Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

46 views
Skip to first unread message

MrCheerful

unread,
Feb 22, 2019, 7:49:54 PM2/22/19
to

Simon Jester

unread,
Feb 23, 2019, 2:27:15 PM2/23/19
to
On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 12:49:54 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
> https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17453028.horror-crash-cyclist-issues-stark-safety-warning/

What evidence do you have to show a cycle helmet would have made any difference?

Research shows cycle helmets can only absorb 70 joules before failing and it takes around 1000 joules to crack a human skull.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 23, 2019, 2:41:46 PM2/23/19
to
On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 7:27:15 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:

> Research shows cycle helmets can only absorb 70 joules before failing and it takes around 1000 joules to crack a human skull.

It makes more sense to use a driving helmet.

See: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0HUslgWkAErLyJ.jpg

GB

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 6:55:37 AM2/24/19
to
How many joules does it take to cause a catastrophic bleed on the brain,
though?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'before failing'? Does that mean the
helmet cannot absorb more than 70 joules altogether? Or it cracks but
still absorbs some of the impact?

And clearly helmets vary.

RJH

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 7:59:30 AM2/24/19
to
On 24/02/2019 11:55, GB wrote:
> On 23/02/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 12:49:54 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>>> https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17453028.horror-crash-cyclist-issues-stark-safety-warning/
>>>
>>
>> What evidence do you have to show a cycle helmet would have made any
>> difference?
>>
>> Research shows cycle helmets can only absorb 70 joules before failing
>> and it takes around 1000 joules to crack a human skull.
>>
They sound like very focussed Joules - bullet perhaps? ;-)
>
> How many joules does it take to cause a catastrophic bleed on the brain,
> though?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'before failing'? Does that mean the
> helmet cannot absorb more than 70 joules altogether? Or it cracks but
> still absorbs some of the impact?
>

Depends on the incident and circumstances, of course.

> And clearly helmets vary.

Indeed - and I at least find it difficult to tell what's what (I use an
Aldi own brand). I gather this is a good guide:

https://www.smf.org/home

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.


--
Cheers, Rob

Simon Jester

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 9:44:27 AM2/24/19
to
I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 9:49:29 AM2/24/19
to
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 2:44:27 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:

> >
> > Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
> > circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.
> >
> >
>
> I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.

That is why they have killed several children in playgrounds.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

Simon Jester

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 9:52:12 AM2/24/19
to
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 12:59:30 PM UTC, RJH wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 11:55, GB wrote:
> > On 23/02/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
> >> On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 12:49:54 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
> >>> https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17453028.horror-crash-cyclist-issues-stark-safety-warning/
> >>>
> >>
> >> What evidence do you have to show a cycle helmet would have made any
> >> difference?
> >>
> >> Research shows cycle helmets can only absorb 70 joules before failing
> >> and it takes around 1000 joules to crack a human skull.
> >>
> They sound like very focussed Joules - bullet perhaps? ;-)

Bullet energy is usually specified in Foot-Pounds or Newton-Metres.
A typical 9mm pistol round has a muzzle energy of 500 joules.

Paul Cummins

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 12:31:45 PM2/24/19
to
In article <QM0cE.4912$Cl4....@fx34.am4>, g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
(MrCheerful) wrote:

> *From:* MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
> *Date:* Sat, 23 Feb 2019 00:49:49 +0000
>
> https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17453028.horror-crash-cyclist-issues
> -stark-safety-warning/
>

But what helmet to buy?

What are the British Standards that such a helmet has to meet?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981


Simon Jester

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 2:06:31 PM2/24/19
to
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 5:31:45 PM UTC, Paul Cummins wrote:
> >
>
> But what helmet to buy?
>

That would depend on what you expect the hemet to do.
By all means cycle in a full face motorcycle helmet if you wish. It will protect your head but will be uncomfortable. You might want to do some research on helmets and how they impair cognitive function.

Ian Smith

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 3:12:14 PM2/24/19
to
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
> circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.

What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?

How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?

Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
interaction with a motor vehicle).

Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
they aren't suitable for motor sport.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Rob Morley

unread,
Feb 24, 2019, 3:54:18 PM2/24/19
to
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000
RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
> circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.

But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit by a
car if you're wearing a helmet? Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect from impact in rather specific circumstances which roughly
equate to toppling over at low speed and hitting your head on the
kerb. Beyond that there's no guarantee that a helmet will provide any
protection at all. Now in all my years of cycling (some while wearing
a helmet) I've never encountered those specific circumstances. I've
fallen off in a variety of ways, some of them fairly high-energy
resulting in broken bones, but I've never thought a helmet saved my
brain, or would have if I'd been wearing one. It's possible that a
helmet might have helped the chap in the story, but that has to be one
of the rare examples - sufficiently noteworthy that it got in the
paper.

TMS320

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 4:28:06 AM2/25/19
to
On 24/02/2019 11:55, GB wrote:
The head has potential energy before a crash. If it freefalls to the
ground, that will contribute to a vertical component of kinetic energy
when it hits the ground. 5kg falling 1.8m has an original PE of 88J and
hits the ground at 12.5mph.

It should be noted that the head has the same potential energy when
riding a bike as when walking so I don't understand why riding a bike is
considered to need special treatment.

In the DfT's "Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2016" it says:

"The pattern for pedal cycles is an interesting one: the overall
casualty rate of around 5,400 casualties per billion miles cycled is
close to the motorcycling casualty rate, whereas the fatality rate of
29.5 per billion miles cycled is much closer to the pedestrian rate"

The figure given for pedestrians is 34.5 fatalities per billion miles.

Clearly a helmet has a tiny bandwidth - it can't do anything about the
worst injuries (or, if it does, it would be clear evidence that
pedestrians should use them) and it won't move the less severe off the
chart.

> And clearly helmets vary.

...above a minimum in standards that specify the vertical drop test.

TMS320

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 4:30:09 AM2/25/19
to
On 24/02/2019 14:52, Simon Jester wrote:

> Bullet energy is usually specified in Foot-Pounds or Newton-Metres.
> A typical 9mm pistol round has a muzzle energy of 500 joules.

The clue here is that a Newton-metre is a Joule.

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 4:32:30 AM2/25/19
to
Nope, just cycling, motorbiking and skiing.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 4:37:38 AM2/25/19
to
On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
>> circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.
>
> What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?
>
> How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
> less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?
>

I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet
would make a cycling injury worse.

> Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
> all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
> around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
> that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
> that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
> you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
> your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
> interaction with a motor vehicle).
>

Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes
me twice as likely to be hit by a car?

> Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
> from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
> motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
> they aren't suitable for motor sport.
>

'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought?


--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 4:42:55 AM2/25/19
to
On 24/02/2019 20:54, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000
> RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
>> circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.
>
> But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
> Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
> example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit by a
> car if you're wearing a helmet?

Ah, no, I didn't know that. Why might that be likely? Is this evidenced
at all, or some theory extrapolated?

> Bicycle helmets are designed to
> protect from impact in rather specific circumstances which roughly
> equate to toppling over at low speed and hitting your head on the
> kerb. Beyond that there's no guarantee that a helmet will provide any
> protection at all.

I'm not looking for a guarantee - just protection in certain circumstances.

> Now in all my years of cycling (some while wearing
> a helmet) I've never encountered those specific circumstances. I've
> fallen off in a variety of ways, some of them fairly high-energy
> resulting in broken bones, but I've never thought a helmet saved my
> brain, or would have if I'd been wearing one. It's possible that a
> helmet might have helped the chap in the story, but that has to be one
> of the rare examples - sufficiently noteworthy that it got in the
> paper.
>

And my personal experience echoes yours. But given the low cost and
hassle, I'd rather wear a helmet and not rely on a sample of one to
inform my safety-related decisions.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 4:43:39 AM2/25/19
to
Do you have the figures for children saved?

--
Cheers, Rob

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 5:17:39 AM2/25/19
to
Nobody has those figures.

QUOTE: "A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we can't show we have saved anyone". (Sweden, 1)

Simon Jester

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 6:29:53 AM2/25/19
to
Michael Schumacher would probably like to comment on that if he could.

TMS320

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 7:09:28 AM2/25/19
to
On 25/02/2019 09:37, RJH wrote:
> 'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have
> thought?

I wouldn't. I would imagine that 'vehicle impact' involves being 'thrown
off'.

GB

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 7:10:05 AM2/25/19
to
Was he wearing a helmet?

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 8:41:54 AM2/25/19
to
OK, got it.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 8:51:43 AM2/25/19
to
Yes, and skiing got me in to this helmet for cycling business. Cracked
my head - hard - a couple of times skiing, and (luckily) that made me
think. The helmet has saved me a couple of nasty skiing knocks. Weirdly,
on my last holiday a couple of weeks back, the worst was some idiot
turned while holding his skis at shoulder height, and swung them into
the back of my head.

I think Schumacher's accident was a trail of very unfortunate circumstances.

Cycling does of course have a different set of risks, and a helmet only
protects against a possibly small proportion of those. But, as I say,
given the low costs and hassle, why not.

Although - I think a couple of you have suggested the risk of injury
goes up when wearing a cycling helmet - the example of child fatalities,
and motorists being more likely to drive into cyclists with helmets.
I've also heard people suggest false sense of security - but I don't
have one of those ;-)

Quite willing to listen, but not convinced yet . . .

--
Cheers, Rob

Tom Evans

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 10:38:21 AM2/25/19
to
On 23/02/2019 00:49, MrCheerful wrote:
> https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17453028.horror-crash-cyclist-issues-stark-safety-warning/
>
I bought a helmet a few weeks ago and within a couple of rides I had a
crash that involved me going over the handle bars and rolling along the
ground afterwards.

Surprisingly the only injury I got was a small scratch on my leg. So now
I can number myself amongst the cyclists whose life has been saved by a
helmet.

Thank you MrCheerful, if it weren't for you I would probably be dead.



Rob Morley

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 12:16:13 PM2/25/19
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:42:52 +0000
RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 24/02/2019 20:54, Rob Morley wrote:

> > But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
> > Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
> > example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit
> > by a car if you're wearing a helmet?
>
> Ah, no, I didn't know that. Why might that be likely? Is this
> evidenced at all, or some theory extrapolated?
>
Risk compensation by drivers. It's been measured by at least one
proper study. Obviously there's still the element of a driver
misjudging speed and/or distance badly enough to hit you, but the
reduction in error margin is real.

RJH

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 1:01:01 PM2/25/19
to
OK, thanks - is that the heart rate variability study of 2011? it's the
only one I can find - "helmet users reported higher experienced risk and
cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet"?

--
Cheers, Rob

Rob Morley

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 1:20:04 PM2/25/19
to
Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not
drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances.

Ian Smith

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 2:15:39 PM2/25/19
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:37:35 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
> >> circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.
> >
> > What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?
> >
> > How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
> > less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?
>
> I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet
> would make a cycling injury worse.

When I was last knocked off my bike I was not wearing a helmet and my
head didn't hit anything, but it did pass very close by a kerbstone.
Had I been wearing a helmet, there's a chance that rather than just
miss it would have hit the kerbstone, possibly tangentially and
wrenched my head round.

Since I suffered absolutely no head or neck injury, a helmet simply
could not have helped - you can't get less than no injury. There are
easily foreseeable scenarios where it could have made matters worse.

Also consider the consequences of risk compensation.

> > Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
> > all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
> > around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
> > that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
> > that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
> > you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
> > your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
> > interaction with a motor vehicle).
>
> Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes
> me twice as likely to be hit by a car?

No. "Suppose I had..." indicates a hypothetical. It's a thought
experiment. You're supposed to think about the hypothetical scenario
set out, consider what would happen if it were true, and then consider
whether that conclusion should influence what is true.

> > Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
> > from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
> > motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
> > they aren't suitable for motor sport.
>
> 'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought?

I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit
by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by
fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the
ground does when you get to it.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2019, 2:31:03 PM2/25/19
to
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 7:15:39 PM UTC, Ian Smith wrote:

> I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit
> by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by
> fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the
> ground does when you get to it.

I have never worn a cycling helmet in 60 years and have hit my head only once when my front wheel slipped on some diesel. I hit my head on the road and had a bump on my bonce for a few days, that's all.

RJH

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 2:28:24 AM2/26/19
to
OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and swldx...@gmail.com) are
saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits?


--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 2:29:11 AM2/26/19
to
Thanks, yes, I know - but it was the only article I could find in
context. Do you happen to know the one you refer to?

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 3:10:17 AM2/26/19
to
On 25/02/2019 19:15, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:37:35 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
>>>> circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.
>>>
>>> What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?
>>>
>>> How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
>>> less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?
>>
>> I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet
>> would make a cycling injury worse.
>
> When I was last knocked off my bike I was not wearing a helmet and my
> head didn't hit anything, but it did pass very close by a kerbstone.
> Had I been wearing a helmet, there's a chance that rather than just
> miss it would have hit the kerbstone, possibly tangentially and
> wrenched my head round.
>

Just to follow up (I hadn't read this properly) I can see why you don't
wear a helmet - you could easily have died if you had.

> Since I suffered absolutely no head or neck injury, a helmet simply
> could not have helped - you can't get less than no injury. There are
> easily foreseeable scenarios where it could have made matters worse.
>

Absolutely - simply scenarios that can and do happen every day that I
hadn't considered.

> Also consider the consequences of risk compensation.
>

Yes. I have some issues with the deterministic aspects of psychology -
but if you as others say that wearing a helmet make drivers more likely
to hit you, and that opinion is informed by some expertise in the notion
of risk compensation, than I take that seriously. And I will reconsider
wearing a helmet.

>>> Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
>>> all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
>>> around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
>>> that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
>>> that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
>>> you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
>>> your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
>>> interaction with a motor vehicle).
>>
>> Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes
>> me twice as likely to be hit by a car?
>
> No. "Suppose I had..." indicates a hypothetical. It's a thought
> experiment. You're supposed to think about the hypothetical scenario
> set out, consider what would happen if it were true, and then consider
> whether that conclusion should influence what is true.
>

Your hypothesis rested on 'twice as likely'. I was wondering what led
you to form that hypothesis. You're supposed to test hypotheses, by the
way. Thought experiments - do what you want, obviously!


>>> Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
>>> from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
>>> motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
>>> they aren't suitable for motor sport.
>>
>> 'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought?
>
> I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit
> by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by
> fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the
> ground does when you get to it.
>

OK, didn't know that either - quite a learning curve!

I'm not a complete zealot, btw - I don't believe they should be
mandatory. My choice is personal.

It's just that, before this thread, I thought the benefits outweighed
the risks. The kerb proximity thesis, risk compensation and drivers
actively hitting cyclists because they wear helmets, and the child death
statistics have made me think that I could be wrong. Cycle helmets could
be death traps. And you have been incredibly fortunate to have the
insights you have.

--
Cheers, Rob

GB

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 5:48:17 AM2/26/19
to
On 26/02/2019 08:10, RJH wrote:

> Absolutely - simply scenarios that can and do happen every day that I
> hadn't considered.

All these anecdotes come from people who haven't died. They don't prove
much, because the anecdotes from people who have died are curiously
lacking on this newsgroup.

Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a
helmet?

Ian Smith

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 5:48:29 AM2/26/19
to
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:21 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and swldx...@gmail.com) are
> saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits?

I'm not sure it's even that clear-cut.

My view is that the benefits do not clearly outweigh the disbenefits
(some of which are not risks, but just costs, minor aggro etc).

I walk to the shops without dressing up in specific personal
protective equipment - why should I not cycle to the same shops
without doing so? Actually the official government statistics suggest
I'm more likely to be killed walking there and back than cycling there
and back.

The benefits are so small and unclear (and might even be a net
increase in risk) that even the small aggravation means helmets are
not worthwhile for utility transport, is my opinion.

For what it's worth, when I rode off-road competitively (but just
competitive-with-my-mates) and fell off fairly often (if you don't,
you're not trying hard enough) I did wear a helmet. It didn't
protect me from injury - I have scarring on my back from sliding down
a flinty track at speed the wrong way up, and I did some damage to my
thumb once requiring some hospital attention, but I never hit my head.

Ian Smith

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 7:40:38 AM2/26/19
to
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:48:13 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if
> wearing a helmet?

No such claim was made.
You are misrepresenting (at best) what was said.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 8:12:00 AM2/26/19
to
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 7:28:24 AM UTC, RJH wrote:

>
> OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and swldx...@gmail.com) are
> saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits?

I don't really have an opinion on cycle hats other than I don't see what use they are to me. I have always cycled without one as I have walked and driven without them either.

If you look at this chart, you would always use them whilst in a car as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0VYTNzWsAAjkdA.jpg

GB

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 9:06:20 AM2/26/19
to
On 26/02/2019 12:40, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:48:13 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if
>> wearing a helmet?
>
> No such claim was made.
> You are misrepresenting (at best) what was said.

Misunderstanding, please! I'm far too stupid and honest to misrepresent. :)

BTW, can you explain what this means, as apparently I'm misrepresenting it:

"Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
interaction with a motor vehicle). "



>
> regards, Ian SMith
>

Ian Smith

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 9:14:05 AM2/26/19
to
If you read "Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that ... made
it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you."
as a statement saying "Wearing a cycle helmet will make it twice as
likely that each car will hit you", you are either well beyond my
ability to help you, or not acting honestly, in good faith. It
doesn't much matter which, because in either case there's nothing more
I can do.

GB

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 9:22:12 AM2/26/19
to
That's a bloody good put-down, but it doesn't answer the question. The
above is clearly meant as a statement that wearing a helmet increases
your accident frequency. Do you really disagree that that is what was said?





>
> regards, Ian SMith
>

RJH

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 10:39:30 AM2/26/19
to
On 26/02/2019 10:48, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:21 +0000, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and swldx...@gmail.com) are
>> saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits?
>
> I'm not sure it's even that clear-cut.
>
> My view is that the benefits do not clearly outweigh the disbenefits
> (some of which are not risks, but just costs, minor aggro etc).
>
> I walk to the shops without dressing up in specific personal
> protective equipment - why should I not cycle to the same shops
> without doing so? Actually the official government statistics suggest
> I'm more likely to be killed walking there and back than cycling there
> and back.
>

Ah, arrived at last, I see your way of thinking. Not much point
discussing further, thanks for your input.

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 10:40:27 AM2/26/19
to
Thanks, understood.

--
Cheers, Rob

TMS320

unread,
Feb 26, 2019, 12:26:57 PM2/26/19
to
On 26/02/2019 10:48, GB wrote:
> On 26/02/2019 08:10, RJH wrote:
>
>> Absolutely - simply scenarios that can and do happen every day that I
>> hadn't considered.
>
> All these anecdotes come from people who haven't died. They don't prove
> much, because the anecdotes from people who have died are curiously
> lacking on this newsgroup.

If dead people could talk it wouldn't make any difference. We get lots
of "my helmet saved my life" or "my doctor told me" anecdotes in the
press, which they cannot prove.

> Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a
> helmet?

I did not write this. But at least I realise that the writer was putting
a "what if", not claiming a fact. I suggest you look back at his
original post.

Rob Morley

unread,
Feb 27, 2019, 5:55:16 AM2/27/19
to
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:29:10 +0000
RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 25/02/2019 18:20, Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:00:57 +0000
> > RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> [...]
> [...]
> > Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not
> > drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances.
> >
>
> Thanks, yes, I know - but it was the only article I could find in
> context. Do you happen to know the one you refer to?
>
I usually rely on others with better memory than mine to provide
citations, but in this case I found it almost instantly:

https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

Tom Evans

unread,
Feb 27, 2019, 7:57:50 AM2/27/19
to
From you cite.
>>>
Summary: Dr Ian Walker's measurements show that under some conditions
British drivers leave 3.3 inches more passing distance if the cyclist is
not wearing a helmet, and another 2.2 inches if the cyclist is wearing a
wig. The average passing clearance for all three cases was more than
four feet. The cyclist's position on the road changed everything,
canceling the difference at times. A new study in 2013 supports our
contention that Walker had misinterpreted his data.
>>>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/>

You agree with them that Walker's study was unsound?

Rob Morley

unread,
Feb 27, 2019, 12:18:41 PM2/27/19
to
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:57:50 +0000
Tom Evans <Tom....@outlook.com> wrote:

> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/>
>
> You agree with them that Walker's study was unsound?

I have no opinion, I've not followed it, I just suggested that some
factors might have an effect that might not otherwise have been
considered, and the existence of the study.

RJH

unread,
Feb 27, 2019, 4:11:41 PM2/27/19
to
On 27/02/2019 10:55, Rob Morley wrote:
Interesting, thanks - the issue is shifting between academics every few
years. The original has taken quite a kicking, but the original data
seems to keep getting reworked.

The latest (this month) supports the notion that drivers drive closer to
riders with helmets - but with a number of caveats and emphases. It's
not available electronically yet - so even if I could understand it
(unlikely) I've not read it.

I think the issue is probably best described as 'undecided'.

--
Cheers, Rob

Rob Morley

unread,
Feb 28, 2019, 12:08:23 PM2/28/19
to
Indeed - lots of "not as obvious as common sense might suggest" issues
to be considered. The best that can be done is to try to help people
make an informed decision for themselves (or their children) while
showing that it's far from clear and simple, particularly at a social
epidemiological level.

0 new messages