HELMETS - but different this time

[Amoto65]

That is wilful distortion and I have never posted that, please at least be honest in your responses.

No it is not, cycle helmets do not reduce deaths and serious injuries. Indeed there is clear evidence that they increase those.

I haven't the time at this moment but I will be presenting a thread in the Electric Bike forum showing why that is and why the government is so determined not to enforce helmet wearing.
Actually you have and above is what you posted so before you go accusing people of distortion maybe you should try and remember what you post.

 

[flecc]

The only way to determine the advantage or disadvantages of helmet wearing would be to show statistics of head injuries in accidents where the rider died or suffered a head injury caused by a blow to the head.

Again individualising about the head injuries I've already acknowledged do happen! That is not the subject, the subject is that helmet compulsion increases the accident, injury and death rates of cyclists, a fact repeatedly proven by a number of countries and states who introduced it

ie in Holland cyclists have priority over other road users.

Once again ignoring the facts. As I've posted, that priority appeared over 20 years later, after they greatly increased their rate of cycling while reducing their accident rate. It didn't lead the change, it followed it.
.

 

[flecc]

No it is not, cycle helmets do not reduce deaths and serious injuries. Indeed there is clear evidence that they increase those.

I haven't the time at this moment but I will be presenting a thread in the Electric Bike forum showing why that is and why the government is so determined not to enforce helmet wearing.
Actually you have and above is what you posted so before you go accusing people of distortion maybe you should try and remember what you post.

Yes you are distorting, the first two sentences are correct and proven. Note they are in the plural since I was speaking of countries with many cyclists. You posted differently by speaking of "in an accident", thus bringing in the individual effect of a helmet, which I acknowledged in my post can be advantageous so that isn't arguable.
.

 

[richtea99]

Can I suggest an alternative way to look this - who kills cyclists?

Answer 1. If cyclists kill themselves, they need to wear helmets*. Nothing else can help (except stop cycling).
Answer 2. If other road users kill cyclists, helmets aren't the answer. Other road users need to modify their behaviour.

The stats say it's answer 2.

Stats:
2019 stats for the above categories:
- 14 cyclists did the deed all on their own
- 85 had the help of another vehicle
- 1 poor bugger got hit by another cyclist. Doh.
= 100 cyclist deaths in total.

Serious casualties have even worse ratios towards other vehicles doing the damage:
- 265 cyclists seriously injured themselves
- 4,042 had the help of another vehicle
- 25 cyclists hit pedestrians
= 4,332 cyclists seriously injured in total.

Source:

Reported road collisions, vehicles and casualties tables for Great Britain

Detailed statistics about reported personal injury road collisions for Great Britain, vehicles and casualties involved.

www.gov.uk

(follow the RAS40004 link)

* Inexperienced children and oldies pushing the envelope might fall into category 1, but it's not the majority of cyclists. You could argue for some limited mandatory helmet wearing especially for children learning to ride.

 

[flecc]

Can I suggest an alternative way to look this - who kills cyclists?

Answer 1. If cyclists kill themselves, they need to wear helmets*. Nothing else can help (except stop cycling).
Answer 2. If other road users kill cyclists, helmets aren't the answer. Other road users need to modify their behaviour.

The stats say it's answer 1.

Stats:
2019 stats for the above categories:
- 14 cyclists did the deed all on their own
- 85 had the help of another vehicle
- 1 poor bugger got hit by another cyclist. Doh.
= 100 cyclist deaths in total.

Serious casualties have even worse ratios towards other vehicles doing the damage:
- 265 cyclists seriously injured themselves
- 4,042 had the help of another vehicle
- 25 cyclists hit pedestrians
= 4,332 cyclists seriously injured in total.

Source:

Reported road collisions, vehicles and casualties tables for Great Britain

Detailed statistics about reported personal injury road collisions for Great Britain, vehicles and casualties involved.

www.gov.uk

(follow the RAS40004 link)

* Inexperienced children and oldies pushing the envelope might fall into category 1, but it's not the majority of cyclists. You could argue for some limited mandatory helmet wearing especially for children learning to ride.

Agreed, but of course my post was not about blame or the pluses and minuses of individual helmet wearing, it was solely about the undesirability of enforcement to wear.

I'm all in favour of freedom of choice and respect for the choices of individuals on how they choose to cycle.

As for children, I think that is a parental matter like all other aspects of upbringing and those on cycling proficiency training at British schools already have helmet compulsion for the lessons.
.

 

[soundwave]

i got ran over last year when a 70 year old on a drop bar race bike clipped my bars going round a corner all he had on was shorts and flipflops and put the handle bars on upside down and went flying over the handle bars and was ko for 5 mins and had to drag his ass out the ditch as was incs from going in the canal and lucky he landed on some grass on the verge if he it the concrete path it would have been a mess.

and another kid hit me crossing the road again on a race bike and hit me side on and head butted me in the face with my old helmet and i felt that one doof and had to readjust my sunglasses lol.

both front wheels on both bikes were dead tho

 

[Nealh]

If only your sunglasses needed adjusting SW what about the other guy, if he had no helmet on he must of had one hell of head ache if it was still in one piece.

For those who don't know SW, him riding with his full armour on is like Darth riding a bike from the dark side at a blur.

 

[soundwave]

well his wheel was bent in half had cuts to his head and legs but said sorry shakes my hand picked up his bike and ran away with it.

it had rim brakes

but i did stay with the guy at the canal and got him picked up buy ambulance after i got him to the bridge and got him picked up took 45 mins tho!

if you want to run in front of me waving your hands like a retard to slow me down on purpose to prove a point then i will just run you over you have a choice or go play chicken on the motorway and see what happens not even my helmet will save you

 

[Deleted member 33385]

What a great thread! Thanks flecc and others for all the interesting info.

(I'm a bit drunk) Some guy started complaining that I should be on an extremely dangerous narrow road choc-a-block with fast moving body-crushing rush-hour traffic , while I was cycling along the almost empty pavement. I apologised... I sometimes wish I had Soundwave's attitude because ultimately, I think I'd be safer as a cyclist.

Regarding helmets and head injuries - there is a chart on page 21:

Europe road safety and statistics for cyclists - European ...
ec.europa.eu › pdf › statistics › dacota › bfs20xx_cyclists

...which lightly details extremety injuries at 27 to 66% experienced by cyclists, against 40.5 to 49.5% pedestrians, which somewhat pours cold water on the "Cycling is safer than walking" claim, as do the (approximate - it's a chart with no fine measurements) the head injuries of cyclist's 22.5% against pedestrian's 24.5% (approx - it's just a chart!), which could be because of helmets (cyclists will be travelling at a faster speed)... but who knows? I wear a helmet (BMX style helmet with jaw guards (it makes me feel soooo safe! I even wear it while making tea), without the strap secured, (because I don't want to be strangled in a collision) because as far as I've seen, there are no details anywhere of the type of head injury experienced or their proportion - is it teeth? Concussion? Brain injury/Loss of sight? On page 22, there is a total of 8% (6+2 on the chart) head injuries... surely:

...surely these would have been worse without a helmet? Head injuries looked to be greater in accidents where cyclists are injuring themselves... though I can't be bothered to point to the chart or page (too drunk).

WE NEED MORE FACTS ON HEAD INJURIES!!!


We need more facts about head injuries in great detail! Where do we get those? The NHS?

 

[Amoto65]

We need more facts about head injuries in great detail! Where do we get those? The NHS?

Totally agree this is where the thread gets bogged down as there needs to be statistics on how many lives helmets save.

 

[richtea99]

> WE NEED MORE FACTS ON HEAD INJURIES!!!

From:

Cycle safety

At Headway, we believe that all cyclists should wear helmets, particularly vulnerable road users such as children who do not possess the same level of competency or experience as adults. We believe helmets should be compulsory for all child cyclists while supporting calls for a range of...

www.headway.org.uk

is this link:

Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use on severe traumatic brain injury and death in a national cohort of over 11000 pedal cyclists: a retrospective study from the NHS England Trauma Audit and Research Network dataset | BMJ Open

bmjopen.bmj.com

Conclusions This study suggests that there is a significant correlation between use of cycle helmets and reduction in adjusted mortality and morbidity associated with TBI and facial injury.

It doesn't make wearing a helmet the right solution, however.
Treat the cause (poor driving skills), not the symptom (head injury).

 

[Deleted member 33385]

Totally agree this is where the thread gets bogged down as there needs to be statistics on how many lives helmets save.

I don't see how we can make a determination without a detailed breakdown of brain and skull breakdowns, and all there seems to be available are general overviews of injuries rather than specific stats from emergency rooms.

 

[Deleted member 33385]

It doesn't make wearing a helmet the right solution, however.
Treat the cause (poor driving skills), not the symptom (head injury).

How other people drive is not under our control, the decision to wear a helmet is. Drivers really do hate cyclists far more than I remember in the 80s, when I was cyling last.

is this link:
Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use on severe traumatic brain injury and death in a national cohort of over 11000 pedal cyclists: a retrospective study from the NHS England Trauma Audit and Research Network dataset | BMJ Open
Conclusions This study suggests that there is a significant correlation between use of cycle helmets and reduction in adjusted mortality and morbidity associated with TBI and facial injury.

That's a good find! Wear a helmet!

 

[Deleted member 33385]

is this link:
Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use on severe traumatic brain injury and death in a national cohort of over 11000 pedal cyclists: a retrospective study from the NHS England Trauma Audit and Research Network dataset | BMJ Open
Conclusions This study suggests that there is a significant correlation between use of cycle helmets and reduction in adjusted mortality and morbidity associated with TBI and facial injury.

That's a good find! Wear a helmet!

 

[richtea99]

How other people drive is not under our control, the decision to wear a helmet is.

As a society, it is. The decrease in smoking is a good example of societal pressure changing behaviour.

As an individual, if you're a driver/rider make the difference and take an advanced driving course.

Then grip the passenger seat firmly with both hands as you realise just how unattentive the driver is the next time you're given a lift:
'I want to die peacefully in my sleep like Grandad, not screaming in terror like his passengers.'

 

[flecc]

As a society, it is. The decrease in smoking is a good example of societal pressure changing behaviour.

Unfortunately that is a two way street. It was societal pressure that got most smoking in the first place, the young long ago seeing how most adults smoked so they started too.

The same was true for alcohol and still is, the long aisles of drink in supermarkets impressing on the young and even infants how normal it is to buy lots of alcoholic drink.
.

 

[Wicky]

We need more facts about head injuries in great detail! Where do we get those? The NHS?

IIRC from research on M/C injuries - Anything that requires someone getting carted to hospital for treatment is usually categorised as a serious injury and would fall into KSI (killed or seriously injured). Also there's a category of 'slight' injuries , cuts / bruises etc. Depends if police attend as they supply stats for Department for Transport (DfT) / Govt.

Road accidents and safety statistics

Statistics and data about reported collisions and casualties on public roads in Great Britain.

www.gov.uk

Solicitors class things slightly differently i.e. serious injury = life changing injury

Plus: The UK Department for Transport explores the additional sources in some detail in its Reported Road Casualties report for Great Britain. Its analysis of National Travel Survey (NTS) data suggest that approximately 50 per cent of accidents involving some degree of personal injury, and two thirds of all non-fatal road casualties, are not reported to police. Examples of injuries reported in the NTS include whiplash and minor cuts and bruises, but it is not known how many of these would have qualified as recordable injuries had police attended the scene.

And diferent countries have different reporting categories.

So when I crashed my push bike and lost the front end smashing my face in the ground dislodging a tooth this didn't make it into any official stats as I only went to the dentist for her to stick it back in.

 

[Michael Price]

SO -- the above stats support the idea that wearing a helmet is a good idea

but the aim of the thread was whether or not they should be compulsory - which is different

It does provide evidence for a campaign to convince more people to wear them
but there is no point in this if you make them compulsory and loads of people stop riding


and on top of that we should also look at the bigger picture

If more people start riding bike then the overall fitness of the population will increase - hence reeducing the load on the NHS
Plus - if people use bike for things that would otherwise result in a car journey then overall polution, especially in cities and big towns will reduce - which again improves the health of the population - quite a lot if the uptake of bikes is big enough

So - overall the gains made by encouraging people onto bikes where possible trump the number of serious head injuries that could be prevented if helmets were compulsory

and - on top of that - it would be difficult to police. The Police already cannot try to round up all the people riding at night with no lights - how could you expect them to enforce a new law about helmets as well?

 

[Wicky]

If more people start riding bike then the overall fitness of the population will increase

Slightly at a tangent to the topic. Things still need to be looked at and money spent wisely to offer encouragement to cycling.

Here in my home town the county council spent a 3/4 million or so on adding a joint cycle / pedestrian path along a closed access road despite local cycle groups / councillors saying clearly & loudly it wasn't required. Also secure parking is needed as theft if bikes from town centre / hospital* / local sports centres is a big disincentive to cycling.

* Hospital tried to encourage staff to cycle to work, but hospital is at the top of a big steep hill and with shifts starting at 7am / finishing late in the evening only a hardcore few do so. Besides lack of security at the bike shelters.

 

[flecc]

Slightly at a tangent to the topic. Things still need to be looked at and money spent wisely to offer encouragement to cycling.

It's a two way thing, just encouraging and helping cycling doesn't work.

These have to be accompanied by major disincentives for car driving. The Dutch proved this long ago and London repeated the proof with the congestion charge and later the low emission zones.

In both the Netherlands and London the stick and carrot combination has been spectacularly successful, showing that people have to be forced to cycle initially, or use public transport. Once enough of them are in the saddle it starts to become self generating.
.