Helmet use post Richardson death

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by glueman »

Looks like Si's prediction has come true within a page!

Being shallow, fickle and a man of strong opinions weakly held, my helmet use varies to no discernable pattern. Slogging up endless hills at 5mph in a polystyrene pudding basin seems absurd, flying down the other side perhaps less so. In 25years I've gone from zero helmet use to almost 100% to about 40% presently.
Basically I hate wearing hats no matter how light or well ventilated, especially in warm weather.
Big T
Posts: 2105
Joined: 16 Jul 2007, 1:44pm
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Big T »

noonoosdad wrote::The chances of coming of a two wheeled machine either by falling or being forced off in a collision must be fairly high


I've been cycling for 35 years and done over 100,000 miles on a bike. In that time, I've come off about 10 times and hit my head twice (once helmeted, once not). I commute daily in rush hour traffic, but the only time I've been knocked off was in a time trial on the A1.

So your chances of coming off and banging your head aren't actually that high (about once in 17 years or once in 50,000 miles), so not very high at all. Cycling isn't as dangerous an activity as many people make out.

I do wear a helmet, mainly because I have to wear something on my head to keep warm for most of the year. It might as well be a helmet (with accompanying Buff).
My JOGLE blog:
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
twitter: @bikingtrev
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by thirdcrank »

gilesjuk wrote:There seems to be a specific group of reckless people who think Health and Safety is nonsense, think they're entitled to mangle themselves if they choose.


I cannot speak for other, but I for one, am not reckless about safety - that of myself or others. On the other hand, I think that it is naive to believe that something which even the manufacturers do not claim works, is likely to make much contribution.

It is my own experience that putting on any form of protection intended to protect against the activities of others is likely to make them at bets more careless, at worst more ready to act aggressively. (From my own personal experience, I can say that people are much more likely to throw stuff at somebody dressed in full riot gear than somebody who is not. It's all a balancing act.)

What you are doing, dressed up as cmmon sense, is simple victim blaming. To put it my feelings more precisely, I'll do all I can to protect myself from danger. I don't think cycle helmets make much contribution and I do feel they may make others more likely to take risks with cyclists who wear them. I do wear a helmet, to protect myself as far as possible from the victim blamers - a group of people well-represented among the pro-helmet lobby. It's disappointing to see cyclists swallowing this so naively.
Last edited by thirdcrank on 19 Mar 2009, 1:34pm, edited 1 time in total.
pigman
Posts: 1917
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:23pm
Location: Sheffield UK

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by pigman »

john28july wrote:
noonoosdad wrote::? Wearing a Cycling Helmet is not 'Wrapping people in Cotton Wool' but just plain and simple 'Good Common Sense'.
The chances of coming of a two wheeled machine either by falling or being forced off in a collision must be fairly high
and I certainly wouldn't take a chance and always wear a Helmet. Let's face it, when I used to Horse ride when I was in my teens, I would wear a helmet and when I used to ride a motorcycle, I wouldn't dream of getting on it without.
I just don't fancy spending the rest of my life eating through a straw as a worse case scenario.


Hello,
My agreement in full for the above.
However I should like to point out, that you are wasting your time with your views on here as all you will get is a response from no hopers who will blast you for your view.
They all think that they are immortal and outside of the need for some safety attempt. I would also like to say that in my experience that its a waste of time trying to convert the ungodly!
John.............. :cry:


john
you jest, no? Surely?
I wouldnt blast noonoosdad for his post, as its his opinion. I may not agree with lots of it, but I'll respect it.

As for being a no hoper, immortal or ungodly cos I dont quite see it you way, what are you thinking?

Ultimately you need to sell the bike and walk or bus around cos then there's no chance of a cycle accident whatsoever and jobs a good 'un. Oh but then you could be involved in a bus collision or a car mounts the pavement. Best lie in bed john and stick to the daytime telly.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by thirdcrank »

pigman wrote:[. Best lie in bed john and stick to the daytime telly.


But don't forget the safety gear - there is a real risk of the ceiling falling in :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by EdinburghFixed »

gilesjuk wrote:IThere seems to be a specific group of reckless people who think Health and Safety is nonsense, think they're entitled to mangle themselves if they choose. As far as I'm concerned they can do so if they pay for their own medical treatment privately.

Treatment on the NHS is free to yourself, but your treatment comes out of a finite resource pool (both staff time and money), you may be condemning a pensioner to blindness or condemning a cancer patient to an early demise!

As far as precautions when cycling, I do as much as I can. I ensure I am easily visible day or night. I try to choose the safest route I can. But ultimately if someone is not looking at the road then there's nothing you can do!

At least I feel I have done all I can do, if someone else is negligent and knocks me off then it's not my fault.


Although I know you're talking generally, I think it is interesting to look at your points as they pertain to cycling.

We have strong evidence from population-level studies of countries which have introduced helmet laws, which allows us to compare a road network like the UK's with almost no variables except a rapid change in cycle helmet wearing. They show that the per-capita rate of head injuries for cyclists is at best, no different after a large uptake in helmet use, and in some cases is greater. However hard people may find that to believe, it's based on an entire population and not individual anecdote. It offers no clear explanation, just an outcome which has never been dismissed even by research sponsored by helmet manufacturers.

Thus the widespread wearing of helmets would not save the NHS money in treating cyclists. Although there are a smaller absolute number of injuries due to fewer people cycling, they are at a far increased risk of health issues down the line, which cost a lot more.

Moreover, it is essential to consider the cost to the NHS of treating obesity, diabetes, joint problems, respiratory issues, cancer etc. at a population level, all attributable to poor health which could be prevented directly by an increase in cycling. But while cycling in many countries is considered a normal activity requiring no special precautions, here it is seen as an extreme sport requiring personal body armour and the kind of day-glow suits that were designed for workmen mixing it with 70mph motorway traffic at night. And even in Britain, bare-headed cycling is still safer per hour than walking or driving!

Small wonder that so few people can be persuaded to take it up. Sadly, those who choose to wear helmets (or worse, insist that "the chances of coming off in a collision must be fairly high" when the opposite is true) are only reinforcing this problem. And since an increase in cyclist numbers directly reduces the risk of an accident by a huge degree, they ironically make the road much more dangerous for themselves.
Last edited by EdinburghFixed on 19 Mar 2009, 1:39pm, edited 1 time in total.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by pete75 »

gilesjuk wrote:I wasn't talking about cycling and helmets specifically. Just about safety in general.

There seems to be a specific group of reckless people who think Health and Safety is nonsense, think they're entitled to mangle themselves if they choose. As far as I'm concerned they can do so if they pay for their own medical treatment privately.

Treatment on the NHS is free to yourself, but your treatment comes out of a finite resource pool (both staff time and money), you may be condemning a pensioner to blindness or condemning a cancer patient to an early demise!

As far as precautions when cycling, I do as much as I can. I ensure I am easily visible day or night. I try to choose the safest route I can. But ultimately if someone is not looking at the road then there's nothing you can do!

At least I feel I have done all I can do, if someone else is negligent and knocks me off then it's not my fault.


A lot of health and safety is nonsense - the banning of kids playing conkers other stuff like that...

Who are you decide who the NHS should treat or not? We have a service in this country that provides emergency treatment free at the point of delivery without question so who are you to deceide what people it should and shouldn't treat?
If it did follow your reasoning then no one injured taking part in a sports activity purely for their own recreation and enjoyment should get free treatment.
Or do you think it should depend on what an individual has contributed in taxation towards those finite resources?

What evidence have you that cycling helments prevent serious head injury? There's a great deal of debate about the subject. If you were suggesting that riders wear BSi approved motorcycle helemets then, from a safety point of view, there might be some merit in your arguments.

Do you ride in shorts and short sleeves? If you do and fall off then shouldn't you pay for treatment for any gravel rash injuries?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
emergency_pants
Posts: 292
Joined: 26 Aug 2008, 3:40pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by emergency_pants »

No... sorry... I reckon the whole NHS thing is a silly argument. People are treated within departments and each department has a budget. 15 more cyclists with minor head injuries in a year are not going to topple the equilibrium of the whole National health Service budget, is it? Comparing cycling to other sports also doesn't work as cycling is not the same as other sports and accidents occur differently.

I guess the bottom line is DOES A CYCLING HELMET SAVE YOUR SKULL AND BRAIN IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT? If it does, then I'll buy one tomorrow. Any other argument for/against is contrived, subjective and pointless, in my opinion.

Anyway... not sure why I jumped in there.

I sit right on the fence when it comes to helmets. I don't own one but every time I walk into a bike shop I consider buying one. I read these posts sometimes. Time & time again none of these arguments win over the other, so I just remain in Status Quo.

:?:
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by meic »

If i was to accept that the risks of cycling did make a helmet necesary, then I look at a cycling helmet and think "You must be kidding". I then get out my motorcycle helmet and think "now that IS a helmet."
All the pro-helmet arguments given logicaly demand a real helmet not a toy one. If I imagine all the possible disasters that may befall me and I look at the two helmets side by side. You would have to be insane not to take the motorcycling helmet.
Unless you were willing to accept that safety is NOT the overiding factor.
Yma o Hyd
gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by gilesjuk »

pete75 wrote:A lot of health and safety is nonsense - the banning of kids playing conkers other stuff like that...


I think they only banned it if they weren't wearing safety glasses? Things like this have come about due to schools being sued by parents after they get injured etc.

pete75 wrote:
Who are you decide who the NHS should treat or not? We have a service in this country that provides emergency treatment free at the point of delivery without question so who are you to deceide what people it should and shouldn't treat?



I don't decide, money and PCTs decide and if there's a strain on resources that can also affect the quality of treatment and then people start suing hospitals for compensation.

pete75 wrote:If it did follow your reasoning then no one injured taking part in a sports activity purely for their own recreation and enjoyment should get free treatment.
Or do you think it should depend on what an individual has contributed in taxation towards those finite resources?


I'm not saying people shouldn't get treatment, why are you saying I'm saying "leave them to die"? I'm merely pointing out that if people thought about risk and weren't reckless then NHS money could be spent on these expensive drugs that pensioners and cancer patients are always taking the PCTs to court to get.

Drinking is also out of control in the UK, A&E is inundated with cases at the weekend. Again, reckless behaviour, drunken violence etc.. The NHS is being abused by these people!

pete75 wrote:What evidence have you that cycling helments prevent serious head injury? There's a great deal of debate about the subject. If you were suggesting that riders wear BSi approved motorcycle helemets then, from a safety point of view, there might be some merit in your arguments.


I wasn't talking about cycling anyway, there are many preventable injuries which merely require you to wear protection. gloves, eye protection etc..
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by Mick F »

Having been in a nasty spill last summer, wearing nothing more than skimpy lycra shorts and top, road shoes and thin socks, I can vouch for Gravel Rash at 30mph!

I was asked by the nurses that attended me, "We're you wearing your helmet?"
Me, looking down at my injuries on my legs and arms, and trying to see my bum, replied: "What's that got to do with this lot?"
"Well, we have to ask, because it can make a difference if you come off a bike."
"I was wearing one, but my head never touched the tarmac, so it doesn't matter if I was or I wasn't. But in actual fact, I was wearing it, and I always do."
"Good."

My skin healed.
I still wear a helmet.

I wear it because it's an easy thing to do. If the helmets were like motorcycle helmets, no cyclist would wear them. They have to be cool and light and easy to wear, the trouble is, those parameters eat away at the efficacy of it. If I had to wear full leathers, I wouldn't ride a bike. I wear skimpy lycra because it's comfortable, even though it gives me no protection whatsoever.

It isn't easy to wear protective gear, so I wear the minimum.
Mick F. Cornwall
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by thirdcrank »

Safety is an emotive word and IMO it should not be bandied about without being clear what is meant. Road safety in the UK generally has a specific meaning which is that the occupants of motor vehicles must be protected at all costs against the errors of the driver and others - safety shell construction, seat-belts, airbags etc. They must also be protected against driver error by the removal of as many external dangers as possible e.g bends in the road, junctions, dark places, anything remotely unexpected etc and then things that drivers may hit must be either soft and bendy or shielded with armco barriers etc. Unfortunately, even where virtually every danger which it is humanly possible to remove has been removed, ie. on motorways, terrible crashes still occur because drivers consume the safety improvements by driving too fast for the circumstances. (I define tailgating as driving too fast for the circumstances since a vehicle travelling slowly can safely follow much nearer another.)

Against this background, vulnerable road users present a huge problem because they don't fit in and although they are bendy and flexible they are not expendable like traffic bollards, and they cannot be shielded with Armco barriers.

Of course, people are able to work all that out for themselves so they avoid 'dangerous' activities like cycling and walking and even letting chidren play out. This produces a self-reinforcing effect where more and more people feel compelled to drive whenever possible - even if that means driving to the gym to ride an exercise bike.

The neat solution is to make vulnerable road users responsible for their own safety as it lets so many others off the hook. We have come close in the past to cycling on roads being banned altogether. In the present exercise for health environment, that is unlikely to happen, but there are many who would support it.

Unfortunately, things like helmets are of no proven value against the threat I am talking about - being hit at speed by a motor vehicle, and they may even make drivers feel more confident in taking risks with the safety of others. A whole industry has grown up based on what I choose to call 'victim blaming'.

Turning to helmet debates, I suggest there are only two basic arguments, one for and the other against.

The 'for' argument is that the type of cycle helmet now available provides worthwhile protection for the head in a collision with a motor vehicle and the 'against' argument is that they do not do so and may even increase the risk of collision by increasing people's willingness to take risks.

All sorts of 'evidence' is put forward but most of it is not evidence at all. It is opinion dressed-up as common sense or similar.

It is true that helmet threads get heated but from my personal point of view, it is frustration caused by the utter smugness of the victim blamers in not producing coherent evidence, rather than anecdotes and 'common sense'. And when common sense is turned back on them, we are down to 'helmets are better than nothing.' I value my ageing head and I'd not intentiannaly endanger anybody else's. I do like to base my decisions on proper evidence, not ideology.

============================================

Instead of helmet threads we might as well have a parlour game using cards, although I'm prepared to release the idea free to anybody who produced it as a computer game. Each player would get a hand of cards, each printed with for and against 'arguments' e.g. professional racing cyclists wear them :lol: and they would then play them against the other players. (Obviously the scoring details need more work :roll: )
gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by gilesjuk »

Nobody wants to even come off their bike.

It's about time car makers and governments took the threat of portable electronics seriously. Mobiles, Sat Navs and other distractions to driving. No car should have a menu system plus LCD screen either, these posh BMWs with their silly knobs (no, not the people who usually drive them) to access settings for the car.

There's a reason cars have traditionally had switches and sliders, analogue controls are easy to use and fairly instantaneous. Can you imagine a 747 if it had a load of menu items to wade through to lower the landing gear?

I do wonder why if when the speed limit is 70mph cars sold here aren't speed limit to 70mph? there would be an uproar but it would save lives?!

The motor industry (do we have one? I think not, we're just a location for factories for foreign motor industries) are a hugely powerful force and Labour have proven themselves to be fairly poor at representing the public, more biased towards business.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by meic »

If someone wearing a cycle helmet has a crash and ends up spending a week in hospital, the verdict is that if they had not worn the helmet, they would be dead. Another verdict could be that the silly piece of plastic was useless and it was a waste of time wearing it.
Both verdicts are presented as anectdotal evidence.

I know of one person bought of at high speed by a dog. He was injured quite gruesomly, infact he was virtually scalped including part of his face. He was not wearing a helmet but if he had have been it would have been the only reason why he did not get brain damage.
Which I hasten to point out, he did not get brain damage.
That is the only incident of serious head injury from cycling that I have been close to.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Post by EdinburghFixed »

emergency_pants wrote:I guess the bottom line is DOES A CYCLING HELMET SAVE YOUR SKULL AND BRAIN IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT? If it does, then I'll buy one tomorrow. Any other argument for/against is contrived, subjective and pointless, in my opinion


Fortunately this is not that difficult to answer, if we're willing to set aside our prejudices for a moment and look at the evidence.

When large numbers of cyclists started wearing helmets in Australia / NZ, their individual risk of suffering a head injury did not decrease. In fact the per-capita rate of head injuries actually increased!

Now many people simply cannot believe this. "How can it not do at least some good, some of the time"? they ask.

But population level studies do not need to worry about this sort of thing. They simply answer the most fundamental question which you have asked, and the answer is clear.

Cyclists in the UK would be no worse off from a KSI injury perspective, if none of them wore helmets.

As a matter of fact, if cyclists chose not to dress up in armour there would almost certainly be a big increase in use, leading to a massive "safety in numbers" effect. So not only would you not be relying on a helmet which probably won't save your brain, but you'd be much less likely to have an accident in the first place.

Simple as that.
Post Reply