Review of neck injuries and cycle helmet use

[thirdcrank]

... Why do the likes of Cycling UK, (... ) maintain a neutral stance on their use

IIRC, back in the days before the immediacy of the internet, the then head honcho (not their official title) of the CTC decided that neutrality on issues like this was the only practical approach. And that has persisted eg with a special section of this forum

[Mike Sales]

In Australia the helmet law produced a huge change in the proportion of cyclists wearing a helmet. It went from about a third to near one hundred per cent, which is understandable given the size of fines. A jump this size should have made it clear whether mass helmet wearing was saving cyclists' lives. The results ought to have been a convincing proof, if helmets worked, and would surely have been widely publicised . In fact the casualty rate scarcely changed, though the number of miles cycled decreased. The Australian casualty rate is two or three times ours still, and in that sunny, sporty nation rather fewer miles are ridden than here.
In the Netherlands helmets are rarely worn, and many more people ride bikes, to school, work and shopping. They become casualties at a rate a fraction of British cyclists.
Of course, you say, they have all those facilities. Yes, doesn't that show what works?
We can imitate dangerous Australia or safe Netherlands.
I could have selected other countries to illustrate. Curiously the Anglo-Saxon countries are the dangerous, helmeted ones. The more social democratic, North European states are bareheaded but safe.
The more we go on about helmets, the less energy and publicity is expended on what might help get many more people riding safely. Helmets are pushed by the velophobic. We have a moral duty to protect ourselves from the danger presented by motors, say the drivers. Then they would not have to be so careful around cyclists!

[pjclinch]

... Why do the likes of Cycling UK, (... ) maintain a neutral stance on their use

IIRC, back in the days before the immediacy of the internet, the then head honcho (not their official title) of the CTC decided that neutrality on issues like this was the only practical approach. And that has persisted eg with a special section of this forum

That doesn't really answer the question.
Why was it considered "the only practical approach", particularly when many other cycling organisations were happy to push them and the likes of Roger Geffen seem much better availed of the evidence than contemporaries in other such bodies?

Pete

[pjclinch]

Helmets are pushed by the velophobic. We have a moral duty to protect ourselves from the danger presented by motors, say the drivers. Then they would not have to be so careful around cyclists!

This ignores the fact that many pushing helmets are cyclists, indeed with the "keen" and "avid" sub-branches some of the loudest voices.

Pete.

[millimole]

... Why do the likes of Cycling UK, (... ) maintain a neutral stance on their use

IIRC, back in the days before the immediacy of the internet, the then head honcho (not their official title) of the CTC decided that neutrality on issues like this was the only practical approach. And that has persisted eg with a special section of this forum

That doesn't really answer the question.
Why was it considered "the only practical approach", particularly when many other cycling organisations were happy to push them and the likes of Roger Geffen seem much better availed of the evidence than contemporaries in other such bodies?

Pete

My recollection is that helmet discussion was corralled into a separate area because discussions went beyond 'robust' and became unpleasant and angry. The discussions popped up in every sub-forum and they all went the same way.
The pragmatic solution was to create a board purely for helmet discussion so that members could read / not read these arguments for themselves.
Another deciding point may have been that helmet discussions are circular with no apparent conclusion, and no change of mind of the combatants.

[pjclinch]

IIRC, back in the days before the immediacy of the internet, the then head honcho (not their official title) of the CTC decided that neutrality on issues like this was the only practical approach. And that has persisted eg with a special section of this forum

That doesn't really answer the question.
Why was it considered "the only practical approach", particularly when many other cycling organisations were happy to push them and the likes of Roger Geffen seem much better availed of the evidence than contemporaries in other such bodies?

My recollection is that helmet discussion was corralled into a separate area because discussions went beyond 'robust' and became unpleasant and angry. The discussions popped up in every sub-forum and they all went the same way.
The pragmatic solution was to create a board purely for helmet discussion so that members could read / not read these arguments for themselves.
Another deciding point may have been that helmet discussions are circular with no apparent conclusion, and no change of mind of the combatants.

That's an answer to a different question: why does the forum have the helmet gaol?, as opposed to why does CUK have a helmet-neutral stance with a stated and published organisational policy (that is completely independent of the forum)? (i.e., https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets)

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

Helmets are pushed by the velophobic. We have a moral duty to protect ourselves from the danger presented by motors, say the drivers. Then they would not have to be so careful around cyclists!

This ignores the fact that many pushing helmets are cyclists, indeed with the "keen" and "avid" sub-branches some of the loudest voices.

Pete.

I am well aware of cycling helmet pushers, as a reader of this forum how could I not be?
I did think of addressing them as I typed.
I was making a different point.
One of my aims in posting is always brevity, and to try to cover all aspects of a complex debate in a single post can be a mistake.

[Mike Sales]

Helmets are pushed by the velophobic. We have a moral duty to protect ourselves from the danger presented by motors, say the drivers. Then they would not have to be so careful around cyclists!

This ignores the fact that many pushing helmets are cyclists, indeed with the "keen" and "avid" sub-branches some of the loudest voices.

Pete.

We are all well aware of our vulnerability on the road and feeling the need for protection is utterly understandable.
It would be great if helmets were the answer to our problem.
I am addressing those cyclists when I argue here that helmets are not a good solution, and are in fact a diversion from better routes to safety, and an alibi for those who actually present the danger.
Some drivers are clear on why they think cycle helmets are a good idea, and some use the absence of a helmet as a reason that the injured cyclist is to blame for their own injury.

[Jdsk]

It's perfectly possible to have a polite informed discussion about what is known and what isn't known about cycle helmets.

It does require some agreement about the ground rules for the discussion. I've proposed the ones that I would like on many occasions.

They don't include starting by classifying other people into camps and labelling them depending on what you think they think.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

It's perfectly possible to have a polite informed discussion about what is known and what isn't known about cycle helmets.

It does require some agreement about the ground rules for the discussion. I've proposed the ones that I would like on many occasions.

They don't include starting by classifying other people into camps and labelling them depending on what you think they think.

Jonathan

If this is addressed to me I would point out that I am always clear that I refer to certain groups of drivers who identify themselves by the views they express. Not to be able to refer to those views would prevent refutation.
Perhaps I need to say that I am sure that the drivers who read this forum are much more enlightened and always drive immaculately around us.

[Jdsk]

...
If this is addressed to me I would point out that I am always clear that I refer to certain groups of drivers who identify themselves by the views they express. Not to be able to refer to those views would prevent refutation.
Perhaps I need to say that I am sure that the drivers who read this forum are much more enlightened and always drive immaculately around us.

I can only suggest rereading your own posts, for example in this thread.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

...
If this is addressed to me I would point out that I am always clear that I refer to certain groups of drivers who identify themselves by the views they express. Not to be able to refer to those views would prevent refutation.
Perhaps I need to say that I am sure that the drivers who read this forum are much more enlightened and always drive immaculately around us.

I can only suggest rereading your own posts, for example in this thread.

Jonathan

I think that we will have to agree to differ.

[cycle tramp]

Helmets are pushed by the velophobic. We have a moral duty to protect ourselves from the danger presented by motors, say the drivers. Then they would not have to be so careful around cyclists!

This ignores the fact that many pushing helmets are cyclists, indeed with the "keen" and "avid" sub-branches some of the loudest voices.

Pete.

Which is the other reason for me leaving the forum...

..if they want to suggest that I wear a helmet, they'll now have to tell me to my face...

[LancsGirl]

In the Netherlands helmets are rarely worn, and many more people ride bikes, to school, work and shopping. They become casualties at a rate a fraction of British cyclists.

13/19 is indeed a fraction. Not a very small one though. See page 25
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN- ... _FINAL.pdf

[SwiftyDoesIt]

years of data from Ice hockey concluded that head and neck injuries went up post increase and latterly helmet wearing enforcement.

Several Ice Hockey papers admit that helmets have had significant detrimental effects from wearing due to extra risk taking. Only things like changing the rules rgds checking from behind as one example have had a benefit according to another paper, and of course enforcement of penalties and even match bans for those meting out the stick to the head etc. have seen a change in outcomes.

These positive changes, are often then pushed forward as being down to helmets which are complete nonsense, it's not shown in any sport or activityy anwhere unless you manipulate the research and data sets to suit the narrative!

In gridiron, they introduce new 'improved' helmets regularly and concussions didn't change.
They then changed the helmet to helmet contact rules, concussions went down 15% in ONE season!