Slashdot Mirror

Cyclists shouldn't be sharing the road with two ton steel boxes. Yeah yeah I know you have the same rights as cars but get real. From a physics standpoint you'll always lose. Cycling on roads is a death wish.

It's really not as dangerous as you seem to think.

Long-term analyses of fatalities in Canada (Burdett, Can), New Zealand (Burdett, NZ) and USA (Kunich, 2002; Rodgers, 1988) show no helmet benefit; indeed, one study (Rodgers, 1988) suggests helmeted cyclists are more likely to be killed. Although fatality rates have generally declined, cyclists have fared no better than pedestrians. In Great Britain, too, there has been no discernible improvement in fatality trends relative to pedestrians as helmets have become more common (BHRF, 1071; Hewson, 2005). In New South Wales, Australia in the three years following the introduction of its helmet law, 80% of cyclists killed and 80% of those seriously injured wore helmets at the time (Robinson, 1996; NSW, 1994). These proportions are almost identical to wearing rates in street surveys (85% and 83% for adults in 1992 and 1993 respectively; 76% and 74% for children - Robinson, 1996; Smith and Milthorpe, 1993), suggesting that helmets had little effect on the likelihood of fatal or serious injury.

Because it's the law in civilised nations such as Australia and New Zealand.

In the United Kingdom. HEAT suggests that a law making helmets compulsory for cyclists may result in an overall increase in 253 premature deaths – 265 extra deaths from reduced cycling less 12 deaths saved among the reduced pool of cyclists receiving fatal head injuries.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html

I for one am glad that I live in a rational nation, rather than one of the civilised ones which you mention!

I hate to say it, but my impression is that linking to http://cyclehelmets.org/ for issues of helmets is like linking to WUWT for issues on climate change. ...

You just insulted WUWT.

Citing http://cyclehelmets.org/ is like going to Penthouse's Forum to learn how to get laid.

I hate to say it, but my impression is that linking to http://cyclehelmets.org/ for issues of helmets is like linking to WUWT for issues on climate change. ...

You just insulted WUWT.

Citing http://cyclehelmets.org/ is like going to Penthouse's Forum to learn how to get laid.

I hate to say it, but my impression is that linking to http://cyclehelmets.org/ for issues of helmets is like linking to WUWT for issues on climate change. It has a particular position, and runs with it (whether that is intentional or not). They are by no means unique in this, and are also not the only position in the discussion to do it.
That said:
1. Dumb cyclists will be dumb, and if someone rides less cautiously because they think a helmet will protect them they are dumb
2. Dumb drivers will be dumb, and if a driver is really driving less cautiously around a cyclist on the basis that a helmet will protect the cyclist they are not only dumb but outright dangeous
3. Crossing the threshold with 100% of the force is still probably going to be more damaging than crossing it with 50% of the force (if 50% is absorbed by the helmet)
4. And many are caused by non-rotational impacts, which helmets reduce
5. Dumb cyclists are dumb, and if the pool of cyclists is largely made up of dumb cyclists then that doesn't mean helmets reduce safety, just that if a bunch of less dumb cyclists were added to the pool they would dilute the apparent stupidity of the group overall. Not saying cyclists are stupid, but rather that the number of stupid cyclists is the same irrespective of whether it is 100 stupid cyclists in 101 total cyclists, or 100 stupid cyclists in 1000 total cyclists.
6. If #5 is in fact true (and there is little agreement on it) then this is true, and indeed having more cyclists on the road very likely does make it safer for all cyclists.

There in another arguments for not requiring helmets, also based on the idea that requiring helmets reduces the number of cyclists: even if helmets do reduce the likelihood of death or brain injury in an accident, the advantage of improvement in overall community health as a result of more cyclists offsets the disadvantage of a subset of these being dead or brain injured.

Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage).

Ugh. No. Complete nonsense. See the studies cited here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html regarding impacts. Quality helmets that are fully intact offer awesome protection against impacts; both from the perspective of brain deceleration and pure blunt trauma prevention. The biggest mistakes that people make is that they look at a bicycle helmet, don't see any crushed polystyrene, and assume that it is safe to wear the helmet. Instead, the polystyrene is about 10 years old, is starting to lose structural integrity, and has had a few bumps that have further weakened it.

The other problem I see with most epidemiological studies is that they mix a lot of different factors (population growth, vastly different riders, changing usage patterns of bicyclists, etc.) and assume that the only thing that changed was whether people wore helmets or not.

Wearing a helmet is applying a different standard to risk than we do in many other situations. Cycling is actually slightly safer per mile than walking, yet we don't make peds wear helmets.

You're making the same exact mistake a lot of the researchers made: you assume that all cyclists behave the same and are exposed to the same risks. Basic cycling, on empty roads and at low speeds with regular pedals, is very safe. High-speed biking on twisty mountain roads with feet securely attached to the bike is significantly more dangerous. The vast majority of cyclists are of the former variety, and will drown out any impacts on people who engage in the more risky version of biking.

So why are cyclists singled out to wear the safety yarmulkes?

Because people are stupid, and most have trouble with the concept of "this type of biking is safe without a helmet, that type of biking is not." As a result, people just said "screw it, everyone has to wear a helmet."

As an additional point, helment laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight.

Familiarity an also breed contempt. You're inferring conclusions your data does not support. Furthermore, if people are so concerned about looks that they'd rather drive than bike because they think they look stupid in a helmet.... well, that's a problem with people, not helmets.

Finally, my head survived a fairly significant impact with the ground with no injuries (the rest of the body, not so much), thanks to the rapid compression and fracture of the helmet. I know helmets save lives. Do you?

People have been biking for over a century, and except for racing, it is remarkably safe unless someone hits you with a car.

Then there's a bunch of guys who (Cochrane Collab) I doubt ever got on a bike since they were kids and start working hard to prove that riding a bicycle is a high-risk activity even though we know from past experience that it is not.

Instead of getting your data from the poisoned well of BSHI, why don't you go over to Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation for a change, to widen you perspective?

On the larger scale -- "$COUNTRY implements a mandatory helmet law, do head injuries among cyclists go up or down?" -- bicycle helmets either have no measurable effect or do more harm than good.

I've heard this one once or twice, but I haven't yet seen a citation. Do you have one?

See:

• A list of published evidence skeptical of helmets
• A list of published evidence supportive of helmets
• A country-by-country (or province-by-province, where appropriate) analysis of helmet laws and their effects
• A New York Times article (quoted in full -- didn't feel like registering to find the original link) describing a 51% increase in the rate of head injuries among American cyclists since helmet use started to become pervasive in 1991 (and a drop in number of cyclists in that same period)

On the larger scale -- "$COUNTRY implements a mandatory helmet law, do head injuries among cyclists go up or down?" -- bicycle helmets either have no measurable effect or do more harm than good.

I've heard this one once or twice, but I haven't yet seen a citation. Do you have one?

See:

• A list of published evidence skeptical of helmets
• A list of published evidence supportive of helmets
• A country-by-country (or province-by-province, where appropriate) analysis of helmet laws and their effects
• A New York Times article (quoted in full -- didn't feel like registering to find the original link) describing a 51% increase in the rate of head injuries among American cyclists since helmet use started to become pervasive in 1991 (and a drop in number of cyclists in that same period)

On the larger scale -- "$COUNTRY implements a mandatory helmet law, do head injuries among cyclists go up or down?" -- bicycle helmets either have no measurable effect or do more harm than good.

I've heard this one once or twice, but I haven't yet seen a citation. Do you have one?

See:

• A list of published evidence skeptical of helmets
• A list of published evidence supportive of helmets
• A country-by-country (or province-by-province, where appropriate) analysis of helmet laws and their effects
• A New York Times article (quoted in full -- didn't feel like registering to find the original link) describing a 51% increase in the rate of head injuries among American cyclists since helmet use started to become pervasive in 1991 (and a drop in number of cyclists in that same period)

But if you crashed and became brain damaged, you would be very expensive to look after, and I (and a whole bunch of other people) are going to pay for that with our insurance premiums and taxes.

Head injury rate is positively correlated with helmet wearing. Cycle usage is negatively correlated with helmet wearing.

Everywhere where helmets for cyclists have been made compulsory (and enforced), the decline in cycling has been larger than the decline in head injuries, i.e. head injury risk has increased.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Tim.

Oh please, no. Bicycle helmets have no proven beneficial effect in accidents involving motor vehicles, and can actually be detrimental due to increased risk of rotational injury.

Bike helmets are only any good if you fall off at low speed. The energies involved in motor vehicle accidents are far greater than they are designed to absorb.

See cyclehelmets.org for real data on the situation.

The only thing worht setting up would be a road safety education initiative for motorists, although I've seen plenty of cyclists that could use a bit of this, too!

You are correct about visibility and lighting. However you are massively and misleadingly mistaken when you assert that bike helmets are something that increases the safety of bicyclists. There is a a lot of research detailed at cyclehelmets.org which suggests that bicycle helmets are at best useless and in many cases actually harmful. You would serve yourself well to examine the data, especially in the papers that deal with the population level effects of helmet bans in Australia (controlled for a decrease in the number of cyclists due to the helmet ban, the serious head injury rate increased) and also to read exactly how much energy a helmet can absorb. Follow that up with reading about how the increased head-radius due to helmet wearing increased the leverage on the spinal cord and there's a very serious, non-kooky case to be made for not wearing helmets. Please consider this, it could save your life.

You are correct about visibility and lighting. However you are massively and misleadingly mistaken when you assert that bike helmets are something that increases the safety of bicyclists. There is a a lot of research detailed at cyclehelmets.org which suggests that bicycle helmets are at best useless and in many cases actually harmful. You would serve yourself well to examine the data, especially in the papers that deal with the population level effects of helmet bans in Australia (controlled for a decrease in the number of cyclists due to the helmet ban, the serious head injury rate increased) and also to read exactly how much energy a helmet can absorb. Follow that up with reading about how the increased head-radius due to helmet wearing increased the leverage on the spinal cord and there's a very serious, non-kooky case to be made for not wearing helmets. Please consider this, it could save your life.

You are correct about visibility and lighting. However you are massively and misleadingly mistaken when you assert that bike helmets are something that increases the safety of bicyclists. There is a a lot of research detailed at cyclehelmets.org which suggests that bicycle helmets are at best useless and in many cases actually harmful. You would serve yourself well to examine the data, especially in the papers that deal with the population level effects of helmet bans in Australia (controlled for a decrease in the number of cyclists due to the helmet ban, the serious head injury rate increased) and also to read exactly how much energy a helmet can absorb. Follow that up with reading about how the increased head-radius due to helmet wearing increased the leverage on the spinal cord and there's a very serious, non-kooky case to be made for not wearing helmets. Please consider this, it could save your life.

Okay, first, I said that I was in no way blaming lilo. What a ridiculous strawman. The fact that you would bring that up shows me you are the type of sophist who will do anythign to win converts to your side of an argument, including disparaging your opponent and outright dishonesty.

Second, although the site you linked to appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site, it is balanced enough to admit that many studies show thatbicycle helmets are effective. Sure, it also presents counter arguments, but it as it appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site put up by bicycle enthusiasts who do not want to see strict helmet laws enacted, I would take the number of studies presented on both sides with a grain of salt. The numbers of pro and con studies listed are problably not representative of the actual number of published studies out there.

In addition, is there any chance you yourself (with a personal web site named bikeboom.com) are biased against the use of helmets? I don't support helmet laws, as long as people are willing to accept the risks themselves and sign something stating they will never impose upon the state for medical care if they are injured doing something foolish. But I certainly advocate for their use.

Many helmets do not meet the high-impact safety standards, but the fact is there are helmets out there that do. Helmets today are lightweight, well ventilated and comfortable. Even if they can protect in only a small fraction of cases, isn't it worth it to wear one?

Okay, first, I said that I was in no way blaming lilo. What a ridiculous strawman. The fact that you would bring that up shows me you are the type of sophist who will do anythign to win converts to your side of an argument, including disparaging your opponent and outright dishonesty.

Second, although the site you linked to appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site, it is balanced enough to admit that many studies show thatbicycle helmets are effective. Sure, it also presents counter arguments, but it as it appears to be an anti-helmet advocacy site put up by bicycle enthusiasts who do not want to see strict helmet laws enacted, I would take the number of studies presented on both sides with a grain of salt. The numbers of pro and con studies listed are problably not representative of the actual number of published studies out there.

In addition, is there any chance you yourself (with a personal web site named bikeboom.com) are biased against the use of helmets? I don't support helmet laws, as long as people are willing to accept the risks themselves and sign something stating they will never impose upon the state for medical care if they are injured doing something foolish. But I certainly advocate for their use.

Many helmets do not meet the high-impact safety standards, but the fact is there are helmets out there that do. Helmets today are lightweight, well ventilated and comfortable. Even if they can protect in only a small fraction of cases, isn't it worth it to wear one?

The prevalence of blame-the-victim superstition in this world is ridiculous. A bicycle helmet is designed to deal with low-speed rider-only falls. Even helmet promoters accept that they are of no use in a car-bike collision.

Bicycle helmets save lives in the short term only by discouraging cycling altogether. Their efficacy does not extend past the prevention of roadrash. Skull-crushing forces are *way* beyond the spec.

http://cyclehelmets.org/

Helmets make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE once the energy involved in the collision has more kinetic energy than that involved in a simple stationary fall (no forward velocity). In fact they may cause damage due to the fact that they increase the radius of the head and thus the leverage on the the neck. Stop blaming the victim, read the actual evidence about helmets http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Thank you.

Is there such a thing as a 'good helmet' ?

The evidence suggests that a four-leaf clover or other talisman would be more useful (and take less space).

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

I don't know about guard rails, but the evidence suggests that both mandatory seatbelt laws (throughout the world) and mandatory bike helmet laws (in Australia and New Zealand) have not reduced the rate of death and serious injury of car occupants and bike riders respectively.

It's because of a well-known phenomenon called risk compensation.

The helmet issue is almost as controversial as the one about global warming.You cite the bike helmet safety institute, which sounds kind of biased. Here are some other links:

• There is no direct evidence that the wearing of cycle helmets has led to fewer deaths amongst cyclists.
• the tests on which these standards are based mimic a fall from a cycle rather than collision with a fast moving vehicle, which is most likely to harm an adult cyclist.
• Helmets which could provide significant protection (if they existed) would be of such construction that few would care to wear them.
• John Franklin's Cycling Digest on helmets - plenty of studies.

These are the figures for adult cyclist hospital admissions in New Zealand not involving motor vehicles, the figures which might be expected to show exactly the change predicted by helmet advocates. No motor vehicle is involved, so these crashes are theoretically at least within the envelope of the design performance of helmets.

Using your skill and judgement, spot the year where helmet wearing rates increased from 43% to over 90%.

Remember when checking the figures, Liddites claim that helmets save 85% of head injuries. So, given that wearing rates roughly doubled, the ratio of head to other injuries should see a massive step change the year compulsion was introduced, right? OK, spot the year, it's in the list above.

Nobody believes in risk compensation. That's why it happens.

The unfortunate thing about polystyrene foam deflector beanies is that for all the "proof" their advocates advance, populations where usage rates are highest remain the ones where cyclist injury rates are highest, and the safest cycling countries have helmet wearing rates so low that any helmeted cyclist outside a competition is usually a foreign visitor.

Me, I wear a helmet, and I don't expect it to save me from anything worse than road rash on the head. Helmets are designed to work in falls from your bike at speeds up to about 12mph. I ride at up to 40mph (daily) and if I crash it has so far always been because of some clueless cager. Check the manufacturers' disclaimer on your lid: where a motor vehicle is involved, all bets are off.

www.cyclehelmets.org.