Cycle helmets debate

[musicbooks]

Hi Folks,
Forgot to post this interesting study carried out by Dr Ian Walker, here at the University of Bath. I've included the press release, the actual report and a short video clip of cars overtaking. His findings suggest that drivers take 'more risks' with cyclists wearing helmets. He also discovered that driver behaviour was affected by the gender of the cyclist (He dressed as a woman to collect data!.. that's his story and he's sticking to it!) .


BW
musicbooks

Press Release - 11 September 2006 - University of Bath
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
Press Release - 11 September 2006 - University of Bath

 

[john]

When I had my accident recently, the ambulance staff asked if I was wearing a helmet and nodded approvingly when I confirmed that I was. They also made a careful note of this fact on their report sheet despite the fact that the helmet never made contact with anything in the accident.

I guess I will go down in the statistics as "life saved by bicycle helmet"

 

[jimmyengland1000]

For years, I kind of inwardly scoffed at cyclists wearing helmets ( I was a motorcyclist at the time). Then, the other night I skidded on a patch of diesel at about 15 miles an hour....not a great speed but it seemed very fast as my head missed a lamp-post by about 6". I would have had a fractured skull or worse if my head had hit it. I don't know the figures but 3kg (?) of head travelling at 15mph and hitting a metal pole would be serious.

I ordered a crash helmet the next day. Perhaps car drivers do take more risks with riders who wear helmets but there wasn't a car in sight when I almost brained myself......

 

[flecc]

A to B magazine published a lengthy article on the study of Ian Walker's, they're a bit on the anti-helmet side of course.

Personal choice as far as I'm concerned

We had a thread on this and as usual it was two sets of totally entrenched views which could be summed up as:

Anti: "Cycle helmets give inadequate protection to do any good".

For: "I would have been killed if I hadn't been wearing a helmet" stories.



The helmets debate as ever a completely sterile one which could never result in agreement, a bit like the abortion issue.
.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

There was great resistance to the seat-belt law. There is anecdotal evidence that not wearing one benefitted the driver but the overwhelming evidence is that it is better to wear one than not.

Given the nature of a skull, scalp and so on, how, in an impact or crash can a helmet not protect the head, even if it's only a bit? I doubt that wearing a helmet can actually be detrimental in an accident. It may not be as protective as a motorcycle helmet but isn't at least some protection better than none whatosever? A simple test would be hitting onesself moderately hard on the head with a piece of wood.... then doing it again wearing a cycle helmet........yep, there is definitely some protection there, I reckon.

The argument that car drivers are less careful if one is wearing a helmet is another issue but, from a purely physical point of view, protecting a highly vascular area with major blood vessels (the scalp) from impact cannot be anything except beneficial.

 

[burncycle]

everyone should at least wear a helmet when riding on busy roads or town areas. Despite having a thick skull, the majority of damage caused to your brain is not the severity of a impact but generally any impact.
These impacts may not cause dramatic injuries, but they do cause some degree of injury all the same.
The effect cannot be realized sometimes for many years to come medically.
Wearing a helmet will always lower any impact you may get !

 

[flecc]

everyone should at least wear a helmet when riding on busy roads or town areas.

Emphatically not.

Everyone should have a choice as to whether they wear a helmet, and when they wear one.

The same goes for seat belts and yes, even motor cycle helmets.
.

 

[burncycle]

But choice should always be made when the person has full consent.
This is based on the indivdual knowing the full information about the issue.
When a person then knows the pro's and con's then the individual makes a choice based on the risks.
What I feel is that the majority of the people do not know the risks !
This often does not mean reading about the risks, but experiencing the good and bad outcomes of wearing, or not wearing a helmet.

I my experience wearing a helmet will always produce a much better outcome than not wearing one.

 

[flecc]

As I've always said before in this sterile debate, there is no end to these measures, so it's a path that should not be pursued.

Under the logic that says cycle helmets must be compulsory, the following must also be compelled to have helmets:

1) Anyone running on our roads or pavements. A healthy person runs at up to 18 mph, athletes to 26 mph. Most cycling speeds are much slower.

2) Anyone who crosses the road, since their likelyhood of contact with vehicles is as great as any other road user.

3) Anyone descending a staircase or escalator.

4) Anyone walking under scaffolding above our pavements since objects can and do fall off causing injury.

I won't bore you by going on with the list.

The similar nanny state thinking would of course move on to compulsory knee pads, elbow pads and ankle protectors for various activities at a later stage, such is the foolishness of this approach which fails to recognise there is no logical endpoint.

However, the main reason it's a sterile issue is that the government will not make helmet wearing compulsory, even for children as they recently refused to. Why? Because they are trying to encourage more cycling and no issue would prevent that take-up more than this compulsion.

So it's game over for a few years at least.
.

 

[rooel]

Well said, flecc.

I have no objection to others choosing to wear a helmet, but do object to the incessant propaganda from government and safety agencies, which persuades

• some motorists, seeing a helmet-wearing cyclist, that the latter is as well protected as they are in their metal boxes, and others, sometimes to pass even closer to those who are not wearing one to "teach them a lesson" for not obeying the government advice.
  
• cyclists, that wearing a helmet protects them sufficiently to share busy roads safely with motor traffic, rather than seek out off-road, or very quiet back street routes - or persuade the government to provide a national cycleway system in the same way as they have provided motorways (ie in the hands of a properly funded agency, with compulsory purchase powers, and not left to a charity which has to take what it can from local authorities, usually disconnected waste land).

One other point: regardless of the uncertainty about the degree of protection provided by cycle helmets, one thing is certain: they cover only about 5% of the human frame. The rest of the body is vulnerable to broken bones (deformity and arthritis), cracked pelvis (catheter for life, infertility, impotence), crushed spleen (bleed to death in twenty minutes), etc etc, a list long enough, I hope, to persuade even those CTC diehards who insist on their "right to ride the road", that mixing pedestrian and cycle traffic with motor powered is about as sensible as it would have been to require the new motor cars a century ago to share the railways rather than invade our streets.

 

[musicbooks]

As I've always said before in this sterile debate, there is no end to these measures, so it's a path that should not be pursued.

Under the logic that says cycle helmets must be compulsory, the following must also be compelled to have helmets:

1) Anyone running on our roads or pavements. A healthy person runs at up to 18 mph, athletes to 26 mph. Most cycling speeds are much slower.

2) Anyone who crosses the road, since their likelyhood of contact with vehicles is as great as any other road user.

3) Anyone descending a staircase or escalator.

4) Anyone walking under scaffolding above our pavements since objects can and do fall off causing injury.

I won't bore you by going on with the list.

The similar nanny state thinking would of course move on to compulsory knee pads, elbow pads and ankle protectors for various activities at a later stage, such is the foolishness of this approach which fails to recognise there is no logical endpoint.

However, the main reason it's a sterile issue is that the government will not make helmet wearing compulsory, even for children as they recently refused to. Why? Because they are trying to encourage more cycling and no issue would prevent that take-up more than this compulsion.

So it's game over for a few years at least.
.

I disagree Flecc that it is a sterile agrument. Clearly, you feel passionately enough about it (see above) to demonstrate that it is anything but..

I feel there are cost issues that have to be considered. The Physical and psychological costs -immediate ER, Cost of intensive care, extended periods in hospital, absence from work, possible full-time carer required to look after the brain damaged accident victim, counselling and support, grieve counselling and so on..
There's also the emotional cost to the victim, their family/friends/colleauges and the unintentional assailant(if there was one). It's a bit like smoking.. it harms the user and those nearby. Therefore I'm not sure the nanny state is an appropriate term for such legislation..socially responsible state may be a better descriptor. (In the end, the EU will probably impose compulsory helmets anyway)

BW
musicbooks

 

[john]

I don't want to recycle old arguments but would just like to make a couple of points.

I agree with JimmyEngland that a helmet would probably provide some protection in almost any head impact. However, cycle helmets are designed to protect against hitting flat surfaces, particularly the ground, not against objects like posts. My guess is that hitting a post at 15mph might brake the helmet in half (it is only polystyrene) and your head would hit the post anyway.

The other point which is perhaps often forgotten is that although getting on a bike without a helmet may be "dangerous", it is more dangerous not to get on your bike. The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the dangers, helmet or not. I've heard far too many people say or imply that it is "too dangerous" to get on your bike without a helmet. Leaving your bike in the shed is the dangerous thing to do!

 

[musicbooks]

Sorry Flecc, I posted twice ( a strange blip in the link) and I accidentally deleted the amended version.. I meant to say.. well argued ! .. but also that there are physical, psychological and associated financial costs to consider..

 

[flecc]

Sorry Flecc, I posted twice ( a strange blip in the link) and I accidentally deleted the amended version.. I meant to say.. well argued ! .. but also that there are physical, psychological and associated financial costs to consider..

No problem musicbooks.

But your argument on costs doe not alter what I raised about all the other activities, and in fact it extends that.

For they also carry the same costs you specify, and that's now extended by that argument to all the potentially dangerous activities. Mountaineering for example where helmets, kneepads, elbow protectors and ankle strapping and perhaps airbags (!) would be required. Swimming, where inflated armbands would need to be compulsory.

Hopefully this will illustrate how foolish the move down this path is, and show that every argument in favour, including those you raised, is fundamentally flawed by there being no definable limits.

I do say nanny state, since I show that this approach is foolish rather than socially responsible.

My use of sterile is to indicate that it is pointless since the position is unalterable in the forseeable future for the reason I gave, illustrated by the government's firmness only last year in refusing this "social responsibility" on children's behalf. If they are determined not to allow compulsion for children, there is no chance of it happening for adults.

European enforcement? No chance.
.

 

[john]

musicbooks, Insisting on helmet use would almost certainly increase the financial cost due to e.g. increased coronary heart disease resulting from reduced bicycle use.

 

[burncycle]

helmets should't be conpulsary, but people should see the light and wear them anyway.
Helmets sometimes are not practical, depending on where you are going or what your gonna do when you get there !

I would try to wear a helmet whenever I can.
I've seen too much the results of careless people who never think it will happen to them !

 

[flecc]

I've seen too much the results of careless people who never think it will happen to them !

Yes, but as you said, they are the careless people.

Careful people like me don't need helmets.
.

 

[burncycle]

Everone thinks they are careful drivers, but its who you meet the other way that always matters. And there are some real idiots out there as we all know!

 

[flecc]

I was only teasing Burncycle.

I tend to have a much more lighthearted approach to life than comes across in text.
.

 

[burncycle]

The worst near misses I've seen are always at roundabouts with Bikes and cars.
I've found a good little site here about safety.
Worth a read to anyone !

Bicycle Safety: How to Not Get Hit by Cars