Is there any good way to challenge "helmet saved her life"?

[mjr]

So there's been another car-cycle crash near me, landing the rider in hospital, who'll live. I don't know any more than that about the crash itself. The rider was a racer, so was wearing a helmet, so at least two other racers started posting the pic various places online with various helmet-promoting comments.

Long story short, what's the best way to counteract that sort of helmet promotion without it becoming an almightly flamewar? Is the only option to ignore it at the time, wait a while, then post an unrelated story against helmet use? I've scanned a few threads in this subforum without spotting any other ideas, but sorry if this has been covered already.

If nothing else, it seems like mispromotion that might lead to misplaced belief in invulnerability because typical helmets aren't designed for car-cycle crashes. I can understand why racers wear them because it's a strange type of riding, but I feel they'll probably do more harm than good to relaxed riders.

[Psamathe]

I don't know the details of the accident so it is only my thoughts below (also I do wear a helmet, I don't like them but as a novice am "uncertain" and absolutely don't want them made compulsory and would prefer the Highway Code re-phrase to e.g. "some cyclists like to use ...").

I would find out much more about the accident before starting to argue against "helmet saved his life". It is possible that in the particular case the helmet really was a life saver (I'm sure that under certain circumstances they are). To start countering the posted pro-helmet comments only to find out how it really did help would weaken your/the case made by those resisting the compulsory helmets lobbyists.

Also, commenting on specific accidents is difficult. Individuals know individuals and there is a tragedy involved. Understandably, under such circumstances people are not always as receptive to differing viewpoints. I would think a well argued case maybe citing older examples as a separate thread/article would achieve more.

But just my opinion.

Ian

[irc]

Long story short, what's the best way to counteract that sort of helmet promotion without it becoming an almightly flamewar?

Can't promise anything on the flame war but quoting facts beats anecdotes.

How many "helmet saved my life" claims are true? Almost none. The New Zealand helmet law was introduced in 1994. In 1993 there were 17 cyclist deaths. For 1994 onwards the stats were

15 15 13 12 16 8 19 10 14 6

On numbers alone about 3 lives saved per year. Or was it? Cycling cycling decreased by approx 22% between 1993 and 1997. So no change really on a per mile basis. So in New Zealand I'd say almost every "helmet saved my life" claim is false. I see no reason UK helmets would be any more effective.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1008.html

Another way to look at the stats is to compare the trend in fatalities over time betweenh non helmet wearing pedestrian fatalities and cyclists with an increasing percentage wearing helmets. If helmets prevented many deaths then the cyclist rate would improve V the ped rate. It doesn't.

1071-4.gif (7.23 KiB) Viewed 980 times

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html

[Dean]

"It's [rude word removed] tasteless to use someone else's accident as an excuse to get on your favourite hobby horse."

[beardy]

I suppose you could excuse them, if their friend has just had a crash and they genuinely believe a lid would have helped.

[Dean]

Note the quotation marks, Beardy.

[irc]

A short version -

It is impossible to say what difference a helmet made in any particular crash. The evidence though is that very few fatalities are prevented by helmets.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

[irc]

"It's <i>[rude word removed]</i> tasteless to use someone else's accident as an excuse to get on your favourite hobby horse."

Not sure who you are referring to. I presume it is the friends of the crashed cyclist using his crash to promote helmets? Seems a pretty common reaction though when a cyclist, helmeted or not, is killed/seriously injured then helmet promotion often follows. In many cases addressing the causes of the crash would be more useful.

[Dean]

It was a suggestion of how the op could address the issue without appearing to be a helmet obsessive. Quoting stats is hardly an appropriate human response to an emotive subject.

Without the details, though, who knows. If the cyclist broke her leg, then there's a very obvious riposte.

[irc]

It was a suggestion of how the op could address the issue without appearing to be a helmet obsessive. Quoting stats is hardly an appropriate human response to an emotive subject.

Without the details, though, who knows. If the cyclist broke her leg, then there's a very obvious riposte.

Not a bad idea for the OP as a short response then. Though sometimes emotive responses need to be countered with facts.

[[XAP]Bob]

look to the root cause, brush off the helmet saved her life posts with the above couple of points, but focus on the accident itself. the lid is probably irrelevant - maybe the sense of securoty it gave contributed to the incident in the first place?

[pjclinch]

Long story short, what's the best way to counteract that sort of helmet promotion without it becoming an almightly flamewar?

Look at the comments on any online helmet story on a general cycling site (e.g. road.cc in the last few days on the story of Laura Trott revising her stance from compulsion to personal choice) and it's soon apparent that you're dealing with entrenched attitudes and you that you can't confuse people with facts when their minds are made up.

So in terms of widespread publication to the general public I suspect Chris Boardman's approach is as good as any, which is refuse to go in to it because it always expands to fill available space while reaching no conclusions, and go about your business pointedly refusing to be killed or turned into a vegetable while not wearing one for general cycling.

With smaller audiences it's worth using stuff like facts and logic (according to who they are and how receptive they might be), but walking the walk (or rather cycling the cycle) like you talk the talk is a good basic start.

Pete.

[mjr]

Oh I thought Chris Boardman refused to go into his opposition because he speaks for British Cycling who compel riders in sportives to wear helmets.

[RickH]

Oh I thought Chris Boardman refused to go into his opposition because he speaks for British Cycling who compel riders in sportives to wear helmets.

As far as I am aware, British Cycling does not organise any sportives. For competition (& possibly training - Pro riders at least are required to wear one for training) then their policy will generally be in line with UCI rules. For leisure rides, i.e. the Sky Ride on-road events - both the big and "local" ones, helmet wearing is officially encouraged for adults (but compulsory for under 18s).

For other sportive events it is up to the organisers to decide their policy on helmets (whether or not we agree with their decision).

Rick.

[[XAP]Bob]

Oh I thought Chris Boardman refused to go into his opposition because he speaks for British Cycling who compel riders in sportives to wear helmets.

No, it's just not the discussion worth having in national media.