Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use...

[reohn2]

Perversely I agree with most of what you said I'm in favour of freedom of choice, one difference between you and I is that I choose to wear a helmet.
""Helmets save lives" is only a valid statement in certain circumstances and those circumstances are too many and varied to be conclusive."
I wear a helmet in the event of those certain circumstances, but there are deniers who would disagree that helmets can save even one life and want to see everyone cycling bare-headed.

I agree.
The bare head law evangelists and there's only one I know of,do as much harm for cycling as the helmet evangelists IMO.

The Spanish evidence is peer-reviewed, published by the BMJ and refutes the deniers' PoV. Admittedly it's a single-study, but the authors are quite open that "to (their) knowledge, there have been no attempts to analyse personal and environmental characteristics and their relationship with the risk of death."
Regards
tim-b

Once again I agree but with one difference,the paper is inconclusive due to too many variables and so can'tbe trusted .

[Steady rider]

The Spanish evidence is peer-reviewed, published by the BMJ and refutes the deniers' PoV. Admittedly it's a single-study, but the authors are quite open that "to (their) knowledge, there have been no attempts to analyse personal and environmental characteristics and their relationship with the risk of death."

On briefly looking at the paper, IDR value 1.43 for non-use of helmets, Psychophysical circumstances Altered 1.43

The low number of cyclists in the original categories for
the ‘psychophysical circumstances’ variable forced us to
combine alcohol consumption, drug consumption, tiredness, sleepiness and other psychophysical circumstances
into a single ‘altered’ category, obscuring the true association between each type of psychophysical circumstance
and death. Nevertheless, alcohol consumption with and
without a breath test was the most prevalent condition
included in the ‘altered’ category, and showed a direct
association with death. However, this association should
be viewed with caution because of potential shortcomings
in the validity of our data source.

Evaluating Cycling Fatality Risk with a Focus on Cycle Helmet Use Dec. 2018 http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... 4.4opt.pdf
it provides data showing helmeted have in general lower drinking levels and other difference in behaviour, Table 12 for the USA. How much could this account for the difference in their findings?

For Singapore, http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... eb-opt.pdf

Alcohol involvement was zero for
helmeted vs 18 cases for non-helmeted.
Age range 17-49 for helmeted and 10-89
for non-helmeted. Helmeted sustained
4 limb fractures vs 40 for non-helmeted.
The injury severity score was 4.0 for wearers vs 8.8 for non-wearers. The helmeted
group had no children or old people (both
higher risk groups) or any that had been
drinking and they were nearly all recreational/sports cyclists (14 from 17)

For NSW, See Table 1

A quote relating to Germany page 19

Orsi et al. describes Germany’s experience with cycling collisions, observing
that cyclists who did not wear a helmet
were more than twice as likely to have
consumed alcohol

.

also on page 19

Waard et al51 report mentions,
A Finnish study also showed that the
risk on being injured while cycling with
a BAC of 1.0g/l is ten times as larger
than the risk of injury for a sober bicyclist (Olkkonen and Honkanen, 1990).

[The utility cyclist]

Perversely I agree with most of what you said I'm in favour of freedom of choice, one difference between you and I is that I choose to wear a helmet.
""Helmets save lives" is only a valid statement in certain circumstances and those circumstances are too many and varied to be conclusive."
I wear a helmet in the event of those certain circumstances, but there are deniers who would disagree that helmets can save even one life and want to see everyone cycling bare-headed.

I agree.
The bare head law evangelists and there's only one I know of,do as much harm for cycling as the helmet evangelists IMO.

The Spanish evidence is peer-reviewed, published by the BMJ and refutes the deniers' PoV. Admittedly it's a single-study, but the authors are quite open that "to (their) knowledge, there have been no attempts to analyse personal and environmental characteristics and their relationship with the risk of death."
Regards
tim-b

Once again I agree but with one difference,the paper is inconclusive due to too many variables and so can'tbe trusted .

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

[reohn2]

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

That's only fact in part,the other part is opinion.

[Oldjohnw]

I don't promote helmet wearing but this below is not fact but opinion at any level:

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

All?
Massive harm?
Society as a whole?

[Vorpal]

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

That's only fact in part,the other part is opinion.

There is some evidence that helmet promotion puts people off cycling. But the relationship is neither clear, nor definitive.

IMO, it is more a reflection of the culture of risk aversion. That is what harms society, not helmet wearers.

I do have some sympathy for TUC's view on this matter, however, as I do think that focus on the topic has harmed cycle campaigning.

[reohn2]

IMHO the main thing that puts more people off cycling in the UK than anything is fear of motor traffic and it's perceived or actual aggressive nature toward cyclists.
That and an almost total lack of good quality cycling infrastructure.
IMHO helmet compulsion and those that promote such legislation are misguided at best and anti cycling at worst.

[pjclinch]

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

All helmet wearers do massive harm to society as a whole? Really?

Okay, pop quiz, how does...
[youtube]ShbC5yVqOdI[/youtube]
...do "massive harm to society"?

There's nothing quite like wildly overstating your case to put people right off listening to your actual valid points.

[Jdsk]

There's nothing quite like wildly overstating your case to put people right off listening to your actual valid points.

Yes, but it's really helpful when assessing the reliability of other posts.

Jonathan

[The utility cyclist]

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

That's only fact in part,the other part is opinion.

There is some evidence that helmet promotion puts people off cycling. But the relationship is neither clear, nor definitive.

IMO, it is more a reflection of the culture of risk aversion. That is what harms society, not helmet wearers.

I do have some sympathy for TUC's view on this matter, however, as I do think that focus on the topic has harmed cycle campaigning.

Fact is that helmet wearing continues to promote more helmet wearing, helmet wearing weakens how current laws are applied, in fact there is a blatent flouting of the law and discrimination against people on cycles for not conforming to what is not far off de facto law due to the insidious way helmet wearing/promotion has wormed its way into our and others society.

helmet wearers continue to normalise helmet wearing, those not are often attacked, ridiculed, ostracised and at worst blamed for their injury or death and we know as a fact that justice has been perverted due to the whole helmet wearing mantra, that criminals have gotten off completely scot-free due to the way police, CPS and even judges have acted due to the thinking toward cycle helmets/wearing.

Have you forgotten one of the reasons the MET gave for not even referring his killer to CPS? I even spoke to a lady earlier this year who was smashed into by an errant motorist, had a head/brain injury and had her compensation reduced by 30% due to not wearing a helmet, that kind of thing is perverse, never applied in any other part of society and the driver wasn't even prosecuted, sound familiar?

This is due to the onus of safety being pushed onto the vulnerable, the focus has been completely and unlawfully shifted, and yet the numbers of KSIs of people riding bikes in the UK has increased circa 50% since the mid 00s with zero increase in journeys, a small increase in miles travelled (same number of journeys just a bit further), and it was in the mid 00s that helmet wearing/promotion really took off, this was aided in a huge chunk by the change in rules within the UCI and from that that affected all amateur racing and from that club riding. The rest is from hard pushing by EU Road safety dept which has previously insisted (in their Road Safety document of recent years) that UK is safer for cycling due to how much helmet wearing we have compared to Netherlands and Denmark, based on number of deaths alone

Additionally the push by government at local level at least, schools, the victim blaming BS from the dept of transport, THINK, Headway and so many other groups, all having a big negative effect on safe/r cycling.

[The utility cyclist]

All helmet wearers and those that push for people to wear them whilst cycling do massive harm to society as a whole never mind other people riding bikes helmeted or not. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

All helmet wearers do massive harm to society as a whole? Really?

Okay, pop quiz, how does...
[youtube]ShbC5yVqOdI[/youtube]
...do "massive harm to society"?

There's nothing quite like wildly overstating your case to put people right off listening to your actual valid points.

promoting risky/riskier cycling, is that really difficult to grasp for you? As a well known figure he pushes helmet wearing simply by wearing one, he promotes risky cycling through his antics, kids and adults alike copy that, they crash and get hurt, then thank the helmet deity that their life was saved
look at when he first started on the scene, he didn't wear a lid at all, why was that and how did he manage to survive without wearing one?
He is part of the bigger problem, normalising helmet wearing and doing far more riskier activities whilst wearing one which equates to worse outcomes for more people riding.

[reohn2]

promoting risky/riskier cycling, is that really difficult to grasp for you?.......

I've watched many videos of people performing stunts on scooters,skateboarders and inline skaters without helmets,as i've watched DH MTBing with helmets,soapbox derbys,DH sking,Snowboarding halfpipe and DH,etc,etc.All carry an element of risk,some far greater than others.
What you appear to be sayjng is that all such activities should be stopped as it's all a bad influence on the young and impressionable.
That isn't IMO an anti helmet argument but an anti sport argument

[Mike Sales]

What would be best for cycling is a road environment in which nobody feels the need for a helmet.
Some other countries show how this can be achieved, and it is not done by wearing helmets.
The figures show that helmet wearing does not improve cyclist casualty rates.
Promotion of wearing, by propaganda or example, merely diverts energy and attention from effective safety measures.
To that extent helmets are bad for improving cycling safety, or indeed numbers cycling.
They demonstrate that cycling is an unusually dangerous activity, which it is not. Very few other everyday activities are seen to need helmets. Quite reasonably, since they do not protect most of the body and seem a flimsy protection for the head, non-cyclists are not encouraged to take up cycling by the sight of cyclists wearing them.

[PaulaT]

What would be best for cycling is a road environment in which nobody feels the need for a helmet.
Some other countries show how this can be achieved, and it is not done by wearing helmets.
The figures show that helmet wearing does not improve cyclist casualty rates.
Promotion of wearing, by propaganda or example, merely diverts energy and attention from effective safety measures.
To that extent helmets are bad for improving cycling safety, or indeed numbers cycling.
They demonstrate that cycling is an unusually dangerous activity, which it is not. Very few other everyday activities are seen to need helmets. Quite reasonably, since they do not protect most of the body and seem a flimsy protection for the head, non-cyclists are not encouraged to take up cycling by the sight of cyclists wearing them.

Spot on

[reohn2]

What would be best for cycling is a road environment in which nobody feels the need for a helmet.
Some other countries show how this can be achieved, and it is not done by wearing helmets.
The figures show that helmet wearing does not improve cyclist casualty rates.
Promotion of wearing, by propaganda or example, merely diverts energy and attention from effective safety measures.
To that extent helmets are bad for improving cycling safety, or indeed numbers cycling.
They demonstrate that cycling is an unusually dangerous activity, which it is not. Very few other everyday activities are seen to need helmets. Quite reasonably, since they do not protect most of the body and seem a flimsy protection for the head, non-cyclists are not encouraged to take up cycling by the sight of cyclists wearing them.

Spot on

+1