Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Most people walk much closer to 3kph

So those people bike at 21-45 km/h? Not where I live.

Greetings from the IM Germany bike course,
Roland
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [carlosflanders] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
carlosflanders wrote:
There was a study published a few years ago that cars specifically gave more space to riders without helmets.


If you mean the Walker study, they effectively retracted that. Here is the re-analysis: Bicycle Helmet Wearing Is Not Associated with Close Motor Vehicle Passing: A Re-Analysis of Walker, 2007

Here is the conclusion: "After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing. The results, however, highlight other more important factors that may inform effective bicycle safety strategies."
Last edited by: trail: Sep 16, 20 9:14
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [ABarnes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ABarnes wrote:
Chris Boardman lost his mother to a distracted driver; no helmet can protect you against a car

No helmet can offer complete protection, but if my head is going to go through a car windshield, I'd prefer a helmet to no helmet.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:

Let me also address the bigger issue: no one is saying that helmets do absolutely nothing. They help a bit in some circumstances. It turns out that those circumstances are so rare that you can't find anything if you do a high quality study.


I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the literature.

Quote:
Here's a related question: should people wear helmets in cars?


That's just sophistry. Made irrelevant by seatbelts and airbags, which serve the same purpose (mitigating the transfer of energy from a collision from being absorbed by the skull), but are more convenient due to the obvious advantage cars have in terms of having the space for gear. But effectively impossible on bikes (though I believe some company has experimented with bike helmet airbags.)

So I'll flip that back around at you: should seatbelts and airbags be legally mandated in cars? Even for just a slow trip to the neighborhood store?
Last edited by: trail: Sep 16, 20 9:29
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
lanierb wrote:

Let me also address the bigger issue: no one is saying that helmets do absolutely nothing. They help a bit in some circumstances. It turns out that those circumstances are so rare that you can't find anything if you do a high quality study.


I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the literature.

Quote:
Here's a related question: should people wear helmets in cars?


That's just sophistry. Made irrelevant by seatbelts and airbags, which serve the same purpose (mitigating the transfer of energy from a collision from being absorbed by the skull), but are more convenient due to the obvious advantage cars have in terms of having the space for gear. But effectively impossible on bikes (though I believe some company has experimented with bike helmet airbags.)
I totally disagree. It is not sophistry and it's not irrelevant. I don't have time to get into this much, but cars are much more of a head injury risk than you think, and bikes are much less. You as a bike racer should probably wear a helmet. There really is no reason for people tootling around town to wear one. There's tons of evidence that it doesn't do anything (despite many people seemingly just *knowing* otherwise without any evidence).

trail wrote:
So I'll flip that back around at you: should seatbelts and airbags be legally mandated in cars? Even for just a slow trip to the neighborhood store?
I don't know the data on this but it's a reasonable question. Cars are deadly to everyone around them: the occupants, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. (Bikes are not BTW.) If seat belts and airbags save enough lives to be worth the cost (low for the former, high for the latter), then yeah I think they should be mandated. If there was any evidence bike helmets saved a lot of lives I would think they should be mandated too, but there isn't. Same standard for both.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
I don't have time to get into this much, but cars are much more of a head injury risk than you think,


:) I worked at Nissan Basic Research in car safety, risk analysis. Bring it.

Cars are so unlike bikes in so many ways - speed, mass, etc. - I'm holding that you're just playing a "win the internet argument" game, not really engaging in a meaningful analysis of relative risk between the two activities.

Edit: And I'm not even pro helmet mandate for recreational riding. I'm just calling out both sides for grossly exaggerating how science supports their "side"of this dogmatic debate.
Last edited by: trail: Sep 16, 20 9:55
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [carlosflanders] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
carlosflanders wrote:
There was a study published a few years ago that cars specifically gave more space to riders without helmets. Thus is something that's reasonably easy to control for but you'd have to repeat in different countries and cities to make the evidence comprehensive. Shows that the argument has merit. Dismissing it as B.S. based on gut feeling is not right.


I certainly do it. I trust a rider with a helmet (and probably other gear, and a decent rode bike, etc.) knows what they are doing and are more likely to hold their line and not doing something stupid. I give more room to riders who don't look competent or look likely to do something stupid, lack of a helmet is part of that picture much of the time.
Last edited by: ThisIsIt: Sep 16, 20 9:57
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
I certainly do it. I trust a rider with a helmet (and probably other gear, and a decent rode bike, etc.) knows what they are doing and are more likely to hold their line and not doing something stupid. I give more room to riders who don't look competent or look likely to do something stupid, lack of a helmet is part of that picture much of the time.

I agree, without evidence, that the single biggest factors in managing overall risk while riding are probably skill, experience, and awareness. Far more important than helmets. Some of the safest riders I know are non-helmet wearers (except when required by race rules).

There's also scant-to-no evidence that helmet laws benefit overall "public good" in terms of injury prevention.

On the other hand, my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So one solution is to make a helmet that people would use, not that I have a design but I'm sure if we got some <b>influencer</b> level support to make helmets cool it would help.

We need a helmet that folds up and can be stashed into a backpack/purse/etc.

Also in some US stages it's against the law to ride without a seat belt and if in an accident and the insurance company finds out (as in it's logged) then they won't pay out.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
My respect for him has just plummeted.





Here's the link he shared: https://www.cyclinguk.org/...efings/cycle-helmets


Their main arguments:
Helmet use is an impediment to cycling and reduces the number of cyclists
Helmets don't prevent and maybe increase injuries
They want to promote "helmet-free roll models"



2012 just called, it wants its news story back.

And I'm sure Chris will be gutted by your new found lack of respect. Not sure how he will sleep at night now. 🙄
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...ing%20head%20injury.

" This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries. The review authors concluded that bicycle helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury"

Thanks Ed, an interesting review study. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

Also to Chris Boardmans' point,
"None of the studies included in the review measured pre‐ and post‐legislation cycling participation rates, and so it was not possible to comment on the potential adverse effect of helmet legislation."
my gut says mandatory helmet laws would likely reduce participation, but I've learned not to trust my gut on anything..

was riding around the cul-de-sac last week after twiddling the shifting on son's MTB, the ER nurse up the road yelled at me, 'go home and put on a helmet, I don't want to see you in the ER'. So I did, it was easier than arguing..
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:

I certainly do it. I trust a rider with a helmet (and probably other gear, and a decent rode bike, etc.) knows what they are doing and are more likely to hold their line and not doing something stupid. I give more room to riders who don't look competent or look likely to do something stupid, lack of a helmet is part of that picture much of the time.


I agree, without evidence, that the single biggest factors in managing overall risk while riding are probably skill, experience, and awareness. Far more important than helmets. Some of the safest riders I know are non-helmet wearers (except when required by race rules).

There's also scant-to-no evidence that helmet laws benefit overall "public good" in terms of injury prevention.

On the other hand, my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.

I think probably the single because factor is how many vehicles are in your proximity. I generally ride at first light because I'm up, and therefore very few cars at intersections or overtaking me. Just riding an hour or two later probably effectively doubles or triples the number of vehicle interactions. Riding later in the day just seems sort of crazy risky when used to the scant traffic of early morning.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
trail wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:

I certainly do it. I trust a rider with a helmet (and probably other gear, and a decent rode bike, etc.) knows what they are doing and are more likely to hold their line and not doing something stupid. I give more room to riders who don't look competent or look likely to do something stupid, lack of a helmet is part of that picture much of the time.


I agree, without evidence, that the single biggest factors in managing overall risk while riding are probably skill, experience, and awareness. Far more important than helmets. Some of the safest riders I know are non-helmet wearers (except when required by race rules).

There's also scant-to-no evidence that helmet laws benefit overall "public good" in terms of injury prevention.

On the other hand, my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.


I think probably the single because factor is how many vehicles are in your proximity. I generally ride at first light because I'm up, and therefore very few cars at intersections or overtaking me. Just riding an hour or two later probably effectively doubles or triples the number of vehicle interactions. Riding later in the day just seems sort of crazy risky when used to the scant traffic of early morning.

Not always. Its safer to ride in Amsterdam than out in the sticks. Also true of London.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Numbers from Denmark:

In serious bike accidents reported to the police:

16% serious head injuries among cyclists wearing helmet
33% if not wearing helmet

Helmet use in Denmark is voluntary, but school kids have the highest percentage of use (e.g., 89% in 2015 for kids aged 6-9, 70% for 10-12 and 35% for 12+).
From 2004-2015 percentage of head injuries have dropped from 26% to 17% for the age group 0-14. For people aged 15 and above where the helmet use percentage is lower, the drop is only 24% to 22%.

I think it shows that helmet use has value if you’re involved in an accident.

I ride with a helmet 100% of the time, but I am against mandatory helmet use as it will very likely reduce the number of peoples on bikes (studies from Denmark show 16% of current cyclists will bike less or never if helmet was mandatory). This will ultimately reduce my safety (less investment in cyclist infrastructure; less visibility).

Sweden has had mandatory helmet use for school kids 0-15 since 2005, but Denmark actually has a higher helmet use percentage for the same age group!

Edit: my son crashed on the trails on his MTB and broke his helmet (and lost some teeth). It is a no-brainer to wear helmet for higher risk activities than cycling to school or work.
Last edited by: jth: Sep 16, 20 23:26
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Uncle Arqyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Uncle Arqyle wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
trail wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:

I certainly do it. I trust a rider with a helmet (and probably other gear, and a decent rode bike, etc.) knows what they are doing and are more likely to hold their line and not doing something stupid. I give more room to riders who don't look competent or look likely to do something stupid, lack of a helmet is part of that picture much of the time.


I agree, without evidence, that the single biggest factors in managing overall risk while riding are probably skill, experience, and awareness. Far more important than helmets. Some of the safest riders I know are non-helmet wearers (except when required by race rules).

There's also scant-to-no evidence that helmet laws benefit overall "public good" in terms of injury prevention.

On the other hand, my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.


I think probably the single because factor is how many vehicles are in your proximity. I generally ride at first light because I'm up, and therefore very few cars at intersections or overtaking me. Just riding an hour or two later probably effectively doubles or triples the number of vehicle interactions. Riding later in the day just seems sort of crazy risky when used to the scant traffic of early morning.


Not always. Its safer to ride in Amsterdam than out in the sticks. Also true of London.

Interesting, but generally most people have a choice about what time of day they ride, not so much in riding in drastically different locales. I would guess even Amsterdam and London are safer at 6 am as opposed to 6pm?
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I'll keep my skid lid..........thx......and nobody should be offended if they're dis-invited from a group for not wearing one. However, I think if you're not riding a tandem with them and they're forcing you to not wear one......keep your opinion to yourself on the road and don't be a Karen.







Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
It's fundamental human behaviour that anything which identifies someone as one of "us", or different, or stronger, or weaker, changes our behaviour towards them. Whether it's accent, skin colour, attire, hairstyle, body language, almost anything....


Unfortunately, yes.
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-offcyclists-human-drivers.html


Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.

If you add - sometimes - to your sentence then yes I agree (... you're sometimes better off with a helmet). There are some cases where the helmet can exacerbate the injury. Others when it could save you from major injury.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [doug in co] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No need to rely on your guts. When mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Australia they had a negative impact on cycling participation/usage.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [slower] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47nzyBrENM&ab_channel=MashableDeals


There are several "instant" helmets and a folding paper helmet (like a Christmas Paper ornament)
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Diabolo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Diabolo wrote:
trail wrote:
my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.


If you add - sometimes - to your sentence then yes I agree (... you're sometimes better off with a helmet). There are some cases where the helmet can exacerbate the injury. Others when it could save you from major injury.

The lack of "sometimes" does not imply "every time." Just statistical risk measurement as a whole.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Diabolo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Diabolo wrote:
No need to rely on your guts. When mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Australia they had a negative impact on cycling participation/usage.


Don't forget to add that those laws may have had an effect in reducing cycling injuries, at least according to this study, "The impact of bicycle helmet legislation on cycling fatalities in Australia" : ": In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors."

Also the studies that found a negative impact on cycling participation studies were countered by other studies. Such as this one. "Anti-helmet arguments: lies, damned lies and flawed statistics" -which concluded that you can't conclude anything about Australia's laws.


I have no read any of the studies well enough to comment. Just pointing out that it's super easy for either side of the argument to point out a few studies and then claim it's correct "because science."
Last edited by: trail: Sep 18, 20 8:39
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
To encourage bike usage, not having helmet requirements makes sense. But after breaking 20 bones and merely sustaining a concussion as opposed to scrambling my eggs, from a common sense standpoint I’ll stick to a lid.

Last edited by: Carl Spackler: Sep 18, 20 19:40
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What a fantastic piece. The PDF linked at the bottom of the article is excellent. Great to see folks using data rather than feelings to inform policy.

I'll still wear a helmet, but good to know someone is looking into the actual big-picture effects of policy-making, rather than myopic or one-stage thinking only.

Dr. Alex Harrison, USAT-1, USATF-3, CSCS
PhD in Sport Physiology
Author, Coach & Lead Endurance Sport Consultant, Renaissance Periodization
https://renaissanceperiodization.com/...nce-macro-calculator
https://www.instagram.com/dr_alex_harrison/
Quote Reply

Prev Next