Six jours

Hey look, Shooter: somebody else you can add to your "Hates science" list.

Six-Shooter

True, but a red herring. The question is not what activities should you wear a helmet for (only individuals can answer that), but rather, if you want to add head protection while riding a bike, can a helmet offer that?

I've only been talking about cycling in general. I'm not cherry picking types of activities.

That's your personal opinion, but it hasn't been borne out unequivocally by the facts. It's easy to find data and studies that contradict your assertion. See the links from a few pages back, for instance, or https://www.aans.org/Patient%20Inform...%20Injury.aspx

I respond easily: I understand how the watchlist works and have seen articles abused in the ways I've described on multiple occasions. I've seen pages that haven't been edited in weeks or months. If you want to put faith in it, great, but I'd much rather turn to serious scholarly sources for information about anything important.

My source was the DOT Here's another with a similar conclusion, based on DOT data: https://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit.../bicycles.html (64% of fatalities at non-intersections)

But that's my point again: it's often easy to find (seemingly) conflicting stats. And above you label something "pretty incontrovertible" according to a specific source, when it in fact says the opposite. Be careful with stats

I posted them actually. E.g., CPSC: https://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf Snell: https://www.smf.org/stds

Having been injured while engaged in casual cycling, having seen other cyclists get injured, having read new stories of individuals being injured or killed, and having read through a mountain of official statistics and scientific studies on the issue, I can say without doubt that is dangerous. Is it as dangerous as wrestling rabid wolverines on the edge of a cliff? No, but I can say with absolute certainty that you can get severely hurt or killed while cycling. And in fact, yearly serious injuries (to where a hospital or doctor are needed) are hardly rare flukes, but in fact numerous.

So, you assume that the stats you like are correct and others are wrong, or? Why is the burden of proof on those who say helmets are effective, rather than those who say they aren't? There's lots of scientific evidence for their effectiveness in preventing some level of serious injury and widespread support for them in the medical community, so it's not like just one lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Without data, that's just a supposition. What might seem obvious to most people can in fact be utterly wrong, as the history of science has shown repeatedly.

rydabent

I would like to ask the hairy chested it only happens to the other guy types if you do these things. Do you tear the seat belts out of your car and disconnect the air bag system. Do you disable the anti lock brakes and skid control on your car. Do you replace the ground fault power out lets in your home with regular plug ins. Do you take down the fire and CO2 detectors in your house.

Your lives are full of safety devices that you use every day. A bike helmet is just another used while cycling.

closetbiker

well, not with 6 shooter it isn't. He refuses to look at the issue in perspective, thinks cycling is dangerous, considers a helmet to be incredibly effective, and doesn't acknowledge the research that runs contrary to his opinion.

It's attitudes like his that perpetuates injuries to cyclists (by prioritizing helmets over other, more effective means of injury prevention) and endangers the health and safety of everyone (by portraying cycling as dangerous, which effectively discourages people from cycling).

Bicycles save more lives than helmets ever can. Some people just don't get that.

Six jours

My initial urge was to whine that this is a cycling forum, so you can't talk about non-bicycle stuff. But hey, I'm told that as cyclists, we're all on the same team, so I just wonder if someone drives a car without airbags, or enters a building not equipped with Co2 detectors, or plugs something into a non-GFI receptacle, do you consider him a moron, organ donor, Darwin candidate? Do you log into chat rooms so that you can heap scorn upon him and make personal attacks against anyone who dares disagree? Or are bicycle helmets the only topic on which you take such a fiercely binary stance?

mconlonx

No, I don't get it... I'm not talking about helmet laws. As I've said before, helmet laws are bad, m'kay? I'm talking about helmet use by those who choose to do so.

I don't believe that helmet use or even helmet manufacturers are solely responsible for the perception that cycling is dangerous. Helmet manufacturers might certainly use that perception to their advantage, but they are not responsible for the perception of danger in cycling. By your own admission, there are those riders who will strap on a helmet with the mistaken belief that it will provide them with some kind of magic force field, protecting them from all dangers on the road. Assuming they stick with it, a helmet has actually encouraged another rider to get on the road... where they find that it is actually much less dangerous than anticipated, and may, in time, having not used their helmet for its intended purpose over a length of time, decide not to wear one.

While we may have studies about what MHLs do for ridership where such nonsense is enacted, do we have any data points regarding ridership vs. helmet use where MHLs do not exist?

Also, I'd posit that it is less about helmet manufacturers doing the scaremongering and more about lawyers in the USA. The reason helmets are mandated by cycling orgs and event promoters have less to do with their beliefs that cycling is dangerous and helmets will help or some kind of conspiracy involving kickbacks from helmet companies, more to do with liability and fear of being sued by a helmet user or their estate.

mconlonx

If risk compensation was relevant, injury rates would go up where helmets are required or use is prevalent. But cycling isn't dangerous. I know there are studies showing that injury rates don't go down where helmet laws are instituted -- do injury rates go up in such cases to validate the whole "risk compensation" hypothesis that helmet use increases risk taking?

Six-Shooter

Project much? Now, instead of discussing facts, you've decided to attack the poster with false insinuations. How does that help the discussion? Not everyone is going to agree with you or interpret things the same way; that's part of adult discussion.

I've indeed looked at the issue from multiple perspectives and continue to read extensively about it. I'm fully aware that some research questions the efficacy of helmets. I never said a helmet is "incredibly effective" or anything remotely like that. I know for a fact cycling poses dangers (see above posts--and ask those who've been injured or lost loves ones how harmless it is) but have repeatedly acknowledged that people perceive the risk differently. You've just written a bunch of bold-faced lies about an individual instead of discussing the issue like a grown-up. Good contribution.

Quite outrageous hyperbole, and quite a cheap debating tactic: someone who doesn't agree with you is now a menace to society who's endangered the health and safety of everyone?

Had you read my posts--and, iirc, I believe you concurred with the one I'm about to mention--you'll note that I have said that I see bicycle safety as a comprehensive set of attitudes, practices, and gear.

Secondly, claiming bicycles "save lives" is comically overstating the case; cycling is fun and offers health benefits, but it doesn't exactly "save" people's lives--remember, if someone so desperately needs exercise, they can turn to numerous other activities or sports.

closetbiker

and yet, the very same arguments and data that people use to encourage helmet use, are used to pass helmet legislation.

I agree. They aren't solely responsible. People often look at many things with a fearful eye, in particular something that is not considered "normal". Riding a bicycle in countries where riding a bicycle isn't "normal" is where helmets are used the most. Helmets are used far less frequently in countries that use the bicycle as a 'regular" event


They are responsible for knowingly taking advantage of a basic human characteristic.




Investigating Helmet Promotion for Cyclists: Results from a Randomised Study with Observation of Behaviour, Using a Semi-Automatic Video System

A paper published this week shows helmet promotion increases the *percent* of cyclists wearing helmets. The cyclists that received helmet information and/or helmets were seen less often and fewer of them were seen at least once. That is, the Group that received helmets and information were seen the least amount of the 4 control groups. And they were seen on half as many trips as the control group.

Fear of lawyers and litigation is a problem too.

Perhaps we should solve this problem and just not ride at all? Stay in bed and die from something else?

Six-Shooter

Most helmet use data is tied to injury/fatality data, but we do have some estimates and surveys. For the US (no national all-ages MHL), "Half (50%) of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for all or most trips." https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traff...les/810971.pdf

"Survey results indicate that the percent of Colorado children ages 5-14 who were reported as always wearing a helmet when bicycling increased slightly, from 40.3 percent in 1999 to 49.3 percent in 2005 (Table 1). These results are comparable to those from a national survey conducted by Safe Kids Worldwide, which indicated that 40 percent of children ages 8-14 reported they always use a bicycle helmet." https://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/injepi/HSbikefinal.pdf

"Utah has a higher percentage of bicyclists who wear a bike helmet than the U.S. (36.5% vs. 20-25%)." https://health.utah.gov/vipp/pdf/Fact...0-09_FINAL.pdf

"In Europe hardly any similar population studies have been carried out, with the exception of Sweden. The increase from 5% to 31% in the voluntary use of helmets by children younger than 15 coincided with a 43% decrease in head injuries amongst this group. Other injuries declined by 32% (Ekman et al., 1997)." https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheet...le_helmets.pdf

"From 1988 to 2002, all categories of cyclists showed an upward trend in helmet use (p < 0.01, p < 0.001). Helmet wearing increased from about 20 to 35% among children (≤10 years) cycling during free time, from approximately 5 to 33% among school children, and from around 2 to 14% in adults. Total average helmet use rose from about 4 to 17%. However, during the last 5 years of the study period (1998–2002), none of the categories of cyclists studied showed an upward trend in helmet wearing. It is estimated that ∼30% of cyclists will wear helmets voluntarily by the year 2010, if helmet promotion activities are continued at the same level as previously. The results suggest that Sweden will probably not reach its official goal of 80% helmet use unless a national bicycle helmet law is passed. " https://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/1/33.full

"Self reported helmet use among 11–15 years olds living in the campaign area increased from 11% at the start of the campaign to 31% after five years (p<0.001), with no change in the control group. " https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...2/151.abstract (promotional campaign results in part of the UK)

"Of the 1110 paediatricians who are active in the Netherlands, 258 answered the survey. Ninety-six per cent of the respondents ride a bicycle (68% more than once a week). Bicycle was used as a mean of transport (32%), as a recreation/sport (11%) or with both purposes (57%). When cycling for transportation, 94% never wear a helmet and 2% always wear it. When cycling for recreation, 70% never wear a helmet and 18% always wear it. The most common reasons given for not wearing a helmet were: 'I never thought about that' (43%), 'Poor appearance' (31%), 'Nobody uses it in the Netherlands' (27%) and 'Uncomfortable' (25%). A majority (91%) of the respondents agreed that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists and that they should be advised to children (82%) and adolescents (54%)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18959572

Paris, Boston, Amsterdam comparison (Exhibit 9) https://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/bikeuse_PBA.pdf

More here, though they're an advocacy site, so due diligence, etc. https://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

I'll try to dig up some more.

rydabent

Really guys in this day and age of big government nannyism, if the government found that helmets caused injury, dont you think they would outlaw them.

This fact shoots down all the anti helmet rants.

closetbiker

What I've done is offer a opinion to sudo about you. An opinion that the worth of discussing the issue with you is less than the effort of the discussion

Right. Cycling doesn't save lives. The benefits of the exercise required to operate a bicycle cannot save a life.

Sheesh. No wonder there's a backlash against helmet promotion.

Six-Shooter

So, to intentionally and publicly misrepresent someone's views and statements is to "offer an opinion." That's a sad way to try to weasel out of your rudeness.

Because I don't parrot your views, you pout or call names or mock. Classy. If you're not willing to participate in a polite, adult discussion and add something of substance, please move on.

closetbiker

In all fairness, you have to admit I have moved on from this discussion with you after I posted this a week ago


I did post a couple of requests since that post requesting you to show injuries in context but didn't get it. This confirmed my opinion, and echoed sudos point, that the discussion (with you) isn't going anywhere.

I hope by asking me to move on that you're not suggesting I stop posting on the subject or posting to others. After all, I've been posting on this thread since its inception years and years ago.

Do you really think that by simply asking, I'd move on?

CB HI

So you think the testing of LSD by the government on unsuspecting citizens was a good thing?

How about Japanese internment for everyone's benefit?

Clearly cigarettes are still legal because they do not harm anyone (or is it because of the tax revenue)?

sudo bike

I have no doubt. As it could while showering, walking... the question is, is that protection really necessary? As I said, for everyday cycling, my answer is no, no more than I would while walking. Others may answer differently. I have no problem with that; I disagree with their assessment (if it's a situation to what I'm facing, at any rate), but I have no problem with it.

I am, because I think different activities within cycling have different risks, and that matters. As I said, trail riding or racing, yes, I'd recommend a helmet. Riding down to the grocery store, I say it's overkill. Again, if you don't, that's OK.

It has as far as I can tell. The only stats I seem to see that show cycling is somewhat more dangerous is those that don't differentiate between an urban commuter going to the grocery store and the teen bombing down a mountain; obviously they have different risks and needs. Again, driving may be driving, but race car crash statistics are probably not terribly useful to one assessing the risk of driving around town, if you see what I mean.

Again, the two US, one German, and one NZ (or AU) blind study seems to not be as concerned.

Again, I think it's beside the point anyway.

Same to you.

Indeed.

And we're back to anecdotal. I have two uncles who both broke a bone because a lawnchair broke... lawnchairs are dangerous. I know many people involved in car crashes... driving is dangerous (another activity helmet use could benefit from).

No. Although I've seen more stats that support what I'm saying, if there is conflicting evidence, the burden of proof is on the positive position.

Because that's how logic works. The positive position shoulders the burden of proof. There is indeed plenty of proof they help with a specific degree of injury, such as minor head injuries, but there is shaky, conflicting evidence that it does any more than that (prevent concussions, brain trauma, death, etc). So yes, I agree there is ample evidence helmets help mitigate minor injury; I do not think the evidence is clear that they do more.

It can be, but it very often puts you in the right direction.

mconlonx

OK, so people took me up on the previous question, what about this one...? Any valid link between helmet use and risk compensation? Or is it just conjecture and conflation?

mconlonx

That's called "marketing." It's this brand new field of study people are just now learning about. Cutting edge stuff...


Don't be silly: riding a bike isn't dangerous, with or without a helmet, no matter what you fearmongers say.

sudo bike

There was the study that found measurable differences in other drivers' actions, and simply because of what risk compensation is we know it must have some effect, but as to whether it is detrimental to a significant degree in riders' actions, I don't know of a study that has approached that yet; the best we can do at this point is look at other similar situations and speculate. Most of my argument has been against people who refuse to acknowledge it's even an effect at all, which is empirically false. Arguing it may not be significant, while I disagree, I can respect. We just aren't yet sure exactly how this may apply to cyclists' actions. Unfortunately, I don't think people are beating down the door to study it...

rydabent

The anti helmet types say------------"there was this study". That is about as believable as-----"we are from the government, and we are here to help you", and "tastes just as good as fresh perked"!!!!!

corvuscorvax

Yes, promoting sporting safety equipment is exactly the same as secret government LSD tests or the internment of Japanese in World War II. (You forgot Hitler, shame on you!)

njkayaker

So, you believe helmets have a strong positive benefit (in some situations).

Not everybody who believes that helmets provide a strong positive benefit believe they are "necessary" for general everyday riding. Certainly, ABS brakes and airbags are not "necessary" for driving either.

njkayaker

Clearly, you have a strong argument if you need to show old advertising to make a point.

corvuscorvax

And no sense of humor. Both of those ads are pretty funny.

RazrSkutr

The bicycle helmet manufacturers agree with you. They will not, and have never claimed, that helmets will mitigate concussion, let alone more serious injuries. A sharp contrast to the bold, unfounded claims made by others on this thread. I think it's fair to assume that said companies have been researching the issue and if they could make a credible case for helmets doing anything other than preventing cuts and scrapes they'd have been all over it.

Obviously this is not the case and they can't make such wild, exaggerated claims for fear of being sued to kingdom come.