Talk:Bicycle helmet/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

No personal attacks

It has become necessary to remind certain editors that WP has a strong policy of no personal attacks - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The policy clearly states:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

It is not acceptable to attach loaded labels to editors implying bias, it is not acceptable to impugn the scientific integrity or ethics of editor who are also researchers by suggesting that they have manipulated results because the institution that employs them, like almost all academic and research institutions, receives block funding from some section of government. Tim C (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Avoid_personal_remarks, which clearly states:

The purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. If you have opinions about the contributions others have made, feel free to discuss those contributions on any relevant talk page. But if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there – or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia.

Please desist from making any personal remarks, assertions or insinuations about editors who contribute to this or any related WP page. By all means discuss and even dispute specific edits or content, but not WP editors themselves. I hope that is clear. Tim C (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I note this from the same WP guidelines:
The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.
Once again, please do not use straw man arguments, misrepresenting a discussion about content as a personal attack. Please do not misrepresent a disclosure of conflicts of interests as a personal attack. Contrary to these false accusations, I have NEVER suggested that the results have been manipulated. Disclosing conflicts of interests is standard practice. It does not imply results have been manipulated.
The evidence you are trying to delete is about a controversial study that is misrepresented in the article. Several conflicts of interests have not been disclosed. In the talk section about those conflicts of interest, misleading statements trying to hide those conflicts of interests meant the evidence could no longer be denied. Since the issue of content cannot be denied, we are now getting accusations of personal attacks.
This is not about personal attacks. This is about transparency. As previously requested by other editors, please stop misusing Wikipedia guidelines to game the system.
As suggested in the WP guidelines, please deal with the content issue instead of making false accusations while deleting the evidence.Harvey4931 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
When material is posted on this Talk page which inaccurately and incorrectly accusing a WP editor by name of having undisclosed conflicts of interests and personal biases, in a defamatory fashion, it clearly is about personal attacks. I am removing the inaccurate material about me. Perhaps other editors would like to venture an opinion of whether the behaviour of User:Harvey4931 with respect to these personal attacks against me is acceptable under WP guidelines. Tim C (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The behaviour of User:Harvey4931, with respect to personal attacks, is completely unacceptable. The behaviour of User:Harvey4931, with respect repeated deletion of studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, is also completely unacceptable. Linda.m.ward (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that all parties drop the subject. We might think about how we regard contributions if we find that the contributor's professional funding depends ultimately on an organization which has expressed a strong point of view. I am personally aware that publishing counter to such a point of view can lead to significant repercussions. Any professional whose career depends on funding from an organization with an entrenched position would be very foolish to ignore the fact. To elucidate the point is therefore a tribute to commonsense and not an attack. But we don't need to belabour the matter any further, and the recent problems in this and related articles are best solved by accepting that many interested and informed editors have strong points of view. We need to use their contributions to produce a readable and neutral narrative and to achieve this we will need, as others have pointed out, to remove (to references) a lot of unreadably over-detailed stuff. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Re "Any professional whose career depends on funding from an organization with an entrenched position would be very foolish to ignore the fact. To elucidate the point is therefore a tribute to commonsense and not an attack", a number of WP admins have added salient comments to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Recurrent_personal_attacks_against_a_named_WP_contributor_on_an_article_Talk_page

As noted by one WP admin, "TimC has been more than up-front with potential COI by listing his institutional affiliation on his user page".
According to TimC's user page, TimC "has no association with any organisation or web site that engages in any form of promotion of, protest against or lobbying about the wearing of bicycle helmets or mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia or elsewhere."
A number of WP admins seem to be strongly strongly of the view that Harvey's "elucidations" are not commonsense, but personal attacks, eg
  • "Is it me, or is this beyond expressing a concern about someone's conflict of interest, and entering the field of soapboxing against a person? When someone starts a header on an article talk page with the sole purpose of discrediting another editor and drones on about it, it is inappropriate. The goal doesn't seem to address any point, but instead appears to be an attack on his character . . . Harvey is clearly soapboxing against Tim . . . At the very least, the entire purpose of Harvey's post was ad hominem."
  • "It's not just you. That is beyond the pale for an article talk page for the reasons you and others outline"
  • "There's skepticism, and then there's ad hominem-based idiocy and conspiracy theory."
Linda.m.ward (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Science: measuring helmet effectiveness

This section in general is a bit of a mess. It is all very well giving lots of information, but this is very much heading into the "Too long: didn't read" category. This is not good for our readers. Is it possible to distill these into a few of the more reliable studies. Reviews would be best as they tend to cover many studies at once. AIRcorn (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. really the whole section on helmet effectiveness could be condensed down to a paragraph on the Cochrane systematic review (with brief mention of the published critiques of it), and a paragraph on the Attewell et al. meta-analysis and the Elvik update of it. That would then cover all helmet effectiveness studies to 2010. Then studies in 2011 and later would need to be mentioned individually (plus reference to published critiques of them, of course), but there are only four or five of them. I will try to draft such a condensed version of the helmet effectiveness section for discussion on this Talk page in the next week or so (and others are encouraged to do the same). Tim C (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a considerable improvement and may return the article to something near readability. Personally I think this will still be too much detail - this is for the general reader not statisticians or epidemiologists - but there again, there are a range of good-quality possibilities for the article. I look forward to the results of your efforts. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good start. I would be wary of adding too much information on the recent individual studies though as that would most likely be a bit undue. I would almost lean to leaving them out, but that could probably be discussed case-by-case. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree they should be left out, when meta-analyses and statements from large bodies like the NHS are available to represent biomedical views. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that some of the largest studies, of an order of magnitude larger than previous studies, and thus statistically far more reliable, have only been published in the last few years and are not included in the currently available meta-analyses. WP is supposed to be up-to-date. Each of these recent studies ony requires a sentence each to adequate report their results. Tim C (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
For biomedical material, WP:MEDRS applies. It's not up to us as WP editors to sift primary studies and decide for ourselves their significance, reliability etc. We need secondary material (e.g. meta-analyses or evaluative statements from respected medical institutions) to do that for us. In general, as an outsider keeping an eye on this article over the past few weeks, it seems to me that it is attempting to engage in the helmet "debate" rather than report on it disinterestedly. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
While we are supposed to be up-to-date we are not supposed to interpret primary studies. It shouldn't make much difference anyway, because they will present the same view as the previous studies and therefore add nothing new or have unique ideas that challenge the current standard, which could fall foul of WP:Undue if included. How about we start with the meta-analysis first and then discuss which, if any, newer studies should be included. AIRcorn (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of mention of the only two helmet effectiveness meta-analyses published

User:Harvey4931 has repeatedly deleted two paragraphs in the section of the article on meta-analyses of helmet effectiveness which summarise the results of and reference the only two published meta-analyses of bicycle helmet effectiveness. Given this, such deletions make no sense. A meta-analyse is a quantitative statistical synthesis of the results of a number of studies of a particular treatment or intervention (in this case, the wearing of bicycle helmets) and is accepted as the best way to summarise and synthesise the results of many separate studies. The 2011 Elvik meta-analysis is an update of the 2001 Attewell et al. meta-analysis, but it actually uses the data compiled by Attewell et al. and just adds four additional studies. The criticisms made by Elvik of the earlier Attewell meta-analysis are his view - they should be reported, but do not invalidate the Attewell meta-analysis or render it worthless or wrong (especially considering that Elvik uses the Attewell data!). For these reasons, I am reverting these deletions from the article. Note that the Cochrane review was actually a systematic review, not a meta-analysis, although it is probably acceptable to discuss it in the same section because it is also a published, peer-reviewed research synthesis of bicycle helmet effectiveness.Tim C (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no need for me to revert these deletions, User:Jim1138 has already done so. Tim C (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

History of Standards section

In the History of Standards section, the last paragraph says: "The trend is toward thinner helmets with many large vents. This trend to lower standards has been noted in some of the studies." with a 1992 paper by Vulcan et al. as the source. I retrieved this aper and the only thing it says about newer helmets and standards is:

At the time of the announcement (Sept 1989) of the introduction requirement, the Australian Standard for bicycle helmets was under review. VICROADS approval was introduced as an interim measure pending amendment of the Standard AS 2063.2 in April 1990. The system allowed the newer, lighter-weight style helmets to be approved, without compromising safety for cyclists. Helmets satisfying the existing standard received automatic approval. However, from April 1992, certification of the new Australian standard replaced the need for VICROADS approval.

Given this, there would seem to be no support inthe source for the statement as it appears in the article, and thus I have deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.churches (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please can we split this article

Seriously, what is going with this article? The section Science: measuring helmet effectiveness is out of control and far too detailed compared to the rest of the article. Readers coming to this page want to know about bicycle helmets; the various types, their history, etc. They don't want to be swamped by mass of argument/counter-argument on what this or that report has to say about their effectiveness. I'd like to see all that moved out of this article, into one that's dedicated to that subject alone. In it's place we should have e a 'main article link' and a short summary which acknowledges the various positions without going into unnecessary detail. Obscurasky (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the diagnosis. I think a better solution though is to confront the problem head-on a slim the 'scientific' discussions right down. There is waaay too much reproduction/interpretation of primary material here. All that needs to be relayed is a few views of reliable/secondary sources (broadly: wearing a helmet is safer than not). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. This article has indeed become unreadable and this is because it is swamped with primary material / argumentation, stuff that doesn't need an article of its own because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. There are several things that Wikipedia is not and it should not try to be a list of the primary arguments in a deeply contentious area. I, and I suspect others, have been leaving this alone in the hope that those presently engaged in adding primary arguments will decide instead to try for a neutral summary of the secondary sources. We had a much better (though imperfect) article some months ago, back in January for example. I don't have time to work on this for a few days, but in a week or so it may claw its way to the top of my priority list. I'd really welcome help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have to say that in my opinion in January 2013 the article was hopelessly biassed against helmets - reading it as it was then, an otherwise uninformed reader would get the distinct impression that helmets were not effective and were positively dangerous, and that there was no evidence that helmet laws had any effect on head injuries - impressions which on the available scientific evidence would be erroneous. Have a look at the version of the article as it was in Dec 2012 (no edits were made in Jan 2013, so this is the same as it was in Jan 2013): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_helmet&oldid=528336521 The article is still full of probably unnecessary material and details, but have a look at the section on "Science: measuring helmet effectiveness". Compare that to the current version of the article. Yes, the current version is way too detailed, but at least it much better reflects the full range of scientific evidence on the issue, and the descriptions of the studies are much more accurate. A lot of effort has gone into reading many of the older sources cited, and correcting the descriptions of their findings, many of which used selective quotes which misrepresented or selectively represented the findings of those studies. Tim C (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at removing some of the improperly used primary material and inserting some medical institution views, but much still remains to be done. Some of this article is almost comically bad - e.g. " ... by the straps of their bicycle helmets.[101][Q 4] [102][103][104][105][Q 5] [106][Q 6] [107][108][109][110][111][112][113][Q 7]". Yes, that's 17 references for a statement! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I support much of your good work here and agree that much more pruning needs to be done, but I have reverted the removal of valuable references to the hangings. We do need references to the actual problem, and these are, while primary, the best available. As they're only presented as references they don't affect readability in the way that excessive argumentation does. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's of any value, really. That a standard was developed for the problem is evidence enough that there was obviously a problem that needed solving. Having so much material on this topic here is a bit WP:UNDUE and perhaps even sensational – and having the references is an extreme case of WP:OVERCITE! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
These are still the best references available for the original problem. I'd be happy to find other ways of presenting the facts - is there any good way of aggregating references? - but the idea of omitting them strikes me as ... odd. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
We could aggregate, but that wouldn't solve the undue/sensationalism/WP:PRIMARY issues. What we want - if the point needs reinforcing - is one good strong secondary source (perhaps this) making the point that children face a strangulation/entrapment hazard from helmets when worn away from cycling. Then the raft of refs can go since we don't want to base an article on primary material. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with a comment by User:Obscurasky (some weeks ago) that this type of thing seems to be an attempt to fill the article with as much anti-helmet bias as is physically possible. Linda.m.ward (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's an attempt to write a clear, comprehensive, and neutral article. A string of un-aggregated references may not be quite the best way to present this rare hazard, but it is certainly a good way to do it. Alex, what would be your favourite way to aggregate references? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
For this article's reference style, I'd use a bullet list inside a <ref> - however this is generally only necessary when the material being supported is contentious and needs further support and explanation. AFAICS this strangulation problem with helmets is not disputed, so the only purpose of having all these references is as a kind of sub-article ("A compendium of helmet-caused child deaths") here which is, as I've written above, probably undue/sensational. The pertinent fact (for the topic of this article) is clearly stated by the secondary source we have, and the one I suggest above; the primary sources need to come out I think. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
In view of various attempts to minimize/omit the issue I think we do need the references. They make clear that the problem is real, serious, rare, and only occurs off bikes. I'll have a go at a bullet list inside a reference. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of opening image

The opening image on the page was removed some revisions back, it looks like this may have been accidental - some lines before the image were deleted and the edit itself did not refer to the image being removed. User:Kencf0618 has added a new image in its place, a good thing, but the image does not show the helmet as well and contains extraneous information in the label, e.g. "Bern Alston", "Oregon Trail". I've therefore dug back through the history and reverted to the previous image. Kiwikiped (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bern is the brand of the helmet, and Alston the model. Bern Unlimited needs an article itself à la Bell, but I haven't gotten a round tuit. kencf0618 (talk)

Eliminate or improve "Reduction in fatalities" subsection

The subsection "Reduction in fatalities" should be removed or improved. It is currently one sentence, and cites to a single study with little context. That certainly doesn't warrant a whole section, and given previous discussions, the meta-analysis section is sufficient. -- Carleas (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I have removed this subsection. Carleas (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a good thing, one "study" (explicitly describing itself as guesswork) was not a good thing to have here. I would prefer to see a rather longer section reinstated, giving a more thorough account of the current literature. It will inevitably be contentious, which is why I've left it alone for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree there should be a longer dicussion; the bicycle safety article seems to assume that this article contains more discussion than it does, and IIRC there once was such a discussion here (Robin Hanson blogged about it a few years ago). But I think a better approach would be to move the discussion to its own page, included as a 'See also' at the top of the Effectiveness section. Doing it justice here would overwhelm what seems to be the purpose of this page, i.e. describing bicycle helmets. Carleas (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You may have a point, though it's one that I've generally not been in favour of. Maybe its time has come. What title would you suggest for the new page? "Effects of bicycle helmets", perhaps?Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The usefulness of helmet-wearing is measured in kilo-electronvolts.

There is another, very important aspect, which the current article fails to mention: a strong medical justification to make wearing helmets mandatory, for at least the children and teenagers. The issue is not just about preventing injuries, but also about providing positive proof of a lack of possible injuries. If the wearer appears uninjured after an accident and the careful check-up of his/her cycling helmet shows the impact did not exceed its safety rating, then a head X-ray or CT can be omitted.

This is of paramount importance for kids, i.e. people still in growth, as head X-ray are proven to make kids more stupid, to say it bluntly. To be more precise, the decrease of IQ is measurable in percentage points, as the ionizing radiation destroys newly forming inter-connections among the neurons in those still developing brains. Modern medical science teaches children shall receive head X-rays only after careful consideration and possibly consilium, but never as a routine practice. Three, four full head X-rays or even a single CT scan will degrage a bright, collage-bound 7-year old to a future welder or a future welder to a garbage collector. In more and more countries, even the practice of dento-panoramic imaging of children becomes regulated, with mandatory doctor's prescription, based on the above reasoning.

X-rays are amazingly useful for medical science, but they are meant to diagnose injuries, rather than solving uncertainties. When a bare head hits Mother Earth, a doctor can never be sure about the conditions within the skull by mere external observation. Lack of skin lacerations may mean there was a lucky patch of grass, but that says nothing about deceleration rate affecting the internals of the skull. Hence the need for X-ray exposures, even if they turn out to be unwarranted and damaging for underage people. In contrast, a certified cycling helmet's foam acts as an etalon between the threat and the head. If the head looks OK and the helmet's threshold visibly was not exceeded, little Johnny can walk home with all his IQ, without ever meeting Herr Rontgen.

If people worry about vaccination making their kids autists, they should worry 100x more about helmet-less biking making their kids stupid and this aspect needs to go into this article! 79.120.175.2 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support these claims? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems very much UK centric

Thatt's fine, but there's very little here that applies to the US especially in the metrics. I think this article should be labelled as such until a US version emerges or is combined with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazierdp (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Typical Yank. Sweetie, much of wikipedia is FAR more USA-centric, written by naive twits who have trouble finding Australia on a globe. But, funnily enough, I guess you haven't noticed that. 124.169.133.110 (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Earth is flat, HIV does not cause AIDS and helmets decrease bicycle safety.

This article is the Flat-Earth treatise of Wikipedia! It is so false, one does not even need to climb to the top of the mast to see its falseness.

Soldiers were not routinely wearing helmets before WWI. By the end of hostilities, all of them had steel pots. In-between, some 10 million G. I. never got up from the mud, that why general staffs quickly wizened up. Now they have kevlar pots. Construction workers were not routinely wearing helmets before the Hoover Dam. Nowadays not wearing one makes a blue-collar guy unemployable. But, of course, cyclists are different, laws physics do not apply to them! (Pugilists recently choose that route, as well. Although not many are able to speak coherently by the end of their sporting carrers...)

Anyhow, modern medical science can mend or at least replace any part of a human, except the head. Therefore, discouraging people from wearing bicycle helmets only serves the secretive interest of organ transplant surgeons, ensuring a steady stream of young adults, who have healthy bodies, but are flat out brain-dead. Each such youngster's corpse can be cut up, to save six or seven, older and well-established and societally more useful ill people. Guess how many top managers, laurate scientists, politicians, bishops, etc. are desperately awaiting medical organ transplants?

(Motorcycle accidents usually also crush the body, because the engine block is hard and heavy. Such riders are also often already worn 50+ aged people, buying their Harleys to re-live juvenile dreams. Therefore bicycle brain-deads are in the best condition and they are the utmost prized corpses.) 82.131.146.70 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you produce statistically sound evidence in favour of bicycle helmets? Murray Langton (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


- --88.177.158.231 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC) here, more than half of this article should be called "Current debate regarding helmet laws and helmet effectiveness", it's listing everything and the kitchen sink, like a toolbox to anyone wishing to rant about helmet law projects.

  • @ 82.131.146.70: The topic of bicycle helmet is "different" because there is people fighting against helmet laws, because wearing a helmet on your bicycle at all time is a burden and rather annoying at first. That's why some people will put much more emphasis on potential "risk compensation" and whatever the "anti-helmet" activists can find.
  • Speed (kinetic energy): Another reason why bicycle helmet get that special treatment and not the motorcycle helmets or seat belts anymore (at least in the rich western world). These vehicles (cars and motorbikes) can have crashes at much higher speed resulting in the complete destruction of the human body, so the benefits of the helmet or seat belt proved they clearly outweigh any kind of "risk compensation" you could argue about.
  • Workplace vs individual right: wearing a safety helmet on a construction site is a burden too. But in the case of a construction site, you're employed or paid as an external contractor to work on a particular task, you're not working at your home on your own projects. It would be understandable to make wearing a bicycle helmet mandatory if you're riding a bike as part of your job, or if the bike is paid and maintained by your company, but it would be a much more intrusive regulation if people were forced to wear a bicycle helmet at all time, even on their own private bike.
  • Risk compensation change over time and heavily depends on each person (personality, age, etc) AND culture, pretending there's an universal response to risk situations is utterly foolish. I rode without a helmet for 14 years, never felt I was taking any risk. Started wearing a helmet a year ago, at first I felt no difference, nowadays if I don't wear a helmet it's like driving a car without wearing a seat belt: I'm terrified. In many countries, no one is wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, same in the 20s and 30s (or even the 50s-60s) in Europe ; nowadays, anyone riding without a helmet on public road in the EU makes everyone stunned and shocked.
  • Riding a bike in a capital city is nothing like riding a bike at the countryside: it's not the same type and amounts of risks at all. These arguments regarding risk compensation, risk taking and the efficiency of helmets don't seem to be solid at all since they do not mention any of these elements in their conclusions or approaches.
  • A fair compromise (in my opinion) would be getting the insurance companies to make you pay slightly more (through a balanced bonus-malus system -> helmet-wearing pay slightly less, helmet-less pay slightly more) if you were caught in a bike accident (as the bicycle) while not wearing a helmet. Cops wouldn't jump on you for not wearing a helmet, you could perfectly ride without a helmet, but if the shit hit the fan and you hit the pavement, you were told to have the proper gear, refused to listen, and will have to pay (a little) for your foolishness. Also, bundling municipal bike-sharing/bike-parking subscription with a helmet. A helmet should be a good and favored option given to people, not a reason to hand out tickets to peaceful cyclists.

PS: to the people thinking helmet are useless: start riding your bike every day, you'll quickly realize the decision to ride 'naked' is not worth it.

"But I never got in an accident where the helmet would have helped me !" - I've never been in a car accident, but I always wear my seat belt (even on an empty parking lot in the middle of nowhere) just like I always use the blinkers to turn. Safety is all about prevention, what happens after the accident is medical treatment and re-education (or funerals).
  • I've been riding my bicycle on a daily basis (twice a day, 6 days per week = 12 trips per week = around 6 hours of bicycle in urban environment per week) for the last 15 years. I've been hit, pushed and slammed on the asphalt several times, either by car doing hit'n'run reckless driving (one being clearly drunk - my front teeth are very slightly misaligned because of that bastard, hit me just after leaving that roundabout (him driving straight through it)) or pedestrians suddenly crossing without looking at all (often talking on the phone) forcing me and incoming cars to slam the brakes, sometime resulting in nasty falls for me. I have a cicatrix less than an inch from my left eye from my first accident (back when I was a wee lad) where I loss consciousness and enough blood to fill a good jug. A helmet would have greatly reduced the physical damages I took from these falls.
  • I finally bought myself a helmet one year ago, forced myself to wear it every single day (and yes, it sucks a lot at first, just like the seat belt). Four mouth ago, a teenager crossed the road while pushing her bike between two vehicle (one being a large van completely hiding her), while I was riding in the other lane. She didn't check the other lane and stormed through it. Hopefully for her, I wasn't a car. Sadly for me, I was caught by surprise. Flew right into the air and landed violently on the side. After 5 to 10 seconds, I crawled my way to the sidewalk. Head ? Intact, not knocked out, despite slamming the road. Pelvis ? started hurting like hell once the adrenaline went away, took 3 months to fully heal. Wearing a $30-$40 helmet ? So fucking worth it.
  • If you don't ever care about yourself, care about the ER team that are going to pick up your body. Their job is difficult enough, give them a chance to stabilize you.

--88.177.158.231 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Gosh we've never heard those arguments ten thousand times before. Just one small question: why is it that no country anywhere in the world can show an improvement in cyclist safety that is due to increases in helmet wearing? OK, two questions: how come the Germans just calculated that a helmet law would cost more than it saved? Guy (Help!) 21:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
* You haven't read what I posted and the article, right ? Is there a place where I said it should be illegal to not wear a helmet ? Haven't you noticed how I completely reject the idea of "helmet laws" ? Do I need to repeat what the dutch Fietsersbond very accurately said "Helmet laws save a few brains, but destroy a lot of hearts"? My post was responding to 82.131.146.70 and regarding the bullshit (risk compensation when wearing a helmet - because obviously risk tasking is perfectly rational and limited to a single plastic item...) found in the article (not backed by any serious study), it was NOT about these freaking helmet law (that are the dumbest thing ever).
* And to answer your question about "proving" cyclist safety improvement: to prove anything (and I mean PROVE, not "look at the graph, there seem to be some kind of correlation, BINGO we're done here!" like in almost all these studies) regarding any measure/device/vehicle, you would need a massive budget to properly cover all major countries, areas (city, residential area, countryside) over at least 10 years, with people specialized in the medical field, the vehicle engineering field, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, urbanization, transport, law enforcement working full-time on the study. Such thing was progressively done with the many different type of airbags because the manufacturers paid and provided all the expertise for that, because they could be sued if their airbag system was killing more people than saving them.
* Now are you seriously expecting any country to fund such study, when it's just about cyclists wearing a helmet or not ? The only places where there's a lot of bicycle users (the only place who would fund such researches) have a much different culture/urbanization/transport system and apparently a much better cyclist safety (try to prove the correlation/causality between all these elements, it's a chicken or the egg or both problem).
* Simply because there isn't a way to prove anything (financially speaking - economically it's not worth it at all) doesn't mean anyone can write anything in "advantage/disadvantage" because a professor once sampled 200 or 300 bicycle users or a local ER service record and wrote a quick paper on it in under 6 months to get a +1 to his publication counter. The current article is written like a FoxNews show "You can't explain that ! Therefore it's probable enough because my terrible study says so, prove me wrong !". That's the whole point of my previous post: I don't care if it's not proven that wearing a helmet increase safety (you make your choice, as a grownup), what worries me is people shoving some complete bollocks into the article with completely inconclusive and unproven hypothesis drawn from terribly weak studies.
* "A study found that people wearing helmet were more likely to have an accident" -> what about the reason why people wear the helmets in the first place ? Something like a riskier area/route, and/or a riskier schedule (when commuting), and/or a specific road-sharing culture, and/or a cyclist riding much more often than others (even during rain), etc. "Must be risk compensation". Bravissimo, that's some clever scientific method ! All the fucking time in these studies, all the fucking time, no matter what is their prior opinion (aka bias) on the subject. See what I'm concerned about ? The complete lack of seriousness of these studies, not your freedom to refuse to wear a ridiculous plastic hat. --88.177.158.231 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
More importantly, we aren't here to save the world, "Please god, save the children!" or persuade anyone. It is an encyclopedia article, and as such, should focus on summarizing the facts of a topic in a way that is reflective of the sources that are available. Not the "truth", but verifiable facts. If "thinking about people in the ER" is your motivation, you shouldn't be editing the article. We all have topics that we should not edit, myself included, due to having too strong of emotion on the topic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
* Ha ha, you're a funny one. The article is a complete joke, citing completely lacking studies who failed to take basic factors into accounts just to put these extra bullet-points the anti- or pro- helmet law activists repeat everywhere (already talked about that above).
Seriously, doing stats comparison between Netherlands and completely different countries, with vastly different urbanization, road and bicycle lanes, road accident liability law, and transport culture ? Or comparing a study covering children riding in their residential area, and adults commuting in high-density capital cities ?
That would be like comparing the mortality in bus transport in Africa and in Japan, and concluding that bus transport can not be confirmed as any safer than the car, completely overlooking the conditions of the buses in Africa, their drivers, the massive overcrowding, the population using bus transport as their primary mean of transport, the average distance traveled per week, the condition of the road network, etc. Refusing to look at all the factors influencing the stats is only proving one thing: it's not a proper study and it shouldn't be used to back up a claim (especially on Wikipedia).
One more funny example: comparing gun violence in the US and in Switzerland, and reaching the conclusion that gun control (even basic background checks) is not needed ever since it works so perfectly in Switzerland with hundreds of thousands of full-auto SIG in circulation and one of the lowest gun crime rate in the world. Who need context and factors when you can just get the stats you need and publish it ?
If that article was to be an encyclopedia article, more than half of it would be removed immediately. And that's the only thing I claimed in my first post.
* I only added my personal story because Wikipedia is, more than ever, plagued with argument from authority: "Oh you haven't published anything ? You can't find a "source" who accepted to publish your paper ? You can leave immediately, we only deal with people who are publishing IRL. That study is clearly a complete farce ? Well, have you published THAT statement ? No ? Then it's a perfectly valid study and should be the central pillar of that article, move along". I'm not even exaggerating, the reductio ad publishum is everywhere on Wikipedia. 82.131.146.70 was right regarding the Flat Earth syndrome, all you need is a vague paper that find its way to the printer and voila, no need to talk about anything (there's a reason why talk/discussion pages are deserted these days and contribution rates are dropping).
*PS: You might have noticed I haven't edited anything in the article, and only used the Talk page to discuss about the article's flaws. First because I gave up (long ago) on dealing with Wikipedians bending all the rules to prevent improvement (yay deletionism: can't erase pokemon pages because too much pro-pokemon wikipedians ? let's attack defenseless Internet-based culture from webcomics to mods before they can backup all these articles !), secondly because I'm not willing to go through all the pro/anti helmet law BS for months to get the article actually improved a tiny bit (because I perfectly know it's much more important to know Wikipedia edits tactics than having actual solid sources to get anything done), thirdly because I know I'm currently not able to spend 5 months over a single adverb (what Wikipedia is now about) because someone is afraid it might influence the outcome of its current national legislation project regarding bicycle regulation. And fourth, who still do vandalism in 2014, seriously ? So I'm sticking to the Talk pages, Talking about the article, it's what it's made for, no ? --88.177.158.231 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Your personal story is balanced by mine: I have had three serious bike crashes in my life, two while wearing lids, one while not, the outcome was identical in every case: concussion leaving no obvious ill-effects. A&E doctors tend to assure every cyclist injured while wearing a lid that the lid Saved Their Life™, and every cyclist injured not wearing one that they are lucky to be alive and should wear a lid next time. Meanwhile the two safest countries in the world to cycle - Denmark and the Netherlands - have the lowest helmet wearing rates, and there's no good evidence that the various helmet laws have even paidf for themselves let alone reduced head injuries. A graph of head injury in cyclists vs. pedestrians in New Zealand shows no divergence in the year that helmet wearing doubled to over 90% due to imposition of a law. Your belief notwithstanding, there is very little evidence that helmets make any difference at all to serious or fatal cyclist injuries, and this comes as no surprise at all to anyone who is even slightly familiar with the standards and tests.
And balanced back again by mine: my only two bike accidents would have required hospitalisation except for my helmet. Which is why they don't contribute to the stats. 124.169.133.110 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The Netherlands data is irrelevant to many other countries: flat roads, upright bikes, HUGE fraction of commuters, cold climate, very orderly mainly sedate bike traffic. 124.169.133.110 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest useful improvements to the article, with reliable independent sources to support your text. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Some data is old and irrelevant

I'm concerned that too many of the claims made on this page are based on data which is old or largely irrelevant. For example, the statements made about the USA under "Cycling risk and head injury" are derived from research that is 16 years old. Also much of the research quoted seems to relate only to road users, but is being applied to cyclists in general. This doesn't take into account mountain bikers who make up a considerable proportion of helmet users. Obscurasky (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Old doesn't necessarily mean irrelevant, but I look forward to your suggestions.
We had a discussion on your second point some time ago. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Cycling patterns, helmet use, and helmets themselves, have all changed markedly over the last twenty years. Old doesn't necessarily mean irrelevant, but given the fluidity of the subject matter here, I'm concerned that it's unsafe to use old data when making 'statements of fact'. My suggestion is that best practice here would be to only use recent studies and research. Obscurasky (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Folding

A few folding designs are on the market, including Plixi [1] and Closca [2]. Should they have a section? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a mention at least. Can you supply a picture? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bicycle helmet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bicycle helmet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

BMJ 2007

This is a high-quality study, by WP:MEDRS standards, and it's an update of the 1999 Cochrane study. I don't see it in the entry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
Inj Prev. 2007 Jun; 13(3):190.
doi:10.1136/ip.2007.015966
PMC 2598379
Systematic reviews of bicycle helmet research
Rebecca Ivers
--Nbauman (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Bicycle helmet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bicycle_helmet/Archive_6&oldid=1090474335"