Various Topics on Cycling

..e.. ..mo..

>
> The former. Risk compensation.
>
> >Do you know how many were wearing helmets?
>
> Cycle helmets are essentially irrelevant for crashes involving motor
> vehicles.
>
>

Seems like a rather extreme position.
Surely there must be some accidents in which they help?
Are you sure the accident you may have will involve a motor vehicle?
Would you be quite happy to send out your children without cycling helmets?

..mblewe..

"Steve Almond" <stepheninlancs@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:2mbt3oFkmk24U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> >
> > The former. Risk compensation.
> >
> > >Do you know how many were wearing helmets?
> >
> > Cycle helmets are essentially irrelevant for crashes involving motor
> > vehicles.
> >
> >
>
> Seems like a rather extreme position.
> Surely there must be some accidents in which they help?


One theory is that they may, but that is cancelled out by risk compensation
(On the rider and others parts), which means you end up in more accidents.
Another theory is that the accidents in which they would help, would not be
likely to cause major harm anyway. Just watching the tdf, you need a bum
,thigh and shoulder helmet, not one for the head!

> Are you sure the accident you may have will involve a motor vehicle?

I believe that head injuries in non-car accidents are very rare?

> Would you be quite happy to send out your children without cycling
helmets?
>

More concerned about their behaviour on the road, I wouldnt want them to
think that a helmet makes them invunerable or even has much protection at
all. If you look at the adverts they certainly seem to give the impression
that helmets will substantially protect the wearer, and I could easily
believe young kids (esp boys) believing (maybe only subconsciusly) they can
engage in much more risky behaviour.However, I believe helmets are only
tested and designed for a 7mph impact so that doesn't say much about their
actual ability to protect.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

..t.. ..in..

Steve Almond wrote:

>>Cycle helmets are essentially irrelevant for crashes involving motor
>>vehicles.

> Seems like a rather extreme position.

But it does seem to be supported by the hard data.

Particularly that after helmet wearing rates went up in places
introducing a mandatory helmet law, there was *no* effect on kills and
serious injuries in the cycling population.

> Surely there must be some accidents in which they help?

The specification they're built to (fall to the ground from the saddle)
means they stand a fair chance of mitigating minor injuries such as
grazes and other lacerations in a fall (/if/ you hit your head, but
you're actually more likely to hit it wearing a helmet than if you're
not), but the energies involved in a collision with a motor vehicle are
way beyond what they're designed for, so all the bets are off.

> Are you sure the accident you may have will involve a motor vehicle?

Not at all, but look at the data and those make up a huge percentage of
the ones that get people killed and seriously injured. This doesn't
make it pointless to wear a hat as a grazed head is painful and
unpleasant, but if you think you're likely to save yourself from worse
then it appears you're relying more on faith than hard information.

> Would you be quite happy to send out your children without cycling helmets?

If I had any, yes. As a sprog cycle helmets simply didn't exist (I'm
37), so we didn't wear them. We /did/ spend a lot of time on bikes
which were a lot worse than what you can get today (grotty sidepull
brakes on steel rims, anyone?). And I am not aware of anyone I knew of
that had a nasty head injury from cycling. They do happen in the
overall population, but the same goes for kids as pedestrians and kids
riding in cars: if you think heads need protecting more than by basic
skull, give lids to your kids for walking and riding in a car (research
does suggest that helmets for car occupants would do more good, and more
pedestrians grace A&E with head injuries than cyclists).

Most of the helmet-sceptic brigade here don't see them as entirely
useless, but do see them as hugely over-rated in terms of the general
perception of what they can do. Most of us in said brigade used to wear
them on the basis that it was "common sense" and "daft not to", until we
started reading a bit further. http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good
place to start. The article that really got me thinking and changed me
from always wearing a helmet to rarely bothering unless off-road was
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../321/7276/1582

That said, why would I not wear one? Easy: they're far less
comfortable, especially in hot and humid weather and with the chin strap
done up snugly as it should be, than not wearing one. Since I'm only
likely to mitigate discomfort if I actually /use/ the thing, I might as
well mitigate discomfort on all rides by not wearing something
uncomfortable unless there is a sizable chance of worse. Look at the
figures and that chance is actually very low.

Get reading! And even if you choose to keep wearing one, at least learn
what you can reasonably expect from it in a crash, which is a little
bit, but not very much.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

..v.. ..rt..

On 23/7/04 8:30 am, in article 2mbt3oFkmk24U1@uni-berlin.de, "Steve Almond"
<stepheninlancs@btopenworld.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> The former. Risk compensation.
>>
>>> Do you know how many were wearing helmets?
>>
>> Cycle helmets are essentially irrelevant for crashes involving motor
>> vehicles.
>>
>>
>
> Seems like a rather extreme position.
> Surely there must be some accidents in which they help?
There are, but there are also accidents in which they hinder. Helemts are
designed to absorb direct linear impacts. Unfortunately they can quite
easily cause impacts where there wouldn't have been one (our bodies train
themselves to just not hit our heads in falls.. a bigger head will be hit)
and can exacerbate the rotational impacts (which are 50 times more dangerous
than linear ones).
basically, if you are moving at speed you are more likely to have a
rotational component in any crash.

> Are you sure the accident you may have will involve a motor vehicle?
No. but see the note on speed.

> Would you be quite happy to send out your children without cycling helmets?

Yes, but they wear them to prevent minor scratches/bruises and because of
habit. I'd be much happier for them to ride sensibly without a helmet that
to slap every possible safety techno-fix on and ride like half the muppets I
see.

Helmets are generally a distraction in road safety terms (though they have a
useful role in slow speed cycling).

...d

..e.. ..mo..

Thanks for the references. That is just what I was after.


"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:cdqicp$4rk$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> Steve Almond wrote:
>
> >>Cycle helmets are essentially irrelevant for crashes involving motor
> >>vehicles.
>
> > Seems like a rather extreme position.
>
> But it does seem to be supported by the hard data.
>
> Particularly that after helmet wearing rates went up in places
> introducing a mandatory helmet law, there was *no* effect on kills and
> serious injuries in the cycling population.
>
> > Surely there must be some accidents in which they help?
>
> The specification they're built to (fall to the ground from the saddle)
> means they stand a fair chance of mitigating minor injuries such as
> grazes and other lacerations in a fall (/if/ you hit your head, but
> you're actually more likely to hit it wearing a helmet than if you're
> not), but the energies involved in a collision with a motor vehicle are
> way beyond what they're designed for, so all the bets are off.
>
> > Are you sure the accident you may have will involve a motor vehicle?
>
> Not at all, but look at the data and those make up a huge percentage of
> the ones that get people killed and seriously injured. This doesn't
> make it pointless to wear a hat as a grazed head is painful and
> unpleasant, but if you think you're likely to save yourself from worse
> then it appears you're relying more on faith than hard information.
>
> > Would you be quite happy to send out your children without cycling
helmets?
>
> If I had any, yes. As a sprog cycle helmets simply didn't exist (I'm
> 37), so we didn't wear them. We /did/ spend a lot of time on bikes
> which were a lot worse than what you can get today (grotty sidepull
> brakes on steel rims, anyone?). And I am not aware of anyone I knew of
> that had a nasty head injury from cycling. They do happen in the
> overall population, but the same goes for kids as pedestrians and kids
> riding in cars: if you think heads need protecting more than by basic
> skull, give lids to your kids for walking and riding in a car (research
> does suggest that helmets for car occupants would do more good, and more
> pedestrians grace A&E with head injuries than cyclists).
>
> Most of the helmet-sceptic brigade here don't see them as entirely
> useless, but do see them as hugely over-rated in terms of the general
> perception of what they can do. Most of us in said brigade used to wear
> them on the basis that it was "common sense" and "daft not to", until we
> started reading a bit further. http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good
> place to start. The article that really got me thinking and changed me
> from always wearing a helmet to rarely bothering unless off-road was
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../321/7276/1582
>
> That said, why would I not wear one? Easy: they're far less
> comfortable, especially in hot and humid weather and with the chin strap
> done up snugly as it should be, than not wearing one. Since I'm only
> likely to mitigate discomfort if I actually /use/ the thing, I might as
> well mitigate discomfort on all rides by not wearing something
> uncomfortable unless there is a sizable chance of worse. Look at the
> figures and that chance is actually very low.
>
> Get reading! And even if you choose to keep wearing one, at least learn
> what you can reasonably expect from it in a crash, which is a little
> bit, but not very much.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>

..m.. ..oo..

in message <2mb0fnFl05lvU1@uni-berlin.de>, Steve Almond
('stepheninlancs@btopenworld.com') wrote:

> Do you know how many were wearing helmets?

That's an irrelevance. If you wear a cycle helmet and fall out of your
bed, the impact will equal the maximum rated force the helmet is
designed to protect you from. The degree to which standard cycling
helmets are too weak to be of any significance in impacts with motor
vehicles is scary.

Think about the polystyrene foam your computer came packed in. Was it
thicker or thinner than the polystyrene foam in your helmet? Now
describe what you think would happen if your computer, properly packed
in its original delivery box with all that polystyrene foam, was hit by
a car doing 30mph. Would the computer survive? Would you?

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

..v..

Steve Almond:
> Would you be quite happy to send out your children without cycling
helmets?

Whether or not my child wears a helmet when out on his bike comes very low
down on my list of concerns, behind, for example, concerns about his bike
being safe to ride (brakes working, stem bolts tightened, etc) and him being
a competent and safe cyclist (able to control his bike, signal
appropriately, follow the highway code, etc).

He's only been riding a few weeks but my son has already fallen off his bike
several times, as children do. The worst incident was when he fell into a
bramble patch and got a few scratches on his legs - though he was more
concerned about the nettle stings on his arms. On that occasion the cause of
the accident was apparently his inability to stop himself - his brakes were
working and correctly adjusted but he panicked and momentarily forgot to use
them. Since then I have given him extra training on brake usage.

Whether or not he was wearing a helmet at the time is neither here nor
there[1] - yes, he could have bumped his head, in which case a helmet might
have prevented minor injury, but the accident wouldn't have happened in the
first place if he had more control of his bike.

d.

1. as it happens, he /was/ wearing a helmet, but that is neither here nor
there.

..v..

Peter Clinch:
> As a sprog cycle helmets simply didn't exist (I'm
> 37), so we didn't wear them. We /did/ spend a lot of time on bikes
> which were a lot worse than what you can get today (grotty sidepull
> brakes on steel rims, anyone?).

My first bike was a BMX with, like you say, grotty sidepull brakes, and I
spent many long hours racing it round a track that my mates and I cobbled
together up at the local woods, occasionally falling off but never suffering
anything more serious than minor cuts and bruises.

Maybe we were lucky but in any case, I think all those years of BMX riding
greatly increased my bike handling skills, which has meant that I have
rarely (if ever) had any need for head protection.

d.

..v.. ..rt..

On 23/7/04 11:50 am, in article cdqqgs$oj9$1@sparta.btinternet.com, "davek"
<david.nospam.kenning@which.nospam.net> wrote:

> Peter Clinch:
>> As a sprog cycle helmets simply didn't exist (I'm
>> 37), so we didn't wear them. We /did/ spend a lot of time on bikes
>> which were a lot worse than what you can get today (grotty sidepull
>> brakes on steel rims, anyone?).
>
> My first bike was a BMX with, like you say, grotty sidepull brakes, and I
> spent many long hours racing it round a track that my mates and I cobbled
> together up at the local woods, occasionally falling off but never suffering
> anything more serious than minor cuts and bruises.
>
> Maybe we were lucky but in any case, I think all those years of BMX riding
> greatly increased my bike handling skills, which has meant that I have
> rarely (if ever) had any need for head protection.

Being of a similar age to Pete, I grew up with steel rims, poor brakes and
no helmet.

The main problem with steel rims was hitting tree roots and kerbs which then
put a dent in the rim. This can make the brakes somewhat snatchy.

Many was the time we'd get home from riding off road around the local park
and beat the dents out of the rims with a mallet and block of wood to get
the brakes working again.

...d

.... ..g..

Steve Almond wrote:

>> The former. Risk compensation.
>>
>>> Do you know how many were wearing helmets?
>>
>> Cycle helmets are essentially irrelevant for crashes involving motor
>> vehicles.

> Seems like a rather extreme position.
> Surely there must be some accidents in which they help?

'Course it is, of course there are. Sadly, people are adopting such an
extreme position through fear of helmets being made compulsary. I think
this makes them look just as silly as those who insist on helmets being
worn for absolutely all cycling.

~PB