vol

So much debates about whether to wear helmet...

Wouldn't it be helpful to have some real statistics that shows:

-How many cyclists in a fatal accident or critically injured had their helmets on (that is, they were killed or injured critically despite the helmets);

-How many of the above did not have their helmets on, and had head injuries.

Are there such statistics?

RazrSkutr

As in "had the aortas of their hearts ripped off by the rotational forces of the collision with the automobile" or "had their spines snapped by a truck" or "had their necks broken by a bus" or "had their spleens ruptured by a SUV" or "had their heads completely crushed".

It would also be useful to put those statistics beside the figures for pedestrians and car drivers and scale them to exposure time for each mode of transport.

As far as I can make out the answer is no: different jurisdictions and hospital administrations use different methods to record cause of death and severity of injury and you'd be damn luck to get a straight answer.

Hippiebrian

Just a little piece on why statistics can be misjudged.

Reality is less than 800 cyclists were killed last year in the entire country out of the millions who cycle. The numbers just don't support the necessity to wear a helmet. Note that this is all deaths, so obviously the number who died of head injuries would be lower, and the number of those who died of head injuries that a fairly non-protective bicycle helmet may have been prevented is even lower.

Hippiebrian

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot the link:
https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm

frantik

Bingo

vol

I have read quite some accident reports in which the cyclists had helmets on when being hit. On the other hand, many people who often wear helmets credit their being alive today to their helmets. Maybe some just don't like to think that they had gone through the hassles of wearing helmets in vain.

sauerwald

Although most cyclists wear helmets, most motorists do not. Last year in the US over 30,000 motorists died in collisions, whereas fewer than 800 cyclists died. Clearly the evidence points to the effectiveness of helmets!


In reality, even if the statistics that VOL is asking for existed, they would not be helpful in making any sorts of conclusions. Helmet use is not random but is rather a choice made by the user. I would contend that a cyclists who does not wear a helmet is probably more likely to engage in a more dangerous riding style, whereas a person who is more of a conformist, is more likely to wear a helmet.

Personally, I wear a helmet most of the time, but I do not want the government bureaucracy dictating my decision to me. I want you to have the same freedom of choice.

closetbiker

people who promote helmet use often fail to point out there are areas, regions, and nations that have helmet laws and keep records of just how many people wear helmets and what their injuries are both before and after helmet use was mandated.

New Zealand, in particular has an aggressive enforcement policy and this results in a usage rate of over 90% and the results have shown no decrease in fatal or serious injury rates.

Australia saw an increase in cyclist injuries after their law was passed.

My province had an aggressive law enforcement policy for the first 3-4 years after our MHL implementation that resulted in a doubling of helmet use.

Ridership dropped 35%, head injuries remained the same, and cyclists deaths increased.

Since those first few years, helmet enforcement has waned. Unless there is a particular enforcement campaign or blitz, a cyclist can ride without a helmet and not be bothered. I took mine off 2 years ago and not one cop has said a thing to me about it. Usage rates have dropped as a result

My province keeps track of helmet use in collisions and there is no difference in injury rates between those wearing helmets and those not.

More info on what happens when people are forced to wear helmets

Helmet laws: what has been their effect?

Information about the scope, compliance, enforcement, changes in injury and cycle use,
and cost benefit of helmet laws that have been introduced.

skye

You're joking, right?

Actually, the research shows that the exact opposite is true. Helmets give the wearer the illusion of safety, and they thus ride less safely. Unhelmeted cyclists, as a rule, tend to ride more conservatively. This is a phenomenon called risk compensation, and it is a behaviour we all engage in, unconsciously.

PatW

There are about 800 cycling fatalities per year.

In the data, there is scant differentiation made between the "types" of cyclists.

There are people who ride at night with no lights and dark clothing on busy roads while intoxicated. That person is a far cry from a cyclist on a Saturday morning club ride. The risk levels are quite different. Now the drunk cyclist would not be wearing a helmet and the club cyclist probably would be. But I don't think the helmet really makes that big of a difference in that case.

The problem we have with the statistics is the "control" group. Comparing that fatalities between helmet wearing cyclists and non helmet wearing cyclists assumes that the two groups ride the same way and the same amount. I believe that assumption to be inaccurate. Now if we could take cyclists and assign them helmets on a random basis and then run them down or dump them on their heads at high speed, we might be able to come up with some valid comparisons. But something tells me that one would not get a whole bunch of volunteers for that study.

I see plenty of people on bicycles riding in wildly unpredictable fashions on busy roads and they never wear helmets. Now, a person like that is at great risk whether they are wearing a helmet or not. You get struck by a large mass of metal traveling at high speed, your prognosis is not that good.

frantik

There actually is data on bike fatalities involving alcohol, and in 2009, 25% of riders killed were legally drunk. Drinking and riding is a huge risk factor, but I don't see nearly the same passion against drunk biking that i see against riding without a helmet or sidewalk riding.

https://publicola.com/2011/03/04/stud...volve-alcohol/

richardmasoner

Mark, you know better than that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Seattle Forrest

I can sell you a helmet, but I can't sell you moderation.

closetbiker

When I read a report on all the cyclist deaths in my province, I was surprised to find there were as many cyclists who were drunk as were motorists.

Last year, during bike to work week, a local helmet promotion group managed to have a story printed in our major daily paper about a cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet. He had a fall and suffered some brian damage. The story failed to mention the cyclist had been drinking, was drunk, and was attempting to perform a trick while intoxicated.

Eliminate the drunks, and the kids and cycling looks a lot more safe, but people promoting helmet use will still try to make it look dangerous. If people think there is no danger, they wouldn't think they need a helmet

atbman

There is also the assumption that everyone wearing a helmet does so correctly

In the UK, a Dr. Mayer Hilman examined a number of cases of cyclists who died from head injuries. He found that about 92% of them also had other fatal injuries. It was just that the head injuries were more immediately fatal so that was given as the cause of death.

sauerwald

I believe that risk compensation has to do with the way one individual behaves under two conditions - for example, I probably ride more cautiously when I am not wearing a helmet than I do when I am sporting a plastic hat. I do not believe that risk compensation applies to populations. Within a population, I believe that those individuals who are more risk averse will tend to use helmets more often, while those who have a 'daredevil' attitude will tend not to, with the result that within the population, you are likely to see more risky behaviour amoung those who do not wear helmets.

In my own experience, when I encounter a cyclist engaging in one risky behaviour such as night riding with no lights, sidewalk riding, riding without a helmet, or weaving in and out of parked cars, I find that it is more likely rather than less that he will be engaging in more than one of these behaviours.

Despite what you and skye point out about risk compensation, I do not think that it is relevant here.

vol

**********

On the very contrary! Because I do not wear a helmet, I am extremely careful during every ride. OTOH, I have seen many people with helmets (including delivery people) zig-zigging through the streets in high speed , and not even using any lights at all at night. As if the helmets guarantee their safety.

closetbiker: thanks for the informative post.

closetbiker

Something has to a count for the rise in injuries with the rise in helmet use.

Remove a consequence and behavior changes. If there were no consequences would one not try something out?

There is no guarantee RC is the cause of laconic injury prevention, but it seems a reasonable guess. What we do know for sure is that the records of injuries haven't fallen

CyclingGiant

Someone needs to do another scientific study on helmets to demonstrate if they really do make a difference in safety.
As far as whether one should wear a helmet, I guess thats up to each person's preference. I myself wear a helmet because at least there would be some padding between my cranium/brain and some pavement or car if I got in an accident. Though I realize that wearing a helmet isn't a way to totally avoid injury in an accident, at least it gives me a little protection.

closetbiker

A helmet may give a little protection, but there is a limit to that protection and once that limitation is reached, it cannot give any more protection.

This is the things about bicycle helmets and fatalities and crititcal injuries, the impacts involved almost always are beyond the limits of bicycle helmets. That's why there hasn't been a corresponding drop in critical injuries and fatalities with the rise in helmets use, the impacts involved are far beyond the limitations of helmets.

So go ahead and wear your helmet to prevent minor injuries, just don't expect them to prevent major ones.

alhedges

That's because drunk bikers aren't *nearly* the danger to others that drunk drivers are. A drunk cyclist has never killed 8 people. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8249454&page=1

Digital_Cowboy

Down here in the Tampa Bay area a local law firm has aired a commercial/PSA that claims that 95% of cyclits killed were not wearing a helmet. I can't help but wonder how many of those killed would have been killed whether or not they were wearing a helmet.

vol

Let's see:

#1. Helmets do have prevented head injuries in some actual accidents.
#2. Helmets make many or most of the wearers feel safer.

I think Effect #2 greatly outweighs Effect #1.

The main role of helmets seems to be making the wearer feel safer (or keeping their parent/spouses from worrying for them), without actually making them safe in many situations.

vol

How about: 96% of cyclists killed were riding bikes that were more than 1 year old, therefore everyone should ride a new bike.

closetbiker

Based on what has happened elsewhere, all of 'em.

Why would anyone think things would be any different in Tampa? Are the cars there made of Nerf or something?