Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

On 10 May 2006 15:34:06 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting Werehatrack :
use." As far as they are concerned, no test yet devised and applied
has demonstrated that a helmet is effecive in preventing injury in
actual riding situations, and I question whether any test is possible
that will satisfy some of the more strident objectors.

Remember that most of the objectors started out pro-helmet and examined
the studies for themselves. Manifestly they would have been perfectly
satisfied if those studies which had good methodology reported that
helmets were effective.

Something that is handwaved away is that the studies showing helmets are
not effective are sufficiently convincing to have an effect on people who
start with a prior opposite perception.

Can you describe a practicable test that would, if conducted and which
demonstrated a helmet's effectiveness, convince you that a helmet is a
beneficial safety device? Can you conceive that one is possible? If
it was conducted, and produced a result that demonstrated that helmets
were of significant value, would you change your personal policy? Can
you state that it would be convincing to the majority of current
anti-helmet adherents, and/or that they would change their policies if
it were conducted and produced the result posited?

I suspect that for you personally, the answeres to the above are
mostly "maybe" verging on "yes", with the exception of the last, where
I cynically predict that the answer must be "no" if reality is taken
into account.

What I'm getting at is that this is a futile discourse.

My long-past experience from a different field (motorcycles) leads me
to believe that the majority of those who declare a helmet to be
either ineffective or actually hazardous would, in most cases, be
impossible to convince that a helmet is effective. In the
exceptionally unlikely event of their being presented with persuasive
evidence[1] of actual protective efficacy, I am (from experience)
quite certain that they would then reposition their arguments to
support a different objection to the use of a helmet, either for
themselves of for anyone. For bicycles, at present, the evidence is
admittedly far less well established than it is for motorcycles, but
even in that field, the same arguments still are heard. I have no
reason to believe that the presentation of even overwhelming evidence
of the efficacy of a bike helmet would sway the opinions of at least a
significant percentage of the objectors; if my experience with
motorcylists is relevant, then it probably would not change the
attitudes or policies of most of them.

There is no point in trying to persuade those who have decided that
they will not accept any counter-argument about the validity of their
position. This goes for both sides of the issue. At present,
however, I will point out as my final comment on the matter that *all*
of the factual anti-helmet arguments I have seen are statistical,
while the pro-helmet arguments do, at least, include some direct
testing of the devices in question. The science to date is on the
side of the helmets[2]. The rest of the arguments are an attempt to
justify a value judgement.

All of that said, I don't favor mandatory helmet laws at this time. I
can conceive of circumstances where limited requirements might be
supportable, but they do not exist in my area, nor do I consider them
likely.

What I would most like to see is the whole subject moved to a
different group, perhaps rec.bicycles.helmet-discussions, but I doubt
that a request for establishement of that group would lead anywhere.



[1] What's persuasive is, of course, a subjective matter in itself.

[2] What little actual science there is, at least, and however
questionable its methodology may be.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Dave wrote:
I can understand cyle hirers, competition and event organisers making a
ruling on helmets as surely a good lawyer will argue hard for their client
either way - and I would guess that it would be difficult to prove either
way but organisers have to be seen to be doing something. Advising someone
is not considered good enough by a court.

In this case, since, as you say, a good lawyer could argue either way,
the choice should be left to the participant. Otherwise they could
sue if an injury were exacerbated by a helmet they were forced to wear.

Enforcing use of safety gear is only right if it is provable that
there is a genuine benefit, on average. This cannot be proved with
cycle helmets. It is not necessary to prove that there is always a
benefit. Enforcing non-wearing of helmets would be equally wrong.

Colin McKenzie

--
In Britain, there is less justification for wearing cycling helmets
than there is for wearing walking helmets.

a écrit :
Then why do more and more large scale studies find that
there is a slight increase in deaths and serious head
injuries when helmet use increases?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel


Becauase they frame the question that way !
If they looked at less than serious or deadly injury, perhaps they would
have additional and/or different conclusions. Do we know ?
--
Bonne route !

Sandy

On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:05:52 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

... Had a customer the other day coming down one of
the local hills (Kings Mtn), too fast in one of the reverse-banked corners,
drifted into the oncoming lane and hit a car head-on. Broke his wheel
(literally snapped the rim in two places), broke the fork, frame appears
undamaged but I wouldn't trust it... and miraculously, escaped himself
pretty much without a scratch. Don't know if he was wearing a helmet or not.

A while back, I saw a clip from a security camera tape in which a
cyclist on a cell phone, coming down a parking garage ramp at speed,
ran head-on into a Chevy Lumina minivan. Due to the steep slope of
the front of the vehicle (and the fact that the front of it was wet),
he slid up the windshield, along the roof, and fell off the back onto
his feet, essentially unhurt. The bike had a bent wheel. They guy on
the bike started to grouse to the security people...until he saw that
they had the tape of his screwup looping on the monitor in the next
office, and that it was really obvious that he was riding without
paying any attention to what was in front of him.

Sometimes, the design of the vehicle will have a lot to do with the
results obtained in a collision.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

wrote:

Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken.

And is a wobbly kid wearing a helmet going to survive any better
when hit by a Ford F-150 piloted by said redneck?

mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
safer.

Again, how is this relevant to a kid learning to ride supervised by
a parent who's put a lid on them?

Unfortunately, the studies you bring up fail to distinguish between
commuting cyclists in and near towns versus serious road and mountain
bikers.

Which would be why, had you bothered following the flame war, you'd
have noticed that nobody's been saying it's pointless for a MTBer
to wear a hat.

Also factor in that the helmet standards in Europe are weaker than
elsewhere.

But if you factor in that not wearing one at all does not cause one
any particularly great degree of harm, and that those accidents
that do happen are not especially productive of head injuries to
start with, then you can see that wearing a helmet of any standard
for the utility cyclist is irrelevant. If I'd been wearing a Magic
Hat That Prevented All Injuries over my cycling career I'd not be
any more alive than I am today.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

jtaylor wrote:
"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message
ups.com...


Note that the first-hand experiences, to date, have been very "pro"
helmet.


Would this have anything to do with the fact that you deliberately excluded
instances where the result would have been negative?



You could start such a thread, of course.

wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:

So why is it an issue
elsewhere? Paranoia, or are the laws of physics really different
outside NL to in it?

Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken. Riding in the
mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
safer.

The CSPC standards are designed to protect against redneck-driven
pickups and dopey tourist driven RV's? Where can I get one of these
magic vhicle deflector beanies?

Or maybe I can interest you in this cardboard bullet proof vest?

...d

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

You're right! The poll is biased against unhelmeted pinheads, whose
small heads have the least chance of hitting an object. Sorry


Gee, that really makes me want to answer your questions.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Turn on, log in, fight spam.

wrote:
Our roads often have potholes,
frost heaves, and sand along the edges.

Why on earth would you be cycling down the edge of such a road? Good
practice is that you adopt the secondary or primary position, rather
than skulk along the gutter.

R.

Peter Clinch wrote:

wrote:

Are there many Ford F-150 trucks driven by rednecks who dislike cyclists
in the Netherlands? Lots of 'em here in the western and southern US,
sometimes known to toss things at riders or play chicken.

And is a wobbly kid wearing a helmet going to survive any better
when hit by a Ford F-150 piloted by said redneck?

Sure, when they're run off the road into a ditch. Heck if they get hit
by a Smart car, the bike might win ;-) We Am'rcuns like our vehicles BIG
and we drive like we own the road.

mountains, we also get lots of gaper tourists, often in big RVs, who
aren't paying attention for cyclists. Our roads often have potholes,
frost heaves, and sand along the edges. Not having been there, my
impression is the Dutch are so cycling aware that their roads are indeed
safer.

Again, how is this relevant to a kid learning to ride supervised by
a parent who's put a lid on them?

What's the biggest hill in that entire country? Said kid has to peddle
to attain any speed so they are self-limiting. And a country the size of
a postage stamp can take better care of its roads than one that's half a
continent. They don't have pointless war to finance either, priorities
you know.

Unfortunately, the studies you bring up fail to distinguish between
commuting cyclists in and near towns versus serious road and mountain
bikers.

Which would be why, had you bothered following the flame war, you'd
have noticed that nobody's been saying it's pointless for a MTBer
to wear a hat.

Like the studies, those wars seldom make the distinction between types
of riding. Usually just labeling all helmets as useless, end of story.
Always the same people singing the same song so this war is the same as
the ones last year, and the year before, and....

Also factor in that the helmet standards in Europe are weaker than
elsewhere.

But if you factor in that not wearing one at all does not cause one
any particularly great degree of harm, and that those accidents
that do happen are not especially productive of head injuries to
start with, then you can see that wearing a helmet of any standard
for the utility cyclist is irrelevant.

Well they don't cause additional harm by wearing them -- risk
compensation has yet to be proven a significant factor for cycling
helmets. Beyond that, the weakness and bias of all the research to date
makes it impossible to draw useful conclusions on effectiveness. Anyone
who uses a helmet as an excuse for not riding will find some other
equally lame excuse to drive their car.