Riis

Sorry, but I really don't follow your equating of a lottery winner with a doctor - could you explain that more clearly?

Also, what does the fact that the majority of head injuries happen to non-cyclists have to do with a comparison between helmet-wearing and non-helmet-wearing head injuries to cyclists?

Let me be clear, anecdotal evidence is a poor substitute for objective evidence, but in the absence of the latter, I'd still take the former over the opinions of people who don't like wearing helmets for whatever reason. Also, there's a point at which reason has to prevail. What's even worse than anecdotal evidence is the twisted logic that people use to state that helmets are not only useless, but inherently harmful.

Riis

I found my own answer - you've borrowed that lottery ticket metaphor from Mayer Hillman (or wikipedia). Nice.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it makes much sense in the real world - the drawing of parallels is unjustified. Surgeons or doctors are much more likely to have encountered the broader scope of the problem through your so-called 'objective' data in addition to their own experiences, whereas most people who buy lottery tickets to begin with, let alone those who actually win, clearly don't have a clue as to what their chances of winning are.

closetbiker

there's plenty of objective research on the topic, but the trouble is, there are too many people who are not being objective.

Put it in perspective, and show me cyclists hit their heads more often than others who do not wear helmets

SweetLou

Sure, I see doctors. They are often very good at fixing a problem that I cannot. Are doctors good at knowing what forces the cyclist's helmet or head encountered during the accident? Have they done experiments showing what forces are involved in the accident and how to prevent brain injuries in such accidents? No, doctors are mechanics. They fix broken bodies.

So, you know that this doctor has seen many cyclist come in for head and brain injuries? You are correct that the word of a doctor or any other stranger won't convince me. Scientific studies would convince me.

I don't know. I have gone down a couple of times in my adult life, usually because of ice and I have yet to hit my head. But helmet cyclist always want to tell me how they hit their head and cracked their helmet. It saved their life. Why do helmet wearing cyclist hit their heads more often? Maybe I have a tiny head and it can't reach the ground, even with a helmet on, but I doubt if that is the reason.

Why do you think if your helmet just barely is able to reach the ground, that the force is less? If I tie a brick to a rope, so that it can only travel 30 feet and toss if off a 29.98 foot roof, will it hit the ground with less energy than if it wasn't tied to the rope? The answer of course, is no. It will have the same amount of kinetic energy with or without the restriction on how far it could move.

Maybe someone needs to do a study on how often the head hits the ground in an accident and if helmet wears hit their heads more, less or the same amount as helmetless riders. I would guess that it would be more. Especially with my anecdotal evidence proving that it is much less likely to happen.

DogsBody

I was pedalling home from a friends party; and was slightly "under the influence" (backroad routes all the way home).
Came to a stop; went to put my foot on the curb; missed; hit helmeted head against a tree.
Anecdotal evidence of FAIL.
But thank goodness I had my lid on; or else I would had a nice bump on my noggin'...

Riis

This has turned into an impromptu physics lesson.

You're missing a crucial factor here: acceleration (and deceleration)

In your example, the brick is still accelerating as it hits the ground from that height. However, your head has decelerated and come to a stop if you've barely avoided an impact with the ground. On the other hand, if you've fallen with enough force to hit the ground, your head is still in the act of decelerating. The forces between the two cases are indeed different.

Your example should be rephrased because it isn't a comparison between a free fall and a restricted one. Instead, are the forces different at the bottom of the fall when you tie a brick to bungee cord – let's say it's 30 feet long at full stretch – and throw it off a 29 foot wall vs. a 30 foot wall? One is still decelerating when it hits the ground, whereas the other has decelerated completely. You do the math.

Of course, this does mean that within the one-inch (or whatever) thickness of your helmet, if you do have the rare misfortune of having otherwise missed the ground by less than an inch, wearing a helmet would continue that deceleration whereas you would've otherwise stopped. But let's be realistic, this isn't going to account for anywhere near the majority of helmet impacts and the forces would still be minimal since your head had almost finished decelerating.

I should add that there is scientific data out there to show that helmeted riders are protected to a greater extent from injury than non-helmeted riders, but unfortunately, it's not on the anti-helmet advocacy site cyclehelmets.org, so you've probably never come across it.

DogsBody

Heh. Common sense doesn't factor I guess.
It really does follow that any shock-absorption for the brain is better than none.
It's really simple actually isn't it?

trombone

Hello! Sorry I haven't been around for a while. I want to make a few points, but don't have time right now, but will be bck in the next day or two. I've had a bit of a manic few weeks, and I'm aware I owe a few people a reply.

However, I did want to correct this particular piece of mis-information:
cyclehelmets.org. whatever you think of it, contains links to a lot of research about helmet effectiveness. This page, for example, is linked prominently from their front page.

You may or may not like the site and it's approach, as is your prerogative. But lying about its content doesn't do much to bolster you own argument.

closetbiker

cyclehelmets.org has also been linked by Cycling England (the UK's national body for the promotion of cycling) as the sole reference on the issue of bicycle helmets in it's report on the health benefits of riding a bicycle.

https://www.networks.nhs.uk/uploads/0...and_health.pdf

I'd say that's quite a ringing endorsement of the site.

Riis

Fine, I stand corrected - the data is there for you to find if you really want to read it. Unfortunately, you have to get through the ridiculous graph and sensationalist headlines on the main page that clearly tries to bias the argument. Call it a lie if you want, but anyone's welcome to visit the site and see what I'm talking about.

By the way, in case you're wondering why that graph is 'ridiculous', I was born and raised in Denmark and grew up bicycling there. I know firsthand how much a proper infrastructure and bicycling culture matters. Presenting a correlational graph that shows how countries such as Holland and Denmark have fewer bicycling injuries and also fewer helmets is extremely misleading and shows the bad faith of those on the anti-helmet side of the argument. If you really want to be 'scientific' about correlational data, then you'd be honest and explain that it shows no cause and effect relationship whatsoever.

Riis

There is another point I'd like to make. I'm positively against helmet legislation. I do believe it's a free choice people should make themselves, so I'm firmly in the camp that says helmet wearing should never be legislated.

But having never stepped into this debate, I never realized the kind of un-scientific and illogical arguments people are using to render helmets useless, and sometimes even harmful, to riders. By overstepping the argument into trying to convince themselves that helmets offer no benefits, it's clear to me that many anti-helmet advocates possess an inner tension between their desire to ride helmet-free and a real doubt as to whether their position has any real merit. Hence the flight to find any shred of research evidence that supports their position.

Having conducted research in cognitive psychology myself, I can honestly say that scientific research is murky terrain, and you really have to read the articles carefully. Often a claimed result in the abstract or conclusion belies non-significant or partially significant findings in the actual results of the research (this applies for both 'sides' of the argument). But even more significantly, on an issue such as this, where a truly experimental approach in a controlled setting that discovers cause and effect can't be implemented, we have to resort to other kinds of studies that are more likely to produce findings where researchers can draw multiple contradictory conclusions from the same body of data.

This brings me to to the fact that having done 'objective' research, I know firsthand that the opinions and beliefs of the researcher matter immensely. There is no 'viewpoint from nowhere' in research and the researcher always has a vested interest in what they're studying. Findings of non-significance or that go against one's hypothesis can be extremely damaging, both in terms of securing future funding, and in terms of one's reputation.

So, with that being said, survey the evidence (anecdotal, correlational, or whatever) through some critical thinking and a healthy skepticism. I personally believe some common sense should prevail here and from personal experience, firsthand and otherwise, vanity can be a tough barrier to overcome (and it's okay to say this and to admit it to oneself). I will, of course, entertain other reasons for being against helmets, but so far, none seem very credible.

Riis

How does that even make sense? So cyclehelmets.org puts up some readily available data showing the health benefits of cycling (which I'd agree with 100%), which has really nothing to do with the safety of helmets for, or against, a cycling promotion body uses it, and we can conclude that it's a ringing endorsement of the 'objectivity' of the entire site?

Think about that for a minute.

Riis

Sorry, I can't help but make ONE more point and then I'll banish myself, I promise.

A telling sign of the bias on cyclehelmets.org and that their page on helmet effectiveness is a token attempt to establish their 'objectivity':

On their page against helmet effectiveness (https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html) the articles are updated into 2008.

Go back to the for page (https://cyclehelmets.org/1147.html) and there's been no research on helmet effectiveness since 1998? I highly doubt that. I think a reasonable assumption is that by updating that page, the relative weight of materials for and against would begin to shift to the 'for' side in a big way.

Basil Moss

I fell over and bashed my head really hard while ice skating today. OMG WTF BBQ!!!! Why didn't I wear my helmet?!?! Now I've got a bump on my head! Quick, somebody legislate!

closetbiker

what helps is thinking on the quality of argument presented on each side of the issue.

It's almost enough to convince one to forgo the actual benefits of use

Riis

Please refer to my post above that shows the 'quality' of argumentation presented by cyclehelmets.org and other anti-helmet advocates.
Unless of course, 'quality' refers to selectively looking at available research, logical fallacies, bunk physics, and an attribution of cause-and-effect to correlational data.

Here's another example - I've been debating a fellow Dane on this issue and here's what he suggested to me when I told him that the available data shows helmets reduce head injuries: "Interesting, Sune. The Dept. of Transport in the UK did an analysis of a large portion of studies from both sides of the argument in order to somehow find a way through the maze. Their sober results go against your opinion."

And here's the summary of the report that he's talking about: https://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...6?page=3#a1004

If you actually take the time to read it, it overwhelmingly supports the argument that helmets reduce injuries. My countryman had taken a rather selective approach to reading it (I'm being generous here). I find this characterizes much of the 'against' side in this debate.

There's a white elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about and it's this:
https://sikkertrafik.dk/b7db0029
Translation: First Aid for your Hair-Style (a Danish hair-stylist attempts to convince bicyclists that helmets can be worn without much ill effect on one's hair style and offers some handy tips).

closetbiker

the fact that you refer to cyclehelmets.org as anti-helmet advocates points out the quality of your arguments.

That you've acknowledeged your own poor substitution of objective evidence, won't acknowledge that there is such evidence, and can't see both sides of the issue is another example.

Riis

Well, I'm surprised to see you commenting on the quality of one's arguments when, quite frankly, you've presented none (coherently, at least). In fact, you haven't even bothered to read my posts properly before responding with the usual inane attacks that characterizes many an online debate.

If you want to be taken seriously, please debate the facts.

closetbiker

do a little research that doesn't weigh heavily on personal anecdotes and then a response will come.

As to your comment of my not presenting any argument, you've once again hoisted yourself on your own petard.

Please, educate yourself.

trombone

Fantastic. So you are firmly in the 'anti-helmet' camp then. What you have written is essentially what 'anti-helmet' people want - to be left alone to make their own choice about whether the low injury risks posed by cycling make wearing protective equipment necessary.

Thanks for the link. Actually, I would say it's conclusions are far from overwhelming. It accepts that, in the event of being involved in an accident, wearing a helmet will reduce the risk of injuries, but is quite equivocal as to the overall benefit in helmet wearing, acknowledging as it does that the reduction in injuries related to mandatory helmet use / helmet promotion are largely attributable to reductions in cycling.
It's also extremely generous in its assessment of some of clinical studies; it rates the notorious 1989 Thompson et al study (which has been the subject of much criticism, and indeed even the authors later revised their figures downwards in another paper based on the same data set) as being a 'good/reasonable' study. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't a good study; if you have experience in research than I urge you to read it critically; there are so many glaring methodological and statistic errors that I doubt it would be accepted as a PhD thesis in any reputable university.

Riis

Perhaps that's how you define it but anti-helmet advocates, in my opinion, are those who advocate against wearing helmets because they're inherently useless or even dangerous somehow. Really, I wish those who refuse to wear helmets and are for free choice on the matter would at least disassociate themselves from the looneys who concoct some pretty fanciful tales when it comes to this topic. There are some fantastic examples in this thread alone.

But that's all I've claimed in reference to this particular report. You've missed the point. What I'm trying to highlight is that I was referred to this report by an anti-helmet advocate (who is, in fact, the administrator of the primary anti-helmet site in Denmark) who claimed that the conclusions contradict the notion that helmets reduce the risk of injury, even going so far as to support his position that they pose a potential threat. This was patently false. I was then referred to Brian Walker's writings on the matter, which is similarly self-defeating because Walker is against the watering down of helmet standards by industry lobbyists and advocates for more stringent EU standards in helmet construction to improve their efficacy.

I'm not sure where you're reading that. What I saw was this:

"While the increased rate of helmet wearing and reduced level of bicyclist casualties noted above is impressive, it is worth noting that it is possible that some of these changes were influenced by decreases in exposure."

As for the Thompson report, I'll definitely try to dig it up through my university library since it's oft-quoted, but it's also fallacious to believe that through its errors (if true) it somehow reflects on the poor quality of all studies that show helmet benefits. The above report also found the 1990 Thompson et al study "reasonable/weak" precisely because it overstated the benefits of helmet protection, so it's not like they're practicing blatant partisanship towards studies that find positive results.

trombone

Really? I've never actually come across anyone who holds that view.


A-ha! I think you might be confusing two different positions, actually.

There are two very different questions in play, and you need to be very clear which question you are talking about.

Question 1)
Will wearing a helmet offer some protection against head injury if you are involved in an accident?

The weight of evidence, as I see it, is that it will. I think most people take this view, in fact (notwithstanding it is possible to construct a number of hypothetical scenarios where the helmet may make things worse; in practise these have not been shown to be meaningful or significant). The argument on this one is purely about whether the level of protection is worth the inconvenience, given that cycling is already a quite low risk activity. There is no absolute answer to this question, as it is purely a personal choice, so ultimately arguing over it is pretty futile (not that it stops people here spending hours on it). If you think the balance of benefit vs inconvenience is in favour of the protection helmets provide, wear one. if you don't, then don't. End of argument.

Question 2)
Does the promotion of helmet use (and, in extremis, the introduction of mandatory helmet use) make cycling safer overall, and / or offer an overall benefit to society?

This question is much less clear cut, and actually much more interesting. Crucially, it also has absolutely nothing to do with the answer to question 1. Whichever way you answer question 1, you might still chose to answer this question either way.
That notwithstanding, the reasons why you might choose to answer this question as 'yes' are often tied up with a positive answer to question 1, in that it means more cyclists who are involved in collisions will have the benefit of a helmet. It's by no means the only rationale by which you might arrive at a 'yes' though; you might also answer yes to this based on helmet promotion and use encouraging responsible cycling and 'parity' with other road users.
You might choose to answer 'no' based on the fact that encouraging helmet use tends to have the effect of reducing cyclist numbers (that this happens is pretty incontrovertible). Lower cyclist numbers in turn tends to increase the risk to cyclists (again, pretty incontrovertible). This means that the overall decrease in cyclist safety might overwhelm the individual benefit in the instance of an accident (or it might not, of course - depends on your view of the relative strengths of each effect).
This is not the only possible answer to this either; you can make an argument that promoting helmets tends to reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous, so fewer people cycle. Less cyclists means more of the population is sedentary, and the illnesses and early death associated with sedentary lifestyles outweigh the risks (and costs, in medical terms) of people getting injured cycling (cyclists tend to live longer than non-cyclists, on average, helmet use notwithstanding).
There's a whole bunch of other issues relating to social justice, risk compensation, comparative activities and more which also might be considered, but you get the picture.


Anyway, it's really important to be clear which question you are addressing. In my experience, the 'pro-helmet' lobby tends to coalesce around the notion that the benefits of helmets are so great it is nonsensical to even consider that the inconvenience might outweigh the benefits, generally have an inflated sense of the dangers of cycling, and rarely put much thought into the second question beyond a reflex 'helmets are good for the individual, so helmet laws are also good for society'.
The 'anti-helmet' group is much less homogeneous, and in fact it's hard to really describe them as a group as it encompasses quite a wide range of views. In general, they consist of people who understand the nuances of the issue, and have a grasp of the two questions I outlined above. FWIW, I still put you in that category - so as far as I'm concerned, you're an anti-helmet nutter!

trombone

I might add that there is a third question, which is only worth stating insofar as it might remove another source of confusion; in effect it is a special case of question 2, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Question 3)
Does wearing a helmet make the wearer more likely to be involved in an accident?

There is some evidence that it might (drivers behave differently around helmeted cyclists and non-helmeted cyclists and helmeted cyclists are more likely to engage in risky behaviour due to risk compensation). How big these effects are is a mater of some debate; there is not a lot of research in this specific area.

closetbiker

I always make 2 points.

The first has to do with the frequency with which cyclists have head injuries. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that cyclists hurt their heads more often than others.

The second has to do with the limitations of the helmet. There's no doubt a helmet provides some level of protection, but the protection has limits and exceeding this limit renders the helmet useless. Falling over is one thing but in virtually every instance of "serious" injury or death of a cyclist a collision with a motor vehicle is involved and a bicycle helmet is not made to withstand these sorts of collisions.

It's one thing to say a helmet prevents "injuries", but if these are merely superficial, isn't there an awful lot of fuss made over trivialities that people suffer without helmets without any fuss?

another UK Dept of Transport page deals with the debate over cycle helmets

https://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...?page=11#a1050

Key points are:

The pro-bicycle helmet group base their argument overwhelmingly on one major point: that there is scientific evidence that, in the event of a fall, helmets substantially reduce head injury.

The anti-helmet group base their argument on a wider range of issues including: compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in bicycling, risk compensation theory negates health gains, scientific studies are defective, the overall road environment needs to be improved.

The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.

another page on the meat of the debate,

https://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki..._helmet_debate

The first, and probably most counter-intuitive thing to learn about bicycle helmets is that they have very little to do with bicycle safety...

Helmet promotion is often pushed by medics working in accident & emergency. They see "lots" of cycling head injuries. Of course, most of them are trivial....

Population-level figures generally include only serious and fatal injuries...At that level, helmets apparently have no effect...

if helmets prevent a high proportion of cut heads but no serious injuries or deaths in crashes involving cars, for example, that would explain the disparity between the population-level figures and the prospective studies right away. It would also be consistent with the claims of the helmet manufacturers, which are much more modest than those of the campaigners, presumably for legal reasons, and with the published standards for helmets, which involve impacts equivalent to a very low speed crash or a fall from a stationary riding position. All this makes perfect sense. The logical disconnect comes when you say "helmets prevent 85% of injuries, therefore they would prevent 85% of deaths". I don't think it requires particularly acute critical faculties to see the flaw in that chain of logic. You can call cuts and bruises lacerations and contusions, to make them sound worse, and you can lump everything from a cut ear to acute neurological trauma into one basket of "scary head injuries", but trivial injuries remain trivial; a device which protects against such injuries cannot without substantial additional evidence be assumed to prevent more serious consequences.

The last point here is as ignored as the relative frequency with which cyclists harm their heads is. If helmeted cyclists injure their heads to the same degree and frequency as do non-helmeted cyclists (something shown in areas that have passed helmet legislation), how can the injuries to the helmeted cyclists be explained? The standard response seems to be that "it would have been worse" had the cyclist not been wearing the helmet, but there is no way to verify that. All we know is X cyclist had a fractured skull despite wearing a helmet, while Y cyclist had the same without. When death rates do no drop when entire populations wear helmets, how is it explained that helmets "save lives"?

... and being skeptical of a few, certain, extreme claims of a helmets effectiveness, while accepting other more clear benefits of helmets, does not make one, anti-helmet.

Riis

Please scroll above for the person who thinks that helmets make you more likely to contact the ground, which result in greater rates and degrees of head injuries, etc. etc. You know, the bunk physics thing.

Also, here's what my Danish friend, admin of the anti-helmet site cykelhjelmerne.org had to say:

"Indeed, there are many studies that show that helmets are, in fact, more dangerous. Increased risk of rotational injuries, increased risk of just hitting your head because it's bigger, risk compensation, etc."

So let's be clear, there are indeed many people engaging in this kind of nonsensical argument and you've just come across them!

I'm absolutely, unequivocally NOT confusing the two, we're completely talking past one another. I came here to state in simple language that having been in an accident, my head was protected from worse injury by wearing a helmet. It wasn't more complicated than that. Please go back and read my original post if you like.

I was then jumped on by people trying to convince me that somehow my helmet had made me worse off and that I likely wouldn't have even contacted the ground if I hadn't worn one. Again, someone threw a pretty laughable understanding of basic physics at me to justify this view. Refer to the confusion between the forces in a free falling brick and a restricted one.

That's absolutely fine, you can call me whatever you like! I personally think it's a bit of a malapropism given that I think people SHOULD wear helmets, particularly in North American urban settings, but maybe not so much in Copenhagen or Amsterdam where there is a proper infrastructure and bicycling culture. A better name would be anti-helmet-legislation perhaps. For example, I also think smoking is terrible for people, but I'm not about to call for a legal ban on it.

Anyways, I think this is a good place to end since at least one of you 'anti-helmet nutters' has stated clearly that helmets offer protection in accidents. Whether or not that should justify one wearing a helmet given that yes, some people will never fall off their bikes and hit their head, and yes, others like me will (and have), should be up to personal choice and not legislation. Agreed?