Police advice to wear cycle helmets

[mjr]

I will never, ever forget the face of the ambulance attendant that revisited my cubicle in casualty after i was knocked off my bike, and the sheer relief on her face on finding I was OK. Nor the glances to/from the bruise on my forehead and my damaged helmet, which gave me a damn site more protection than any statistic.

I've rarely read such reckless helmet promotion. They are absolutely not designed for being "knocked off" your bike and any saving in that situation is pretty much a fluke. Chris Boardman said "I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect." Certainly, a helmet would not have lessened my head injury when a car hit me (I didn't have one!) but maybe its weight or size would have caused my head to hit the floor and smash the helmet spectacularly.

Also, far more people claim to have been saved than were ever killed, even when far more cycled, plus casualty rates don't fall with increased helmet use, which is good reason to suspect helmet use causes some crashes somehow. It's strange how non users don't report such horrific crashes so often and keep on posting, isn't it?

[bovlomov]

You start with this

You joke, surely? I must say Its a long time since I read anything so ridiculous.

and then post this

They - and police and fire officers - also see the upset relatives of victims and quite rightly have a view that is not one sided, it is realistic. I will never, ever forget the face of the ambulance attendant that revisited my cubicle in casualty after i was knocked off my bike, and the sheer relief on her face on finding I was OK. Nor the glances to/from the bruise on my forehead and my damaged helmet, which gave me a damn site more protection than any statistic.

Hmmm.. You measure the effectiveness of helmets by the looks on faces rather than by the facts?

[landsurfer]

Soft lips .. I assume that whether your cycling or walking to work you wear a helmet at all times .... do your A&E colleagues also wear helmets while cycling, walking to work and in their cars ?

[thirdcrank]

A local Parish/Town News Release from the crime prevention group included some advice for cyclists, it says;

" Always wear a helmet, as it may help to prevent serious head injuries, make sure it fits you and conforms to current British Standards. "

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/cyc ... d-security added a link to one police force.

.... (edited to save space) ...

The overall evidence is not sufficiently sound to justify advising cyclists to wear cycle helmets for normal cycling. A suitable warning should be given that they may not improve overall safety.

In effect, the crime prevention group of an unidentified parish/ town (council?) summarises a part of the HC. As originally posted, there was nothing obvious in the text to connect this to the "police" thread title. There's now a link to advice from W Yorks Police issued at some time during the preparations for the TdeF in Yorkshire July 2014.

This is the signal for YAHT (Yet another helmet thread.)

What's the plan? We don't know the council involved so we can't lobby them to ignore the HC. I fancy it would be futile lobbying a police force to ignore it. To paraphrase a well-know satirical mag, please see previous helmet threads ad nauseam.

[softlips]

So why not attack them using their own tactics?
We non-helmet wearers, need an argument that is short, succinct, and with (real) common sense.

Listing all the facts is boring and off-putting.

Nice and simple....... given that pedestrian injuries outnumber cyclist head injuries by a large number - why are you not wearing one?

Every single fact they use can be turned around to question their lack of helmet

What's the ratios of of who cycle and people who walk?

[Mick F]

The graph I posted up thread was lifted from yet another thread of this nature.
From what I remember, it is corrected for numbers of each activity.
Search for if if you want.

The surprising figure - to me at least - is the number of head injuries for car occupants and that no-one is campaigning for car occupants to wear helmets.

[landsurfer]

What's the ratios of of who cycle and people who walk?

Good point , head injuries per mile travelled, however that would have be corrected for the different environments we travel in.
Not sure how that would work and i suspect it may be quite subjective.

[Cunobelin]

So why not attack them using their own tactics?
We non-helmet wearers, need an argument that is short, succinct, and with (real) common sense.

Listing all the facts is boring and off-putting.

Nice and simple....... given that pedestrian injuries outnumber cyclist head injuries by a large number - why are you not wearing one?

Every single fact they use can be turned around to question their lack of helmet

What's the ratios of of who cycle and people who walk?

Per mile then cycling is safer with Pedestrians 49 deaths per billion kilometres travelled and cyclists far less at only 34 deaths which makes cycling far safer than walking



According to Wardlaw in the BMJ:

Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping


Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more “dangerous” than a mile of cycling.

Again why are we demanding helmet use for the safer group?

Two patients arrive in A and E with a similar head injury, from and identical mechanism

One is a cyclist and is castigated for not wearing a helmet, they are irresponsible and foolhardy for not having "prevented" that injury
The other is a pedestrian,... that is it, the injury is acceptable, they had no responsibility , they made a sensible decision and have no role to play in preventing the injury


Either helmets could have saved both and should have been worn by both, or it should be acceptable for neither to wear a helmet

It still comes to the dangerous hypocrisy of the health system and a blatant disregard for any form of evidence based practice

[Cunobelin]

The closest comparison with the faux medical opinions and claims is the Flu Vaccine

We have a method of preventing flu through a vaccine, the most vulnerable groups are:

anyone aged 65 and over
pregnant women
children and adults with an underlying health condition (such as long-term heart or respiratory disease)
children and adults with weakened immune systems


Yet the medical profession then only promote the use of the vaccine for fit healthy males in the 18-21 age group and accept the deaths and suffering of the at risk groups

[pjclinch]

The surprising figure - to me at least - is the number of head injuries for car occupants and that no-one is campaigning for car occupants to wear helmets.

As Goldacre & Spiegelhalter point out in their BMJ editorial, the cycle helmet debate isn't framed by facts so much as it is by culture and psychology. In the UK "we know" that driving is an entirely normal, safe activity that doesn't require any special equipment. Furthermore, "we know" that cycling is dangerous, so it's important you should wear hi-viz and crash helmets.

This extends to A&E doctors, who deal with the car crash victims with nasty head injuries and then drive home without a second thought, or who deal with the rather rarer cyclist and think how terribly dangerous cycling is without a second thought. Getting past the cultural default wiring is difficult to do, even when you know you're doing it.

In the UK it's very easy to find A&E doctors who think it's mad not to wear a helmet to ride a bike. In NL it's very easy to find A&E doctors that cycle to work without a crash helmet (and despite the safer cycling in NL, with the much greater rates of cycling they'll see more cyclists through their doors than their UK counterparts).

Pete.

[Si]

Not quite sure how the graph works per mile travelled? Fair enough for walking*, cycling, driving, but how do you rate crime in a per mile travelled comparison?

* or is it? Should we also have a similar graph of per hour spent doing the activity as for any journey I'll go four or five times faster on the bike than walking and so spend four or five times longer subjected to risk when on foot.

Even then it's still a tad simplistic....for instance an 'infirm' person (i.e. a person who might be at greater risk of falling over) is more likely to walk than cycle, and thus may skew the figures if there are a lot of them.

No way am I arguing for h*lm*ts, but I am arguing against not interpreting data correctly when making a decision on them.

[Mick F]

No way am I arguing for h*lm*ts, but I am arguing against not interpreting data correctly when making a decision on them.

Utterly agree with you.

I actually can't remember which one of these numerous threads the graph came from, or the background to it, but if it were in favour of cyclists wearing helmets (rather than the other way round), you could bet your bottom dollar that the pro-hemeters would be publicising it right left and centre.

It may have issues with respect to statistics and analysis, but it's a good graphic representation of the different risks in different situations. It shows that the figures can be interpreted in different ways.

[Cunobelin]

The surprising figure - to me at least - is the number of head injuries for car occupants and that no-one is campaigning for car occupants to wear helmets.

As Goldacre & Spiegelhalter point out in their BMJ editorial, the cycle helmet debate isn't framed by facts so much as it is by culture and psychology. In the UK "we know" that driving is an entirely normal, safe activity that doesn't require any special equipment. Furthermore, "we know" that cycling is dangerous, so it's important you should wear hi-viz and crash helmets.

This extends to A&E doctors, who deal with the car crash victims with nasty head injuries and then drive home without a second thought, or who deal with the rather rarer cyclist and think how terribly dangerous cycling is without a second thought. Getting past the cultural default wiring is difficult to do, even when you know you're doing it.

In the UK it's very easy to find A&E doctors who think it's mad not to wear a helmet to ride a bike. In NL it's very easy to find A&E doctors that cycle to work without a crash helmet (and despite the safer cycling in NL, with the much greater rates of cycling they'll see more cyclists through their doors than their UK counterparts).

Pete.

Some years ago I was on a training course on evidence based practice and one of the attendees made a massive error....... he rode in without a helmet, and was seen to do so

During the Coffee break he was (to put it politely) harangued by a Casualty Nurse for this heinous sin

I simply asked her whether in the light of the course she could enlighten us what evidence she was basing this on. She stated it was "common sense" and didn't need evidence.

She had never heard of Rivara and Thompson, Wardlaw, Hillman or even read a single paper on helmet effectiveness, yet still felt that she had teh right to impose her ill informed and personal decision and interpretation on others as a "professional opinion"

Apparently evidence based practice does not apply in this scenario

[Mick F]

Excellent post.
Thank you.

[Stevek76]

So why not attack them using their own tactics?
We non-helmet wearers, need an argument that is short, succinct, and with (real) common sense.

Listing all the facts is boring and off-putting.

Quite, my usual first call is to point out that if they consider that cycling is worthy of a helmet then why aren't they wearing one in the car/endless list of other activities with similar/greater risk of head injury.

Doesn't normally convince them but does usually stop the pro helmet preaching.