Radio 4 Join the Bike Helmet Debate

Jimod

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 9, 2010
1,065
634
Polmont
Origin of The Specious, possibly.


A
Nothing in 'origin of the species' says you will die if you do not take all safety precautions.

If it did, all cyclists would have died out since bikes were around before helmets were invented. Bikes would have therefore been banned by all governments.
The point I was trying to make is. It's an individual's choice on safety helmets or not. Not wearing one doesn't mean you are stupid and it certainly doesn't mean you will die. ;)
 
Last edited:

HittheroadJ

Pedelecer
Apr 22, 2010
152
16
Northern Ireland, BT1
"In honor of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by (accidentally) removing themselves from it. The Award is generally bestowed posthumously. ".

I searched on "helmet" and cam across several examples like this 2008 Darwin Award: Organ Donors

Organ Donors
2008 Darwin Award Nominee
Confirmed True by Darwin
(3 February 2008, California) Two dirtbikes, two drivers, two passengers. Zero helmets, zero headlights, and a new moon. Four friends were tearing around on private land, where helmets and lights are not required. The Highway Patrol said the two couples were killed when their bikes collided between 1:30 and 3:30 AM in Modesto.

Emergency room workers have a name for people who ride dirtbikes without a helmet. They're called 'Future Organ Donors' and that is the only career now possible for Thomas, 33, Michael, 33, Kelly, 30, and Cynthia, 29.



I'm not too sure what Darwin has to do with wearing a helmet. He's very often mis-quoted on forums.
It's each person's personal choice on whether to wear a helmet or not.
 
Last edited:

CheKmx

Pedelecer
Apr 29, 2008
210
1
55
Zurich
Why does a reference to the Darwin Awards keep attracting comments about Darwin?
"In honor of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by (accidentally) removing themselves from it. The Award is generally bestowed posthumously."

I don't know.
 

onmebike

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 3, 2010
499
1
West Essex
"In honor of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by (accidentally) removing themselves from it. The Award is generally bestowed posthumously. ".

(3 February 2008, California) Two dirtbikes, two drivers, two passengers. Zero helmets, zero headlights, and a new moon. Four friends were tearing around on private land, where helmets and lights are not required. The Highway Patrol said the two couples were killed when their bikes collided between 1:30 and 3:30 AM in Modesto.
Improve's our gene pool by (Accidentally)removing themselve's, how so? If I understand this comment correctly, it suggest's that all those whom by spirit of adventure, lack of fear, lust for understanding and knowledge, the risk taker's and pioneer's whom lost their live's to the benefit of us all, were little more than fool's whom mankind is better off without? Please tell me I've completely misunderstand this, because at this moment I'm not holding out much hope for future generation's, whom its seems will be super intelligent, but afraid to get out of bed in the morning.

Regarding the accident. Exceptional circumstances, offroad in complete darkness. Foolish even for well protected rider's. Although helmets were not worn by any of the four, its only an assumption that they all died from head injury? Cause of death hadn't been ascertained at the time of this report. Speed was claimed to be a major factor in this accident, nevertheless all four dying was extraordinary.
Hardly a useful example for assessing the risk factors for cyclist's on the road.
 

HittheroadJ

Pedelecer
Apr 22, 2010
152
16
Northern Ireland, BT1
The quote is from the website of the Darwin Awards. If you have a look at the site you'll probably agree that they focus on people who do not set out to injure or kill themselves but unintentionally do so through their own silly actions.

Basically: If you drive a car into a petrol-station, decide to defrost the lid to the tank with a lighter and inadvertently cause damage, injury or death through a silly mistake then the site may include you. The same holds for metal thieves who climb over a powerstation's fence and start sawing in cables that are "live" etc. etc.. Thee stories are published and have a large audience is that people think the behaviour is so stupid that it is considered tragically funny.

Are cyclists who ride without a helmet engaging in behaviour that is silly enough to be considered tragically funny should something go wrong?

Well, you clearly the dirt-bike example too different to be relevant.

Improve's our gene pool by (Accidentally)removing themselve's, how so? If I understand this comment correctly, it suggest's that all those whom by spirit of adventure, lack of fear, lust for understanding and knowledge, the risk taker's and pioneer's whom lost their live's to the benefit of us all, were little more than fool's whom mankind is better off without? Please tell me I've completely misunderstand this, because at this moment I'm not holding out much hope for future generation's, whom its seems will be super intelligent, but afraid to get out of bed in the morning.

Regarding the accident. Exceptional circumstances, offroad in complete darkness. Foolish even for well protected rider's. Although helmets were not worn by any of the four, its only an assumption that they all died from head injury? Cause of death hadn't been ascertained at the time of this report. Speed was claimed to be a major factor in this accident, nevertheless all four dying was extraordinary.
Hardly a useful example for assessing the risk factors for cyclist's on the road.
Simple fact remains that even if the behaviour was silly, one or more might have survived if they had worn helmets. Helmets can give you better odds. Helmets will not eliminate injuries or prevent silly mistakes.

According to this site: Bicycle Helmet Statistics
Bicycle Deaths by Helmet Use
1994-2006
Year No Helmet Helmet Total*Num
1994 776 (97%) 19 (2%) 796
1995 783 (95%) 34 (4%) 828
1996 731 (96%) 27 (4%) 761
1997 785 (97%) 23 (3%) 811
1998 741 (98%) 16 (2%) 757
1999 698 (93%) 42 (6%) 750
2000 622 (90%) 50 (7%) 689
2001 616 (84%) 60 (8%) 729
2002 589 (89%) 54 (8%) 663
2003 535 (85%) 58 (9%) 626
2004 602 (83%) 87 (12%) 722
2005 676 (86%) 77 (10%) 784
2006 730 (95%) 37 (5%) 669
2007 646 (92%) 50 (7%) 699
2008 653 (91%) 58 (8%) 714

There is a clear trend visible that Helmet wearers do not die as often.

Speaking for myself: I would almost always ride with a Helmet. I have occasionally forgotten it and decided to just go if I was in a hurry etc. I would just accept that there is a slightly higher risk of death or injury and go without a helmet. I'd even enjoy the wind blowing through my hair and the sense of freedom.
This happens only rarely because I will usually/almost always wear a helmet.

I am aware of sites like Take Your Bike Helmet to the Safety Museum | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty but in my view they just want to promote a sense of freedom and are willing to make a mockery of the facts. The facts are that seat-belts, helmets, alcohol regulations and enforcement and other preventative measures. will significantly decrease the numbers of fatalities and serious injuries.

At this moment I am not in favour of mandatory helmet-wearing for adults. But I do think that the arguments that are being used to promote "freedom" are usually unconvincing. I have heard the same arguments about seat-belts (non-seat-belt wearers may drive safer etc.) and they have been proven not to make sense.

just my 2c.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,559
30,848
Those USA figures are statistical nonsense, all they show is that US cyclists mostly don't wear helmets. They do not show that the deaths incidence is lower for helmet wearers as you've claimed, it could easily be the reverse.

What is shown is that the helmet promoting brigade are as dishonest as ever about the facts.
.
 
Last edited:

Phil the drill

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 14, 2008
395
6
TR9
What is known is that the level of protection offered by bicycle helmets is minimal and not sufficient to offer significant protection from injury if exceeding speeds at which most people can easily run, or falling from a height greater than they would if they tripped up. Ergo if wearing a helmet makes you significantly safer why stop with bicycles? What about joggers? A relative of mine slipped and fell backwards on the ice a few years ago. He hit his head on the pavement and died as a result. He was a fit youngish man of about 30. It was a tragic (freak) accident. Perhaps the gene pool is improved as a result and maybe he was stupid to walk on an icy pavement without a helmet :rolleyes:
Come on, if you think helmets should be compulsory, then they should offer a considerably higher standard of protection than they currently do - so heavy 'full facers' would be the ones to go for. Other than that they are largely promoting a false sense of security - and that is hardly going to improve safety.
Why is it everyone only ever considers fatalities as accidents? Most accident are not, and injuries (non fatal) are a bigger drain on victims resources and the NHS than fatalities. Most of these involve knees, elbows, hands and eyes. I see helmet wears out in T shirts and shorts all the time apparently unconcerned about badly skinned knees and hands, which are MUCH more likely than a fatal injury. Why no protection here?
I see a double standard. I wear a helmet occasionally - to keep my head dry when its raining, or to keep the sun out of my eyes when it's low, but I don't wear it all time, I don't ride expecting anything much from it and I AWAYS wear cycling gloves and glasses. Those are items that have protected me from more serious injury on countless occasions. Helmets? well in 45yrs of cycling (and a few falls) I have never been the worse for not wearing one.
Ok I might die from a head injury in a horrendous crash tomorrow, but I'm not going to lose sleep worrying about tonight. I expect an impact sufficient to cause this would have a similar result helmet or not. Anyhow, who knows they won't have a heart attack or stroke tomorrow?
Make your choices, wear a helmet if you like, fine with me. Compulsion, for helmets alone, on current safety specs? Make mine a chocolate teapot :D .

Phil
 

allen-uk

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 1, 2010
909
25
There is a clear trend visible that Helmet wearers do not die as often.

.....

I do think that the arguments that are being used to promote "freedom" are usually unconvincing. I have heard the same arguments about seat-belts (non-seat-belt wearers may drive safer etc.) and they have been proven not to make sense.
The figures are interesting, hittheroad, but not conclusive, nor are they comprehensive enough in their analysis.

Q (for example) what were each group doing (i.e. the helmet-wearers vs the no helmet wearers) when they had their accident?

If the A is 'whacking along as fast as they could without regard for their own safety', then the statistics only lead on to further questions.

As was said earlier in the thread (and elsewhere of course) it is a question of priorities. I have a feeling (no stats) that if mobile-phone use by drivers was banned and the ban enforced, there might be a reduction in accidents involving cyclists, wearing helmets or not.


Allen.
 

HittheroadJ

Pedelecer
Apr 22, 2010
152
16
Northern Ireland, BT1
Those USA figures are statistical nonsense, all they show is that US cyclists mostly don't wear helmets. They do not show that the deaths incidence is lower for helmet wearers as you've claimed, it could easily be the reverse.

What is shown is that the helmet promoting brigade are as dishonest as ever about the facts.
.
I checked before I submitted. "Half (50%) of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for all or most trips. "

cheers
 

HittheroadJ

Pedelecer
Apr 22, 2010
152
16
Northern Ireland, BT1
Hi Allen,

I agree that the on website does not constitute the truth.

I have requested a translation of the Dutch research available here http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Factsheet_Fietshelmen.pdf

In welke mate vermindert een fietshelm de kans op hoofd-/hersenletsel? on page 3 quotes several published research sources and concludes that wearing helmets will significantly reduce the incidence of head and brain injuries,

The studies mention figures of 27% in helmet hostile Holland and 25% in helmet friendly Norway.

The effects of implementing mandatory helmets are much harder to interpret.

The organisation of Traumacentres has started seeking publicity for having Kids wear helmets. Traumacentra vragen aandacht voor fietshelm - Fietsberaad
They use research to claim 63% improvement to 88% reduction in brain injuries specifically for kids.

It is not just Americans. Many organisations of consumer unions, traumacenters, public safety organisations. Cycling organisations use research to promote helmet wearing.


The figures are interesting, hittheroad, but not conclusive, nor are they comprehensive enough in their analysis.

Q (for example) what were each group doing (i.e. the helmet-wearers vs the no helmet wearers) when they had their accident?

If the A is 'whacking along as fast as they could without regard for their own safety', then the statistics only lead on to further questions.

As was said earlier in the thread (and elsewhere of course) it is a question of priorities. I have a feeling (no stats) that if mobile-phone use by drivers was banned and the ban enforced, there might be a reduction in accidents involving cyclists, wearing helmets or not.


Allen.
I agree. Mobile Phone usage while driving is illegal and if campaigning combined with enforcement was more effective there would probably be less victims. Simple fact remains that if you're cycling and are unfortunate enough to be involved in a collision with a car the risk of serious head or brain injury would be significantly less.

A helmet will not be a miracle cure (you'll still be dependent on speed, weight of car, etc.), but it will give you better odds.
 

HittheroadJ

Pedelecer
Apr 22, 2010
152
16
Northern Ireland, BT1
Hi Phil.

Do you have any figures and facts supporting your claim that "the level of protection offered by bicycle helmets is minimal and not sufficient to offer significant protection from injury"?

The research I have read, so far, seems to disagree.

btw. I am sorry to hear that a relative of yours died of trauma after a freak accident. You are right that there is no guarantee that he would have had a better outcome had he been wearing a helmet. Statistics can not help you in that individual case. Statistics can measure that he would have had a better chance. That if a thousand accidents happen with and a thousand without there will be less tragedies at the helmet wearing side.

Cheers,


What is known is that the level of protection offered by bicycle helmets is minimal and not sufficient to offer significant protection from injury if exceeding speeds at which most people can easily run, or falling from a height greater than they would if they tripped up. Ergo if wearing a helmet makes you significantly safer why stop with bicycles? What about joggers? A relative of mine slipped and fell backwards on the ice a few years ago. He hit his head on the pavement and died as a result. He was a fit youngish man of about 30. It was a tragic (freak) accident. Perhaps the gene pool is improved as a result and maybe he was stupid to walk on an icy pavement without a helmet :rolleyes:
Come on, if you think helmets should be compulsory, then they should offer a considerably higher standard of protection than they currently do - so heavy 'full facers' would be the ones to go for. Other than that they are largely promoting a false sense of security - and that is hardly going to improve safety.
Why is it everyone only ever considers fatalities as accidents? Most accident are not, and injuries (non fatal) are a bigger drain on victims resources and the NHS than fatalities. Most of these involve knees, elbows, hands and eyes. I see helmet wears out in T shirts and shorts all the time apparently unconcerned about badly skinned knees and hands, which are MUCH more likely than a fatal injury. Why no protection here?
I see a double standard. I wear a helmet occasionally - to keep my head dry when its raining, or to keep the sun out of my eyes when it's low, but I don't wear it all time, I don't ride expecting anything much from it and I AWAYS wear cycling gloves and glasses. Those are items that have protected me from more serious injury on countless occasions. Helmets? well in 45yrs of cycling (and a few falls) I have never been the worse for not wearing one.
Ok I might die from a head injury in a horrendous crash tomorrow, but I'm not going to lose sleep worrying about tonight. I expect an impact sufficient to cause this would have a similar result helmet or not. Anyhow, who knows they won't have a heart attack or stroke tomorrow?
Make your choices, wear a helmet if you like, fine with me. Compulsion, for helmets alone, on current safety specs? Make mine a chocolate teapot :D .

Phil
 

Jimod

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 9, 2010
1,065
634
Polmont
Whatever happend to a person's freedom to choose? Why are some on here seemingly campaigning for helmets to be made compulsory?
Why don't we campaign to get ALL cyclists to wear leather jackets and trousers, then there will be even less problems if they're involved in an accident. Why don't we campaign to get cycling banned. Then there'd be NO accidents involving bikes. Life is a gamble and we're all surely entitled to make our own decisions.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,559
30,848
I checked before I submitted. "Half (50%) of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for all or most trips. "

cheers
You believe that? US cyclists do not wear helmets at remotely like that rate, they don't even wear helmets for motorcycling!!!

Baseball caps or barehead for both activities are far more popular.
.
 

Phil the drill

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 14, 2008
395
6
TR9
Hi Phil.

Do you have any figures and facts supporting your claim that "the level of protection offered by bicycle helmets is minimal and not sufficient to offer significant protection from injury"?
Hi,

That's not a strictly accurate quote. What I actually said was 'Quote...' if exceeding speeds at which most people can easily run, or falling from a height greater than they would if they tripped up.

Perhaps you might start with this site:- Safety and Security.. Cycling Helmets WhyCycle? - The impartial cycling advice site but the standards are readily available to view. It is interesting to note that the USA Snell standards do exceed our ECE ones, these actually being a lower standard than the old BS ones..:rolleyes:

Incidentally on this site they are broadly in favour of helmet wearing, although they do acknowledge that the overall benefits (if any) of universal use are hard to assess.

Phil