"Denialism" and cycle helmets

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Post Reply
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by bovlomov »

Vorpal wrote:Hard hats worn on construction sites occasionally encounter forces that exceed their proven design limits, such as dropped objects that are large enough, or have been dropped from high enough to exceed legislated standards.

Therefore they are pointless?

Similarly wearing leathers or helmets on motorcycles?

The frame of a car? The roll cage of a racing car? The roll over protective structure on a tractor?

All of these are safety systems which sometimes have their design parameters exceeded.

Does that make them useless? Should we tell race car drivers that they must never exceed a particular speed (100 mph?) because that increases the risk they will have an accident which exceeds the capability of the roll cage to protect them? Or a tractor operator that they must never operate on hills?


Surely the wearer should have a realistic expectation that the design parameters exceed events in the overwhelming proportion of cases. That probably applies to the examples you give, but does that apply to cycle helmets?

Safety equipment with only limited protection can give the wearer an unjustified sense of security, making them even more vulnerable. I'm thinking of gardening gloves.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by Mick F »

The more vulnerable you are - and feel - the more care you will take.
Mick F. Cornwall
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by Vorpal »

bovlomov wrote:Surely the wearer should have a realistic expectation that the design parameters exceed events in the overwhelming proportion of cases. That probably applies to the examples you give, but does that apply to cycle helmets?

Safety equipment with only limited protection can give the wearer an unjustified sense of security, making them even more vulnerable. I'm thinking of gardening gloves.

That is fair criticism. And I think it is a significant cultural issue with helmets (hence the 'helmet saved my life' posts).

I think that a small minority of the users of safety equipment (like my examples) have an unjustified sense of security, and a large proportion of users experience some form of risk compensation.

The perception of protective capability for cycle helmets far exceeds the reality.

My examples were intended to refute the argument that safety equipment must be used within it's design parameters in order to be useful.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Vorpal wrote:Hard hats worn on construction sites occasionally encounter forces that exceed their proven design limits, such as dropped objects that are large enough, or have been dropped from high enough to exceed legislated standards.

Therefore they are pointless?

They aren't pointless, since the majority of incidents they encounter - and are designed to mitigate against - are handled well.
In the same way that I don't think that helmets are pointless because you might get crushed by a lorry. If you get crushed by a lorry then a helmet is completely pointless - but that's a completely different statement. What offends me is that when someone *is* crushed by a lorry the first question that is asked is different depending on whether the person crushed was a pedestrian or a cyclist.


bovlomov wrote:Surely the wearer should have a realistic expectation that the design parameters exceed events in the overwhelming proportion of cases. That probably applies to the examples you give, but does that apply to cycle helmets?


Given the empirical evidence - particularly the A&E admission studies comparing the ratio of limb and head injuries amongst cyclists - I'd suggest that their effectiveness is limited to a very small subset of real world incidents.

I don't think that either Vorpal or PJClinch (both of whom have invested significant time and expertise into the matter) would disagree with that conclusion (that real world effectiveness is approximately zero on a population level), and yet both would be happy to say that there will be incidents where a cycle helmet will provide some protection.

Try to narrow down that 'some protection' and you get a list of possibilities and probabilities... I'm not claiming this is an exhaustive or well researched list, it's a ''reasonable guesstimate"
- Likely to prevent or reduce: abrasions/lacerations
- Somewhat likely to prevent or reduce: bruising/soft tissue damage
- Somewhat unlikely to prevent, may reduce: concussion
- Not likely to prevent/reduce: skull fracture/DAI


And that ignores "incidents' such as MTBing, where the deflection of small branches is considered a benefit, although it's not actually related to the primary design function of a helmet.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by Cunobelin »

Vorpal wrote:Hard hats worn on construction sites occasionally encounter forces that exceed their proven design limits, such as dropped objects that are large enough, or have been dropped from high enough to exceed legislated standards.

Therefore they are pointless?




The original suggestion was that cycle helmets were not needed for rides within the design parameters, but became necessary for rides outside these parameters. Hardly common sense or logic, and could be seen as negligent

The difference between a hard hat on a building site and a cycle helmet is that you can operate within the design parameters of a cycle helmet by not exceeding 12 mph.
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by The utility cyclist »

Yup, hardhats on building sites have helped ... http://www.bisociety.org/despite-hardha ... ion-sites/
Why weren't you wearing your hard hat when you/your co-worker were careless/reckless and not taking precaution when by not doing so they put your life and others at risk :roll:
That in construction the risk factors of impacts are massively more than cycling means you cannot make any comparison. despite stricter regulations, more enforced helmet wearing, you guessed it, deaths on construction sites have been going up (the last two years per 100,000 workers) according to HSE and over the last 10 years has remained broadly level. Average annual fatalities on construction sites 2013-17/18 was 38, the 2017/18 figure was 39. Even with construction helmets (not hard hats) becoming more common place, ones that do not fall off and have all around protection similar to a firefighters helmet, head injuries/deaths on construction sites are not going down.

The biggest change to why deaths and injuries fell since the 80s is not PPE, it's changing procedures (site/plent/employment etc), better training, greater awareness by employers and employees so they are not putting themselves or others at undue risk (risk assessment). Why do you think PPE is the bottom of the pyramid for implementation, why do H&SE not recognise cycle helmets as PPE?
Stop denying the truth!
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by [XAP]Bob »

From that article:
While hardhats provide the best hope of protection from TBI, they can’t protect you if you don’t wear them at all times or if you wear an inferior or damaged hardhat.


So hard hats are of no use unless worn in bed...

Yes I know that's not what the authors intended to say, but it is what they said...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
crazydave789
Posts: 584
Joined: 22 Jul 2017, 10:21pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by crazydave789 »

Does anyone else remember the studies on helmets from the late 80s early 90s where they fiddled the tests to claim that helmets made you safer on tumbles and falls because their tests counted when the helmet touched the ground rather than if the head would have touched without the extra weight adding momentum? naturally on a side fall the body would protect the head. mind you some of those awful gen1 kids helmets
weighed a ton.

When motorcycle helmets became compulsory and accidents plus deaths went up because of the helmets restricting vision and feedback now deaths are down but life changing injuries are up. several horse riders have ended up with more serious injuries because of helmets adding weight and friction to an accident and so the pros and cons go on ad infinitum. as does the debate on whether people take more risks with you if they think you are helmeted up as they cut past you too close as it is.

I've been forced to wear helmets on building sites and work environments and I find they make you more likely to bang your head as indeed any head cover does. they all alter your perception and your height. I've had near identical accidents with and without helmets, without I tucked my head in and rolled on my shoullder, with it I hit the ground harder as the helmet got caught up in the movement due to me being two inches taller.

in the army when the kevlar helmets came out we were forced to wear them, more because they were expensive and to show we still had them rather than any protection they offered. no matter how much you wear them to strengthen your neck you still beat your head on the ground or into walls on a regular basis.

they do help with minor injuries and concussion but less so when it comes to proper impact injuries. watching the cycle races on the TV it seems you need helmets because of the barriers and obstructions the organisers put up rather than the race itself. Also do they encourage you to take less care, cut that corner closer or take a knarlier downhill route. is it a good job you had your helmet on or bad because it makes you take more risks increasing the chances of getting a smack in the first place.

from experience and observation, glasses have more of an impact on rider safety.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by Vorpal »

The utility cyclist wrote:
The biggest change to why deaths and injuries fell since the 80s is not PPE, it's changing procedures (site/plent/employment etc), better training, greater awareness by employers and employees so they are not putting themselves or others at undue risk (risk assessment). Why do you think PPE is the bottom of the pyramid for implementation, why do H&SE not recognise cycle helmets as PPE?
Stop denying the truth!

Who's denying the truth? me? What truth am I denying?

Where did I suggest that hard hats were responsible for any improvement in HSE? I *only* said that exceeding the design limits didn't necessarily make them useless. There's a gaping abyss between 'not necessarily useless', and 'so helpful they account for HSE improvements'.

Hard hats, motorcycle helmets, and other additive equiment, like shields and barriers (not just PPE) all have some of the same issues in common. Things like risk compensation, incorrect use, an unjustified sense of security, etc. can all contribute to negating any beneficial effects of the equipment.

I know very well why PPE is at the bottom of the heirarchy for hazard controls. They are the least effective means to eliminate or control hazards.

My point, however was related to the discussion about whether exceeding the design limits made something useless.

We are basically arguing about whether a not very useful thing remains not very useful, or becomes completely useless when the design parameters have been exceeded.

It's been an interesting discussion, but I don't think I want to invest anymore time in this aspect of it.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Vorpal wrote:My point, however was related to the discussion about whether exceeding the design limits made something useless.

We are basically arguing about whether a not very useful thing remains not very useful, or becomes completely useless when the design parameters have been exceeded.


+1
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
GarethF
Posts: 105
Joined: 16 Sep 2008, 9:00pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by GarethF »

This may be slightly off topic, but I'm going to add my thoughts anyway....

Recently I've seen a number of entries on social media, you'll probably seen a bunch of them yourselves. They all follow a similar format, essentially describing an upsetting or tragic/near tragic episode where a youngster has taken a tumble and come off badly, if only they were wearing a helmet the outcome would have been less bad, followed by a heartfelt plea for all right-thinking parents to never let their offspring saddle up without their helmet. Two of these in particular really got my goat.

1. Child sustains facial trauma while attempting some kind of jump/stunt. The fact of the matter is that a regular helmet would not have prevented the facial injury and depending on the landing could have complicated things further. For this sort of riding he would have needed at least a full face helmet and preferably a neck protector too.

2. Child was knocked off their bike by a car. I find it incredible that the lack of a helmet was considered so appalling while the fact that the motorist had decked a cyclist was just a peripheral detail. Clearly a helmet wouldn't have stopped the car taking them out in the first place.

I hate to see inappropriate conclusions being drawn from observed evidence, and I simply don't understand how it appears to have become socially acceptable for a motorist to knock down a cyclist (helmetted or otherwise). There is too much victim blaming going on in these arguments.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by Vorpal »

GarethF wrote:I hate to see inappropriate conclusions being drawn from observed evidence, and I simply don't understand how it appears to have become socially acceptable for a motorist to knock down a cyclist (helmetted or otherwise). There is too much victim blaming going on in these arguments.

I think that it is exactly this sort of thinking that led to horizon starting this thread.

There is a cultural perception that the truth is 'helmets save lives' and anyone who denies this is liable to be lumped in with flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by pjclinch »

bovlomov wrote:
Surely the wearer should have a realistic expectation that the design parameters exceed events in the overwhelming proportion of cases. That probably applies to the examples you give, but does that apply to cycle helmets?

Safety equipment with only limited protection can give the wearer an unjustified sense of security, making them even more vulnerable. I'm thinking of gardening gloves.


This is a very fair point, but I would suggest you wander in to a bike shop, pick up a helmet box and get reading. Or browse to the web site of a helmet supplier and get reading.

What I've never seen is any suggestion from the actual marketing on the product that I can expect it to do anything much beyond meeting EN1078 or perhaps Snell B95, so while I would completely endorse your suggestion that people aren't getting a straight story when they look at helmets, that story isn't actually coming from the folk making them and sending them to wholesalers and doing the primary marketing. For the carpet of nonsense we have a concoction brewed by various bits of media, medics, Joe & Jane Public and, in large part, cyclists themselves.

I wish I knew how to get realistic expectations across. We've tried giving people, you know, decent information but lots of them aren't having any of it :(

What helmets were originally developed for was use as a better hairnet. In short, if you come off in a race and bang your head, your chances of being able to get back on the bike and finish your race are better than if you weren't wearing it. Though an EN1078 ought to do more than a hairnet in many cases we're still looking at this as a general overview of what helmets are for, and can thus be expected to do.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by pjclinch »

Cunobelin wrote:
The question still remains, common sense says that if you are using "safety equipment" then it should be used within the proven design limits


The design limit is that the vertical component of your fall will be of the order of 12 mph. What percentage of falls do you feel this is unreasonable assumption, roughly?

There is the matter that helmets are pushed in a generic sense as lifesavers well beyond the above, but the actual design spec is the above, and is fair and reasonable, and the actual people making and selling the helmets aren't the ones claiming miraculous powers for them. Their legal folk are far too canny to let Marketing say they'll save your life, and why would they when so many cyclists are doing it for them in an unregulated and unactionable manner?

Once again, 12 mph design constraint is not an issue that relates to your forward speed on a bike, and banging on about it is unhelpful.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Post by Cunobelin »

pjclinch wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
The question still remains, common sense says that if you are using "safety equipment" then it should be used within the proven design limits


The design limit is that the vertical component of your fall will be of the order of 12 mph. What percentage of falls do you feel this is unreasonable assumption, roughly?

There is the matter that helmets are pushed in a generic sense as lifesavers well beyond the above, but the actual design spec is the above, and is fair and reasonable, and the actual people making and selling the helmets aren't the ones claiming miraculous powers for them. Their legal folk are far too canny to let Marketing say they'll save your life, and why would they when so many cyclists are doing it for them in an unregulated and unactionable manner?

Once again, 12 mph design constraint is not an issue that relates to your forward speed on a bike, and banging on about it is unhelpful.

Pete.



You believe that there is only one element to the impact energy, and that it will always be less than 12 mph.I presume that this will also be on teh point of the helmet used in the tests as well?



I will continue to accept the reality that there are other components in the impact speed including a contribution from the forward speed. Feel free to be deny that element



Of course the "claim" that there is only a vertical element will also disprove rotational injuries, inquiries caused by the helmet sliding on the head )or being ejected and a multitude of other issues that should be considered in the effectiveness of cycle helmets
Last edited by Cunobelin on 10 Aug 2018, 10:51am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply