Severe head injury caused by 'not wearing a helmet'

[pwward]

I understand this thinking but it makes me shudder. I worry that helmets will be viewed as necessary and normal as more of us use them and people will be put of starting out cycling. There is a huge public relations problem here. How can one argue that cycling is safe and healthy and then also say a helmet is NEEDED. The unsaid message is that cycling provides enough of a risk of head injury that one should wear a helmet. For me this is nonsense as statistically it's about as risky as being a car occupant or being a pedestrian.

[Andy Tallis]

Not wearing a helmet is the absence of something and as such CANNOT cause a head injury. This assistant deputy coroner should be making the tea and not handing out verdicts if they think that not having a piece of polystyrene round your head can cause head injury. The head injury was caused by the head coming into abrupt contact with a solid object thereofre there is only one relevant question when apportioning blame: who's fault was that contact? If the cyclist then that is the cyclist's fault, if the motorist then the motorist's fault. The lack of a helmet cannot do any harm, cars and concrete can.

I think from another forum this guy was only riding down the shop anyway. Would this coroner like to be told they had to wear a helmet every time they drove to the shop so that other people didn't fell they had to worry about driving into her car?

Andy

[gar]

The Finnish gear was best for the eurovision,
but I don't think it should be made compulsory for cyclists to prevent head injuries, not until they have done enough research to prove that it is a life saver every time.

[Andy Tallis]

And until they inflict the smae things on pedestrians and drivers.

Andy

[Doughboy]

I heard about a guy who was SCALPED when he fell off and skidded along the road on his head.
I've got a lovely head of hair, so I wear a nice smooth helmet to avoid said occurrence.

[thirdcrank]

I am now 61 and I am able to report that whatever else has dropped off or seized up, my head is still covered with hair. However, I now have a very prominent Vee of thinning silver hair at the front although it is still dark round the back. If I look in the mirror, my hair looks all white so I do not see this effect but everybody else can. I have worn helmets consistently when cycling since about 1990 and the geriatric area of hair corresponds pretty well with the area under the air vents which scoop in a huge draught (at least, they do down hill.) So if you are concerned to protect your coiffure, you might do well to get a helmet withoutr vents. Of course, all that sweat may not be good for the hair, just as all the pro-helmet propaganda seems to be very bad for the brains. Mick Agar

[axel_knutt]

It’s easy to demonstrate that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of dying in a crash, but that’s not the same as proving that wearing helmets will reduce the number of fatalities. The chance of dying in a crash also depends on the probability of having the crash in the first place, not just the probability of being hurt.
Each individual has their own personal propensity to take risks, and will automatically adjust their behaviour such that their perception of the risk and the payoff balance one another. If a safety device is used to reduce a risk without also influencing the propensity to take risk, then people simply alter their behaviour to re-establish the original level of risk that they were comfortable with. This is called risk compensation. In other words the benefit of a safety device will tend to be consumed as a performance improvement, not a safety improvement. Examples of this are everywhere: rock climbers attempt trickier manoeuvres when they have ropes, traffic speeds up after a sharp bend is straightened, the speed limit for coaches is raised if they have seat belts fitted, mine fatalities rise after the Davy lamp is introduced, etc etc.
The arguments for compulsory cycle helmets usually cite the “success” of compulsory seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.

Motorcycle Helmets
In the late 1970’s the USA conducted an interesting experiment. The compulsory motorcycle helmet laws were repealed in a geographically diverse group of states that contained 47% of the motorcycle population, and the fatalities were monitored for 3 years. In 1980 the authorities published a report which showed the death rate soaring by over 40% after the laws were repealed. It was circulated worldwide as evidence of the benefit of helmets.
In fact it was evidence of the complete opposite. The graph of rising death rate showed the total fatalities for both the states that repealed the laws and those that retained them. When the two groups are plotted separately it turns out that the death rate rose in both groups for reasons unconnected with the helmet laws. But here’s the point: the death rate in the states that repealed the helmet laws rose by 19% less compared to those that retained them. Clear proof that if riders remove their helmets fatalities go down because they ride more carefully.

Seatbelts
During the 1960’s fatalities among vehicle occupants in Australia had been rising steadily, so in 1970/71 Australia was the first to introduce compulsory seatbelts. The rise in fatalities promptly levelled off, and was taken as clear evidence that seatbelts save lives. On the strength of this another dozen or so countries had followed suit within a decade.
But there was something unusual about Australia, and it wasn’t that seatbelts saved lives. It turns out that Australia was the only country where the death rate in the early 1970’s levelled off, every other country showed a decline. Collectively comparing the countries that had introduced seatbelts with those that hadn’t showed that both groups had enjoyed a decline in fatalities, but the countries without compulsory seatbelts declined by more than those with them.
In 1981 John Adams from UCL published this research in a paper that was reviewed by the UK Department of Transport. They compiled their own internal report that concluded:
“Available data for eight western European countries which introduced a seatbelt law between 1973 and 1976 suggests that it has not led to a detectable change in road deaths …. The results are not compatible with the departments own…. estimates.”
The report also noted that casualties among pedestrians had risen after seatbelts were introduced. The DoT had already decided to introduce legislation, so the report was suppressed and never published.
In 1983 Parliament voted for compulsory seatbelts having never read the DoT report, and after a debate where Adams’ research was dismissed as “bogus” and “eccentric”.
In 1985 the report was leaked to New Scientist.
In 1986 Parliament voted to make seatbelt legislation permanent.
In 1989 the Janssen report concluded that:
“Time series analysis was performed on car driver (and passenger) fatality rates for eight western European countries that passed seatbelt legislation in the seventies. There was no discernible effect of seat belt legislation on the fatality rate.”
In 1991 research by Janssen demonstrated that non-seatbelt wearers do indeed drive faster when they are made to wear belts.
It is particularly interesting to note that of all the scores of reports produced in support of seatbelts during the debate, none of them produced any new evidence. They were all attributable to different organisations chiming in with the same argument based on Australia.

Not much hope for an objective debate on cycle helmets to be found there, then…



Ref:
Risk, John Adams
P.1995. University College London Press.
ISBN 1-85728-068-7

[jb]

I decided to ditch my cycle helmet today in favour of a large sun hat. As I perceived that that there was more likelihood of sun stroke than falling off!

[EssexMan]

third crank.

Thanks for that well researched piece on risk compensation. Does anyone know of a study that demonstrates this in cyclists?

[thirdcrank]

I cannot claim credit for the research - my bit was the bit about grey hair Mick Agar

[thirdcrank]

I speak as somebody with no faith in cycle helmets but I feel it should be said in favour of anyone who chooses to wear one that it does not necessarily follow that they will immediately act more dangerously.

The research quoted above shows that if people are compelled to wear protective clothing/equipment, many will feel able to take more risks. I think it is still fair to expect that a person who freely decides to take extra precautions by wearing a helmet when cycling may continue with their original level of safety consciousness.

What upsets me, and I believe many others is the 'cycling is a dangerous activity so you must wear a helmet' brigade.

[EssexMan]

oops - sorry. Axle knutt, good post.

Have to agree with third crank though. People percieve that riding on the road is dangerous and i feel that a contributary cause is the manic push for cycle helmets that happened in the 90s. I do think its calmed down a bit now ( i wonder what the marketers will do next?)

I also agree with 3rd crank about helmets and choice. I wear a helmet in large cycle packs or off-road, because i percieve that the chance of coming of my bike is much higher in these situations.

[axel_knutt]

i"I feel it should be said in favour of anyone who chooses to wear one that it does not necessarily follow that they will immediately act more dangerously"[/i]

This is to miss the point. In order to negate the benefits of a cycle helmet it doesn't require that people are are deliberately acting differently, or aware of it, or able to calculate probabilities etc. All it requires is that they subconsciously feel safer.
Nor is it likely that you will ever prove or disprove the existence of risk compensation by attempts to measure it directly. Here is Adams on the subject:-

[i]"The original claim that a seat belt law would save 1000 lives a year in Britain was made at a time when there were about 200 billion km travelled every year by unbelted motorists. The promise of the legislation was, in other words that it would reduce the chance of death by 1 in 200 million per km travelled. The change in behaviour required to offset the promised benefit would be equally small, and very difficult to measure directly- perhaps slightly faster or more aggressive driving, or the occasional extra lapse of concentration every few million km."/i

Adams' book is not just about road safety, but about societys attitude to risk in general. He covers some fascinating topics, from the way misguided attempts at quantifying risk bias society against the poor and weak, to the way in which people with different cultural perspectives on risk endlessly throw statistics at one another in the mistaken belief that you can objectivise risk using science.
My favourite little gem is the scandinavian researcher who made a 50% improvement in the saftey of 400 road junctions without actually modifying them in any way. How? Well, he simply applied the statistical method that the Department of Transport use for monitoring the effectiveness of road improvements! It's an error known as regression to mean, but I'll leave you to read it for yourself.....

[axel_knutt]

So what happened to the italics there then? This board needs an edit function!

[thirdcrank]

I am not sure I have missed any points. A population study is just that. An idividual who decides to wear a helmet may have become so terrified by all the publicity that they become even more cautious than they were before, possibly to the extent of abandoning cycling altogether. On the other hand, they may get a (possibly false) feeling of extra safety and become less cautious, even reckless.

While population studies are likely to be an excellent predictor of the overall trend, they cannot have that level of dependability in respect of an individual.