Should cyclists wear helmets?

[andyp2010]

I was a cycle mechanic and keen cyclist for many years. Always wear one off road, never wore one for commuting (in the UK where it's not a legal requirement), mainly for this reason - http://www.drianwalker.com/overtakin...ngprobrief.pdf

If now, I saw some 19 year old in jeans and a t shirt hurtling down the middle of town with no helmet on, I'd give them a lot more room than your safe, everyday lycra bloke or even safer, the flouro mess with a mirror on their helmet. After commuting 25 miles a day, 5/6 days a week for 2 years, only accident I had was in a snowstorm, went into the back of a parked car.

Helmets are definitely not created equally. The whole point is that they collapse to disperse the energy, not stay in one piece. Your warehouse one is probably worse than not wearing a helmet, choking hazard in a crash scenario.

[Bob Kane]

Cycling helmets: do we actually need them?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018618841

Is it a good thing to discourage people from cycling?

[Bob Kane]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/102177384/renewed-push-for-review-of-cycle-helmet-law-starts-with-protest-ride-in-wellington

At last, the stupid cycle helmet law is being challenged.
Welcome to the world.

[Perry]

If there's enough revenue in it, gummint will stick with the status quo.

[fuzzlevalve]

When you know someone with optional head injuries you tend to think they should be compulsory. They save a lot of lives and injury. You cant stop people buying ones that don't work of course but that is true in every area of life. People need to be concerned for their own safety and stay safe surely?

[Perry]

People need to be concerned for their own safety and stay safe surely?

That's the nub of it.
People should be, but it's gummints and councils which make it their concern.

And that concerns the civil liberties folks.

Reference the Councils thread.

In the gummint's case, it's because of ACC.

The same now with workchafe - a back-door way for more gummint revenue from fines on entities deemed to have caused or contributed to the cause of an accident. Something that the ACC legislation did away with, with it's no-fault principle.

Any 'free' offer from a gummint or council always comes at a hidden cost. Often more than simply dipping into rate and taxpayers' pockets. Sometimes that cost is a restriction on personal freedoms / civil liberties.

[Wayne]

When you know someone with optional head injuries you tend to think they should be compulsory. They save a lot of lives and injury. You cant stop people buying ones that don't work of course but that is true in every area of life. People need to be concerned for their own safety and stay safe surely?

I read an article a while back suggesting that having to wear helmets put a lot of people off cycling.
It suggested that if more people cycled there could be better health outcomes and the net effect of helmets was negative (not as many saved as you'd think and poorer physical health from less exercise).

[fuzzlevalve]

Doesn't sound true to me Wayne. If helmets puts you off cycling you were probably never going to cycle anyway?
There is no argument they save lives when you look at the stats.

https://helmets.org/stats.htm

[Perry]

No Argument? Really?

There is no argument they save lives when you look at the stats.
https://helmets.org/stats.htm

Ahhh, lies, damned lies and statistics.

475 cyclists died.
424 - no helmet.
51 - with helmet.

Unless those numbers are tempered by correlation with survivability, irrespective of helmet, they are meaningless.

E.g. Killed by a train. Killed in by a stray bullet from a police shoot-out. Killed by a building component, falling off a truck.

A helmet would likely be of little use in such cases.

[fuzzlevalve]

YEs no argument. Look at the percentage of deaths in each case. Helmets clearly save a lot of lives.

[Perry]

Fuzzy Logic? Or Clearly?

Helmets clearly save a lot of lives.

It's a logical fallacy. I.e.

Cyclist deaths amongst those wearing helmets are less than the number of cyclist deaths of those not wearing helmets.
Therefore helmets reduces deaths in cyclists.

It's called the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy.

It goes something like this:

If B happened after A happened, A must have caused B to happen.

E.g. After Labour became government, NZ's trade deficit improved.
Therefore the Labour-led government caused NZ's trade deficit improvement.

Taint necessarily so.

[fuzzlevalve]

In 2016 51% of non helmet injuries were fatal as opposed to 16% with helmets. Many years it's 90% and under 10%. It's not false logic it's just facts.

[Perry]

I did not say or mean that the stats were not facts.

The inferences drawn from them are open to critical appraisal.

Many years ago, I recall Switzerland reporting a 66% increase in unemployment for the year.

Year-on-year, the actual figures were an increase to 3 from 5. Shocking!

The percentage figure was an accurate statistical fact that looked very bad at first appraisal.

The real consequences were irrelevant. (Except for the 5 unemployed, of course)

[Bob Kane]

I read an article a while back suggesting that having to wear helmets put a lot of people off cycling.
It suggested that if more people cycled there could be better health outcomes and the net effect of helmets was negative (not as many saved as you'd think and poorer physical health from less exercise).

Yep - that's a very good reason to make helmets optional.

[Bob Kane]

Doesn't sound true to me Wayne. If helmets puts you off cycling you were probably never going to cycle anyway?
There is no argument they save lives when you look at the stats.
https://helmets.org/stats.htm

I've got a pretty good bullshit detector.
And not a bad record at debunking urban myths.
I guess we won't agree on wearing cycle helmets.