Be prepared for an accident

[classic33]

so its conclusions should be regarded with suspicion IMO.

[/QUOTE]
In your opinion. Which is only as valid as that of anyone else on here.

How many full-face helmets do you see cyclists using? I can't remember the last time I saw one not on an MTB track.

The type of helmet, full face downhill, worn by myself, commuting to/from Leeds(A58, Whitehall Road, Globe Road) on a daily basis, and continued to use when working elsewhere. 250 miles a weekend. Replaced twice in that time, once after finding my "manager" banging it off the corner and edge of the table, then the wall. Surprised at it holding up to what he was doing.
Replaced at his expense, not mine.
The second when T-boned by a DUI at a junction.

Hospital data again, not population data, again,

How many of the general population do you see wearing helmets on a daily basis?
I know of three.

None of the research you link comes to the conclusion that cycle helmets reduce injury at a population level. They're mostly studying the wrong question, an easy win, but beside the point. The stuff you link shows that if you have a bad enough crash to end up at a hospital, or in some cases only that you end up at one with a head injury, then use of a cycle helmet will probably mean a reduced injury severity. That's not the debate. It's whether increased helmet use means a reduced chance of injury, overall, on average, at a population level.

Is that amongst the cycling population, or the population as a whole?

What, in your opinion, is the question they should be asking?

Think of it like this: would you want to use a helmet if it halves the severity of a head injury but makes you ten times more likely to suffer one? The research you're looking at is only considering the first half of that question.

Question I was asked was a helmet being worn at the time of collision. Asked in much the same way as what I was wearing at the time. Shorts, lycra, etc.. no mention of Hi-Vis.
Some materials will burn you, and if only a short sleeved top, there's a chance of damage to the arms.

I've ended up in A&E's more times than most on here, with head injuries not related to cycling. Does that make my opinion any more meaningful than yours?

You have research that backs up that sweeping statement. Or is it more of just "in your opinion".

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The thing about some of these studies that I have seen is that they study people who have had an "accident" that is recorded and having happened when riding a bike and whether or not they were wearing a helmet
However, I have ended up in A&E twice while riding a bike
both times at very slow speed and I broke an arm - standard wheel slipped and I put my arm out to catch myself
I'm not even sure if they recorded that I was riding a bike
they certainly didn't ask about a helmet - possibly because it was not relevant to my injuries

to be honest they just treated my arm in both cases and didn't really check for anything else
in both cases I found scratches and bruises after I got home that I was not aware of at the time
(I must have spent a few hours in A&E the first time with a rip right up the back of my shorts - good job I was wearing decent undies!!!)

anyway - back to the point - that would have been recored as an arm injury
possibly they recorded I was riding a bike - possibly not
but whetehr ir not i was wearing a helmet (I was both times) was not recorded as they didn;t know


which makes me a bit dubious about the total accuracy of the statistics
if a load of broken arms are missed out of the stats - then the stats are showing a higher percentage of people getting head injuries that is accurate


maybe

 

[Alex321]

Just a gut feeling, based on how they like to force others to act as they do. Interestingly they are very unwilling to have a calm face-to-face discussion with you, but give them a vote - so that they can control you without saying it to your face - and they happily band together to stamp out the minority view.

What's your view of those people? (and are you one of them?)

No, I'm not one of them. But I don't think requiring them for situations where insurance is needed and would be hard to get without that requirement means that people want them compulsory for everybody.

My view of these people is that if they DID want helmets made compulsory for everybody, then we would be hearing calls for that, and we just aren't. We'd be finding survey results where a significant portion wanted them compulsory, and I don't recall any surveys where that has happened.

 

[icowden]

That's only the Hospital Episode Statistics, not even all reported road casualties, so it ignores the question of whether helmet use makes cyclists more likely to end up in hospital, plus there's not enough data published to verify its conclusions, plus it cites Thompson, Rivara and Thompson uncritically, so its conclusions should be regarded with suspicion IMO.


As well as only being hospital data, only half the collisions in the dataset have helmet use recorded, plus it finds a reduction in facial injuries which makes me doubt it. How many full-face helmets do you see cyclists using? I can't remember the last time I saw one not on an MTB track.


Hospital data again, not population data, again, plus cites Thompson Rivara Thompson and Olivier, so I doubt how neutral a position they started from.

Why are you finding it surprising that medical research uses hospital data? That's where medical research is done.

None of the research you link comes to the conclusion that cycle helmets reduce injury at a population level.

And none of it was intended to. If you had read the thread, you would know that my response was to justify my argument that I had never found a study by doctors which had supported that helmets do not provide some degree or protection and reduce the severity of head injury. I was asked to provide examples of medical research supporting this hypothesis. I provided it.

Couldn't give a monkeys about whether it reduces injury at a population. For me, I'm more interested in what the people who put people's heads back together think, and what the medical data shows about the possibility of having some padding on your bonce actually being useful.

They're mostly studying the wrong question,

No. They are studying medical data to tell us what it indicates about wearing something protective on your head.

The stuff you link shows that if you have a bad enough crash to end up at a hospital, or in some cases only that you end up at one with a head injury, then use of a cycle helmet will probably mean a reduced injury severity.

Well done. That's exactly what I pointed out.

That's not the debate. It's whether increased helmet use means a reduced chance of injury, overall, on average, at a population level.

Nope. That's not the debate. The debate was the answer to the question, "Do medical professionals think helmets are worthwhile. The answer is "yes".

Think of it like this: would you want to use a helmet if it halves the severity of a head injury but makes you ten times more likely to suffer one? The research you're looking at is only considering the first half of that question.

I'm really not interested, and that wasn't the point of my response. I would want to use a helmet if it *definitely* halves the severity of a head injury even if it *possibly* makes it more likely to suffer one. I'd go with the evidence rather than the hypothesis.

 

[icowden]

Exactly, and I'd add all cars should have large reflective stripes on the front, back, and sides so we can see them.

They do. They have lights on the back and lights on the side. They are hard to miss, although when you have a moron with one light out, it can sometime be close to fatal. I did have an incident on a back street in Walton where I was heading towards a motorbike in the dark, on a very badly lit street. It turned out to be a badly driven white transit with one headlight completely out and it nearly hit me when it swerved round a parked car. Had I not had a very bright headlight and some reflectives on, it would certainly have hit me. As it was, it settled for an unnecessary close pass on the wrong side of the road.

 

[matticus]

No, I'm not one of them. But I don't think requiring them for situations where insurance is needed and would be hard to get without that requirement means that people want them compulsory for everybody.

This is quite a naive view of compulsionists: there are concrete examples of cyclists forcing the minority to wear plastic hats with NO insurance issues cited (or indeed, existing).

[ e.g. the recent-ish CTT debacle was started with a motion citing "mental wellbeing of volunteers" !!! ]

These have shown that many cyclists saying "It's your choice, your brain" are in fact lying.

 

[matticus]

Why are you finding it surprising that medical research uses hospital data? That's where medical research is done.

Oh.

I thought we were looking at road accidents. Not hospital procedures.

My bad ...

 

[mjr]

Why are you finding it surprising that medical research uses hospital data? That's where medical research is done.

Only a small minority of medical research is done using hospital data as limited as the Hospital Episode Statistics. More is done using data gathered specifically for the research, or using population data. In a past job in a research support service, I worked with all three, so I know some of the strengths and weaknesses of them.

And none of it was intended to. If you had read the thread, you would know that my response was to justify my argument that I had never found a study by doctors which had supported that helmets do not provide some degree or protection and reduce the severity of head injury. I was asked to provide examples of medical research supporting this hypothesis. I provided it.

And if you read the thread properly, you would remember that @Andy in Germany asked you for the evidence for your claim that "wearing a helmet is better than not in terms of medical outcomes". In general. Not given that a head injury has occurred. Not given that a serious injury has occurred. Those are all you've provided evidence about, which is very weak compared to the sweeping claim and doesn't really support it. And that's without even considering the parade of notorious helmet-pushers among the authors and their references.

Couldn't give a monkeys about whether it reduces injury at a population. For me, I'm more interested in what the people who put people's heads back together think, and what the medical data shows about the possibility of having some padding on your bonce actually being useful.

It's a bit odd that you only care in what a certain subset of medics think, but the data you've shown doesn't really tell much about the possibility of "having some padding on your bonce actually being useful" except for a subset of injured people.

Nope. That's not the debate. The debate was the answer to the question, "Do medical professionals think helmets are worthwhile. The answer is "yes".

Not a clear yes. As others point out, there are many medical professionals who disagree. And as @matticus put it, thinking medics are experts on injury prevention is like thinking panel beaters are experts on preventing car crash.

I'm really not interested, and that wasn't the point of my response. I would want to use a helmet if it *definitely* halves the severity of a head injury even if it *possibly* makes it more likely to suffer one. I'd go with the evidence rather than the hypothesis.

But you don't go with the evidence. The population evidence doesn't support correlation between helmet use rates and head injury rates, much less any direction of causal link, so instead you've cherry-picked evidence about a subset (research by medics) of a subset (head injuries) of a subset (seriously-injured cyclists) that happens to give some which supports your prejudice.

To any rational person, it matters how much they reduce an injury and how much they increase the probabilities of suffering injuries.

 

[mjr]

No, I'm not one of them. But I don't think requiring them for situations where insurance is needed and would be hard to get without that requirement means that people want them compulsory for everybody.

What situations are there "where insurance is needed and would be hard to get without that requirement"? As far as I know, Cycling UK's insurance isn't particularly hard to get, for a wide range of situations.

The reason many cycling events have helmet requirements is that they want to use British Cycling's booking system and BC's helmet-forcing insurance is bundled with it... then, when you get an organiser who doesn't see anything wrong with forcing helmets on other riders, why would they spend time and money buying more insurance that they don't see a benefit in?

So then you look into why BC's insurance forces helmets, despite their ambassadors and policy advisors being against helmet-forcing. Some years ago, I discussed it with a sequence of their officers, until I reached one particular helmet enthusiast who trotted out the 88% lie and then refused to discuss it any further.

It seems it only takes one helmet compulsion fan and a lot of well-meaning wishy-washy freedom-of-choice I'm-not-getting-involved types to hijack a national sports body and make its practice contradict its public policy positions.

Fark it. Ban helmets outside racing. You're not allowed F1 helmets for driving on the open public highways, so you shouldn't be allowed racing helmets for cycling on them. It's the only way the commissaires will learn to keep their racing oars out of non-sport cycling.

 

[classic33]

Fark it. Ban helmets outside racing. You're not allowed F1 helmets for driving on the open public highways, so you shouldn't be allowed racing helmets for cycling on them. It's the only way the commissaires will learn to keep their racing oars out of non-sport cycling.

F1 helmets are designed for track use, where for the majority of the time everything on the track is moving in the same direction.
And like all helmets designed for track use, they have a very limited field of vision. It's the limited field of vision that makes them illegal on road. You'd be using it for something it wasn't designed for.

 

[Profpointy]

F1 helmets are designed for track use, where for the majority of the time everything on the track is moving in the same direction.
And like all helmets designed for track use, they have a very limited field of vision. It's the limited field of vision that makes them illegal on road. You'd be using it for something it wasn't designed for.

Yebbut can't you turn your head ... like, I don't know, a motorcylist

 

[icowden]

And if you read the thread properly, you would remember that @Andy in Germany asked you for the evidence for your claim that "wearing a helmet is better than not in terms of medical outcomes". In general. Not given that a head injury has occurred. Not given that a serious injury has occurred. Those are all you've provided evidence about, which is very weak compared to the sweeping claim and doesn't really support it. And that's without even considering the parade of notorious helmet-pushers among the authors and their references.

This is dull but if you are going to jump into the middle of a conversation you need to start at the beginning.

A chronology:-

On Thursday, I like Skol made the statement that

. There is no substantiated statistical evidence that cycle helmets have any effect on the number of serious or life changing injuries suffered by the users in collisions or accidents. If there was, it would be out there and if it did confirm an 'overall' reduction I would wear a helmet, I'm not stupid!

I replied

And yet if you look at medical research, doctors always seem to think that helmets reduce head and facial injuries even if helmets are only styrofoam and plastic.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/

Profpointy made the observation that

I'm not sure doctors per se have any particular expertise in the matter

Matticus made an analogy

The common suggestions that hospital staff CLEARLY have strong knowledge of injury mechanisms, PPE etc is like saying
Panel Beaters will be experts in preventing car crashes.

I questioned the analogy:

I'm not convinced by the analogy. No-one is asking hospital staff. Medical researchers have reviewed medical evidence and drawn the conclusions that on the evidence presented, wearing a helmet is better than not in terms of medical outcomes. Medical outcomes are something that medical researchers excel in.

Andy in Germany asked where is the research?
I reposted the link to the study that I posted in the first place, as well as links to 3 further research papers.

You then started on a tangent and wanged on about the research only being hospital data despite the fact that I had never stated anything to the contrary and drew some irrelevant conclusions. I pointed this out to you.

You continued wanging on about medical research only using hospital data and started making up what people had said:

And if you read the thread properly, you would remember that @Andy in Germany asked you for the evidence for your claim that "wearing a helmet is better than not in terms of medical outcomes".

Andy asked no such thing. This was your argument, no-one else's.

Now as to the rest of your points:-

Not a clear yes. As others point out, there are many medical professionals who disagree. And as @matticus put it, thinking medics are experts on injury prevention is like thinking panel beaters are experts on preventing car crash.

No it isn't. The analogy is flawed and I have never suggested that medics are experts on injury prevention. What I have suggested is that all medical research I have found suggests that helmets are beneficial based on the injuries recorded as sustained and the incidence of wearing protection for your head.
If panel beaters had to enter all of their observations into a giant database along with other details about the circumstances of the damage, it is reasonable to suggest that research panel beaters might be able to aggregate that data and draw some conclusions about the efficacy of side impact bars in protecting the skeleton of the car.

instead you've cherry-picked evidence about a subset (research by medics) of a subset (head injuries) of a subset (seriously-injured cyclists) that happens to give some which supports your prejudice.

No, I've specifically answered a question that I was asked and provided some evidence that supports my answer. You have decided to jump in with both size 12s without taking the time to assess the conversation and work out whether you are indeed having the same conversation. You have made clear tat you are not.

If you wish to join in the conversation I look forward to you providing any published medical research which states that the use of a helmet does not in fact have any bearing on head injury severity.

To any rational person, it matters how much they reduce an injury and how much they increase the probabilities of suffering injuries.

No. That matters to you. Many years ago I worked in as Neurosurgical Unit at Royal Free for 9 months as PA to the senior Consultant Neurosurgeon. I typed a lot of letters regarding head injuries, many of which were not happy ones. Hence my view, that you have nothing to lose by adding a bit of protection to your head.

I don't believe it should be mandated, each to his own. However I do believe that they do more good than harm, and that does appear to be the opinion of the majority of the medical profession.

As I say - I look forward to your citations of research that find that cycle helmets cause more head injuries than not.

 

[Profpointy]

As I say - I look forward to your citations of research that find that cycle helmets cause more head injuries than not.

They claim isn't that they are per se harmful, but that when population studies are done, specifically the studies from Australia and Ontario which looked at head injury rates before and after compulsion, there appeared to be little discernible benefit overall, (once reduction in cycling had been factored in)

To me it does seem reasonable to believe they help sometimes, but to explain the actual real world experience, surely it is logical that the make things worse an equivalent number of times?

 

[Andy in Germany]

Thompson, Rivara and Thompson reviewing largely their own (flawed) work? Really? Still in 2025, that's all you got? I don't like to dismiss things based on the researchers, but I'll make an exception for the parents of the "90% reduction in head injury" BS: they really are not neutral or objective AFAICT, and their work has been rebutted almost as many times as Jake Olivier's, so I'm not going to take the time to do it again myself, and just point you at one of many: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1243.html


That's only the Hospital Episode Statistics, not even all reported road casualties, so it ignores the question of whether helmet use makes cyclists more likely to end up in hospital, plus there's not enough data published to verify its conclusions, plus it cites Thompson, Rivara and Thompson uncritically, so its conclusions should be regarded with suspicion IMO.


As well as only being hospital data, only half the collisions in the dataset have helmet use recorded, plus it finds a reduction in facial injuries which makes me doubt it. How many full-face helmets do you see cyclists using? I can't remember the last time I saw one not on an MTB track.


Hospital data again, not population data, again, plus cites Thompson Rivara Thompson and Olivier, so I doubt how neutral a position they started from.


None of the research you link comes to the conclusion that cycle helmets reduce injury at a population level. They're mostly studying the wrong question, an easy win, but beside the point. The stuff you link shows that if you have a bad enough crash to end up at a hospital, or in some cases only that you end up at one with a head injury, then use of a cycle helmet will probably mean a reduced injury severity. That's not the debate. It's whether increased helmet use means a reduced chance of injury, overall, on average, at a population level.

Think of it like this: would you want to use a helmet if it halves the severity of a head injury but makes you ten times more likely to suffer one? The research you're looking at is only considering the first half of that question.

Thanks for this: I'd looked at the data and was wondering how the hospital admissions were remotely relevant, but given my relationship with maths is like trying to read a foreign language, I wasn't sure if I'd understood correctly.

I'd have thought that if there were any new data backing up the now rather discredited old Thompson survey, we'd have heard about it in spades.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

They claim isn't that they are per se harmful, but that when population studies are done, specifically the studies from Australia and Ontario which looked at head injury rates before and after compulsion, there appeared to be little discernible benefit overall, (once reduction in cycling had been factored in)

To me it does seem reasonable to believe they help sometimes, but to explain the actual real world experience, surely it is logical that the make things worse an equivalent number of times?

That is logical

However, the concept that a helmet will protect you in a certain type of collision makes sense

I can also accept that it makes you head bigger and so can make an impact more likely - and allow you head to be twisted in ways that would not happen without one

but as far as number go - in my head it seems FAR more likely that the collisions where the helmet saves (or reduces) injury
are far more common that the circumstances where they actually make things worse

The Stats are also difficult to make sense of because there is a large percentage of bicycle collisions where the helmet is irrelevant - so the ones where they are relevant are rather in the background.