Forum menu
I think people should be able to assess risk for themsleves and make their own judgements.
I'd always wear a helmet offroad (it's saved my skull several times) but popping round town I wouldn't.
There was a court case a few years back where a cyclist was knocked off at a roundabout and struck his head on the kerb sustaining brain injuries. He wasn't wearing a helmet. THe judge awarded him damages but reduced the amount by 20% (I think) because he contributed to the extent of his injuries by not wearing a helmet which, although not required by law, was readily available and might be expected to be worn by a reasonable person in order to prevent such injuries.
For me the funny thing about this is how the law will be enforced.... The police (especially in Northern Ireland where this originates) have more than enough to do. Will they bother to enforce it ??
There's a story here where the police did not pursue Motorbike thieves who were not wearing helmets due to H&S fears.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10984311
I asked a copper in a traffic car in Manchester city centre why he chose to ignore a cyclist who just jumped 4 red lights in row forcing other road users to stop or swerve...He said we aren't allowed to chase cyclists in cars....So the chance of Plod going after little Sandy on his paper round with no helmet = ZERO IMO.
LHS - and the pro stuff isn't? Every piece that I have seen that shows helmets having a positive effect suffers from several major flaws rendering it completely invalid. Methodology and assumptions that shouldn't even make it into undergrad work.
A critique of the main piece of evidence used to justify helmet compulsion is here
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html
Well worth a read
Choose life.
Most people do (as opposed to just trying to stay alive).
I wear a helmet, almost exclusively, oddly though I chose not to when towing my baby daughter in her trailer recently, why? Like I suspect many others, sense of security from a helmet leads to more risk taking on my behalf.
More risks leads to, well, a riskier life so I made, on that occasion, a safer choice for me and my daughter.
In my own humble opinion of course. 🙂
namastebuzz
I'd be interested on a reference to that because my understanding is that insurance companies lawyers have argued for this but it has never been granted as no expert will say a helmet would have reduced the injuries.
[i]I have read pretty much most of the research from [s]the anti-helmet[/s] both sides and its all flawed.[/i]
Which makes the 'Darwinism' style comments seem silly. If helmets worked as well as their proponents assume, it should be clear cut even taking all the confounding factors into account.
The fact that it isn't should illuminate the debate but first you have to apply the same level of scepticism to [b]both[/b] sides of the argument.
Crikey, do a search for helmets on this forum and read that thread first. No point going over old ground.
If I remember correctly even a full face motorcycle helmet does not provide much protection from a direct impact over quite a low speed - possibly 20kph.
Hey TandemJeremy
I can't remember the reference I'm afraid but I do remember reading the case (I was lecturing in law at the time).
It may have been north of the border thus wouldn't be binding in Englandshire (or even persuasive).
I read it.
Then you will understand that on one side of the argument are a lot of flawed statistic, and on the other side is science and a vast amount of research. IMPO of course.
EDIT: But I won't argue the in's and out's with you. It's a decision you get to make at the end of the day. Best of luck.
Conveniently London and Melbourne both started bike share schemes at the same time. Clearly there are differences in size, season and number of bikes but where London's bikeshare already gets 14,000 users on busy days, Melbourne averages just 70 per day. Surely it's no coincidence that the only bikeshare scheme to 'fail' in a major city is the only one with compulsory helmet laws. There seems to be no surer way of cutting the number of cyclists than imposing helmets.
Something's just occurred to me from reading this, so I've a question (one for TJ maybe?)
Someone mentioned about families being out with kids without helmets. Aren't kids' skulls softer than adults? All this talk of studies (or lack thereof) and statistics, presumably refers directly to adults. Are the same safety "facts" true for kids?
What I'm saying is, would the anti-helmet group advocate the same views towards kids wearing helmets as they would towards adults?
Oh - found [url= http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250 ]THIS REPORT[/url] which is not the case I was referring to and only contains a hypothesis which, as TJ points out, would still require expert evidence to state that a helmet would definitely have prevented said injury.
PP, doesn't that graph say more cycling = fewer deaths
😳
It does, yes. I TOTALLY misread the graph. Which makes it a positive thing, sorry.
[i]LHS - Member
Then you will understand that on one side of the argument are a lot of flawed statistic, and on the other side is science and a vast amount of research.[/i]
No.
There are a vast amount of statistics, which can and have been interpreted in different ways, and a vast amount of science and research which hasn't proven the case one way or the other.
There are also a vast number of people making assumptions with regard to helmets that may or may not be valid.
You, along with others automatically assume that I am anti-helmet because I ask awkward questions about their effectiveness.
I'm saying show me. I'm saying that one interpretation of the evidence suggests that helmet compulsion doesn't actually help to reduce head injury in the way people assume, and I'm asking why that is.
That's called science; it's about approaching the subject with an open mind, about not insulting those who hold a different view.
Aren't kids' skulls softer than adults?
isn't that an argument for compulsory helmets for children at all times ?
God, the internet is shit.
Does anyone have a link to any information on how many deaths would be prevented (in theory) by a helmet law?
I would have thought the people calling for a compulsory law would have done some kind of calculation?
I can't help thinking its going to be very low, given that the number of cyclist deaths is quite low to start with (140 per year ish?)
Surely the effort involved would be better deployed in another area, which would save even more lives.
Crikey, As I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am sure for example there are people out there who still believe it is far better to not wear a seatbelt when in a car crash as you are thrown clear of danger.
That kind of statement would have seatbelt and car seat designers blood boiling.
Just like when you see "debates" that helmets don't necessarily protect you yet all the research and work you do on a day to day basis suggests the contrary.
That is why those who design seatbelts for a living will keep on wearing them and those who design helmets will keep on wearing them.
Whats great about this country is that YOU get to choose. Which is why having a law imposing this on you is fundamentally wrong.
BRING IT ON!! hahahha...all this about it will kill the cycle industry bleat bleat is utter BS..compulsory seatbelts or motorcycle helemts hasn't reduced the numbers of cars or motorcycles!!
oh and wearing a helmet makes you take more risks...REALLY...i totally forget i've got one on my head, and never think i can do this 5mtr dropoff cause i've got a helmet on...WTF
For me the funny thing about this is how the law will be enforced
This is it. Given how uninterested the police seem to be in riding at night with no lights, or red light jumping and pavement cycling, why would they go around stopping people with no helmets?
[i]Which is why having a law imposing this on you is fundamentally wrong.[/i]
Agreed.
My approach is similar to Pascals wager; I'll wear one, but I'm not convinced that they work as well as some people think. Unfortunately, as I said, I think we have a situation now where cyclists truly believe that helmets are always required and to ride without one is asking for certain death. Compulsion would be easy to achieve in the current climate, but my feeling is that it will have little impact on the rates of death and or serious head injury.
So the underworked Police in this country are going to enforce this law the same as they enforce banning of mobile phones whilst driving? The only difference is it'll be easier to nick someone riding without a helmet - penalty a fine, can't really be fixed either because a ten year old won't be able to pay whatever it is.
I'd have thought with the current doom and gloom coming out of Westminster Village this would be the last thing they'd dare impose. Talk about wasting money!!
Given how uninterested the police seem to be ... why would they go around stopping people with no helmets?
It's not likely, if the number of kids I see hacking around the streets here on motorbikes without helmets (or numberplates) is anything to go by.
Compulsion would be easy to achieve in the current climate, but my feeling is that it will have little impact on the rates of death and or serious head injury.
The problem I have and I think alot of people have is that the choice is taken away from you and the Nanny State take over. The argument about them being compulsory on Motorbikes and therefore should be compulsory for Pushbikes is pointless because of the speed differential obviously.
As for the "I always wear a helmet when I go out" brigade, good for you - I don't the shops are 500 yards away and work is the same - I choose not too and it's my choice.
I asked a copper in a traffic car in Manchester city centre why he chose to ignore a cyclist who just jumped 4 red lights in row forcing other road users to stop or swerve...He said we aren't allowed to chase cyclists in cars....So the chance of Plod going after little Sandy on his paper round with no helmet = ZERO IMO
Brilliant - I'm off to rob a bank and use my bike as getaway transport.
It's very appropriate.
Only if you misunderstand both evolution and the effectiveness of bike helmets 🙂
My kids always wear helmets on their bikes, because they tend to fall off a lot at precisely the sort of speeds at which helmets are effective. This is also why you see a lot of kids wearing helmets in countries where adult helmet-wearing is not as common.
I always wear a helmet when on 'proper' rides, or while riding my MTB.
My ride to work is 2.5 miles of mainly bike paths, riding a Yuba Mundo cargo bike at relatively low speeds. Sometimes I wear my helmet for this, sometimes I don't.
(I already have two kids, so my genes are already passed on. Any Darwin-related points are not really applicable.)
Shall we bring up the study that showed cars gave more space when overtaking non-helmet wearing cyclists?
Was that the study where the guy wore a wig to pretend to be female or something like that and cars gave him an even bigger space?
If that's the case, maybe blonde wigs should be made compulsory....?
[img] 
[/img]
good
mine saved my bacon last night... probably.
Only if you misunderstand both evolution and the effectiveness of bike helmets
Which I don't.
LHS - sorry Your position is untenable. Like you I have read much of the original research and it is baldly flawed, far from proving anything, counter-intuitive and contradictory.
Until the evidence base is better there is no case whatsoever for believing that cycle helmets give significant protection against major injuries - simply because there is no reliable research to show this
I have never seen any piece of " research" that shows helmets to be effective that does not have major flaws in it.
The study you posted last time we had this argument has these major flaws that will give massive false positives and is discredited. You claim to be a scientist and to follow the evidence but you accept these flawed research as gospel while poo pooing anything that does not show the results you want.
The flaws are -
self selecting sample
No allowance for risk compensation
No allowance for helmets potential to cause injuries
Plus other more minor methodological flaws
If helmets gave the massive improvements to safety that this sort of study you posted shows shows I would expect it to show up in whole population studies which don't have these flaws ( but may have others). However several whole population studies over time don't show any improvement in head injury rates as helmet wearing rates rise. This is not one piece of discredited research but many studies over years in different countries.
You or no one who claims helmets to be effective has given any explanation for this.
All I ask is for an evidence based practise not based on cant and supposition and badly flawed research.
If two pieces of evidence point in different directions an explanation is needed as to why or both become suspect.
TJ, just so I'm clear;
Is your stance "there is no evidence, therefore we don't know for sure whether helmets work," or is it "there is no evidence, therefore helmets don't work until we prove that they do"?
I can fully get behind the former, but the latter would be the ravings of a madman. Obviously, more R&D is needed, and minds should be open(*) to the idea that just because we think something works a certain way doesn't mean that it does. But you do seem from your edits to be tending towards the latter, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
(* - which will happen if we don't wear helmets, ho ho!)
counter-intuitive and contradictory.
"counter-intuitive" can hardly be a criticism in itself - many obvious things are quite wrong and vice versa!
TJ, you are a nurse for a living.
I work in the design, development, analysis, testing and certification of helmets.
As I said earlier, you draw whatever conclusions you like from the tripe you read on no win no fee solicitors websites you pointed to a few weeks back. Whats great about this country is you have a choice.
[i]I work in the design, development, analysis, testing and certification of helmets.[/i]
Then you of all people should be able to point us in the direction of some sensible research regarding bicycle helmets and their efficacy?
...and should be able to explain how in the most optional test conditions in Australia, in Canada, when we had a helmet law introduced, why the statistics from those places, at those times, still don't reveal any serious impact from said laws?
Your 'scientific' credentials should allow you to adopt a sceptical approach; show me....
LHS - ther is no need to be offensive. Its not tripe on no win no fee solicitors websites. It good basic research from reputable journals. I gave you many references to them.
However as an industry flack of course you attack anyone who has the temerity to question your badly flawed ideas.
I am not stupid, I know how to read a piece of research. I know when a piece has major design flaws that make it completely untenable.
You have no answer to the criticisms I have made on the research that you quote as gospel which is clearly flawed so you rely on attacking me.
All you state is that any research you don't like is " discredited within the industry" What a suprise! Well your reliance on badly designed seriously flawed research discredits and devalues your opinion.
ever get that feeling of deja vu Tj and LHS!!??
Yep, been here before on several topics but heh lets all feel the lourve. We are all cyclists and good friends really.
For what it's worth I wouldn't ride a bike without a helmet, I've cracked a couple, can't say if my bonce has been saved as I've not had the same crash without, but I suspect they offered some protection.
ON the compulsary aspect of helmet wear, it'd be totally unenforceable the Government meddles enough with our lives as it is, freedom of choice, however stupid should be allowed.
Cougar - MemberTJ, just so I'm clear;
Is your stance "there is no evidence, therefore we don't know for sure whether helmets work," or is it "there is no evidence, therefore helmets don't work until we prove that they do"?
My stance is that the risks are low, helmets work well at protecting from minor injuries. With major injuries the evidence is much poorer and there is evidence that in some circumstances the helmet may cause and exacerbate injury.
When you study whole populations as helmet wearing rates increase head injury rates do not decrease.
Yes, deja vu all the time, i was trying hard not to get involved. 🙄
LHS - there is no need to be offensive
I haven't been offensive so please don't play that card.
I merely pointed out that some of the research you referred to are published by people who have an alternative motive - i.e. no win no fee solicitors using the "helmets wouldn't make a difference" card to win more damages for their client.
discredits and devalues your opinion
Who is being offensive??
LHS - MemberI merely pointed out that some of the research you referred to are published by people who have an alternative motive - i.e. no win no fee solicitors using the "helmets wouldn't make a difference" card to win more damages for their client.
this is simply wrong
At one point I gave you an opinion from a person involved in litigation. They are not a no fee no win solicitor. I did not claim this as research. Basic ad hominen argument.
I have given you a lot of references to real research that you just glibly dismiss.
How about answering crikeys point?
I don't think there is any need to see this by taking 'sides', TJ and LHS (and me)....
I presume we would all want the same thing; safer cycling?
I presume we only differ in our respective estimations of the efficiency of helmets?