Random helmet-based abuse

[pjclinch]

Life in general is about viewing and balancing risks. And that involves a measure of thought and consideration, and thinking about risks is never a bad thing.

This is why it can be useful to ask how we behave in activities with similar measured risk.

Quoting Profs, Spiegelhalter and Goldacre:

I'm interested in what Goldacre and Spiegelhalter go on to say in the same editorial:

The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

Whilst I can't guarantee that my angle on that reflects their meaning accurately, I've just taken a group of young people ice skating. No-one wore a helmet, even though most people there probably fell over at least once, and in a situation (vertical falls from a near-standing start) that almost exactly matches the original design parameters for cycle helmets. This suggests that society perceives cycling as dangerous, and ice skating as good fun with a significant chance of falling over just adding to that.

I think so, and I've used ice-skating as an example myself as an activity where cultures affect helmet use. Free-for all sessions very few bother, despite falling on to a hard surface for numerous patrons being practically inevitable. Figure skating, with technically difficult routines that involve some degree of falling (particularly in practice), I've never seen anyone wear one. Hockey, absolutely 100%, and even without the chap who died recently when his neck was sliced by a skate I think it's pretty obviously sensible. Speed skating, long track nobody wears them in competition, when I've been trying a few laps of the Alkmaar schaatsbaan there were a few, mainly relatively elderly people using them but most not (I did fall over and hit my head... it hurt, but not so much I cursed not having a lid). Short track, absolutely everyone wears because falls are very common and races frequent, so you don't want a headache in the next round (plus the lots of folk sliding around out of control after a fall with blades on their feet).
So it's about context, not "I'm going skating, therefore helmet".

On the same theme (presumably by extension from cycling because wheels are involved), helmets have become popular for scooters and skateboards, but not for running (which, for younger children, often involves falls from similar heights and at similar speeds, onto similar surfaces). Now everything that pjclinch says about needing to review the literature and not rely on a single paper applies, but, just to give a flavour, this paper suggests that ice skating is far more risky than at least some wheeled street activities.

I did see one suggestion that any wheeled toy should be used with a helmet, which seems a bit hyperbolic when one considers first sit-on scoot toys that are scarecly capable of walking pace in typical use. But that's culture. As is the standard demand that Bikeability sessions in a playground have to have them, despite the same kids falling over and hitting their heads far more often with less supervision and session structure during their lunch break. Our response if they fall and hit their heads during free play isn't a lecture on always wearing a helmet but a some TLC, a note home and something like this:

It's quite telling that this is a 300-sticker "value pack": hitting heads happens a lot in schools.

So it's very unclear to me whether perception, or hard-nosed assessment of which activities actually carry most risk, drives behaviour. Assuming of course that we don't want to end up wearing helmets for everything.

Goldacre, incidentally, wrote the Bad Science books. Helmets not mentioned but, given the passage quoted by pjclinch, that's no surprise. Goldacre's interest is on abuses of statistics in medical and public-policy contexts.

A subsequent Goldacre book I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That reprints many entries from the Bad Science newspaper column but also the BMJ editorial with an intro that's on the Bad Science website, https://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicy ... demiology/.
Goldacre has various axes to grind but has no particular beef with cycle helmets. His demons are quacks, charlatans, profiteers and the like, so with cycle helmets clearly in his view it's quite telling he's never shot down "anti helmet theory" as being fuller of holes than a tea bag (complete with precise details of how it's full of holes and how to see them as holes). While his biggies are indeed medical and public policy he's been quite happy to spear idiocy in everyday and pretty harmless contexts, e.g. https://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=magnetic+wine.

I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That might be a good read for Cowsham. It's written as accessible popular science for anyone and illustrates how science works to arrive at a consensus on what's right and what's not, or (as in the case of cycle helmets) when it can't really decide. Available second hand for a few pounds, or as a free loan from the local library.

Pete.

[Cowsham]

I read that paper on NewZealand a while ago and found many flaws in it.

The data regression techniques applied weren't appropriate for this kind of data.

Different time scales and ages blended together

Small sample groups expanded up to match with large sample groups like the letters from the household travel survey sent out to 350 or so but correlation achieved with 17 hundred hospital patients.

It says the surveys were "designed" to have reducing samples over the time periods of the samples.

One thing the paper does agree about is that helmets do protect the head to some degree in the event of a crash where there's an impact to the head.

When there's a lot of complex manipulation of a small amount of data I'd be more suspicious that there's an agenda behind it than the simple plain facts ( even Pete has quoted ie that helmets do give some form of protection )

My conclusion
I'll wear my helmet while cycling.

I still think it should be left up to the individual choice so I'd still sign a petition to protect that choice.

[Cugel]

I've just taken a group of young people ice skating. No-one wore a helmet, even though most people there probably fell over at least once, and in a situation (vertical falls from a near-standing start) that almost exactly matches the original design parameters for cycle helmets. This suggests that society perceives cycling as dangerous, and ice skating as good fun with a significant chance of falling over just adding to that.

The only time that I've seriously banged my head (unconscious for 15 minutes and a day in hospital with concussion) was at an ice rink (in Blackpool). No one wore a helmet then, although I later learned that falls and bad head bangs were commonplace.

I actually had a very sore shoulder too, as the ambulance folk also slipped on the ice when stretchering me off, so they fell over and I fell off the stretcher (or so I was told). The ambulance folk weren't asked to wear a helmet, although they did have peaked caps in them days.

[pjclinch]

I read that paper on NewZealand a while ago and found many flaws in it.

The data regression techniques applied weren't appropriate for this kind of data.

Different time scales and ages blended together

Small sample groups expanded up to match with large sample groups like the letters from the household travel survey sent out to 350 or so but correlation achieved with 17 hundred hospital patients.

It says the surveys were "designed" to have reducing samples over the time periods of the samples.

Splendid!
We await your full analysis (full methodology, data sources, statistical techniques and justification of why you used the ones you did, removal of confounders etc.) for "the fact that there are clearly many more cyclists than before" with baited breath! I'm sure Accident Analysis & Prevention or similar will be rushing to publish it!

Like the good professors said, it's methodologically challenging and contentious, and that goes for proving helmets are either significantly positive for cyclist safety or significantly bad.

One thing the paper does agree about is that helmets do protect the head to some degree in the event of a crash where there's an impact to the head.

When there's a lot of complex manipulation of a small amount of data I'd be more suspicious that there's an agenda behind it than the simple plain facts ( even Pete has quoted ie that helmets do give some form of protection )

My conclusion
I'll wear my helmet while cycling.

I still think it should be left up to the individual choice so I'd still sign a petition to protect that choice.

You still seem to have some very strange ideas about what people are saying on here. Excepting the rather odd SwiftyDoesIt I'm pretty sure nobody else partaking of this thread is at all bothered that you wear a helmet for cycling, or particularly wants you to change your mind about choosing to wear one if it makes you happier.

Why you think anyone much here (again, excepting SwiftyDoesIt) is "anti-helmet" remains a mystery. It's as if as someone who's pro-choice on the pro-life vs pro-choice debate you'd regard me as "pro-death", or "anti-life" and assume I advise all pregnant women that they ought to get a termination. It's bizarre.
You still think it should be a choice to wear one on a bike, but someone like me who sometimes chooses not to wear is apparently "anti-helmet", setting a terrible example to the kids I coach and is generally deluded and mad, bad & dangerous to know.
Just... what?

Meanwhile, here's what I was up to at the weekend.

I have a mountaineering helmet but chose not to wear it. We went up the ridge in the centre-background where we needed ice axes. As you can see there's plenty of slippy rocks about that could cause a serious head injury and should my head strike one of them I'm sure I'd be better off in my helmet, not somewhere with a guaranteed phone signal and miles from help. Is that "anti-helmet" too?

Pete.

[Cugel]

[To Cowsham] You still seem to have some very strange ideas ......

You still seem to be on a doomed expedition trying to reason with ole C, who seems to have put aside reasoning for mere believing.

Having faith is often posed as some sort of virtue but this exchange is a fine example of why it isnae. Having faith might be a useful starting assumption (a helmet may be a useful safety aid for all cyclists in every circumstance so I'll use one) but it needs to become a trust, toot sweet (there's loads of incontrovertible evidence confirming my initial blind faith in helmets).

Since the incontrovertible evidence seems lacking - with significant evidence seeming to suggest the opposite .......

But as we know, faith is not only always blind (to evidence) but can also be very sticky in the mind. Very often, a reason-lever won't shift it. A habit of cleaving to faiths seems also to grow faith-included mechanisms for sticking them even more firmly in one's mind, such as remoulding awkward facts into alternatives that suit the faith.

*************
Fact-remoulding faiths are everywhere these days. The ones about cycling helmets are minnows compared to the sharks of climate change denialists and various economic-system ideologues, so although the minnows can nibble and tickle a bit at ones mental feet, we can afford to ignore them so as to concentrate on swimming as hard as possible away from them sharks. Of course, the sharks can swim a lot faster; and seem hungry for our corpses.

But I digress.

[roubaixtuesday]

I read that paper on NewZealand a while ago and found many flaws in it.

The data regression techniques applied weren't appropriate for this kind of data.

Different time scales and ages blended together

Small sample groups expanded up to match with large sample groups like the letters from the household travel survey sent out to 350 or so but correlation achieved with 17 hundred hospital patients.

It says the surveys were "designed" to have reducing samples over the time periods of the samples.

Splendid!
We await your full analysis (full methodology, data sources, statistical techniques and justification of why you used the ones you did, removal of confounders etc.) for "the fact that there are clearly many more cyclists than before" with baited breath! I'm sure Accident Analysis & Prevention or similar will be rushing to publish it!

Like the good professors said, it's methodologically challenging and contentious, and that goes for proving helmets are either significantly positive for cyclist safety or significantly bad.

One thing the paper does agree about is that helmets do protect the head to some degree in the event of a crash where there's an impact to the head.

When there's a lot of complex manipulation of a small amount of data I'd be more suspicious that there's an agenda behind it than the simple plain facts ( even Pete has quoted ie that helmets do give some form of protection )

My conclusion
I'll wear my helmet while cycling.

I still think it should be left up to the individual choice so I'd still sign a petition to protect that choice.

You still seem to have some very strange ideas about what people are saying on here. Excepting the rather odd SwiftyDoesIt I'm pretty sure nobody else partaking of this thread is at all bothered that you wear a helmet for cycling, or particularly wants you to change your mind about choosing to wear one if it makes you happier.

Why you think anyone much here (again, excepting SwiftyDoesIt) is "anti-helmet" remains a mystery. It's as if as someone who's pro-choice on the pro-life vs pro-choice debate you'd regard me as "pro-death", or "anti-life" and assume I advise all pregnant women that they ought to get a termination. It's bizarre.
You still think it should be a choice to wear one on a bike, but someone like me who sometimes chooses not to wear is apparently "anti-helmet", setting a terrible example to the kids I coach and is generally deluded and mad, bad & dangerous to know.
Just... what?

Meanwhile, here's what I was up to at the weekend.
SgurrNaLapaich.jpg
I have a mountaineering helmet but chose not to wear it. We went up the ridge in the centre-background where we needed ice axes. As you can see there's plenty of slippy rocks about that could cause a serious head injury and should my head strike one of them I'm sure I'd be better off in my helmet, not somewhere with a guaranteed phone signal and miles from help. Is that "anti-helmet" too?

Pete.

Lovely pic. I'm going to guess Carneddau?

[Edit - the embedded pic title shows up in the response - SgurrNaLapaich So, unsurprisingly, I was completely wrong!]

[pjclinch]

Lovely pic. I'm going to guess Carneddau?

[Edit - the embedded pic title shows up in the response - SgurrNaLapaich So, unsurprisingly, I was completely wrong!]

Shot from Càrn nan Gobhar.
It was an exceptional day, as good conditions for winter walking as I've ever had in Scotland (and I've lived here over 35 years now)

Pete.

[mattheus]

I think so, and I've used ice-skating as an example myself as an activity where cultures affect helmet use. Free-for all sessions very few bother, despite falling on to a hard surface for numerous patrons being practically inevitable. Figure skating, with technically difficult routines that involve some degree of falling (particularly in practice), I've never seen anyone wear one. Hockey, absolutely 100%, and even without the chap who died recently when his neck was sliced by a skate I think it's pretty obviously sensible. Speed skating, long track nobody wears them in competition, when I've been trying a few laps of the Alkmaar schaatsbaan there were a few, mainly relatively elderly people using them but most not (I did fall over and hit my head... it hurt, but not so much I cursed not having a lid). Short track, absolutely everyone wears because falls are very common and races frequent, so you don't want a headache in the next round (plus the lots of folk sliding around out of control after a fall with blades on their feet).

Interesting - I've only watched competitive short-track, I didn't realise the long track people went lid-free!

[Mike Sales]

Meanwhile, here's what I was up to at the weekend.
SgurrNaLapaich.jpg
I have a mountaineering helmet but chose not to wear it. We went up the ridge in the centre-background where we needed ice axes. As you can see there's plenty of slippy rocks about that could cause a serious head injury and should my head strike one of them I'm sure I'd be better off in my helmet, not somewhere with a guaranteed phone signal and miles from help. Is that "anti-helmet" too?

Pete.

You make me very jealous. I think that ridgewalking on a day like that in winter is very heaven. You are suspended on a narrow ribbon of snow in the sky.
I remember a day like that on the Aonach Eagach. The snows were pink in the dawn as we ascended to the Chancellor, and pink again in the dusk as we regained level ground. Our fingers were sticky on our axes from the cold.

Not us.
Edited to stay on topic.
None of us wore a helmet, though I suppose that any tumble could have been long enough to render a helmet useless.

[pjclinch]

I think so, and I've used ice-skating as an example myself as an activity where cultures affect helmet use. Free-for all sessions very few bother, despite falling on to a hard surface for numerous patrons being practically inevitable. Figure skating, with technically difficult routines that involve some degree of falling (particularly in practice), I've never seen anyone wear one. Hockey, absolutely 100%, and even without the chap who died recently when his neck was sliced by a skate I think it's pretty obviously sensible. Speed skating, long track nobody wears them in competition, when I've been trying a few laps of the Alkmaar schaatsbaan there were a few, mainly relatively elderly people using them but most not (I did fall over and hit my head... it hurt, but not so much I cursed not having a lid). Short track, absolutely everyone wears because falls are very common and races frequent, so you don't want a headache in the next round (plus the lots of folk sliding around out of control after a fall with blades on their feet).

Interesting - I've only watched competitive short-track, I didn't realise the long track people went lid-free!

Most long-track is pairs racing in an inner and outer lane and the only interaction between the skaters on the track is on the change-over straight where the leading skater takes right of way if the two are in conflict (usually only if one is a fair bit quicker than the other). Effectively they're time trials and though they're going quite a bit quicker than the short-track folk the whole event is much more predictable and falls are unusual (I think it's fair to say that "predictable" and "falls are unusual" are not phrases one would associate with short track!).

There's now team-pursuit and mass-start on the 400m long track, the latter being a bit like a track cycling points race and they do wear lids for that. The justification is, I imagine, with lots of folk wanting to take the same line at the same place at the same time your potential for falls is considerably higher than the usual two-up TTs.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

You make me very jealous. I think that ridgewalking on a day like that in winter is very heaven. You are suspended on a narrow ribbon of snow in the sky.
I remember a day like that on the Aonach Eagach. The snows were pink in the dawn as we ascended to the Chancellor, and pink again in the dusk as we regained level ground. Our fingers were sticky on our axes from the cold.
Edited to stay on topic.
None of us wore a helmet, though I suppose that any tumble could have been long enough to render a helmet useless.

The main point of helmets in mountaineering isn't so often from you falling but things falling on you. Particularly when climbing roped pitches in pairs the lower climber can expect to get a rain of at least ice-chips from above and possibly quite a bit worse.

But just plain falling over is possible too. On one occasion at a Uni mountaineering club meet the relatively more experienced members spent a day teaching new folk how to use axes and crampons at Cairngrom. A pal who was doing this very sensibly wore his helmet for all the tricky stuff though took it off for the (technically easy) walk-out, and crossing one of the ski pistes not far from the car park he slipped on a patch of ice, whacked his head and spent the next couple of days in Raigmore!
I further note that the pavements on the way in to work this morning were considerably slippier (with lots of black ice) than most of what I was wandering across at the weekend, and I haven't seen anyone else walking in to the hospital today wearing a helmet!

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

You make me very jealous. I think that ridgewalking on a day like that in winter is very heaven. You are suspended on a narrow ribbon of snow in the sky.
I remember a day like that on the Aonach Eagach. The snows were pink in the dawn as we ascended to the Chancellor, and pink again in the dusk as we regained level ground. Our fingers were sticky on our axes from the cold.
Edited to stay on topic.
None of us wore a helmet, though I suppose that any tumble could have been long enough to render a helmet useless.

The main point of helmets in mountaineering isn't so often from you falling but things falling on you. Particularly when climbing roped pitches in pairs the lower climber can expect to get a rain of at least ice-chips from above and possibly quite a bit worse.

But just plain falling over is possible too. On one occasion at a Uni mountaineering club meet the relatively more experienced members spent a day teaching new folk how to use axes and crampons at Cairngrom. A pal who was doing this very sensibly wore his helmet for all the tricky stuff though took it off for the (technically easy) walk-out, and crossing one of the ski pistes not far from the car park he slipped on a patch of ice, whacked his head and spent the next couple of days in Raigmore!
I further note that the pavements on the way in to work this morning were considerably slippier (with lots of black ice) than most of what I was wandering across at the weekend, and I haven't seen anyone else walking in to the hospital today wearing a helmet!

Pete.

On a ridge of course, little falls from above!
I bought a lid later for more technical stuff. I remember ducking my helmeted head into the slope, so that the incoming hit the back of my neck.
When walking to the paper shop yesterday I swapped my walking stick for one with a spike. I reflected that fifty years ago I revelled in snow and ice, but now I am reduced to very careful movement on a level pavement.
Blackshaw's recommendation, when on a ridge, was that if your partner fell to one side, you should throw yourself down the other! That is, if you were roped together. He did add that you should be sure of to which side they had gone! I am glad that I never needed to put this tactic in execution.

[pjclinch]

On a ridge of course, little falls from above!

But there are some interesting ups and downs as well as alongs on the whole A-E route, of course...

When walking to the paper shop yesterday I swapped my walking stick for one with a spike. I reflected that fifty years ago I revelled in snow and ice, but now I am reduced to very careful movement on a level pavement.

In the photo from the weekend I'm sporting some Kahtoola Microspikes, see https://kahtoola.com/traction/microspik ... -traction/.
They'll go over soft shoes as well as stiff boots and are really good for when crampons are more of a menace than a help. Rather wish I'd worn them this morning... Highly recommended! (I think Saturday was the first time I've worn them up a mountain though I've been using them for a few years.)

Pete.

[Stevek76]

and that goes for proving helmets are either significantly positive for cyclist safety or significantly bad.

It's quite telling though that part of the reason such evidence is lacking is because none of the countries who've implemented helmet laws collect sufficient data on use of cycling as a mode of a transport.

It's almost as if they don't actually care about cyclists at all...

[drossall]

It's quite telling though that part of the reason such evidence is lacking is because none of the countries who've implemented helmet laws collect sufficient data on use of cycling as a mode of a transport.

I believe that there have been some issues with collecting sufficient data because there aren't actually enough relevant accidents. Someone pointed out that the typical hospital, for example, might see one or two a year, or none at all.

It's worth keeping in mind always the bigger picture here, that the major health-related effects of cycling are benefits that depend on whether people do it at all.