Commuting to work by bike
59 watchers
Jun 2020
3:18pm, 18 Jun 2020
7,628 posts
|
jda
There are several very simple explanations of how wearing a helmet _can_ make things worse for the wearer. There are also explanations how wearing a helmet _can_ make things better in some crashes. The empirical evidence is that they have a fairly small effect either way, probably in no small part due to the fact that their effects are pretty marginal and cycling is basically safe with or without a helmet. Though if you want to push yourself to the limit and expect regular falls (eg racing or MTBing on challenging routes) then the odds are probably rather different to those for utility cyclists. Since some seem unaware of the risks of helmet use: They make the head larger and heavier, therefore a priori more likely to hit the ground or other objects in a crash. They add to the diameter of the head therefore increasing the possibility of high rotational forces which is actually where most brain damage occurs (as distinct from a direct blow where they do undoubtedly provide some cushioning). They encourage risk taking. Note that every single person who says "I won't cycle without a helmet" is prima facie proof of this claim. They may encourage drivers to be a bit more reckless around cyclists. Evidence for this is pretty marginal but it does have some plausibility. I'm sure that some will assert (probably without evidence) that these effects must all be negligibly small. Other assert that the risk of head injury from cycling is very small in any case. There is plenty of evidence to support that. The health benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks whatever you wear, and road sense is much more important than protective equipment. If the helmet advocates also wore helmets when driving and walking, at least they would be consistent. I've yet to meet such a person. I did a bit of research on the analysis of helmet performance a few years back. Even published a very short comment on it, pointing out errors in a published paper (response: we still believe the claims are true even though the analysis does not support them...). Most of the research is extremely shoddy at best, heavily funded and promoted by helmet manufacturers. I'm sure most of them are well-intentioned and believe that the ends justify the means but they evidence just isn't very strong at all. |
Jun 2020
3:33pm, 18 Jun 2020
699 posts
|
Dibble
good summary jda
|
Jun 2020
4:03pm, 18 Jun 2020
70,302 posts
|
Gobi
They encourage risk taking. Note that every single person who says "I won't cycle without a helmet" is prima facie proof of this claim. - with respect congratualtions for stereotyping 00000000000s of cyclists. I am sure my other half just respects common sense and is not a risk taker at the best of times !! I'm an arse so thats a different issue - :¬) An areshole driver isnt looking to see if you have a lid on - COME ON ! People with hair have heavier heads than me in a helmet(189g - you get what you pay for) JDA - It's obvious from seeing you on other threads that once you have a point of view there is no point carrying on. So , all for choice so if you think this and don't wear one I'm cool with it . |
Jun 2020
4:20pm, 18 Jun 2020
11,297 posts
|
larkim
@jda - I can see where you're going with the prima facie risk takers - "I am not prepared to risk cycling without a helmet" means "I am prepared to accept the risk of cycling, which I perceive to be higher than not cycling, providing I wear a helmet". But I don't necessarily agree with the use of language. Is that risk taking though? Exposure to risk, maybe, but isn't there a distinction between doing something in which I "take" the risk and doing something where I "encounter" risk? Common parlance would say that someone who enters a radioactive area without protective equipment for a short period of time is "taking" a risk that the exposure will harm them, but would someone who is donning themselves in PPE before entering the area in common language "taking" a risk? |
Jun 2020
4:49pm, 18 Jun 2020
5,514 posts
|
1step2far
Not sure if this will work but evidence for my assertion that injuries are reduced in helmet wearing than not. I've not had chance to critique it fully, and it's more focused on Bike v car than rider V road surface: www-sciencedirect-com.uea.idm.oclc.org If this doesn't work then it's reference is: BAMBACH, M. R. et al. The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: A case–control study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, [s. l.], v. 53, p. 78–88, 2013. DOI 10.1016/j.aap.2013.01.005. I'm at work until 1 am so will try and reply but may not until tomorrow. |
|
Jun 2020
5:02pm, 18 Jun 2020
7,629 posts
|
jda
If there is a reasonable alternative course of action in which they don't enter the area, then yes they are definitely taking a risk. And depending on the quality of the PPE, their risk of radiation harm is quite possibly increased by going into the room. Risk compensation is such a well-known and widely understood phenomenon that the onus is very much on those who wish to claim it doesn't apply to <specific group>. I'm not claiming that it precisely compensates for any perceived safety benefit of equipment, just that it has an effect in that direction. Overall, I find it amazing that so much hot air is expended on this one topic of a marginal effect in an activity which is already very safe. |
Jun 2020
5:02pm, 18 Jun 2020
16,739 posts
|
Bazoaxe
This thread today has made me think I maybe should resume a cycle commute on a couple of mornings a week. Might start tomorrow.
|
Jun 2020
5:06pm, 18 Jun 2020
11,932 posts
|
Markymarkmark
Thank you 1step. I'll read properly. Also thanks jda. You picked up all my key points, I think.  The one group I would support mandatory helmet wearing for is children with soft and still growing skulls. Ideally more "wrap around" rather than "mushroom" models. Even then, there should be proper training on how to fit them so they don't cause unintended harm from straps etc.. Of course, that would mean the responsibile adults having to wear one too.... Which is probably the point at which I'll start wearing one again (when the grandkids get on my case!). Of course, there should also be proper training on how to ride a bike, akin to the Cycling Proficiency scheme, but also for motorists before they take a practical car driving test! Bottom line - cycling is normally a safe activity which has many positive health benefits. |
|
Jun 2020
5:19pm, 18 Jun 2020
11,933 posts
|
Markymarkmark
1step, the link takes me to a UEA ! login page, but I've found an abstract here. sciencedirect.com It looks as if it's based partly on Police Reported incidents, which is ironically one of the criticisms leveled at the earlier study on Australian data. I'll keep reading and thinking. |
|
Jun 2020
5:51pm, 18 Jun 2020
70,304 posts
|
Gobi
so what do people ride ? Surely a more interesting topic
|
Related Threads
-
Part-run commuting and the rain
Jul 2015
-
idea (well great idea!!!) :-)
Oct 2012
-
Commuting rucksack recommendations
Jan 2020
-
Running with laptop in rucksack... Ever done it?
Jul 2016
-
Any tips for a commuter wanting to run to work?
Aug 2015
-
Boeing to cut 4,500 jobs
Mar 2016
-
Cycling/triathlon trailers
Sep 2023
-
Consultation on a review of the Highway Code
Sep 2020
-
Travelling with a bike
Jul 2013
-
Fetch Camper Vans
Jan 2025