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

Planderacordment, yes quite, it's not my job to police other peoples bodies

@NumberTheory
“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).”

Yes, we messed up. Was up too late :)

@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.

There's always one who knows better than scientists abs medics

I wish I had been wearing a helmet when I was about 13 and the handlebar came off my bike as I turned a corner. I lost control of the bike and landed on the back of my skull, knocking myself out. A lovely woman took me home in her car. She said she heard my head hitting the pavement from inside her house, although I'm not sure how accurate that was!

It's like the mask debate. People don't want to be mildly inconvenienced/look uncool if they're assured of only a small benefit to themselves. Some protection is surely better than no protection.

@ClinkeyMonkey

I wish I had been wearing a helmet when I was about 13 and the handlebar came off my bike as I turned a corner. I lost control of the bike and landed on the back of my skull, knocking myself out. A lovely woman took me home in her car. She said she heard my head hitting the pavement from inside her house, although I'm not sure how accurate that was!

It's like the mask debate. People don't want to be mildly inconvenienced/look uncool if they're assured of only a small benefit to themselves. Some protection is surely better than no protection.

Masks are not for protecting you... they are for protecting others. Cycle helmets only affect the person who is wearing one.

It is true, we do need scientists to show us the way and set us on the right path. Its not the premature deaths from smoking, drinking, obesity and general inactivity they should focus their efforts on, but bare headed cyclists, a scourge and a menace in our society.

No, it isn't an inherently unsafe activity. What makes it unsafe is not being taught to be a proficient cyclist, and idiots in cars who are unobservant or just plainly selfish when driving. Being in a car, using your logic, is dangerous for same reason. People think metal a few millimeters thick will protect them when crashing at speed.

@XenoBitch It's the same principle. Anyway, the quid pro quo of wearing masks increases the benefit to all, including the wearer.

It is true, we do need scientists to show us the way and set us on the right path. Its not the premature deaths from smoking, drinking, obesity and general inactivity they should focus their efforts on, but bare headed cyclists, a scourge and a menace in our society

So because we are only preventing a relatively small amount of deaths or life changing injuries, it’s not worth bothering?

Sids deaths are small compared to smoking/drinking/obesity, so why bother encouraging parents to put the child to sleep on their back?

Only 286 people died by fire last year, not many more than cyclists. Should we not bother with fire drills or smoke alarms?

Or are some lives worth saving? Small babies yes, cyclists no?

I don’t get this logic. Lets not worry about cyclist deaths, there are bigger things.

When it’s your child, sister, brother, dad with serious head injuries from cycling without a helmet, those deaths suddenly mean a lot more.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@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”[/quote]
In the case of the second study - it measured differences between risks cyclists actually took by observing cyclists. It definitely had significant limitations, but it is an observation of behaviour, not a survey of what they think they would do. Ethical and financial considerations make good quality, robust, direct studies comparing helmet wearing to non-helmet wearing difficult. There are significant limitations to the evidence available when looking at the question of how useful helmets and helmet mandates are that includes these types of studies and the meta analyses of injury rates.

I didn't post the studies as proof that helmets are a bad idea (I wear one), and I said that in my post. I was (very clearly) responding to a claim that these sorts of claims had no research backing but came off the back of watching youtube videos.

I know someone whose life was saved because of a cycle helmet.

My 12yo has started to feel embarrassed about wearing one for cycling or scooting, but if he won’t wear it he can’t do those activities. Sometimes you have to just be the parent.

In the case of the second study - it measured differences between risks cyclists actually took by observing cyclists. It definitely had significant limitations, but it is an observation of behaviour,

No it did not observe cyclists, it observed people wearing a baseball cap and people wearing a cycle helmet while playing the balloon video game on a computer. Which by the way was a risk/reward game. As in the more risk you took, the higher your reward in simulated currency. When actually cycling, there is zero reward for risk taking behaviour. So the computer game doesn’t even reflect the risk/no reward of cycling in real life.

@PlanDeRaccordement

In the case of the second study - it measured differences between risks cyclists actually took by observing cyclists. It definitely had significant limitations, but it is an observation of behaviour,

No it did not observe cyclists, it observed people wearing a baseball cap and people wearing a cycle helmet while playing the balloon video game on a computer. Which by the way was a risk/reward game. As in the more risk you took, the higher your reward in simulated currency. When actually cycling, there is zero reward for risk taking behaviour. So the computer game doesn’t even reflect the risk/no reward of cycling in real life.

I can see how that wording could be misconstrued. I should perhaps better have said they observed people who were cyclists and measured risk taking behaviour in a lab setting when they were wearing helmets and when they weren’t.

In this study they found cyclists who normally wear helmets when cycling reduced their risk taking when not wearing a helmet even though the helmet would not have mitigated risk on the task being observed.

Yanbu

I well remember during my nurse training seeing the results of helmetless accidents in a&e one of which was fatal

Personally I'd make it you have to wear them by law. They DO make a difference even if they aren't perfect they do reduce the risk and can make the difference between living and dying.

I too had a "no helmet no bike" rule for dd caught her once, took one of the wheels off and put it in my room so no chance of her riding it sneakily. She didn't do it again. I used to cycle to work a fair distance and always wore a helmet, elbow pads etc

Has he even done any kind of safe cycling course? Dd and I both did cycling proficiency which is also useful

Nomoreusernames, I think you may have misunderstood me, cyclists deaths are something I am very interested in preventing and have helped campaign for things like separate cycle lanes, low traffic neighbourhoods, school streets etc to make our streets safer for all vulnerable road users not just cyclists. Too many people are being killed or injured on our roads primarily because of the danger of motor traffic. 'Vision zero' is an initiative from Sweden, being implemented in some parts of the UK, which sets out strategies to eliminate all road deaths one day. That's how we stop cyclists being killed or being injured.
actionvisionzero.org/

@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.

"Figures compiled by RoSPA show head injuries are very common injuries to cyclists: data from hospitals show 40% of cyclists and 45% of child cyclists suffer head injuries and three quarters of cyclist fatalities have major head injuries. Meanwhile, a Cochrane review suggested helmets reduced the risk of injury to the head and the brain by a substantial 65%-88%; and the upper and mid-face by 65%."

I am a cyclist and I won't get on a bike without a helmet in the UK. Yes if I am going to go under the wheels of an articulated lorry it's not going to save my head, however, I it may well save me from a head injury should I have a fall and hit my head on the pavement / curb / car etc. Helemets do save lives and they do also prevent brain injury. Yes you get cheap ones with limited technology and safety ratings but you can get some with more advanced protection.