Helmet Law Study in the New Scientist

[Peyote]

Thanks PBA. I was thinking of the behaviour of the population as a whole, rather than specifically individuals, but it's all useful!

So, I'm guessing that when motorcycle helmets where originally suggested similar arguments to those being aired on this thread would've arisen. What I'm wondering was, have those arguments been proven to be true? That is, since the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmets has the motorcycle population reduced. If so, has there been an increase in risk to the motorcycle population?

If there was evidence to suggest this was the case, particularly here in Britain (obviously eveidence already exists abroad), then perhaps the case for discouraging the widespread use helmets would be stronger. Maybe?!

[George Riches]

So, I'm guessing that when motorcycle helmets where originally suggested similar arguments to those being aired on this thread would've arisen. What I'm wondering was, have those arguments been proven to be true? That is, since the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmets has the motorcycle population reduced. If so, has there been an increase in risk to the motorcycle population?

If there was evidence to suggest this was the case, particularly here in Britain (obviously eveidence already exists abroad), then perhaps the case for discouraging the widespread use helmets would be stronger. Maybe?!

For many cycle riding is a casual activity. To do it legally they don't need a licence, a certificate of road-worthyness (MOT) or insurance. For such people the wearing of a helmet would mean a dramatic increase in paraphernalia.

Over the past few days, as I've cycled around Coventry, I've been looking out for other cyclists. I've only done it so far at off peak times. Unfortunately I haven't seen many, about 30 in a couple of hours. Three wore helmets. I wasn't surpised at such a low proportion (quite different from the lycra brigade!), but I was surprised that the majority of cyclists were on pavements. Those sort of people don't wear helmets because, rightly or wrongly, they think that they are pedestrians on wheels. They would stop pedaling if a law banning cycling without a helmet were enforced. Cycling would be just too much bother.

[jimmynoboat]

Thank goodness it is still a matter of preference. I prefer to wear one at all times. I only started wearing a helmet about 16 years ago as an example to my kids. I recently fell off and there is no doubt whatsoever that the helmet saved me from serious injury (only wish I'd been wearing knee pads too!). I have noticed that most of the cyclists I meet out in the country lanes are wearing helmets whilst most of those I meet in towns (certainly last weekend in Shrewsbury) are not.

[Peyote]

For many cycle riding is a casual activity. To do it legally they don't need a licence, a certificate of road-worthyness (MOT) or insurance. For such people the wearing of a helmet would mean a dramatic increase in paraphernalia.

Over the past few days, as I've cycled around Coventry, I've been looking out for other cyclists. I've only done it so far at off peak times. Unfortunately I haven't seen many, about 30 in a couple of hours. Three wore helmets. I wasn't surpised at such a low proportion (quite different from the lycra brigade!), but I was surprised that the majority of cyclists were on pavements. Those sort of people don't wear helmets because, rightly or wrongly, they think that they are pedestrians on wheels. They would stop pedaling if a law banning cycling without a helmet were enforced. Cycling would be just too much bother.

Thanks George, I suppose that motorcycling was probably not viewed in the same way as cycling when helmet legislation was introduced. That is, motorcyclists already had to comply with a raft of other conditions, so wearing a helmet wasn't as much of a change as it would be for cycling. The comparison between motorcycling helmets and cycling helmets fails yet again!

Ah well, it was just a thought!

[PBA]

...I recently fell off and there is no doubt whatsoever that the helmet saved me from serious injury (only wish I'd been wearing knee pads too!)...

Carefull now - you'll start a riot...

I presume your helmet suffered severe damage? Could you describe the incident in more detail - We would like to know your speed, the cause of the accident, How you landed, what your injuries were and what state you helmet was in afterwards.

Then I'll probably let others tear your theory apart!

[CJ]

I recently fell off and there is no doubt whatsoever that the helmet saved me from serious injury (only wish I'd been wearing knee pads too!).

About 30 years ago I fell off like that, hitting my head and also my right knee. Had I been wearing a helmet it would have shown exactly the sort of damage that nowadays produces all these helmet salvation stories, since I lost consciousness for a few seconds and was accordingly kept in hospital under observation for the usual 24 hours.

Any injury resulting in admission to hospital is automatically logged as serious, so had I been wearing a helmet I'm pretty sure that it would have "saved me from serious injury". But from my point of view, speaking as the consumer of this "serious" injury, which merely gave me a headache (and not the worst I've had) plus the inconvenience of a day in hospital, this injury wasn't really serious.

My grazed and painful knee on the other hand, would have been logged as a mild injury, if recorded at all. From my point of view however, this knee really was a big deal! It transpires that the impact damaged the cartilage under my kneecap, causing it to become painful and completely seize up, 60 miles into my next big ride. For six months I couldn't go more than 5 miles without that happening again. For a year after that I could only ride in flat places, on the tandem with wifely assistance and a shortened crank on the right. For another ten years I had to be extremely careful not to push too hard on the right, keep my saddle high and the gears low or else it would begin to seize up again. I've become attuned to its early warnings and still get an occasional reminder, if I forget and go too hard in the first couple of hours of a ride.

That knee injury really did have a serious effect on my life. But I think I'd find knee protectors even more uncomfortable to cycle in than a helmet - which as you might expect after such an experience, I did try to wear for several years. Upon learning that my experience was typical, that the overwhelming majority of "serious" cycling head injuries likewise go home the next day, I nowadays wear the helmet only when the risk of a fall exceeds that of sweat in the eyes - e.g. when it's icy!

[jimmynoboat]

I presume your helmet suffered severe damage? Could you describe the incident in more detail - We would like to know your speed, the cause of the accident, How you landed, what your injuries were and what state you helmet was in afterwards.

As I said at the start I'm glad it's a mattter of choice and I do not campaign one way or the other. If I were to take a stance it would be for free choice.

Helmet has two cracks from, I assume, the impact. I remember quite a thump as my head hit the ground. It also has a scraped and, slightly flattened area which, had it been my unprotected head would have been pretty ugly. It happend on a cycle path with which I was very familure. The path dips down then up but also turns. There is loose gravel on the bend. I think I decided too late that I was going too fast (I guess about 15Mph) and for some obscure reason I braked. I did have a choice as I could simply have carried on and gone up the grassy bank opposite. The bike went from under me and I hit the ground like a sack of spuds on my left side. I suffered the usual knee and elbow grazes plus shoulder, knuckles of left hand, sliced tip of middle fingerand deeply grazed first joint of right thumb (I may never play the piano again!). A 3/4 inch gash to the face (which needed glueing) where my glasses were forced into the skin. I seemed to be sliding forever and had plenty of time to think how stupid I'd been.

[Tony]

With regard to the questions about motorcycles, the Government witheld legisaltion until voluntary use had exceeded a trigger point. They did the same with seat belts, which came in ten years after helmet laws.
The point was that those who voluntarily wore a lid hastened the introduction of compulsion. Note that I am not debating m/cycle helmet pros and cons,merely highlighting how the legislation arrived.

[davebax]

. . . the Government witheld legisaltion until voluntary use had exceeded a trigger point. They did the same with seat belts, which came in ten years after helmet laws.
The point was that those who voluntarily wore a lid hastened the introduction of compulsion.

Exactly! And the other point is that the trigger is not pre-advertised, and may be surprisingly low. We won't know how low until it's too late. Compulsion would be a popular political move with the population as a whole, most of whom are non-cyclists but nevertheless experts on safe cycling, who know that helmets are a good thing.

[meic]

The number of motorcyclists did reduce dramatically around the time of compulsory helmets but probably not because of helmets.
I find the motorcycle helmet a good thing to wear while riding even without crashing. Mine almost certainly saved me from losing ears or nose to frostbite.
Also I imagine the hospitals and morgues had quite a few mangled bodies to help give rise to the demands for helmets. Even if the motorcyclists would have died anyway.
It is more likely that high profile individual injuries will bring on compulsion than moderate numbers of ordinary cyclists getting killed.
I think compulsion will be media led rather than due to filling of morgues or hospitals.

[Phil_Lee]

Does anyone else remember the BR advertisement where Jimmy Saville mentioned the detrimental effects on the heart caused by the stress of driving?
That was banned on the grounds that it was scaremongering.

I think we should be actively campaigning for a similar ban on helmet promotion.

[Cunobelin]

What we need is a higher standard of information.

The pro helmet lobby lies through its teeth and gets away with it with sickening regularity.

The figures provided in Parliament, to the BMA and others by the BHIT were typical as they were claiming that helmets would save more children form death or serious head injury than actually occurred!

I could Google, but the figures were ten times the number of head injuries suffered by ALL cyclists.

This is where the problem lies, anecdotal and falsely inflated figures are lapped up as "evidence" with no form of review validation or rigor.