What a surprising - and welcome - editorial in the Canadian newspaper The Edmonton Sun, entitled Bike Helmet Law Premature.
Is rationality the new fear-mongering?
"We live in the age of the “easy answer,” of belief dominating fact, because everyone has an outlet for expression, no matter how hideously uninformed they may be.
It’s a real problem when it comes to respecting the balance between individual liberties and public safety and civility.
When the nature of a debate has become so muddied by personal and special interests, it’s usually a good time to step away from it and assess reality. A proposal for an adult bike helmet law in Alberta is one such example.
Much of what we learned about bike helmets growing up is no longer true. Accepted standards for helmet construction have changed multiple times, and even some of those certified by national safety bodies have failed miserably in testing to protect their wearers.
So we don’t really know which helmets to trust. One independent study showed the most common design of modern moulded helmet might actually be contributing to head injuries, due to the hard outer shell compressing the inner foam lining more quickly on impact than it takes for the lining to absorb the head’s impact.
It’s easy for the pro-helmet side of the debate to point to grotesque statistics, like the fact that there are about 70,000 bicyclist head injuries in North America every year. But as one U.K. statistician pointed out, you’re as likely as a pedestrian to be killed in a road accident as you are if you’re a cyclist.
There are a lot of injuries to cyclists, and there are lots of accidents between them and other vehicles. But very few of them actually result in fatalities.
So, as much as safety experts would like to follow the modern trend of framing civil liberties debates as simple black-and-white issues — witness the plethora of half-truths and outright lies associated with the anti-smoking industry, for example — the bike helmet issue is not resolved.
Comparisons with seat-belt laws are not apt. The reality is that mandatory belt laws are demonstrated to lower fatality rates in every jurisdiction in which they’ve been introduced. The same cannot be said of bicycle helmets.
Were they able to concretely provide some evidence not only that helmet laws work but that helmet standards are sufficient, this wouldn’t be a debate. The fact that it is means the word “mandatory” should come off the table."
Via: Editorial from The Edmonton Sun.
More information about Canadian helmet laws.
14 thinking out louds:
If you look at the statistics in a more detailed way than just "x number of head injuries" and look at what those head injuries are, most of them are minor. If you look at statistics in a more detailed way than just "x number of bicycle crashes resulted in ER visits" and look at what the actual injuries sustained were, most of them are road rash, scrapes, and bruises. Hardly reasons for mandating everyone to wear a helmet while riding.
Incidentally, the only time I've been injured on a bike was when I was about 7 and was turning around in a neighbor's driveway with nobody else around, slipped, fell over, and broke my thumb.
"Is rationality the new fear-mongering?"
One can only hope. Let's hear it for The Enlightenment 2.0
"Much of what we learned about bike helmets growing up is no longer true. Accepted standards for helmet construction have changed multiple times"
I've implied this issue a number of times here, but never addressed it directly, even though I've seen others say that the modern helmet MUST be better because they employ newer "technology." In point of fact, the TECHNOLOGY has not advanced significantly since the 60s (before bike helmets even existed), with the exception of certain shell materials, which very few bike helmets employ (as they increase cost dramatically, but do not necessarily increase safety for most users).
The original Bell Biker is still very much one of the best bicycle helmets yet made and VERY much better than what is generally worn. The Pro-Tecs and Berns based on skater/scooter shells are the only ones that likely exceed it - at the cost of some ventilation. They're a BIT less dorky looking as well.
The degrading of the helmet standards, and thus the helmets themselves, came about by market pressures. It seems that the very people who want to wear helmets for protection *don't actually care much about the actual protection provided.* What they REALLY care about is FEELING protected and - comfort! So the modern road helmet has become more comfortable, and nearly worthless for protection. They typically just shatter on impact, their critical FAILURE mode.
I've never seen this issue of changing (in the degrading direction) standards addressed in the popular press. It's about time.
"compressing the inner foam lining more quickly on impact than it takes for the lining to absorb the head’s impact."
This isn't correct. What is happening here is that the helmet is not working according to spec, but the helmet IS working - to prevent a range of concussion injuries that are more common than fatal ones. It might be a good choice for very many people. The law does not give them this choice where helmets are required (but few law enforcers know the difference. All they see is that you're wearing the required fetish; so choose as you wish).
It's important to note that helmet specs are only designed to mitigate ONE kind of injury. That's why there are skater/BMX helmets and road helmets. The injury risks are different so the helmets are made differently. The protection you desire may not be the one the helmet designer/spec was aiming at. This doesn't mean it's a bad helmet, but it might not do YOU any good - even though it's made as well as a helmet can be.
"Comparisons with seat-belt laws are not apt."
Because the environment of sitting inside a big metal box weighing 1000 kg and traveling at 100 kph is a very different one from traveling astride a bike weighing 10 kg and traveling at 20 kph. The seatbelt is there to protect you from THE BOX killing you.
The more apt comparison, as has been pointed out on this blog many times, is the apples to apples one; since occupants of the box are more likely to die of a head injury than a cyclist, why aren't THEY required to wear a seat belt AND a helmet?
But he sounds like a loonie talking about lies coming from the anti-smoking lobby. I would suggest the anti-smoking brigade aren't the liars on that debate.
3 stacks on my bike this year. A helmet was not needed each time.
Wow, I don't think I've ever agreed with any opinion piece the Sun has printed before.
"I would suggest the anti-smoking brigade aren't the liars on that debate."
I would suggest that there has never been any shortage of liars; anywhere. Anyone who suggests that any one side in a large issue is lily white is either among the liars themselves, or among the deluded. This is actually another issue you might well be advised to look deeper into.
I'll give you this one firm bit of ground on that issue though; if you select 10 lung cancer victims at random, it is very likely that NINE of them will be CIGARETTE smokers; the tenth is likely to be a never smoked.
But there are forums specifically addressed to raise these issues; and this isn't one of them.
See also David Hembrow's blog:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-and-dutch-cyclist.html
To which I might add that a new campaign was launched a few days ago in the Netherlands to get racing cyclists, i.e. cyclists riding at speed on the road, and BMX riders to wear helmets. They mostly do already, but this new publicity through large billboards is clearly aimed at hammering the gospel into recreational and commuting cyclists.
Are there any helmet test videos out there -- maybe with a crash test dummy being flung head-first against a wall -- that could demonstrate the impact characteristics of a helmet? I've tried YouTube, but I come up blank. I can't even find much in the way of safety claims or limitations on helmet manufacturer's websites.
Bicycle helmet tests are not done with crash dummies. They are done, in essence, by putting a head form in a helmet and then dropping it on the ground. If the bowling ball does not experience more than 300gs; it passes. That's it. That's for a certified road helmet in the USA. In other places and other styles of helmet the testing standards may be lower, or the helmets may not be tested at all.
I don't know about you, but my head is rather unlike a head FORM; and on those odd instances I have struck my head in a cycling mishap, I did NOT land squarely on the top of my head.
Actual examination of post crash bicycle and motorcycle helmets shows that no more than a few TENTHS of a percent of real world impacts occur to the area that bicycle helmets are tested against.
PART of the problem is that, unlike cars where the driver is effectively a passive object in an accident, a bicycle rider is an active agent in any event that takes place. A dummy can in no way simulate an actual rider. In an otherwise identical mishap situation, say a slip on the ice, YOU may fall and hit your head, while I toss the bike aside and end up standing on my feet, not experiencing a fall at all.
So we must rely on the actual misfortunes of ourselves and others to gather our information.
P.S. "I can't even find much in the way of safety claims or limitations"
Are you NUTS? The company lawyers would NEVER allow any such claims to be made. Might just as well hang a big "Sue Me!" sign on CHQ - and then quickly and quietly close up shop.
Limitations will always be couched in terms of, "Hey, don't look at US. YOU'RE the one engaged in dangerous stunt riding."
The comment on Seat Belt Laws at the end is interesting: "Comparisons with seat-belt laws are not apt. The reality is that mandatory belt laws are demonstrated to lower fatality rates in every jurisdiction in which they’ve been introduced."
The orthodox assumption is that Seat Belt Laws saved lives, but who lives? Yes there was a reduction in death and injury of the occupants of motor vehicle. However, it is less widely recognised that the time of introduction of these laws, there was in every jurisdiction in which they’ve been introduced, an increase of death and injury to other road uses. See the Road Danger Reduction Forum for a longer explanation of this issue.
This is very interesting, from a surprising source (tar sands country).
Portlandize, you are fortunate - I've had a few minor accidents - none menaced my head as I do slow, upright cycling on city streets. I had a nasty accident some years back (summer of 2003?) and hurt my shoulder and dominant arm muscles and ligaments. Like most human beings. I had the instinct to stick out my arm to protect my head. This accident was due to a crack (fente) in the road surface. But people have accidents like that walking, running etc. Why no running helmets?
kfg, you are forgetting industrial disease. Indeed, at least until recently most industrial workers exposed to asbestos and other carcinogens were often also heavy smokers, due to a certain fatalism, but cigarettes aren't the only factor.
Frits, that is dreadful. There is no comparison between an athlete training and Oma heading to market on her Omafiets. Scaremongering for €€€.
"kfg, you are forgetting . . ."
I made no claims of correlation equaling causation. In fact, I implied that it didn't.
I was shocked to read this editorial, both because the Edmonton Sun is a right wing scare-mongering tabloid, and because a Sun reporter working on this story had called our local bike co-op earlier this week for an opinion on helmet laws. From the conversation one of the volunteers had with the reporter, I was expecting another sensationalized piece about menacing cyclists with no regard for either their own safety or the taxpayers who shoulder the cost of healthcare to fix their broken heads.
I hope this is a sign of actual mainstream change in opinion towards the sacrosanct helmet. Way to go E. Sun!
I am the proud owner of a cracked helmet.
It happened when a taxi illegally stopped and two passengers looking to get a glimpse of Arnold Schwarzenegger carrying the Olympic torch tried to hop out into my path.
I killed that cab door.
I was still dazed, but managed to go to work that night, doing web site updating with a weird headache.
I was super-angry for a few weeks, and paranoid about having a personality change -- But the only drool I'm cleaning up is what gets left on my pillow at night.
I think the helmet did its job. And to me, its like boaters arguing about wearing lifejackets. Most of us aren't going to need one, but it's really sad to find an empty overturned boat with all the lifejackets still stowed away. Statistics-it-away all you want; make excuses; point the finger at who else should be wearing protective gear. Whatever. Refuse to grow up and think seriously about your life. It's yours to throw away, I guess.
Post a Comment