cycle helmets

[Orangejuicemarathoner]

I can't bear to see my nephew set off for school by bike in busy traffic, and poor visibility without a cycle helmet. I can't understand his parents allowing this. I know it's none of my business and there is nothing I can do, but I really wish this wasn't allowed

@SnackSizeRaisin

Yabu. Cycle helmets are no use against being hit by a car. They are a thin bit of polystyrene tested with a 12 kg weight, cars weigh hundreds of kilos. Why do people think cycle helmets are some kind of magic forcefield to stop all accidents Anyway cycling is an inherently safe activity. He's much better off cycling than sitting in a car , both mentally and physically.

My grandfather likely would have survived if he was wearing a helmet. He was knocked off his bike and hit his head.

@HarrietsChariot

Helmets help in minor incidents but don't do much for higher speed accidents. The test is do they protect the user from serious injury if they fall off a stationary bike and hit their head on the ground.

If a truck clips the back of your head with its wing mirror you're fucked, helmet or no helmet. Arguably you're better off being killed outright than having to live in a PVS.

If you want proper protection you need a motorcyle helmet, open face is ok as long as your chin is covered.

That may be how they test helmets, I don’t honestly know, but it is not true that helmets do nothing in collisions with motor vehicles, ie the mirror on a vehicle clipping your head example you have given.

The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: a case-control study. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23377086/
“There were 6745 cyclist collisions with motor vehicles where helmet use was known. Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction. This was also found to be true for particular head injuries such as skull fractures, intracranial injury and open head wounds. Around one half of children and adolescents less than 19 years were not wearing a helmet, an issue that needs to be addressed in light of the demonstrated effectiveness of helmets. Non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, however, were less likely to cycle in risky areas; the net result of which was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes.”

If a truck clips the back of your head with its wing mirror you're fucked, helmet or no helmet. Arguably you're better off being killed outright than having to live in a PVS.

I got hit by a car. Went over the bonnet, landed on my head which rebounded and then on my back.

2 vertebrae fractured, split and bashed helmet, sore neck, but head intact and no significant brain injury.

A friend at school fell off his bike playing. No helmet, severe head injury and he died a week later. That’s why I was wearing a helmet. We all did after that.

@Pemmican

I am going to have to live with this awful dread about it for the next 6 school years

Your nephew will be fine. You need to butt out and find something else to worry about. Ideally something that actually is your business.

This is unnecessarily rude and offensive. She is worrying about a loved family member! What is wrong with you? 🤷‍♀️

@Macncheeseballs

Separate cycle lanes are by far the greatest life saving thing you can give a cyclist

Yes.

[quote Nottheduchess]@Macncheeseballs I think the anger is because all the stats and science is there to show how important helmets are in regards to saving lives and preventing serious head injuries yet some people are still arguing against them and coming up with a load of shite to back up their opinions.[/quote]
But all the stats and science don't show that at all. Cycling UK (which you'd assume are bigger experts on this than you or I) consistently say that helmets should not be compulsory.

@RunningFromInsanity

Honestly what chance do you have convincing a child when there are grown women on here who don’t think wearing a helmet is safer Crazy.

Because they are not! They are not worn properly and people keep them far too long after the materials in them have perished. They create a false sense of security for both drivers and cyclists alike and it has been proven that drivers act more dangerously around people with helmets on (although they'll happily yell at people not wearing one).

I would suggest that people look at their driving before they moan about people not wearing helmets to ride bikes.

@lockdownmadnessdotcom
Yes the science and statistics DO show that cycle helmets saves lives and reduce serious head injuries. They also DO NOT reduce number of cyclists. Look at the references I provided.

Cycling U.K. is not a source I would trust. Even their evidence brief is a litany of denying the evidence they make silly speculations like “injuries went down but that’s because probably fewer cyclists on the road” they are convinced by outdated research that helmet laws result in excess deaths due to physical inactivity...which they estimated themselves...and they’re not scientists by any stretch of the imagination. They totally ignore later research which shows no reduction in cycling after compulsory helmet laws are passed.

has been proven that drivers act more dangerously around people with helmets on (although they'll happily yell at people not wearing one).

Snort. No it hasn’t been proven not by a long shot and please don’t link me to that study of 1 cyclist on his bike estimating close passes when he was wearing a helmet vs when he wasn’t. A sample size of 1 is an anecdote, insufficient to prove anything.

I understand why people are calling on cyclists to wear helmets, but I don't understand why they only call on cyclists to wear helmets. Car occupants account for most UK road fatalities. Pedestrians account for most fatalities per mile travelled.

Comparing head injury data for pedestrians and cyclists involved in car collisions, pedestrians were found to have (on average) more severe head injuries than cyclists: doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.03.005

So why not make everyone wear a helmet?

@Nonamesleftt

Pedestrians account for most fatalities per mile travelled.
No, they are third behind cyclists and motor cyclists (see attached)

So why not make everyone wear a helmet?
I think it’s because pedestrians are not sharing the road with motor vehicles like cyclists are. Pedestrians are commonly hit while crossing a road, so safety measures should focus more on low speed limits, safe road crossings, and separation of foot paths from roads.

After all the study you linked to recommended the following
“The findings of high injury risks suggested that in the area with high frequency car-pedestrian accidents, the vehicle speed limit should be 40 km/h, while in the area with high frequency car-cyclist accidents the vehicle speed limit should be 50 km/h.”

Oops forgot attachment. They are 2019 numbers.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@lljkk
I found the 2020 bn miles for pedal cycles in 2020. It was 5 bvm, so 8 bn km!!! (This is fun)
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/981967/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2020.pdf

So that changes things a bit. NLs did almost 2x as many km as U.K. so we divide the 6.4 by 2 instead of 3 and NL cyclist 3x more likely to die than U.K. cyclist.[/quote]
If I've read these posts right, between the two of you the maths seems to have got screwed up somewhere.

There were 229 deaths in NL for 15 bn km cycled

And 140 deaths in UK for 8 bn km cycled

In NL that's one death for every 65.5 million km cycled (15bn/229).
And in the UK one death for every 57.1 million km cycled (8bn/140).

So not much difference but NL coming out slightly better.

"They create a false sense of security for both drivers and cyclists alike..."

Where are people getting this stuff from? When there are proper statisticians who study the effects of helmets. How would someone measure a sense of security? How would you prove it was false given actual studies have proved it is safer? Has anyone ever heard of an average run of the mill road cyclist saying they are going to weave between a bit more traffic because they remembered their helmet today?

Yet again people think a video they have seen on Facebook should have as much weight as a proper peer reviewed statistical analysis of data

@DrinkFeckArseBrick

"They create a false sense of security for both drivers and cyclists alike..."

Where are people getting this stuff from? When there are proper statisticians who study the effects of helmets. How would someone measure a sense of security? How would you prove it was false given actual studies have proved it is safer? Has anyone ever heard of an average run of the mill road cyclist saying they are going to weave between a bit more traffic because they remembered their helmet today?

Yet again people think a video they have seen on Facebook should have as much weight as a proper peer reviewed statistical analysis of data

People get this stuff from proper statisticians and researchers. And they don't ask cyclists "Will you weave a bit more if you wear a helmet?", or motorists "Do you care less about cyclists in helmets?" they observe what motorists and cyclists actually do.

e.g.
Study showing motorists give less room to cyclists with helmets.

Study showing cyclists prepared to take more risks (in a lab experiment) when wearing helmets

There's still plenty of room for error, since these aren't the most robust studies and there appears to be neither the budget nor the ethical framework to do really robust ones, and since these are single studies and good science design requires a bit more than that. They are just here to show that people aren't just making this stuff up because they don't want to wear a helmet. They get it from reading research.

Source saying that helmet wearing causes worse injuries than not wearing one?

I didn't say that, I said that in some cases the helmet has made injuries worse.

Plenty out there to read for those of us that can use Google and who like to make an informed decision.

Cycle helmets and rotational injuries

Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates

Cycle Helmets - do they really save lives?

Etc...

@DrinkFeckArseBrick

"They create a false sense of security for both drivers and cyclists alike..."

Where are people getting this stuff from? When there are proper statisticians who study the effects of helmets. How would someone measure a sense of security? How would you prove it was false given actual studies have proved it is safer? Has anyone ever heard of an average run of the mill road cyclist saying they are going to weave between a bit more traffic because they remembered their helmet today?

Yet again people think a video they have seen on Facebook should have as much weight as a proper peer reviewed statistical analysis of data

Yet again people who can't be arsed carrying out a simple Google query have a go at others who dare to say something that doesn't fit with their blinkered view....

Educate yourself - stops you looking daft

Why do people who don't cycle care so much about what other people out on their head? Its not a danger to anyone but themselves, can't you just let them be?

@DecadentlyDecisive

Source saying that helmet wearing causes worse injuries than not wearing one?

I didn't say that, I said that in some cases the helmet has made injuries worse.

Plenty out there to read for those of us that can use Google and who like to make an informed decision.

Cycle helmets and rotational injuries

Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates

Cycle Helmets - do they really save lives?

Etc...

Cycle helmets and rotational injuries. Your link to a 2003 study is outdated, most current cycle helmets protect against rotational injuries. www.bikeradar.com/news/safest-bike-helmets-in-europe/

Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury types
This was a research paper written by CyclingUK by a journalist who did not account for confounding factors such as increase in accident rates due to increase in motor vehicle traffic, and also combined all injuries when helmets are designed to protect against head injuries, not, say arm injuries. It was a study rejected by the meta-analyses of helmet studies because of its methodological failings.

Cycle helmets do they really save lives?
Not bad, however the only argument that they had against helmets was that horrible study done by one bloke on his bike wearing a helmet/not wearing one and wearing a wig/not wearing one. It was one man on a bike measuring close passes. Very high school science project. Cannot be compared to studies that I posted which looked at literally thousands of cyclists.

@Dojacatpaws

Why do people who don't cycle care so much about what other people out on their head? Its not a danger to anyone but themselves, can't you just let them be?

Right from the why should I wear a seatbelt or put my child in a car seat playbook.

@Dojacatpaws

Why do people who don't cycle care so much about what other people out on their head? Its not a danger to anyone but themselves, can't you just let them be?

I have always wondered that too.

No doubt someone will mention seatbelts. If you have a collision and are not wearing a seatbelt, you pretty much become a missile and a danger to other people. There are enough scary PSA/PIF about that very topic.

@DecadentlyDecisive
Educate yourself - stops you looking daft

I am very happy I have a PhD in a science field. It taught me, among many other things, to recognise bad science.

Planderacordmemt, I don't tell people to wear seatbelts

@NumberTheory

Study showing motorists give less room to cyclists with helmets.
This Bath study showed that motorists gave ONE cyclist 8.5cm less room when he was wearing helmet than when he was not. This is a sample size of one. Nowhere near large enough sample size to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Study showing cyclists prepared to take more risks (in a lab experiment) when wearing helmets

You have got to be kidding me. This is what they studied:
“participants pressed a button to inflate an animated balloon on a computer screen. Each button press inflated the balloon more and increased the amount of fictional currency earned. If the balloon burst (which it would at a random point between 1 and 128 inflations), all earnings for that trial were lost. At any point, participants could choose to stop pumping and “bank” their accrued money. After the balloon burst, or after a decision to bank, the next trial began. Each participant completed 30 trials, and his or her risk-taking score was the mean number of pumps made on trials on which the balloon did not burst. This score would be higher when participants risked losses by trying to maximize their score and lower when participants avoided risk and played more conservatively.”

How is playing a computer game where you inflate a balloon even remotely “observing what cyclists actually do”

@Dojacatpaws

Planderacordmemt, I don't tell people to wear seatbelts

Fortunately laws are in place to protect the stupid.