Why Do I See So Many Cyclist Without Helmets?

[Skubarra]

<snip>

 

But, the world does not work like that an things rarely operate in isolation and this is where research tends to indicate that helmets do not in fact save lives or reduce injuries but may in fact promote them. 

 

<snip>

 

In short - helmets *might* change behavior of cyclists/motorists and therefore cause more accidents.

 

repeating myself - but that kind of human behavior/reaction would to some extent be true for any safety equipment used for any activity? Yet why do we stop with cycling helmets?  Should we not remove all safety equipment from society then people will act more responsibly?

 

If " a false sense of security" was the only cause of cycling accidents then this line of argument might have made sense to me.

[geoffois]

Crikey - at least people have come back from the holidays with a bit passion.

 

We're missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, helmets do prevent injuries and deaths, but cyclist deaths in SA are not a simple helmet vs no helmet issue. Car, trucks and taxis are injuring and killing cyclists regardless of whether they wear a helmet or not.

 

Calling people out on helmet use is victim blaming. The thing we should be focussing our new found holiday passion on is standing together as a cycling community and demanding safer infrastructure, better laws, and improved policing from our local and national governments.

 

Once the deaths and injuries by vehicles have stopped, we can turn on each other and have a go over helmet use.

This is certainly the key. I feel that this may be a different discussion (but far more important) than the one raised here.

My concern is, as was mentioned before, that cyclists disregard for the law does not in fact improve the cyclists safety nor does it improve cyclist/motorist relations. The two conversations are most likely the same core issue. Realising that adherence to laws is not "optional" and that if laws are broken consequences must ensue in order to limit future risk taking behaviour in society as a whole.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IceCreamMan]

In short - helmets *might* change behavior of cyclists/motorists and therefore cause more accidents.

 

repeating myself - but that kind of human behavior/reaction would to some extent be true for any safety equipment used for any activity? Yet why do we stop with cycling helmets?  Should we not remove all safety equipment from society then people will act more responsibly?

 

If " a false sense of security" was the only cause of cycling accidents then this line of argument might have made sense to me.

In my defence we are talking about cycling helmets here.

 

I don't think it's a might but a definitely and it's not only related,to the cyclist but also other road users or other cyclists.

 

But yes, we load cars with safety features unheard of 20 years ago, have extensive campaigns for road safety and in ZA the results just get worse don't they. Does this Mean the safety feature are not working , absolutely not, they work but it gives people a false sense of security and this kills them. ( of course there are a number of other factors and causes but stats really is a minefield when u get into it. )

[IceCreamMan]

In this country, a single beer (330ml) will not put you over the legal limit.

Yes, I call out people who drink and drive.

I deal with traumatic brain injuries often, and the consequences of which can be devastating. This is not an injury to be trifled with.

Follow up review of the data on the walker study that was mentioned found his data to be overstated and likely misinterpreted. The most revealing aspect of his published study seems to be proximity of cars to the rider related to rider distance from the curb... oh, and colour of the car.

Meta-analysis of trauma data clearly shows a lower ACCIDENT risk in helmet wearers, thus a lower risk of all incidents.

There is no controlled trial that I can find that shows an increase in risk taking behaviour when wearing helmets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I drink draught beers and one certainly puts me over the limit. One rarely has one though.

 

Post the data here please or a link to the data. I would very much like to view it. American motorcycling data related to helmet wear does not show this correlation nor data I can find. If there is irrefutable proof of lower risk of accidentes and lesser extent of severity of accidents for helmet wearers I would like to review it.

 

Good on you for calling out potential drink drivers, if only society had more of your ilk we could get rid of this scourge.

Edited January 5, 2017 by IceCreamMan

[geoffois]

I drink draught beers and one certainly puts me over the limit. One rarely has one though.

 

Post the data here please or a link to the data. I would very much like to view it. American motorcycling data related to helmet wear does not show this correlation nor data I can find. If there is irrefutable proof of lower risk of accidents for helmet wearers I would like to review it.

 

Good on you for calling out potential drink drivers, if only society had more of your ilk we could get rid of this scourge.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170105/c82878d120170a2f17f6c1e03babcdde.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170105/d68911c00451fe96e5b9ae6ef50d86bf.jpg

I suspect this is one of the links you couldn't open

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skylark]

In my defence we are talking about cycling helmets here.

 

I don't think it's a might but a definitely and it's not only related,to the cyclist but also other road users or other cyclists.

 

But yes, we load cars with safety features unheard of 20 years ago, have extensive campaigns for road safety and in ZA the results just get worse don't they. Does this Mean the safety feature are not working , absolutely not, they work but it gives people a false sense of security and this kills them. ( of course there are a number of other factors and causes but stats really is a minefield when u get into it. )

You have viewpoints and reasoning skills that lead me to believe that you can only be a cabinet minister from Sa's very own ruling party?

 

No wonder the country is a shambles when half the cabinet is busy on Bikehub all day.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Skylark

[carbon29er]

Crikey - at least people have come back from the holidays with a bit passion.

 

We're missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, helmets do prevent injuries and deaths, but cyclist deaths in SA are not a simple helmet vs no helmet issue. Car, trucks and taxis are injuring and killing cyclists regardless of whether they wear a helmet or not.

 

Calling people out on helmet use is victim blaming. The thing we should be focussing our new found holiday passion on is standing together as a cycling community and demanding safer infrastructure, better laws, and improved policing from our local and national governments.

 

Once the deaths and injuries by vehicles have stopped, we can turn on each other and have a go over helmet use.

Common sense at last. Although under the rules of self-aggrandising I can't say that is a point I tried top make earlier.

 

I neither express an opinion on the benefits or not of wearing a helmet, but I do take exception to someone who thinks he has the right to call me out if I choose not to.

 

Hell, what's next on the do-gooders list? My socks are too short? My tyres are too soft? I'm not hard enough?

 

So OP, next time pick a thread that is not reactionary to someone else not causing any harm to anyone else.

 

And to the "it's the law" brigade, focus on laws that are there to protect others innocently enjoying their pleasures, such as driving dangerously close to a cyclist, rather than those that when infringed actually do no harm to anyone.

 

Time to go read the new helmet thread.

[carbon29er]

So I can hoot at you if you aren't wearing a helmet?

Thing is I rarely do not. I love my pink rudi project sterling and the way it matches my bar tape but clashes with my stay wider shirt.

[EvanB]

It is really beautiful to ride without a helmet - a real sense of freedom with the wind in your hair. We used to train with no helmets for years and only race with strip helmets.

 

Maybe i am a bit of a fatalist, if you are meant to go, well you will go.

 

On a training ride once, a mate of mine was killed, he was the only one wearing a helmet out of all of us.

 

I do ride with a helmet now, but sometimes i ride near home with no helmet and it does feel good and brings back those memories - a long time ago 

[Joe Low]

As I always say on these threads, it's not the law* and it's not your business.  Getting excited about it says more about the excitees than those they are excited about.

 

That said i wear a helmet for all but the most dibbly-dobbly of trips around the block - biggest danger averted is not being accosted by people demanding why i'm not wearing a helmet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(* Regulations in the Road Traffic Act never had penalties set for not wearing helmets, making it unenforceable.  It was seen as a prejudicial law to the vast majority of cyclists to insist they buy helmets).

[IceCreamMan]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170105/c82878d120170a2f17f6c1e03babcdde.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170105/d68911c00451fe96e5b9ae6ef50d86bf.jpg

I suspect this is one of the links you couldn't open

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a link that states the opposite from research conducted in many places

 

https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-news/do-bike-helmets-save-lives/

 

Research findings clearly indicate that wearing a helmet results in risk compensation and the likelihood of cycling faster I.e. More risk.

 

There are many diverse findings an opinions which is strange. Introducing compulsory helmet laws in some countries have had no discernible affect when taking all factors into account. Netherlands with no laws have amongst the lowest stats in the world. Compulsory helmet laws appear to be a red herring. We should be trgetting elsewhere.

[IceCreamMan]

You have viewpoints and reasoning skills that lead me to believe that you can only be a cabinet minister from Sa's very own ruling party?

No wonder the country is a shambles when half the cabinet is busy on Bikehub all day.

Sorry,was I typing to fast for you again?

 

The tolerance for others with a different view is pretty much zero and then these get labeled with some puerile jibes..

 

I suspect the shambles of which you speak is far as a result of this lack of tolerance than any politician could hope to achieve.

 

Reality is that there is much research that disputes that helmets are effective as a whole, you can choose to ignore this of course and carry on looking through keyholes......with both eyes.

[Patchelicious]

Sorry,was I typing to fast for you again?

 

The tolerance for others with a different view is pretty much zero and then these get labeled with some puerile jibes..

 

I suspect the shambles of which you speak is far as a result of this lack of tolerance than any politician could hope to achieve.

 

Reality is that there is much research that disputes that helmets are effective as a whole, you can choose to ignore this of course and carry on looking through keyholes......with both eyes.

In all honesty, tolerance of a viewpoint is very easy to respect, Carbon and I have very different view points about social interactions regarding the not wearing of helmets, hos view point is explicit and clear, however your viewpoint seems more of a moving target and this could be a source for much of the frustration you are encountering. So with all due respect it is difficult to respect a viewpoint when it's not definable.

 

The keyhole research is the "contradictory" research.

Using research that "might, maybe, possibly" have a secondary conclusion or effect (helmets might alter human behavior and therefore there might be a secondary effect) as your primary argument to ignore or dispel much more robust and direct studies is the definition of looking through a key hole.

[Patchelicious]

Thing is I rarely do not. I love my pink rudi project sterling and the way it matches my bar tape but clashes with my stay wider shirt.

Your stay wider of the rider shirt is telling me how to drive, I do take exception to someone who thinks he has the right to tell me how to drive.

 

You tell people to stay wider of the rider, and I'll carry on campaigning for people to be responsible cyclists. That way we are both tackling the core issue of Cycling safety, but from different angles.

[geoffois]

Here is a link that states the opposite from research conducted in many places

 

https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-news/do-bike-helmets-save-lives/

 

Research findings clearly indicate that wearing a helmet results in risk compensation and the likelihood of cycling faster I.e. More risk.

 

There are many diverse findings an opinions which is strange. Introducing compulsory helmet laws in some countries have had no discernible affect when taking all factors into account. Netherlands with no laws have amongst the lowest stats in the world. Compulsory helmet laws appear to be a red herring. We should be trgetting elsewhere.

Thanks for that, I certainly see where your argument arises.

Here are my concerns:

1. This is lay media reporting on an interpretation of the literature. I would really like to see these studies.

2. Further issues are alluded to and I feel that there is a confusion of multiple variables. One such variable would be why are more accidents occurring? Is it increased traffic? Mobile phones? Cyclists wearing headphones? I certainly think that identifying these key variables is far more important.

3. Of these incidents that occur, where does the blame lie? Is it with the cyclist riding faster or is it the drivers not adhering to road rules? Again, possible (assumed) change in cyclists behaviour may or may not be a factor. Certainly when an incident DOES occur, higher speed = higher force = assumed greater severity of head trauma. There may be more factors in the cyclists speed.

4. Efficacy of bicycle helmets in limiting time in hospital, cost of hospitalisation and mortality is well documented. What the opening paragraph states is helmet use did not decrease hospitalisation rates (no mention of cost or length of stay) in people that already have had a head injury.

5. Cycle helmet design is (and this is my opinion) often structurally suboptimal. I would prefer more occipital and temporal coverage. Thus I can agree with the point raised that perhaps for certain directional forces, protection may be suboptimal.

6. The "New Zealand doctors" anecdotal comments are exactly that, anecdotal. The literature on limiting extent of cerebral injury is well documented in medical literature. Papers are still being published to support this stance, the most recent of which I can find was from Q3 2016.

7. The possibility of increased rotational force to the cranium and neck when subjected to a tangential force is, I believe, of concern especially with helmets with extra "hair room" related to the increased moment of the force. Has it been shown to increase severity of head injury when compared to helmet-less victims? I can not find data to support this.

8. Does lack of exercise contribute to increased cardiovascular mortality? Undoubtedly. Would losing the helmet requirement directly reduce cardiovascular death? I think the problems may be more multifactorial than that.

9. Using your example of the Netherlands, was their accident rate lower or their head injury severity lower? Helmets don't stop accidents, they are there to limit head injury severity if an accident occurs. This brings us back to the multifactorial components of bicycle safety. What do they do differently that is ACTUALLY decreasing their accident rate?

 

I appreciate the discussion. Perhaps I am a little biased having seen my fair share of severe head injuries.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IceCreamMan]

In all honesty, tolerance of a viewpoint is very easy to respect, Carbon and I have very different view points about social interactions regarding the not wearing of helmets, hos view point is explicit and clear, however your viewpoint seems more of a moving target and this could be a source for much of the frustration you are encountering. So with all due respect it is difficult to respect a viewpoint when it's not definable.

The keyhole research is the "contradictory" research.

Using research that "might, maybe, possibly" have a secondary conclusion or effect (helmets might alter human behavior and therefore there might be a secondary effect) as your primary argument to ignore or dispel much more robust and direct studies is the definition of looking through a key hole.

No might but factual. Dr John Adams detected an increase in fatalities in states where mandatory helmet laws were implemented. ( motorcycling related)

 

The Hurt report is probably the most widespread research conducted on helmet laws for motorcycling, the findings were far from conclusive. It's incorrect to assume.

 

My view is merely that one should think a bit. As I mentioned I generally wear a helmet but in no way am I misled into thinking it's necessarily safer.

 

It's getting long in the tooth.