Helmets Work!!!!!
Discussion
Antony Moxey said:
They're not based on gut feelings but real life long term experiences. We're I to embark on a task I'd never done before I might well research that activity before setting out, but for walking, driving and cycling I would say that I've gathered enough experience over the years to enable me to make a reasonably informed decision as to how to proceed.
I've never fallen down the stairs, and will obviously concede that that doesn't mean I never will, however my own personal risk assessment suggests it's an unlikely enough event that I don't need to wear a helmet the next time I need to tackle a flight of stairs.
Your life experience is a drop in the ocean when it comes to statistically rare events like these. In the UK, only one cyclist is killed for every 27,000,000 miles cycled. Have you even covered 0.1% of that distance in your life so far?I've never fallen down the stairs, and will obviously concede that that doesn't mean I never will, however my own personal risk assessment suggests it's an unlikely enough event that I don't need to wear a helmet the next time I need to tackle a flight of stairs.
I'm not expecting you to actively seek out evidence, just that when presented with it you should react in a more rational fashion. If you can find a flaw in the evidence, or a reason why it is not appropriate to your situation then fair enough but you should not disregard it simply because it challenges your view of the world.
Antony Moxey said:
... happy with my own personal risk assessment ...
Ooft ... our instinctive "common sense" ability to assess risk is an evolved skill that allows us to make quick assessments of immediate threats. It is almost completely hopeless when it comes to assessing anything else like the actual magnitude of the risk posed by a fairly uncommon event like a car crash, bike crash, house fire, etc.Look at the "instinctive" reaction people have to throwing dice. We instinctively apply ideas of fairness and look for patterns that can't possibly exist. "I'm rolling again because I'm having a lucky streak", "It's got to get better soon; what are the chances of rolling yet another 1?". Look at the number of people who have a "system" for picking lottery numbers. For that matter just look at the number of people who play the lottery in the first place.
Given we can demonstrate that our intuition about risk is so feeble and we can also measure risk of things like cycling injuries with a reasonable degree of accuracy, it strikes me as a matter of common sense to take advantage of the stats. Ignoring them is bizarre.
Mr Will said:
Antony Moxey said:
They're not based on gut feelings but real life long term experiences. We're I to embark on a task I'd never done before I might well research that activity before setting out, but for walking, driving and cycling I would say that I've gathered enough experience over the years to enable me to make a reasonably informed decision as to how to proceed.
I've never fallen down the stairs, and will obviously concede that that doesn't mean I never will, however my own personal risk assessment suggests it's an unlikely enough event that I don't need to wear a helmet the next time I need to tackle a flight of stairs.
Your life experience is a drop in the ocean when it comes to statistically rare events like these. In the UK, only one cyclist is killed for every 27,000,000 miles cycled. Have you even covered 0.1% of that distance in your life so far?I've never fallen down the stairs, and will obviously concede that that doesn't mean I never will, however my own personal risk assessment suggests it's an unlikely enough event that I don't need to wear a helmet the next time I need to tackle a flight of stairs.
I'm not expecting you to actively seek out evidence, just that when presented with it you should react in a more rational fashion. If you can find a flaw in the evidence, or a reason why it is not appropriate to your situation then fair enough but you should not disregard it simply because it challenges your view of the world.
Mr Will said:
Walking is just as dangerous as cycling on the road, with the same risk of head injury. If one is safe enough without a helmet then surely the other is too?
What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
please dont tell me you really believe that...I walk, and cycle on the road and its pretty obvious when out and about the flaws in the statistics. I know where I am at more risk of having an accident. It may not be a guaranteed head injury but its very rare I have a problem when walking or with other pedestrians around me. What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
You cannot choose what injury you will get should the worst happen. I have significantly more near misses when on the road on my bike due to other road users. Last time I fell over walking I was about 12. You have to question what scenarios people are falling over when walking
Now I dont think that helmets need to be compulsory. Certainly i've done thousands of miles on my bike and only needed a helmet a couple of times. I think its a more useful item to wear on a bike than walking. Will it stop head injuries? No, Will it stop cyclists getting injured? No. Will it help reduce certain head injuries? yes.
The risk of a type of head injury may be low, and we may get pro-helmet gumph rammed down our throats, yet it seems there is no real statistical idea of how effective a helmet is in reducing any specific injury. Its simply not recorded. I could have a cut needing stitches, brain swelling or only mild concussion but this hospital data seems to summerise everything the same - a head injury.(unless data is being generalised by the collator to bias the argument - i dont know) Severity is rather important. End of the day its been useful when I cycle so I'll put up with the inconvenience. I have a lot of friends who also cycle a lot and many have benefited on occasion from wearing a helmet, and read a lot of people here who have also, yet the majority have never been recorded as an accident nor will appear on any statistical analysis. Probably the same for many walking accidents.
Car accidents are probably the best recorded out of all of them due to insurance purposes.
The car has scope for more convenient methods of crash protection and avoidance than both walking and cycling so its obvious that focus is put on those.
Edited by Batfink on Tuesday 27th October 16:10
Edited by Batfink on Tuesday 27th October 16:14
Batfink said:
Mr Will said:
Walking is just as dangerous as cycling on the road, with the same risk of head injury. If one is safe enough without a helmet then surely the other is too?
What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
please dont tell me you really believe that...I walk, and cycle on the road and its pretty obvious when out and about the flaws in the statistics. I know where I am at more risk of having an accident. It may not be a guaranteed head injury but its very rare I have a problem when walking or with other pedestrians around me. What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
You cannot choose what injury you will get should the worst happen. I have significantly more near misses when on the road on my bike due to other road users. Last time I fell over walking I was about 12. You have to question what scenarios people are falling over when walking
Now I dont think that helmets need to be compulsory. Certainly i've done thousands of miles on my bike and only needed a helmet a couple of times. I think its a more useful item to wear on a bike than walking. Will it stop head injuries? No, Will it stop cyclists getting injured? No. Will it help reduce certain head injuries? yes.
The risk of a type of head injury may be low, and we may get pro-helmet gumph rammed down our throats, yet it seems there is no real statistical idea of how effective a helmet is in reducing any specific injury. Its simply not recorded. I could have a cut needing stitches, brain swelling or only mild concussion but this hospital data seems to summerise everything the same - a head injury.(unless data is being generalised by the collator to bias the argument - i dont know) Severity is rather important. End of the day its been useful when I cycle so I'll put up with the inconvenience. I have a lot of friends who also cycle a lot and many have benefited on occasion from wearing a helmet, and read a lot of people here who have also, yet the majority have never been recorded as an accident nor will appear on any statistical analysis. Probably the same for many walking accidents.
Car accidents are probably the best recorded out of all of them due to insurance purposes.
The car has scope for more convenient methods of crash protection and avoidance than both walking and cycling so its obvious that focus is put on those.
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
The facts paint a different picture though. In the UK there are ~24 cycling fatalities per billion km travelled. There are over 30 pedestrian fatalities per billion km. (both figures taken from the 2013 DfT report, other years show a similar trend).
Pedestrian helmets would undoubtedly save many more lives than cycling helmets, yet you get looked at like a swivel-eyed loon for suggesting it. Why are we treating these two forms of transport so differently when the levels of risk are so similar?
Mr Will said:
Batfink said:
Mr Will said:
Walking is just as dangerous as cycling on the road, with the same risk of head injury. If one is safe enough without a helmet then surely the other is too?
What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
please dont tell me you really believe that...I walk, and cycle on the road and its pretty obvious when out and about the flaws in the statistics. I know where I am at more risk of having an accident. It may not be a guaranteed head injury but its very rare I have a problem when walking or with other pedestrians around me. What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
You cannot choose what injury you will get should the worst happen. I have significantly more near misses when on the road on my bike due to other road users. Last time I fell over walking I was about 12. You have to question what scenarios people are falling over when walking
Now I dont think that helmets need to be compulsory. Certainly i've done thousands of miles on my bike and only needed a helmet a couple of times. I think its a more useful item to wear on a bike than walking. Will it stop head injuries? No, Will it stop cyclists getting injured? No. Will it help reduce certain head injuries? yes.
The risk of a type of head injury may be low, and we may get pro-helmet gumph rammed down our throats, yet it seems there is no real statistical idea of how effective a helmet is in reducing any specific injury. Its simply not recorded. I could have a cut needing stitches, brain swelling or only mild concussion but this hospital data seems to summerise everything the same - a head injury.(unless data is being generalised by the collator to bias the argument - i dont know) Severity is rather important. End of the day its been useful when I cycle so I'll put up with the inconvenience. I have a lot of friends who also cycle a lot and many have benefited on occasion from wearing a helmet, and read a lot of people here who have also, yet the majority have never been recorded as an accident nor will appear on any statistical analysis. Probably the same for many walking accidents.
Car accidents are probably the best recorded out of all of them due to insurance purposes.
The car has scope for more convenient methods of crash protection and avoidance than both walking and cycling so its obvious that focus is put on those.
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
The facts paint a different picture though. In the UK there are ~24 cycling fatalities per billion km travelled. There are over 30 pedestrian fatalities per billion km. (both figures taken from the 2013 DfT report, other years show a similar trend).
Pedestrian helmets would undoubtedly save many more lives than cycling helmets, yet you get looked at like a swivel-eyed loon for suggesting it. Why are we treating these two forms of transport so differently when the levels of risk are so similar?
Antony Moxey said:
Mr Will said:
Batfink said:
Mr Will said:
Walking is just as dangerous as cycling on the road, with the same risk of head injury. If one is safe enough without a helmet then surely the other is too?
What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
please dont tell me you really believe that...I walk, and cycle on the road and its pretty obvious when out and about the flaws in the statistics. I know where I am at more risk of having an accident. It may not be a guaranteed head injury but its very rare I have a problem when walking or with other pedestrians around me. What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
You cannot choose what injury you will get should the worst happen. I have significantly more near misses when on the road on my bike due to other road users. Last time I fell over walking I was about 12. You have to question what scenarios people are falling over when walking
Now I dont think that helmets need to be compulsory. Certainly i've done thousands of miles on my bike and only needed a helmet a couple of times. I think its a more useful item to wear on a bike than walking. Will it stop head injuries? No, Will it stop cyclists getting injured? No. Will it help reduce certain head injuries? yes.
The risk of a type of head injury may be low, and we may get pro-helmet gumph rammed down our throats, yet it seems there is no real statistical idea of how effective a helmet is in reducing any specific injury. Its simply not recorded. I could have a cut needing stitches, brain swelling or only mild concussion but this hospital data seems to summerise everything the same - a head injury.(unless data is being generalised by the collator to bias the argument - i dont know) Severity is rather important. End of the day its been useful when I cycle so I'll put up with the inconvenience. I have a lot of friends who also cycle a lot and many have benefited on occasion from wearing a helmet, and read a lot of people here who have also, yet the majority have never been recorded as an accident nor will appear on any statistical analysis. Probably the same for many walking accidents.
Car accidents are probably the best recorded out of all of them due to insurance purposes.
The car has scope for more convenient methods of crash protection and avoidance than both walking and cycling so its obvious that focus is put on those.
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
The facts paint a different picture though. In the UK there are ~24 cycling fatalities per billion km travelled. There are over 30 pedestrian fatalities per billion km. (both figures taken from the 2013 DfT report, other years show a similar trend).
Pedestrian helmets would undoubtedly save many more lives than cycling helmets, yet you get looked at like a swivel-eyed loon for suggesting it. Why are we treating these two forms of transport so differently when the levels of risk are so similar?
Mr Will said:
How many people pedestrians are hit by cars every year? How many of them thought that they were in danger until the accident happened?
Go on tell me. I bet many were caused by inattentiveness when crossing the road. Were they in danger by crossing the road? Not at first, not until they failed to pay attention.Mr Will said:
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
no, not at all. Cycling does not feel dangerous, but I'm certainly aware of how close many cars get to me and the greater vulnerability of a cyclist due to spending longer in the road than a pedestrian. I have to have a very good understanding of what the traffic is doing around me. I also understand that i'm cycling faster so I have less control on how I fall. I can walk with my head in the clouds only needing to pay attention to traffic when crossing roads. I trip on paving stones occasionally but the low speed and natural walking position allows me to catch the stumble quite easily.Antony Moxey said:
Question: the accident figures you quote are per billion km travelled. How are the distances travelled measured?
They get whatever data they can, then guesstimate. Its not fact, but as accurate as they can be based on the small amount of data they can get..It requires a level of seriousness to an accident/ incident so it can be logged officially.Batfink said:
Antony Moxey said:
Question: the accident figures you quote are per billion km travelled. How are the distances travelled measured?
They get whatever data they can, then guesstimate. Its not fact, but as accurate as they can be based on the small amount of data they can get..It requires a level of seriousness to an accident/ incident so it can be logged officially.There is a standard error analysis here if you are really interested: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nts-sta...
Batfink said:
Mr Will said:
How many people pedestrians are hit by cars every year? How many of them thought that they were in danger until the accident happened?
Go on tell me. I bet many were caused by inattentiveness when crossing the road. Were they in danger by crossing the road? Not at first, not until they failed to pay attention.Batfink said:
Mr Will said:
How many people pedestrians are hit by cars every year? How many of them thought that they were in danger until the accident happened?
Go on tell me. I bet many were caused by inattentiveness when crossing the road. Were they in danger by crossing the road? Not at first, not until they failed to pay attention.Mr Will said:
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
no, not at all. Cycling does not feel dangerous, but I'm certainly aware of how close many cars get to me and the greater vulnerability of a cyclist due to spending longer in the road than a pedestrian. I have to have a very good understanding of what the traffic is doing around me. I also understand that i'm cycling faster so I have less control on how I fall. I can walk with my head in the clouds only needing to pay attention to traffic when crossing roads. I trip on paving stones occasionally but the low speed and natural walking position allows me to catch the stumble quite easily.I can only find detailed data for London, but according to a metropolitan police analysis of pedestrian deaths, the driver was wholly or partially at fault in 63% of collisions. 6% of collisions involved a pedestrian walking on the pavement, not even attempting to cross the road.
It's not as simple as claiming that it's all the pedestrians fault. There are a large number of terrible drivers on our roads.
Mr Will said:
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
Etc...
As Mr Will pointed out above, our instinctive feeling about risk often has no relation to actual risk.Etc...
Here's another example. Most people standing within 1 metre of the edge of a cliff feel frightened, yet when they walk on a footpath next to a busy road they don't.
The risks involved are actually very similar; stray off course over the cliff or into the traffic and you're injured or dead. But the sensation of risk we experience is utterly different. Why? Because we have an evolved, instinctive fear of falling off cliffs. We feel sick, we feel wobbly, we get a rush of adrenaline. We don't have any such hardwired fear of curbs.
So similar objective risk, completely different sensation of risk.
If we rely on gut instinct and feeling, then we make poor risk taking decisions.
the other week i was behind a chap who went onto the pavement bike lane of Chelsea bridge (heading north), lost the back wheel, his handlebars crossed-up & he got spat off his bike onto his back, back of his head hit the ground hard. fortunately he had a properly fitting (this is key) which took the brunt. even he said 'lucky i had a helmet on'
Last week someone posted a link to a vid showing a severe accident between a car and a pedestrian. It was said that the sound of the head striking the car could be clearly heard (I didn't watch the vid myself).
Head injuries are common and involve all people in all walks of life, but for some reason we think only cyclists should wear helmets.
Head injuries are common and involve all people in all walks of life, but for some reason we think only cyclists should wear helmets.
velocgee said:
the other week i was behind a chap who went onto the pavement bike lane of Chelsea bridge (heading north), lost the back wheel, his handlebars crossed-up & he got spat off his bike onto his back, back of his head hit the ground hard. fortunately he had a properly fitting (this is key) which took the brunt. even he said 'lucky i had a helmet on'
This first person evidence is not valid unless. A: he filled out a survey B: Went to hospital. C: Recreated his accident so he could assess what injury he would have sustained not wearing a helmet. There seems to be significant amount of cyclists on this forum who do hit their heads or have seen others do so, have done so with no significant head injury so felt there was no need to go to hospital or document their experience officially further. There are two possibilities. Pistonhead members are a unique demographic; or these people are a representational proportion of the general public. Its a trend that has the potential to change the statistics but with no way to log this data you either have to accept a margin of error in the report, or deem the data irrelivant. Maybe strava and mapmyride could have a crash button where we could mark all cuts and bruises...
Mr Will said:
Batfink said:
Mr Will said:
Walking is just as dangerous as cycling on the road, with the same risk of head injury. If one is safe enough without a helmet then surely the other is too?
What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
please dont tell me you really believe that...I walk, and cycle on the road and its pretty obvious when out and about the flaws in the statistics. I know where I am at more risk of having an accident. It may not be a guaranteed head injury but its very rare I have a problem when walking or with other pedestrians around me. What about all the other activities we do that have a greater risk of head injuries than cycling - drinking for example? When you get drunk your risk of head injuries goes up massively. Should we start promoting polystyrene drinking hats?
You cannot choose what injury you will get should the worst happen. I have significantly more near misses when on the road on my bike due to other road users. Last time I fell over walking I was about 12. You have to question what scenarios people are falling over when walking
Now I dont think that helmets need to be compulsory. Certainly i've done thousands of miles on my bike and only needed a helmet a couple of times. I think its a more useful item to wear on a bike than walking. Will it stop head injuries? No, Will it stop cyclists getting injured? No. Will it help reduce certain head injuries? yes.
The risk of a type of head injury may be low, and we may get pro-helmet gumph rammed down our throats, yet it seems there is no real statistical idea of how effective a helmet is in reducing any specific injury. Its simply not recorded. I could have a cut needing stitches, brain swelling or only mild concussion but this hospital data seems to summerise everything the same - a head injury.(unless data is being generalised by the collator to bias the argument - i dont know) Severity is rather important. End of the day its been useful when I cycle so I'll put up with the inconvenience. I have a lot of friends who also cycle a lot and many have benefited on occasion from wearing a helmet, and read a lot of people here who have also, yet the majority have never been recorded as an accident nor will appear on any statistical analysis. Probably the same for many walking accidents.
Car accidents are probably the best recorded out of all of them due to insurance purposes.
The car has scope for more convenient methods of crash protection and avoidance than both walking and cycling so its obvious that focus is put on those.
Walking feels safe. Cycling feels dangerous. I get that.
The facts paint a different picture though. In the UK there are ~24 cycling fatalities per billion km travelled. There are over 30 pedestrian fatalities per billion km. (both figures taken from the 2013 DfT report, other years show a similar trend).
Pedestrian helmets would undoubtedly save many more lives than cycling helmets, yet you get looked at like a swivel-eyed loon for suggesting it. Why are we treating these two forms of transport so differently when the levels of risk are so similar?
If your 'walking' involves habitually climbing slopes of 45 degrees or more among loose rocks, or crossing the road without looking for traffic, then maybe your risk of head injury per billion km is some way removed from the average cited by the statistics and some form of protective headgear is advisable?
I've come off my bike four times in the past twelve months. Relative to the national average risk of head injury for all cycling, the posters - myself included - who advocate wearing cycle helmets are probably distant outliers in terms of the kind of riding the do and their resultant perception of the risks of incurring a bump on the head.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff