be good data.
A recommendation isn't really evidence that they have a real overall positive value.
in the two years preceding the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing in Queensland, head injuries made up 34% of admitted bicycle injuries, whilst in the 10 years following, the percentage fell to 17%.
Last edited by njkayaker; 01-25-12 at 04:49 PM.
#1242
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston Area
Posts: 1,998
Bikes: Univega Gran Turismo, Guerciotti, Bridgestone MB2, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Serotta Ti
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't know if MHL studies are in for Vancouver. Their MHL law is somewhat newer there than in Australia and New Zealand. That's not half a world away, but you could complain that as the subjects are Canadians those results would reflect a politeness not to be expected in New York.
Unfortunately MHL studies are the best evidence out there for what happens when helmet use becomes nearly universal. If the 85% effectiveness claim for helmets were true then, going from 30ish percent helmet use to 95% helmet use should have a dramatic effect on fatalities and injuries. The effect should be so dramatic that you wouldn't have to appeal to cultural differences between Australians, Canadians and New Yorkers. Totally ignoring those results would be dishonest, and as Mr. Pedantic, I'm sure you don't want that.
Speedo
#1243
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
You say this like you assume that relative risk isn't considered when people decide to wear helmets, and that every single accident which involves motor vehicles don't include situations where the forces involved do not exceed a helmet's design parameters or incidental protective capacity.
#1244
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every time they ride. A helmet is the single most effective way to prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash.
It isn't failure fo yeild right of way, wrong way cycling, absence of lighting, it's a lack of helmet that is the single most important factor.
#1245
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 1,049
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I think the main issue is all the energy spent in promoting helmet use, that would be much better spent on supporting safe cycling- 'a helmet is the single most important piece of safety equipment' etc (it's not.) You can be a safe cyclist or an unsafe one, helmet or not. If all the effort that was put into pushing for greater helmet use was redirected towards good road sense, using lights at night etc, it would probably have a much greater effect on cycling fatalities than any helmet.
njkayaker made a good point: while helmeted cyclists tend to be injured less, it's more likely because they're generally more safety conscious and so more likely to ride in a safe manner. This is only because there are so many 'people on bikes' (not cyclists) who ride in the wrong direction, don't use lights, ride when drunk etc etc distorting the stats for bare-headed riders. It's the mindset of the person riding the bike that makes the difference, not necessarily the helmet.
njkayaker made a good point: while helmeted cyclists tend to be injured less, it's more likely because they're generally more safety conscious and so more likely to ride in a safe manner. This is only because there are so many 'people on bikes' (not cyclists) who ride in the wrong direction, don't use lights, ride when drunk etc etc distorting the stats for bare-headed riders. It's the mindset of the person riding the bike that makes the difference, not necessarily the helmet.
#1246
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,272
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4257 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times
in
940 Posts
I think the main issue is all the energy spent in promoting helmet use, that would be much better spent on supporting safe cycling. You can be a safe cyclist or an unsafe one, helmet or not. If all the effort that was put into pushing for greater helmet use was redirected towards good road sense, using lights at night etc, it would probably have a much greater effect on cycling fatalities than any helmet.
There are also PSA type things for "safe cycling" and there's not reason one can't easily do both (which is commonly done anyway).
A real effect might result in requiring people to take cycling classes but that's expensive and hard (and won't be well liked).
#1247
Senior Member
The evidence examined post law showed that despite a dramatic rise in helmet use, the proportion of head injuries did not change with the helmet law.
In 2010, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles admitted that fatalities had not fallen since introduction of the helmet law, but still claimed that helmets saved lives.
Controlled surveys of cycle use before and after the law were not carried out. However a survey to measure helmet use in 1999 suggested that the cyclist profile had changed, with around 30% fewer cyclists aged 16 to 30 years, a similar reduction in road cycles and a smaller reduction in the proportion of females cycling. For cyclists of all ages, total cyclist injuries from police attended collisions ( i.e. involving a motor vehicle) declined by 35% from 1995 to 1997 (31% by 1999) (ICBC).
https://cyclehelmets.org/1103.html
... Unfortunately MHL studies are the best evidence out there for what happens when helmet use becomes nearly universal. If the 85% effectiveness claim for helmets were true then, going from 30ish percent helmet use to 95% helmet use should have a dramatic effect on fatalities and injuries. The effect should be so dramatic that you wouldn't have to appeal to cultural differences between Australians, Canadians and New Yorkers. Totally ignoring those results would be dishonest, and as Mr. Pedantic, I'm sure you don't want that.
Speedo
Speedo
Last edited by closetbiker; 01-25-12 at 05:45 PM.
#1248
Senior Member
Thing is, I don't have a problem with people not wearing helmets, but as someone who was gifted the nickname "Mr. Pedantic" in a helmet thread, I do have a problem with internal logic inconsistencies. Like: helmet laws discourage ridership, but in places like NYC where there aren't MHLs and bike riding is on the increase, where safety should also be benefit, there's still an outsize portion of the riding populace who die while not wearing a helmet. I'm not basing my helmet use on such, but it is a compelling argument...
#1249
Senior Member
I think the main issue is all the energy spent in promoting helmet use, that would be much better spent on supporting safe cycling- 'a helmet is the single most important piece of safety equipment' etc (it's not.) You can be a safe cyclist or an unsafe one, helmet or not. If all the effort that was put into pushing for greater helmet use was redirected towards good road sense, using lights at night etc, it would probably have a much greater effect on cycling fatalities than any helmet.
Also, in the shop while selling accessories incident to a bike purchase, I can personally attest to the fact that helmets are not sold any harder than any other bike add-on like a water bottle cage or flat repair kit.
#1250
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thing is, I don't have a problem with people not wearing helmets, but as someone who was gifted the nickname "Mr. Pedantic" in a helmet thread, I do have a problem with internal logic inconsistencies. Like: helmet laws discourage ridership, but in places like NYC where there aren't MHLs and bike riding is on the increase, where safety should also be benefit, there's still an outsize portion of the riding populace who die while not wearing a helmet. I'm not basing my helmet use on such, but it is a compelling argument...