tony_merlino

The problem with this discussion is that people are treating it as a debate, with "winners" and "losers". Is it possible to accept that different people have different priorities, and that they interpret and weigh evidence differently?

chipcom 

don't bring logic and reason into an A&S thread...especially when responding to the village...err...hammock jockey.

rydabent

chip

The very comfortable and logical hammock jockey I might add.

BTW care to answer the question or are you going to deflect it by name calling?

RazrSkutr

Do you deny using the words "silly" and "absurd" when referring to beliefs which you don't hold. I suggest you review your own posts before attempting to portray yourself as some naïf who has innocently wandered into a war-zone.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you! Except you remind me more of my 3 year old! I responded to Shifty, not you, explaining that unlike him, my predjudices tended to place helmet-wearing with a certain group of other irrational beliefs. I thought s/he might be interested.
As I've said before, I don't care what you do with your helmet. Really. I do however make judgements about the capacity for analyzing data of someone that I see wearing one.

chipcom 

What question...if I wear a helmet when racing or for events that require them? Yes...it's hardly a secret, all you had to do was read countless posts I have made on the subject. Maybe you need to get the helmet out of your eyes?

Do you refuse to ride in events where helmets are optional?

closetbiker

Fair enough


After having given an opinion and data that led to it, I'm curious as to why you come to a different conclusion. You don't have to do this of course, but it would help discussion and understanding.

OK now, hold on there. Who are you calling anti-helmet? I think very few here are against helmets, most just want a more complete understanding of them.

Pointing out limitations and problems does not mean people are against helmets. Posting that isn't just inaccurate, it's an insult.

closetbiker

Coming from someone who has repeatedly posted on how personal experience and not expert opinion is what matters, that's pretty rich

closetbiker

After looking back, you're right. Tony gives a free pass to an insult because it wasn't directed at him, but takes exception to another that wasn't directed at him either

RazrSkutr

Thank you. I can understand why Tony is irritated, but I think his claim of innocence is misplaced or mistaken.

Tony is completely correct that there is no slam-dunk data to suggest that helmets actually cause injuries, there are merely some suggestive results which lean that way.

The only thing that's clear is that there is:
1. No correlation between high levels of helmet wearing and low levels of serious head injury
2. A correlation between high levels of helmet wearing and low numbers of cyclists.
3. No acceptable reason to tell anyone else to put on or take off a helmet

Anyone claiming to be "pro-choice" vis-a-vis helmets will surely welcome and support the repeal of existing helmet laws as an unwarranted intrusion on the same rights which they exercize when they decide to wear a helmet.

tony_merlino

OK - this is how I see the question right now:

1) Injury statistics: A bunch of studies with conflicting conclusions. What they have in common is, of course, that they deal with the kinds of injuries that get reported in a setting that gets tracked. I'm assuming that means police reports, emergency room records, etc. Another thing they have in common is that they're not "scientific" - there is no control group, the studies are historically longitudinal, so it's difficult to set a baseline, there's no real way to correct for confounding factors. So, the best they can do is give a flavor. And the flavor they give is more of potpourri than a single, inescapable conclusion.

However, I'm willing to accept that a helmet will not prevent serious injury in a higher speed collision. There does seem to be a consensus that it will prevent road rash on the head and face, though, if you happen to be in the kind of crash that would cause that sort of injury. I don't like road rash anywhere on my body, but will tolerate the risk of it on my arms and legs because taking steps to prevent it would seriously contribute to my discomfort and might cause me to ride a lot less. Road rash on my face and head are a different story - FOR ME. Putting on a helmet, FOR ME, is now second-nature, and I don't see it as anything other than a minor inconvenience. It's worth that minor inconvenience to protect against road-rash on my head and face - TO ME. YMMV.

2) Increased risk of rotational injuries as a result of increasing the radius of the skull: Only plausibility arguments have been made to support this assertion. I don't believe I've seen any hard data in what has been referenced.

3) Risk equivalent to other common activities, like walking around. This has been asserted a number of times, and statistics have been offered to support this view (though the metrics compared are questionable, in my view). In any case, it contradicts my own experience - I've crashed more than once on my bike, but haven't toppled over and fallen on my face while walking around. I've had MANY more close calls on my bike than I've ever had just walking around.

But let's say that the risks are equivalent. An easy, commonly accepted way exists to protect against face/head road rash when riding a bicycle. Adopting that way, i.e. putting on a helmet when riding, doesn't cost ME much at all. On the other hand, it's definitely not socially acceptable to walk around wearing a helmet, so a commonly accepted means to avoid facial/head road rash while walking doesn't exist. It would cost me more (in terms of embarrassment, etc) to adopt protective garb while walking than the risk justifies. FOR ME.

4) Impact of my decision to wear a helmet on someone else's perception of the safety of cycling: I couldn't care less. They will have to come to their own conclusions, just as I did. Besides, I'm not sure I accept the argument at all. Has the practice of wearing seat belts by some (most) drivers reduced the number of drivers?

5) The psychological effect of wearing a helmet on drivers, i.e. the Walker Effect: I'm sorry, I don't find this data compelling at all. Walker's "study" looked at one rider on one bicycle - not exactly statistically overwhelming. And the FDOT study that is often cited as confirming, or at least being consistent with, Walker's findings, didn't actually study helmet use at all. It concluded that cyclists dressing in "athletic attire" were likely to be passed more closely than cyclists dressed in "casual attire". It wasn't specified that the casual cyclists were helmetless, or that the athletically dressed cyclists wore helmets. If anything, it would support avoiding wearing Fredish attire while riding on the street.

6) The psychological effect on the cyclist, i.e the feeling of invullnerability: While the concept sounds plausible, once again, it runs counter to my own experience. (And I'm not trying to come up with a universal answer to the question, "Are helmets a good idea". Just an answer for myself, based on my own riding experience and observations about my own environment.)

In fact, my observations contradict these notions. Most of the time, if I see someone salmoning, riding on the sidewalk, going through red lights or stop-signs, taking crazy chances, ... that rider is almost invariably NOT wearing a helmet. (Which would be consistent with a person with a higher risk-tolerance in general.) My experience of people who wear helmets is that they're usually safety conscious, somewhat risk-averse, and tend to follow rules - including the rules of the road.

I think that about covers it. I'm sorry if I insulted you - that wasn't intended. You've been very civil and helpful in answering questions and providing references.

tony_merlino

I think I've said repeatedly that I'm not in favor of helmet laws, and would support their repeal. My choice applies to me, and to me only.

hagen2456

Since you insist, I guess it's my sad duty to inform you that your question is grotesquely silly. You're reasoning on a kindergarten level. You contribute absolutely nothing of value by acting this way.

mconlonx

I can say, without qualification, reservation, or mental evasion, that the answer to this is a definite "maybe."

closetbiker

1) Injury statistics: A bunch of studies with conflicting conclusions may be how you see it, but others have made career in understanding them. The cycle helmets website I directed you to has people who have done this. If you take some time to read it and think about it, the issue may become more clear

A consensus may exist for road rash under the area of coverage of the helmet but I don't know about consensus that it does the same for areas that do have any coverage of the helmet

I've provided that link many times. You may want to look for it. I can't give it now because I'm at work tapping this out on an iTouch


It may, but the general argument is one of what happens to everyone in general and not anyone in specific

So what you're saying is fitting in is more important than safety?

You don't have to, but you might want to because it could affect your safety on the road. It could even lead to other measures that are even worse

OK but you want to take note that this from a whole field of behavioral science that is legitimate

No problem and thanks for the acknowledgement. Try and not call anyone anti something when they haven't been and we'll be all good

mconlonx

Counterpoint:

1. Is cycling an activity where I can get away with wearing a helmet in public?

2. Does a helmet provide me with perceived benefits vs. not riding with one?

On both counts for me, the answer is yes.

mconlonx

Then y'all didn't do a good enough job when it counted...

mconlonx

...post about it on an internet forum...?

closetbiker

And that is why I'd never call someone wearing a helmet an idiot, moron, or airhead.

I'd also oppose any legislation that would force helmets off heads

mconlonx

I don't insult anyone who chooses not to wear a helmet and I oppose any MHL legislation that comes along.

-------------------------

Without an MHL in place, if someone chooses to wear a helmet, are you (non-helmet wearer) less safe because of their choice...?

closetbiker

Of course it's impossible to know, but I'd doubt it.

I remember back in the day when you'd see the odd guy in a Bell Biker. I'd think it was a bit odd, but no big deal.

When the helmet evangelists started to appear, that was a different story because they placed the value of a helmet over behavior as a better way to reduce injury.

Next thing I knew, a suburban mom was pushing for a law because her son didn't want to wear a helmet as he rode to school on a busy road.

She kept at it for 10 years and finally got her way.

Things became worse for cycling after that

hagen2456

Hmmm...

https://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full

"...data from the Swedish National Hospital Discharge Register concerning all bicycle-related injuries from 1987 to 1996, which presented 49 758 reported in-patient care...
...The head injuries in children decreased both in collisions with motor vehicles and in other accidents. Similarly, the IR of concussion and skull fracture decreased. For non-head injuries, there were no significant changes for children."

Up 'till now, I've been mostly semi anti-helmet, but I'm kinda moving to the pro side now.

RazrSkutr

In your opinion does this study control sufficiently for exposure, or should it have used different denominators? Does their use of LisRel include the same assumptions about normal distributions as the Sobel test? I could never really understand what they were doing because I've rarely come across this method.

closetbiker

there's a lot of information that's elusive. For instance, the abstract says observational studies show that helmet use increased in all categories of cyclists, but it doesn't say by how much or what the rate of use was. It also says the incidence of head injuries for adults increased. The study even says it couldn't be sure the drop of injuries to children was due to helmets.

I think the issue is not that they're aren't studies that suggest helmets have caused a drop in injuries, there are - it's more that there are other studies that show they don't.

After years of research, the efficacy of helmet use is unclear and inconclusive.

hagen2456

No matter how you look at methology, the bare facts speak for themselves: "The head injuries in children decreased both in collisions with motor vehicles and in other accidents. Similarly, the IR of concussion and skull fracture decreased. For non-head injuries, there were no significant changes for children."

Look at the tables and figures. It's quite clear, really. There are other, legitimate reasons for helmet skepticism, but in themselves, helmets seem to work.

hagen2456

No, but "These studies show that from 1988 to 1996 helmet use increased in all categories of cyclists. Helmet wearing increased from ∼20 to 35% among children (≦10 years) riding bikes in their leisure time, ∼5–33% among school children and ∼2–14% in adults.

In a previous study, we discovered that most pre-school children (80%) used a bicycle helmet, but a clear majority of the children stopped wearing them during their school years. Only 3% of the children aged 14–15 years used helmets and as few as 2% of the adults".

...those last numbers being from 2001. In other words: children aged 0-15 became for the most part helmet wearers, but grown-ups didn't.

No, but it says that it's indicated by the study. I agree.

I don't actually think so. Reasearch that has, like the Swedish one, been able to keep confounding factors out, are quite clear. What seems to be at work in a lot of research are other, perhaps more important factors that may have a strong effect. In some places it's changes in safety in numbers (or lack of same), in other places infrastructure, and sometimes perhaps both (or even other, unknown factors, but that seems doubtfull).

Those "confounders" are exactly why I'm not absolutely pro-helmet. Infrastructure, and probably also safety in numbers, seem to be more important to safety. As is, of course, education. Helmet campaigns are, judging by the roles of official safety agencies, largely seen by politicians as more important than those factors. I guess it's because a campaign is a lot cheaper than decent infrastructure...