Wogster

IIRC Australia was one, they made helmets mandatory, and saw an increase in the number of head injuries the first full year of helmet required use, then in the last full year without mandatory helmets, even though there were fewer riders, I forget where I saw this....

I always wonder why someone who is pro-helmet laws can pull whatever number they like out of the air, and it must be accepted, while those who are against pro-helmet laws, must have every number absolutely verified as if it were evidence in a court of law.

Note, I am against laws making helmets mandatory, but do wear one myself. I just don't think the pro-helmet rhetoric has enough evidence behind it, and nothing said so far changes my mind on this....

lutz

These pages explain the complete inadequacy of the bike helmet "studies" from the eighties that are always touted by the helmet lobby - the logical fallacies in them are quite painful.

https://cyclehelmets.org/1131.html
https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/hfaq.html

Consequently, population wide accident statistics are currently the only meaningful way to asses the real world efficiency of bike helmets- these do not show any positive effect of increased bike helmet usage.
https://cyclehelmets.org/1096.html
Please click on the countries/provinces on this site for details and references.

This New York Times article was mentioned before describing the increase of head injuries from 1991 to 2000: ".... With ridership declining over the same period, the rate of head injuries among bicyclists has increased 51 percent even as the use of bicycle helmets has become widespread." ( bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html ). Persoanlly, I would attribute this "injury increase" likely to the increased paranoia caused by the bike helmet scaremongers.

Furthermore it is telling BHSI bike helmet lobby cannot provide any studies supporting their position, other than the garbage "science" from Thompson out of the eighties.

Nocturnal

Where I live it's now so odd to see a person NOT wearing a helmet...the exact opposite of when I was a kid. Does it protect you more? Well frankly for no effort if (when involved in a crash) I lessen my chances of motor damage by a couple percent? I'm game.

You, however, can do what you want.

willisgirl

I almost always wear a helmet mainly because it makes me feel like a serious pro.

sstorkel

1) I am pro helmet, but not pro helmet law. I think you'd have to be pretty misguided not to wear a helmet, but if that's your choice I'm all for it. Evolution in action...

2) I'll admit that I do have a bit of a problem with people using bogus arguments or made-up statistics to try to convince others not to wear helmets (e.g. the "you don't wear a helmet in the shower so you might as well not wear one when riding a bicycle" type of argument).

3) I ask you to verify numbers, because I've noticed you have a habit of making them up (e.g. in the bike weight thread where you asserted that it would take 16 hours @ $65/hr = $1040 for a mechanic to assemble a new bike). To date, you've been unable to provide a single verifiable source for any of the cases where I asked you to support the data you included in your posts...

4) I believe I have only one post in this thread that includes statistics. Unlike you, I provided a hyperlink to the government website containing the source data.

Wogster

1) I am pro helmet, but not pro helmet law. I think you'd have to be pretty misguided not to wear a helmet, but if that's your choice I'm all for it. Evolution in action...

2) I'll admit that I do have a bit of a problem with people using bogus arguments or made-up statistics to try to convince others not to wear helmets (e.g. the "you don't wear a helmet in the shower so you might as well not wear one when riding a bicycle" type of argument).[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone says you should not wear a helmet, what they have problems with, it big brother telling you, you must wear a helmet or face a penalty of law. I am against mandatory helmet laws, but not against helmets, in fact I do wear one when riding. It sits in the garage with the bike, so I need to move it to ride the bike anyway, might as well pop it on.

Gee you make one mistake and 20 freakin' years later, that is all anyone will ever remember. I have posted stats here before, with verified sources. I will admit that one point was an exaggeration. Although I do still believe that exaggeration was all over that thread on both sides. I still have a hard time accepting that a bike with a carbon frame, but cheap parts is magically 5lbs lighter then a bike with a steel frame and mid-range parts, when the difference in frame weight is only about 2lbs. One post out of 500 does not mean always, nor does it make something a habit, now who is exaggerating?


Source data, yeah, I love when someone quotes statistics that are not really related to their point, then uses that to show they are superior to someone else. The quoted data has little do do with the risk of a traumatic brain injury. It talks about fatalities versus miles driven, not all TBI result in death, not all deaths are due to TBI, so what does it tell us? It tells us total distance travelled, but includes in that number, car drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, etc. Deaths would include a number of different causes. In the case of cyclists, it would include those doing extremely risky behaviours like stunt riding, downhill riding, riding under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and those that died of a TBI despite wearing a magical foam hat.

lutz

It helps to read - for example posts #150 ,#152

BTW, where are the data supporting the usefulness of bike helmets in the real world?

Elkhound

In most places it is not the law for adults to wear helmets, but it is still a very good idea.

Brains belong inside the skull.

For example.

sstorkel

An "exaggeration" which you presented as being a fact, let's not forget. How many of the "facts" that you've presented here are, in fact, just "exaggerations"?

It's only a habit if you continue to post data and continue to be unable to provide verification when asked for it...

It tells us you didn't bother to read my post nor did you bother to examine the source data for yourself. The data was directly related to my point: your claim that there is a significant chance of experiencing a traumatic brain injury while in a vehicle, and that vehicle occupants should be required to wear helmets. FYI, the numbers I quoted include both deaths and injuries, including injuries which were reported at the scene of an accident, but where no treatment was necessary.

lutz

Well , the media likes such sensational stories. And our media always does a great job fact checking??? The experiences of the last years should tell you otherwise.
If you believe this run-over-by-a-truck nonsense, I have some credit default swaps for sale for you.
This guy had his minute of fame in the media spotlight. With what will he come up next?

Even the "bicycle safety institute"felt the need to debunk this nonsense. This helmet was run over only by a car, btw.

https://www.helmets.org/truck.htm

https://commutebybike.com/2008/04/11/...eels-of-a-car/

lutz

The point was, that the risk level is in the same ballpark range for cars and bicycles - an assumption which is supported by the data in posts #150 ,#152 of this thread.

Wogster

So, because of that one post, I am never, allowed to post anything again?

The source data shows fatal accidents, and fatalities from accidents, I actually did look it up, and I looked up your previous post as well. Before writing what I wrote here. The problem with the data is the miles driven isn't broken down. In countries like the USA, there are no statistics for bicycle miles driven. There are estimates, but no solid data here, estimates I have seen vary widely. This makes it impossible to determine crashes versus miles. Which is easy with motor vehicles in that a state simply needs to track odometer readings at licence renewal time.

What we do know is that in 1997, when almost nobody wore a helmet there were 814 deaths in bicycle crashes and collisions (most are with a car BTW), this trended downward to 2003 with the lowest number,614, by 2005 this was up to 786 again, was lower (772) in 2006 and 698 in 2007. This according to the NHTSA's document on traffic safety - bicyclists and other cyclists. Document # DOT HS 810 968. Bottom right, page 1. You have to admit that helmets were used much more by 2005 then they were in 1997, yet the number of deaths is nearly the same. This would indicate that helmet use and fatalities are not connected, if they were then the 2005 number would have been much lower.

lutz

This is a rather interesting comment; most likely the math there is done right. The author, a math professor, certainly knows more about statistics than me.



The fineprint is here:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kSNVKrktKU...metsincars.gif

Found in this more amusing blog post:
https://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/09...motorists.html
The reaction of a pedestrian advocacy group to the suggestion their constituents should wear helmets.

Denny Koll

Interesting article lutz.

I think it's more socially acceptable to wear a helmet on a bike than it is while driving a car.

I mean one of the things you read constantly from helmet proponents is...it's so easy to wear a helmet, why not wear a helmet even if there is the slightest chance of an accident?...but using this same reasoning not one single helmet proponent can come up with a the logic for not wearing an automobile helmet.

If there were some commercials on TV for wearing automobile helmets most of these sheep would be wearing those too.

lutz

I guess car helmet advocates of importance would likely be "made disappear" by a certain lobby - or what is the correct term? Although I guess they would not have a chance anyhow; consumers would never tolerate any real inconveniences applied to the most beloved car,

Wogster

There are a couple of points here, first is that bicycling really isn't any more dangerous then driving a car, requiring the use of a helmet implies that it is more dangerous, because you don't need one to drive a car. What is the sad point in this,

Mandatory helmet laws are so that governments can push the cost of bicycle safety onto the user, the same way that requiring airbags in cars pushes the cost of car safety onto the user. The real problem isn't protecting the operator/occupant after the collision, but to avoid the collision in the first place. The question is, how do we make roads safer. 33% of cyclist fatalities involve alcohol (either the cyclist or the car driver they collided with), US data from the same NTHSA document I quoted before. The majority of bicycle crashes involve automobiles.

The last time traffic safety was addressed with the idea of reduce crashes was the invention of the third brake light in the 1970's.

sstorkel

Post all you want, but when you start pulling numbers out of thin air expect me to be more than a bit skeptical...

If you looked at my previous post, you probably noticed that this data only concerns fatalities involving vehicles. Data for pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists is only included if they were killed by a car. FYI, I used the 'Query' tab to get access to the more extensive FARS database, which is why my data isn't identical to the data on the summary page that I linked; I included both fatalities and injuries for both drivers and other vehicle occupants.

Still, this data is only useful for refuting your claim that TBI is a frequent occurrence for car drivers. Despite the fact that it seems to show bicycle fatalities decreasing over time, I would be hesitant to draw any bicycle-related conclusions from it.

lutz

SSTORKEL, your data do not really address the discussed questions.

Although I could not find absolute data on TBI injuries, your assertion that they are not a main problem in car accidents is wishful thinking. This site (https://www.braininjury.com/injured.html) lists as causes for TBI motor vehicles 61%, bicycles 3%. This indicates that traffic fatalities, where the ratio of car fatalities to bicycle fatalities is 50:1 can provide ballpark estimates for the importance of TBI for both cases. This detour is necessary because the only reliable accident data are unfortunately the ones about fatalities.
It also means that the data and links in the previous posts, that you prefer to ignore, provide the (AFAIK) best possible estimates.

Accidents and fatalities for car drivers are in the same range as for cyclists (per hour driving time) and TBI injuries are certainly a major reason for the fatalities in both cases; perhaps the relative importance is slightly less for car accidents. However this difference is easily outweighed by the far higher number of car accident victims.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=150
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=152
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=163

baron von trail 

All these citings of stidies and statistics....sheesh.

Simplified: If you whack your head with "X" pounds of force, and that force is below the rated maximum limit on the helmet's specification, then the helmet will protect your head. If you take an identical blow to the head (same direction and magnitude of force) but are not wearing a helmet, your head is much more likely to be injured.

Does anyone question this?

Wogster

I never said it was a frequent occurrence for car drivers, where you data falls apart in this instance is that it doesn't break down injuries by type, not all TBI result in death, and not all deaths are due to TBI. Half of all TBI though, according to a number of sources are caused during motor vehicle collisions. The majority of cyclist injuries are in collisions with cars.

One way of lower the numbers for both drivers and cyclists is to reduce the number of collisions, in the first place. Better vehicle operator training, such as making defensive driving and skid recovery training mandatory. Retesting drivers on occasion, say every 5-10 years. Clear training on how a driver should deal with other road users (like cyclists). Gettng drunk drivers and drunk riders off the road. Better training for people on bikes, you can probably add a few more things to this list.

lutz

Nobody doubts that, if you whack a person exactly like the bike helmet specification demands you are better off wearing a helmet than not.
However, this is not the only question of importance.
- Why is no serious study showing an improvement of fatality/injury data in the real world?
- Does a bike helmet increase the risk for rotation induced injuries and how often do they occur in the real world in comparison to tested standard blows?
- Bike helmets seam to increase your risk for close encounters with cars. Car drivers keep less distance to cyclists with helmets ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=YdoE2YCvwdM )
- Is a bike helmet not a very inefficient way of (only perhaps?) increasing cycling safety. Would other efforts yield a far better return in safety (lighting system, education,.......?).
- Helmet advocacy does scare people away from cycling. The health risks of not commuting by bike far outweigh the risks of bicycle accidents.
- Cycling is not a dangerous activity if you compare cycling to other activities (riding a car, being a pedestrian, having a shower, stepping out of bed). Those bear statistically risks of similar scale (and the shower and household ladders should be outlawed right away ) and nobody ever would find it reasonable to wear a helmet there.
- .....

In short, the paranoia of some people is a serious handicap to increasing the acceptance of cycling in places like the US.

Unfortunately it is not always helpful, to reduce a problem to a single simple question - if I were a crash test dummy and would participate in the standardized bike helmet test ?


BTW, Cycling can be beautiful and normal:
https://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/

chipcom 

Nope...I don't question it at all...funny how such a simple concept causes so much H&D tho. Wear em if you got em, don't if you don't want to, and STFU concerning other people's choices. Statistics are for wussy trying to push their own opinions off on others.

Wogster

The real question is, how many bicycle crashes/collisions mimic the same force administered in the same manner. To determine this, you would really need to do crash testing, like they do with cars. Put a crash test dummy, on a bicycle, fire the dummy and bicycle into a typical situation, no helmet, then repeat with a helmet. Use car "injury" simulation data, collected from many years of crash testing cars, to determine whether your test subject suffers a head injury or not.

Looking for research data, I ran across a 2003 study done by the City of Toronto, in Canada, you can find the study online here

The study used 1997-1998 data (one thing to note, helmets would have been very uncommon then). The study shows the problems are not new, just that we now try and solve them all with Magical Foam HatsŪ.

What is interesting is that while 2,572 bicycle/MV collsions were reported, only 85 involved an injury severe enough to require a hospital stay - the study calls this a Major Injury, and 10 involved fatalities. The study does state that as little as 10% of collisions most with minor or no injuries are reported. Can't determine whether helmets would have helped or not. Your chance of a crash on any particular ride is fairly low, if it wasn't bicycles would have disappeared completely many years ago. In a crash your chance of a major injury (not always a TBI, a broken bone requiring surgery would be a major injury here) is also low. Would seem to make more sense preventing the crashes then trying to prevent TBI in a crash.

baron von trail 

Statistics are often misleading -- and, not always intentionaly so. For instance, take head injuries in hockey. It can be argued that there are now more head injuries than there were prior to all players wearing helmets. But, it can also be seen by watching the game that it has gotten faster and more violent. Ergo, more head injuries.

With bikes, it could be that more risks are being taken now than were taken in the past. Or, it could be argued, that today's bikes are designed to allow for more speed, acceleration, tight turns, or what have you, resulting in more dangerous conditions during a ride.

Simply put, were I to ride my bike at excess of 50 mph, down a mountain, I would definitely want my brain container strapped into a helmet. If I am riding my 20 yr-old Schwinn down to the grocery, I wouldn't dream of it.

lutz

Well they certainly can be. But do you suggest, pretending to be stupid and ignore the data altogether or perform a critical analysis and try to gain some insights? What advantage would you see in ignoring facts?

An interesting example, especially since you cannot separate cause and effect so cleanly - I would argue that the hockey game got more violent in large part because of the perceived protection provided by the helmets (and because of the de-humanization of the opponents, hidden under helmets - haha, helmets are causing the injuries ?).

I find these hypothesis pretty unlikely; for example I would assume that the population more likely has gotten bigger and heavier instead of faster on the bike. The technological progress of the bike in the last 20 years has likely be irrelevant for the cycling masses. Moreover, one would be able to pick up such factors by comparing head injuries to non-head injuries. I would not expect such changes to be constant for all the three continents and different time points for which the analyses have demonstrated a zero effect or even negative effect related to helmet usage.

I assume a greater impact of safety paranoia (where reported injuries are counted; not for fatalities) - for example I would expect a large increase in brain/head injuries now due to the Natasha Richardson case publicity.
But would it not be scary if the negative safety effect of bike helmets reported here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=YdoE2YCvwdM ) would not only concern the passing distance of car drivers to bikes (as measured) but also other safety relevant behavior towards cyclists. Perhaps it would be safer to look as incapable/stupid as possible on a bike instead of wearing a helmet ???