 |
 |
“I've really learned a lot from this discussion. My two cents to the discussion: 1- The only research I believe is one anecdote from a former ECF member who told me that various years ago they hired a statistician (sp?) who looked into the actual effect of helmets on safety based on road accident records, and the conclusion was that there wasn't any statistical evidence against or pro- helmets.” Not sure where you get that idea from. Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts, but to put it simply: All long term, large scale, reliable research shows at best, no benefit from mass helmet wearing, but all the short term, small scale, much less reliable research shows massive benefits. The reliability or otherwise of the different types of research are based on international standards. The biggest ever research project into helmets found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing. The most repeated statistic (85%) used by helmet promoters came from a single source, was produced by biased researchers, has never been repeated and is no longer even supported by the original researchers, but it is still being quoted by those promoting helmets. Some scientists have said that this research could be used as an example to students of how not to do research. “But I do think that the cultural side of it and the image that helmets provide to people is not at all useful, plus the fact that it may well be that helmets discourage discretionary riders and increases the risk of health problems due to lack of exercise.” This appears to be true. There are three criteria to be fulfilled before cycle helmet promotion should be undertaken: cycling should be more dangerous and more productive of head injuries than other common activities for which no such protection is required, it must be shown that helmets reduce that risk, and it must be shown that the unintended consequences do not outweigh the benefits. Since none of these is fulfilled, there can be no case for cycle helmets. Cycling is about as risky, or safe, as walking per mile traveled, and does not produce a greater proportion of head injuries than walking. All the reliable research shows that, at best, cycle helmets do not reduce the already extremely small risk. Despite more than twenty years of real world experience in Australia and New Zealand, benefit has yet to be demonstrated. The unintended consequence of deterring people from cycling outweighs the benefits by a massive amount, but at least 20:1. The benefits of cycling are huge, regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer and are fitter and healthier than the general population, but the benefits of helmet wearing cannot be demonstrated “2- Apart from the academic discussion about whether or not there is an effectiveness of helmets in improving road safety, whenever I engage into this discussion with people who say "a helmet saved my life, thus it is definitely useful", I always ask them for a detailed description of the incident where the piece of hard foam saved their lives. The invariant response includes a non-urban setting and a high speed, and in many cases they were wearing lycra. I think the discussion lies there: we shouldn't say helmets are useless, rather we should point out that in an urban setting at an appropriate speed they are totally useless (someone was pointing out a similar remark).” There are thousands of helmet saved my life stories, including claims that a cycle helmet saved people whose head had been run over by a truck! I’m surprised that your experience is that all the stories you have heard are rural rather than urban, as most bicycle/motor vehicle collisions are urban, and most of the stories seem to reflect this. Most such stories are based on the assumption that a cracked helmet has absorbed an amount of energy which would have killed the wearer, but a helmet which has cracked has not performed as it should, and has absorbed little energy. Such stories are frequently supported by emergency support staff, police and trauma doctors, who have neither the knowledge nor experience to make a judgment, but the one thing they do have is authority, so despite being ignorant of what they speak, they are believed. Much of the failure of mass helmet wearing to demonstrate any safety benefit is probably due to risk compensation i.e. tell someone that a piece of equipment will make them safe, and when they wear it, they increase their risk-taking to the perceived level it was before. There is also some evidence that drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets. You are correct that we should not say that helmets are totally useless, it’s just that they will only work if the person wearing it and drivers believe that it is totally useless! But all this is somewhat academic, and the real case is why are some people still so enthusiastic and dedicated to promoting cycle helmets with a practically religious zeal, when all the reliable evidence shows no benefit? Far be it from me to ascribe motives, but a wise man once said "if you don't understand what is going on, follow the money." Cycle helmets are not promoted by the manufacturers on safety grounds, because of advertising standards, they can leave that to the helmet zealots. On the other hand, they are selling a hugely profitable product which is cheap to make and ship, which can't be taken back when it fails, and there is a very enthusiastic network promoting it which is doing their advertising for them who they don't even have to pay. I'm continually surprised that no social scientist has looked at the case of cycle helmets, I'm sure it would make a fascinating subject. On 13 May 2012 02:15, Carlosfelipe Pardo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've really learned a lot from this discussion. My two cents to the > discussion: > > 1- The only research I believe is one anecdote from a former ECF member > who told me that various years ago they hired a statistician (sp?) who > looked into the actual effect of helmets on safety based on road accident > records, and the conclusion was that there wasn't any statistical evidence > against or pro- helmets. But I do think that the cultural side of it and > the image that helmets provide to people is not at all useful, plus the > fact that it may well be that helmets discourage discretionary riders and > increases the risk of health problems due to lack of exercise. > > 2- Apart from the academic discussion about whether or not there is an > effectiveness of helmets in improving road safety, whenever I engage into > this discussion with people who say "a helmet saved my life, thus it is > definitely useful", I always ask them for a detailed description of the > incident where the piece of hard foam saved their lives. The invariant > response includes a non-urban setting and a high speed, and in many cases > they were wearing lycra. I think the discussion lies there: we shouldn't > say helmets are useless, rather we should point out that in an urban > setting at an appropriate speed they are totally useless (someone was > pointing out a similar remark). Of course, if they like dressing like > Spiderman and jumping off ceilings, then they might as well complement > their disguise with a helmet! > > Best regards, > > Carlos. > > > On 11/05/2012 02:42 a.m., burton richard wrote: > >> The situation is analogous to climate change: all the good science is on >> one side, and all the assumption and bad science is on the other, but the >> good science was able to put its case before the sceptics could put theirs. >> The difference in the helmet case being that the pro helmet lobby got >> their extremely dodgy research in first and it is embedded in the public >> consciousness, and it doesn't matter how many times it is proved wrong, all >> the public remembers is that helmets are extremely effective. A single >> olympian holding up his cracked helmet is much more effective than >> scientifically valid evidence, and more so when almost all the media, >> especially the BBC, refuse to report it. >> >> I'm not aware of anyone who has looked at all the evidence who remains in >> favour of helmet laws or promotion. It seems to be only those who refuse >> to examine the evidence or who deny it, who are still in favour, but it has >> been obvious for some time that the helmet proponents do not base their >> demands on factual evidence, relying on assumption and appeals to emotion. >> As other people have commented, it's more like a religious thing, with >> "true believers" on one side, and scientific rationality on the other. >> >> On 10 May 2012 23:59, Stu Clement <[log in to unmask] <mailto: >> [log in to unmask]**>> wrote: >> >> 1205100830 >> >> The terrific helmet debate: one of those where every opinion is >> right and no one is absolutely right. You gotta love it! >> >> Stu >> >> --- >> Dr Stuart Clement >> Director, World Cycling Research Forum >> >> Co-Convenor, WOCREF 2012 >> +61 (0)405 702 483 >> www.wocref.org <http://www.wocref.org> >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]**> >> >> >> On 2012-05-11 06:41, Kevin Hickman wrote: >> >> says that almost half of the people responding thought >> that cycling >> on the road was too dangerous. Now where would they get >> that idea, >> except from helmet promotion? >> >> >> To be fair Richard, there's a lot more out there to be afraid of - >> it's not all down to the reinforcing effect of promoting >> cycling as an >> inherently dangerous activity. >> >> I view helmets, and hi-viz, as just an indicator of how safe >> people >> feel. If we get the everyday environment people are cycling in >> right >> then the personal protective equipment will vanish. >> >> The truth will out eventually, and either we'll all be putting >> helmets on as our heads leave the pillow in the morning, or >> they'll >> just fade away, or people will continue to use them where they >> feel >> exposed to risk. >> >> I agree that helmets aren't helping the normalising of >> cycling, but >> it can probably be sidestepped by getting the environment >> right, and >> thankfully that's where the focus is shifting to now. And >> let's not >> forget, helmets are such a phaff that if we do get the masses >> cycling >> they're not going to bother taking helmets with them >> everywhere. And >> conversely, if people still feel helmets are necessary, the masses >> won't cycle. >> >> Apart from the issue of compulsion, which where it occurs >> appears to >> mean 'game over' for mass cycling until it's repealed, helmets are >> just a distraction. >> >> Kevin. >> >> On 10 May 2012, at 20:06, burton richard wrote: >> >> And things like this >> >> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/**news/article-2142157/Bicycle-** >> sales-hit-record-high-20-ride-**one.html?ito=feeds-newsxml<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142157/Bicycle-sales-hit-record-high-20-ride-one.html?ito=feeds-newsxml> >> >> [30] >> >> which says that almost half of the people responding >> thought that >> cycling on the road was too dangerous. Now where would >> they get >> >> that >> >> idea, except from helmet promotion? The story itself implicity >> promotes helmets, and almost all media reports of collisions >> involving cyclists report either that a helmet saved the >> cyclist's >> life, or its absence killed them. There is some very good >> research >> about the persistence of myths which I would recommend >> reading, and >> this phenomenon goes a long way to explaining why the myth of >> >> helmet >> >> effectiveness is so strong. Ever since the reports of 85% >> effectiveness were published, it has been almost impossible to >> change the public perception that cycle helmets are effective, >> despite the evidence. On The One Show last year, the >> infamous James >> Cracknell one, the chair of BHIT, Angie Lee, was >> interviewed and >> said "just ignore the evidence......." and needless to >> say, the >> interviewer didn't see fit to ask her why someone dedicated to >> promoting helmets wants people to ignore the evidence - in >> line >> >> with >> >> the unstated and denied but blatant BBC policy to promote >> cycle >> helmets. >> >> On 10 May 2012 18:49, Dave du Feu <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [31]> wrote: >> >> There is a great deal of material [with sources] here... >> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/**1020.html<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html>[19] >> >> Whether any of them can be said to constitute 'proof' >> I don't >> know, but the material is certainly very extensive. >> >> On 10 May 2012 17:34, Jason Meggs >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> [20]> >> wrote: >> >> Burton, >> >> Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not aware of >> proof that >> promoting >> helmets reduces cycling, can you cite the source(s)? >> >> Very interested, >> Jason >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:29 PM, burton richard >> <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:burtthebike@**blueyonder.co.uk<[log in to unmask]>> >> [1]> wrote: >> > Since the only two proven effects of helmet >> promotion and >> laws are a fall in >> > the number of cyclists and obscene profits for >> the helmet >> manufacturers, I >> > have some difficulty understanding why a cycling >> organisation would even >> > consider promoting them. At the very least, it >> makes that >> organisation look >> > as if they are more interested in the >> manufacturer's profits >> than the safety >> > of cyclists. It was said some time ago, but is >> still true >> "You can promote >> > helmets or you can promote cycling, but you >> can't do both." >> > >> > The promotion of cycle helmets is entirely >> counterproductive, and no >> > organisation which has the interests of cyclists >> in mind >> would do so. >> > >> > Is there someone from the Cycling Embassy of >> Denmark on this >> group who could >> > explain why they are doing something which won't >> improve the >> safety of >> > cyclists but will reduce the number of them? >> > >> > >> > On 10 May 2012 15:53, Jennings Gail >> <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]**co.za<[log in to unmask]>> >> [2]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Glad you included us all. I agree with you. In >> SA helmets >> are mandatory, >> >> and there's pressure on cyclists to police each >> other if we >> don't wear >> >> helmets! I've even been yelled at by drivers >> for not >> wearing a helmet, as >> >> if I'm breaking some law that puts them at >> risks! Whenever >> the question of >> >> bike-share / bike-rental comes up, there's the >> helmet issue >> that just won't >> >> go away... >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10 May 2012, at 4:45 PM, Dave du Feu wrote: >> >> >> >> Sorry all, I intended this to go to Jacob, but >> I guess no >> harm in it >> >> appearing in the forum in case there are other >> views! >> >> >> >> On 10 May 2012 15:42, Dave du Feu >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [3]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Jakob - I've already received another >> email about >> this, and had a >> >>> quick look. Seems a really exciting publication. >> >>> >> >>> One thing, I really cannot understand why you >> are pushing >> helmets. We >> >>> are doing our best over here to try and reduce the >> pressure for helmets, as >> >>> they put people off from cycling (which also >> has the side >> effect of reducing >> >>> the 'safety in numbers' effect which you also >> endorse!) >> >>> >> >>> I'm concerned about publicising your book in >> some circles, >> as coming from >> >>> the one of the places which Britain looks up >> to as an >> example, it will be >> >>> taken as a powerful endorsement of helmets. >> >>> >> >>> We are worried that they are gaining such >> credibility that >> there is a >> >>> fear of compulsion coming in. There are >> already some >> charity bike rides, >> >>> aimed at ordinary cyclists, not racers, where >> under-18s >> are banned from >> >>> taking part if they are unhelmeted. >> >>> >> >>> Dave du Feu >> >>> Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign >> >>> [Edinburgh, Scotland] >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 10 May 2012 15:32, Jakob Schiøtt Stenbæk Madsen >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [4]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear All, >> >>>> >> >>>> The Cycling Embassy of Denmark has just >> finished up a new >> publication >> >>>> "Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012". The >> first edition of >> Collection of >> >>>> Cycle Concepts was published in 2000 and >> enjoyed a wide >> circulation among >> >>>> everyone interested in bicycle traffic. The >> simultaneous >> publication of the >> >>>> English version spread the Danish bicycle traffic >> experience to many parts >> >>>> of the world. The second edition, Collection >> of Cycle >> Concepts 2012, updates >> >>>> the field, featuring new challenges and the >> latest >> knowledge. >> >>>> >> >>>> Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012 is not >> intended to be a >> summary of >> >>>> Danish road standards, but to provide >> inspiration and >> motivation for >> >>>> creating more and safer bicycle traffic - in >> Denmark as >> well as the rest of >> >>>> the world. >> >>>> >> >>>> You can have a look and download the >> publication here: >> >>>> >> http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/** >> 2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012/<http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012/> >> >> [5] >> >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> Jakob Schiøtt Stenbæk Madsen >> >>>> Project Officer >> >>>> >> >>>> M. +45 40 70 83 62 [6] >> >>>> >> >>>> Danish Cyclists' Federation >> >>>> Rømersgade 5 >> >>>> DK-1362 København K >> >>>> >> >>>> T. +45 33 32 31 21 [7] >> >>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [8] >> >>>> www.cyklistforbundet.dk >> <http://www.cyklistforbundet.**dk<http://www.cyklistforbundet.dk>> >> [9] >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ** Spokes: spokes.org.uk <http://spokes.org.uk> >> [10]; twitter.com/SpokesLothian >> <http://twitter.com/**SpokesLothian<http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian> >> > >> [11] >> >> ** Personal: twitter.com/DaveduFeu >> <http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu> [12]; >> flickr.com/photos/34847720@**N03/sets<http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets> >> <http://flickr.com/photos/**34847720@N03/sets<http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets>> >> [13] >> >> ** Great sites: badscience.net >> <http://badscience.net> [14], 38degrees.org.uk >> <http://38degrees.org.uk> [15], >> copenhagenize.com <http://copenhagenize.com> [16], >> >> thebikestation.org.uk >> <http://thebikestation.org.uk> [17], ghgonline.org >> <http://ghgonline.org> [18] >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> ** Spokes: spokes.org.uk <http://spokes.org.uk> [21]; >> twitter.com/SpokesLothian >> <http://twitter.com/**SpokesLothian<http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian>> >> [22] >> ** Personal: twitter.com/DaveduFeu >> <http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu> [23]; >> flickr.com/photos/34847720@**N03/sets<http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets> >> <http://flickr.com/photos/**34847720@N03/sets<http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets>> >> [24] >> ** Great sites: badscience.net <http://badscience.net> >> [25], 38degrees.org.uk <http://38degrees.org.uk> [26], >> copenhagenize.com <http://copenhagenize.com> [27], >> thebikestation.org.uk <http://thebikestation.org.uk> >> [28], ghgonline.org <http://ghgonline.org> >> >> [29] >> >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] mailto:[log in to unmask]**co.uk<[log in to unmask]> >> <mailto:burtthebike@**blueyonder.co.uk<[log in to unmask]> >> > >> [2] mailto:[log in to unmask]**co.za<[log in to unmask]> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]**co.za<[log in to unmask]> >> > >> [3] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> [4] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> [5] http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/**2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012/<http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012/> >> [6] http://www.wocref.org/tel:%**2B45%2040%2070%2083%2062<http://www.wocref.org/tel:%2B45%2040%2070%2083%2062> >> [7] http://www.wocref.org/tel:%**2B45%2033%2032%2031%2021<http://www.wocref.org/tel:%2B45%2033%2032%2031%2021> >> [8] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> [9] http://www.cyklistforbundet.**dk/<http://www.cyklistforbundet.dk/> >> [10] http://spokes.org.uk/ >> [11] http://twitter.com/**SpokesLothian<http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian> >> [12] http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu >> [13] http://flickr.com/photos/**34847720@N03/sets<http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets> >> [14] http://badscience.net/ >> [15] http://38degrees.org.uk/ >> [16] http://copenhagenize.com/ >> [17] http://thebikestation.org.uk/ >> [18] http://ghgonline.org/ >> [19] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/**1020.html<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html> >> [20] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> [21] http://www.spokes.org.uk/**wordpress<http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress> >> [22] http://twitter.com/**SpokesLothian<http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian> >> [23] http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu >> [24] http://www.flickr.com/photos/**34847720@N03/sets<http://www.flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets> >> [25] http://badscience.net/ >> [26] http://38degrees.org.uk/ >> [27] http://copenhagenize.com/ >> [28] http://thebikestation.org.uk/ >> [29] http://ghgonline.org/ >> [30] >> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/**news/article-2142157/Bicycle-** >> sales-hit-record-high-20-ride-**one.html?ito=feeds-newsxml<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142157/Bicycle-sales-hit-record-high-20-ride-one.html?ito=feeds-newsxml> >> [31] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >>