Sequimite

I was surprised at how much heat was generated by the discussions of bicycle helmets. In another thread I was called a number of names due to my assuming general agreement that helmets were a net benefit in a crash.

I looked at the evidence, much of summarized at https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm and believe this point is firmly established. For instance, the US Department of Transportation records cycling deaths each year as well as whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet. In 2008 out of 714 deaths, 653 were not wearing helmets, 58 were and in 3 cases the helmet information was not available. This is consistent with prior years’ data. It is obvious that helmets prevent deaths. If anyone believes otherwise it is incumbent upon them to present actual evidence to support their contentions.

In the face of such lopsided mortality figures there is the strong probability that non-lethal injuries are also reduced by wearing a helmet. Given the endorsement of the many medical associations and safety groups I think this point must also be conceded unless there is strong evidence (as opposed to speculation) to the contrary.

The priority of how dangerous different factors in bicycle injuries are is certainly arguable, but unless these other factors preclude wearing a helmet, they are not relevant to whether a helmet provides additional protection.

As a matter of individual rights I don’t care whether you smoke cigarettes, jump off barns or ride without a helmet. It’s none of my business. If you think life insurance or helmets are too expensive for their potential benefits, don’t buy them.

If you disagree, make your case in this thread with reason and evidence.

kludgefudge

STEP 1: copy content of OP.

STEP 2: delete Thread.

STEP 3: repost content in thread "helmets cramp my style, pt. 3." not that it's anything new. just because 653 of the 714 people killed in accidents weren't wearing helmets doesn't mean the wouldn't have died anyway, or take into account the relative numbers of helmeted cyclists vs. non helmeted in the U.S. Its a pretty worthless statistic.

Covalent Jello

Here's another one they don't want you to see to justify their comfort/superficiality issues
https://www.helmets.org/crashes.htm

Sequimite

No factual information whatsoever,

just the bold contention that perhaps less than 8% of the population wear helmets so that the figures aren't as bad as they seem.

Sequimite

Please note the methods of someone trying to argue without evidence.

1) an untrue irrelevant distraction

2) an untrue irrelevant distraction

3) a claim that because the evidence I presented is not perfect, that it is worthless. If we were discussing this in good faith there would be no need to show that around one half of those currently riding in the US are wearing helmets. I left it out because whether it's 35% or 65% or 15% the evidence is clear, year after year that those riding without helmets are much more likely to be killed than those wearing them.

When one is arguing in good faith one produces evidence to be weighed against the opposing evidence. When one has no compelling evidence, then one often engages in misdirection and irrelevant criticism.

Show me your evidence.

kludgefudge

Actually, I am not trying to argue. I think is that this thread is redundant, and I am not going to get into this same old, tired crap in a brand new, pointless thread. put it where it belongs, in the active thread that ALLREADY EXISTS ON THIS EXACT SUBJECT. It was a mistake for me to even comment on your post.

Covalent Jello

Actually, it's a lot more specific in scope, it'd be interesting to see what the anti-helmetters had to say, in terms of solid evidence, rather than emotion or "it doesn't look cool" or "it cramps maaa stylieeeeees braaaaah"

Sequimite

Again, no factual information presented.

The other threads are flame wars. I'm not going to flame anyone and hope this can remain civil so that we might reach some rational conclusions. I've simply presented some compelling evidence that helmets save lives, evidence that I did not see on the other threads.

Show me your evidence.

add - apparently it's not too much trouble to post twice here but it is too much trouble to present any contrary evidence

RazrSkutr

Jebus.... do you really not understand that Kludgefudge was suggesting that you implement step1, step2, step3 ??

Are you Magic Hat Proselytizers are related by any chance or do you just live in the same group home?

Sequimite

Yes, very important to criticize my comprehension of sentence fragments, and insult all who share my view but not important to provide any contrary evidence.

Show me some evidence.

Covalent Jello

*Whistles in wait for a response using solid evidence to dispute a very basic and widely accepted claim among professionals & common-sensists everywhere*

prathmann

The figures you cite from the NHTSA are from the FARS database. The validity of this database in accurately recording helmet usage of fatal crash victims has long been in dispute. The letter below by Riley Geary was published in the BMJ Injury Prevention journal in June of 2006. I do not know if the accuracy of the database has improved since then, but given the past record as indicated by Geary there is certainly some question as to whether conclusions based on the FARS data are trustworthy.


"Dear Editor,
Cummings, et al, in their June, 2006 paper, "Changes in traffic crash mortality rates attributed to use of alcohol, or lack of a seat belt, air bag, motorcycle helmet, or bicycle helmet, United States, 1982-2001" [1] apparently assume that the data on bicycle helmet use among fatally injured bicyclists contained within the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database is at least as valid as that for motorcycle helmet use and seat belt use. However, even a cursory examination of the data indicates FARS was underestimating actual helmet use among fatally injured bicyclists by up to an order of magnitude or more during the period 1994- 98, when FARS first began recording such data; and though the situation has improved considerably since then, FARS continues to underestimate overall bicycle helmet use in the US by a factor of two or more as of 2004 (the most recent data available) [2].
Like most other data elements reported under FARS, data on helmet use is derived from individual Police Accident Reports (PARs) collected by the various state agencies that deal with traffic crashes. Since data on bicycle helmet use is not considered a particularly high priority in most jurisdictions, relatively few state PAR forms have the type of simple check-off box commonly associated with seat belts or motorcycle helmets (e.g. "used", "not used", or "unknown") that allow for easy transcription into the FARS database. In these cases (i.e. the vast majority involving bicyclists), any information on bicycle helmet use must be obtained from the narrative of the crash prepared by the attending police officer; and if no definite mention is made as to whether a bicycle helmet was used or not (which is still all too common given the relatively low priority in determining actual helmet use among involved bicyclists), such cases should be recorded as "unknown" according to the FARS coding protocols. Unfortunately, it appears that nearly all of these cases that should have been coded as "unknown" (including a considerable number where the bicyclist actually was using a helmet, but such usage was either never noted or overlooked in the narrative) were instead coded as "not used"—particularly in the initial period of 1994-98.
One strong indicator that the FARS bicycle helmet use data should not be fully trusted is the fact that the "unknowns" are so few in number in the first place. It is simply not credible that a low priority data element such as bicycle helmet use would have a precision associated with it that is a factor of 20 better than that seen for much higher priority data elements such as seat belt or motorcycle helmet use (0.5% "unknowns" vs. 11% or 10%). Even more persuasive is a direct comparison of FARS data with equivalent state data. Though very few states make any real effort to determine bicycle helmet use in their annual traffic crash summary reports, two that have done so for at least a decade, California and Florida, together account for ~30% of all US bicycle fatalities.
California data from the StateWide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) indicates that 13.2% of fatally injured bicyclists were using a helmet during the period 1994-98 [3], but only 3.4% supposedly were doing so according to FARS [2]. Likewise, Florida data from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) indicates that 6.5% of their fatally injured bicyclists were using a helmet during the same period [4], but only 0.2% (i.e. just 1 out of nearly 600) according to FARS [2]. And while the reliability of bicycle helmet use data in FARS has clearly improved in recent years (15.0% vs. 17.6% CA SWITRS data for the period 2001-03, and 5.5% vs. 6.8% FL DHSMV data for the period 1999-2004), it is clear that FARS continues to undercount such use in too many cases. Indeed, while overall bicycle helmet use in FARS has reached 11% for the period 2001-04, a number of states within FARS now routinely record bicycle helmet use rates in excess of 20% (CO, GA, HI, ID, NV, OK, TN, WA), and a few actually record use rates in excess of 40% (MA, NE, VT, WY) [2].
It should be obvious by this point that the overall 2% bicycle helmet use figure FARS indicated in 1994 (and as recently as 1998) has no basis in reality, and the assumption by the authors that helmet use among fatally injured bicyclists was essentially nil before 1994 is fundamentally flawed. Since SWITRS bicycle helmet use data extends back fairly reliably to 1990, it is noteworthy that even in the earlier 1990-93 period, helmet use had already reached 8.4% among fatally injured CA bicyclists, and that perhaps a dozen other states may have had helmet use rates at least similar to or greater than that of CA.
It is also worth pointing out that during this earlier period, SWITRS data indicates that helmet use among non-fatally injured CA bicyclists grew steadily from 6.3% in 1990 to 9.0% in 1993, before jumping to 13.5% in 1994 and 16.7% in 1995 (at least partially in response to the passage of a mandatory helmet law in1994 covering all CA bicyclists under the age of 18), and eventually reached a plateau level of 20-22% from 1999 on. Since the overall helmet use rate averaged just 7.5% among non-fatally injured CA bicyclists during 1990-93, it could actually be argued that bicycle helmets had no beneficial effect at all in preventing fatalities, though later data suggests this more likely was just an artifact of non- fatal helmet use being less reliably recorded during the earlier period.
Over the next 10 years (1994-2003), non-fatal helmet use averaged 18.76%, compared to 15.52% among fatally injured CA bicyclists, which suggests that bicycle helmets have at best only been ~17% effective in preventing fatalities statewide (selective recruitment effects have almost certainly resulted in a positive bias, so it remains quite possible there is no net safety benefit associated with bicycle helmets at the whole population level). Since this result is far lower than the ~65% effectiveness the authors assumed for bicycle helmets based on a single case control study [5], it seems clear that either the assumed effectiveness of bicycle helmets has been wildly inflated relative to real world data, and/or risk compensation effects have essentially negated any safety benefits bicycle helmets may have to offer in the event of a crash- -by apparently "encouraging" helmeted cyclists to crash more often and/or get into more serious crashes.

Sequimite

My apologies to Kludgefudge for misunderstanding his first post.

The point of this thread is not about style or personal preference, it is about hard facts and their implications. "Sense", not "Style". That is why I started a separate thread.

Sequimite

thank you Prathmann for presenting some interesting points. California has unusually low helmet usage and a questionable reporting methodology. Do you have information that suggests that the same poor methodology is common across the US?

prathmann

The problem is with the FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) data which is national but depends on input from local data sources. If you look at Geary's analysis of the database when broken down to an individual state and county level is that there are statistical anomalies that call into question the validity. When one state reports absolutely no helmeted fatalities and a neighboring state has up to 40% of the fatalities helmeted it doesn't seem credible and when Geary looked at how the data was gathered he found that it was very easy for reports that didn't make any mention one way or another on helmet usage to be incorrectly recorded in FARS as being helmetless fatalities. As he notes, the situation has gotten better since the '90s, but there remains a substantial concern that helmet usage among fatalities are undercounted. Note the comments in his letter about the California system (which is actually quite good) recording a helmet-wearing rate of 13.2% among fatalities but FARS for the same period had only a 3.4% rate. And the Florida example where their state system showed a rate of 6.5% vs. a miniscule 0.2% in FARS for the same time period. With discrepancies of this magnitude the FARS data just can't be trusted to yield valid conclusions until there is clear confirmation that the data-gathering problems have been resolved.

The conclusions based on the FARS data are also not consistent with results found elsewhere. D. Robinson found that when Australia introduced their MHL and undertook vigorous enforcement to bring helmet usage up to 80% that there was also the same 80% usage rate among fatal crash victims (unfortunately I no longer have a citation for this, but just have it in my notes - the same figures are given at https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm but also without a cite).

invisiblehand

The FARS data base appears to lump just about all cyclists into the "None Used/Not Applicable -- Not a Motor Vehicle" category. Even Randy Swart at BHSI will tell you that most police reports do not include (lack of) helmet usage. Consequently, it isn't clear what once can discern from the statistic.

Since you're interested in reading evidence, try this site ... https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

invisiblehand

There is are similar reports from Canada. But ...

Cushman: Transport Canada reported that in 2001, 88% of bike related fatalities were not wearing a helmet. He lists the source as Transport Canada 2001. Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. Statistics. Arlington, VA. Downloaded Nov. 19, 2004 from https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm. This website states that Transport Canada reported that in 2001, 88% of the 80 bike related fatalities were not wearing a helmet. Transport Canada's website shows 60 cyclist fatalities in 2001. It contains no helmet wearing data. In an August 2005 reply to our enquiry concerning these data, Transport Canada stated that its data showed 12% of fatalities wearing helmets and 5% not wearing helmets. The remaining 83% were either not known or not reported. In other words, where helmet use was reported, three times the number of fatally injured cyclists were wearing helmets compared to those that were not.

from ... https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lobby.html

Greyryder

What never seems to be recorded when unhelmeted cyclists die is whether or not they had other life ending injuries, or even if it was actually a head injury that killed them.

Really, there's evidence for and against helmet use.

Sequimite

On the empirical side, we have generally similar findings across the US and in some other countries. Within this data we have anomalies, some of which may likely be caused by over-reporting the number of fatalities not wearing helmets. There are some serious questions here, and there may be some serious people raising them. Unfortunately, two of the sources appear to have an agenda, so I think a grain of salt would be in order. Raising these issues does a great service in correcting possible reporting problems and we should see improved accuracy as a result.

The other side of science from empirical data collection is creating and testing theories. Helmets have to meet standards created and tested by engineers and medical experts. Like any theories, they should be continuously refined and corrected.

One point of scientific inquiry and testing is that there will always be anomalies due to human error and random unusual data. It's the mass of data and expert judgment that trumps the occasional contrary result.

Very often we are tempted to think we know better than the experts and sometimes we do. Usually, however, the people that spend their professional lives dealing with a topic actually do know more about it than we ever will. What I know is that the Styrofoam between my head and a hard object can well be the difference between lacerations and a bruise, a mild concussion and a headache, perhaps death and life. In some accidents it won't make a difference. In some it will. The degree of difference it makes should be relentlessly studied and honestly reported. There should always be challenges to conventional wisdom but we are well advised to stick with the current state of evidence and theory unless and until it is overturned.

kludgefudge

....I appreciate the apology, but you haven't even skimmed that thread, have you?

meanwhile

It's obvious that you're an innumerate intellectual incompetent. As well as a troll, that is.

Firstly, you haven't considered the ratio of riders wearing and not wearing helmets. A step so obvious that even a child would have thought it necessary.

Secondly, you haven't allowed for the fact that helmeted riders are a self selecting population. A very large number of cycling deaths involve sidewalk riders, people who are drunk, and people who take extreme risks. Helmeted riders tend to be drawn from outside all of these groups. To state what should have been fairly obvious to even the least intelligent...

The only non-imbecilic way to assess the benefits of helmets is to look at what happens before and after compulsory helmet wearing is enforced. (Or otherwise collect data on groups that are not self selecting.) If there was a real benefit, then death rates would fall. They don't.

In fact, the main source of data suggests that helmets increase the risk of severe brain damage - the imposition of MHLs in Australia:

meanwhile

The standard is that they meet a 12mph impact. After that they fail catastrophically (in the technical sense - ie suddenly and completely). If you'd actually RTFMed instead of bloviating pseudo-science then you would have known this.

These two statements contradict each other. If you want to know what the actual statistical evidence is, go to

https://www.cyclehelmets.org

A fair summary would be to say that you're completely wrong...

Covalent Jello

You forgot to mention that the vast majority of bikers hitting their heads involves velocities similar to 12mph, driven by gravity, even in most cases of being hit by cars.

If you were a little less deceptive, (or maybe just more informed?), you would have taken that into account.

meanwhile

If you really haven't anything better to do that wait around internet forums waiting for people to respond to your trolls, then maybe you should be more concerned with getting a life than trying to protect it from the deadly (deadly!) dangers of velocipede operation?

Covalent Jello

Thanks, you so showed me!
My case stands on the 12mph deception/misinformation you posted (neglected to post) btw.