have you seen this helmet site?

[Spin City]

I've done a very brief analysis of the numbers/percentages quoted in the case-controlled study (as provided by the cyclehelments website). I've also looked at the responses to this study given by the cyclehelments website and have the come to the following conclusions: (Please feel free to challenge my conclusions - as you know my forum name does include the word 'spin' )

The numbers seem very straightforward; people wearing helmets (involved in a collision causing head injury) had significantly reduced head/brain injuries than those not wearing helmets. The scope of the study didn't seem to investigate any other issues apart from this.

The cyclehelmet reviewers then seem to introduce lots of other details/information that do not appear to be relevant to the study but are used to question the study's conclusions eg
a) the percentage of cyclists wearing a helmet
the income and educational levels of one of the control groups
c) whether the children in one of the control groups were members of a 'group healthcare cooperative'
d) whether the collision involved a motor vehicle (I would agree that the study did not provide enough data to complete a thorough investigation into this area.)
e) whether different age groupings would have produced different results
I could go on (but I won't).

As I said before, this is only a very brief review of the information provided by the cyclehelments website but it seems to me that this website would like to dismiss the results of this particular study. I can only imagine that the website wants to do this because the results have been used elsewhere to promote helmet wearing (and also provide evidence to support helmet wearing legislation). What do others think?

 

[Bayerd]

Wearing a helmet has cut down my earache by 100%, so it's useful for something....

 

[Bandini]

Being something of a libertarian, I am definitely pro-choice. I have not worn one yet. But I spoke to my Dad on the phone tonight and...well, he has been biking for years. He is 57 (he was a young father), he has done downhill (and other stuff that does not appeal to me!) for years - he currently rides a Cove Hummer, amongst others, and is a bit mental: bolts and/or plates in his shoulder, from bike injuries, the lot.

Yet he was horrified that I am not wearing a helmet on the road. I was surprised. He says that he ALWAYS wears a helmet - on or off road (might sound weird only just having this conversation - but we go months without talking and years without seeing each other - no animosity just the way it is!). Other relatives have also expressed concern - I sent them some links to websites to try to put their minds at rest.

My Dad also said that if helmets were compulsory he would stop wearing one!

No real point to this post I suppose. Just been on my mind - so thought I would share.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Medics are not qualified in materials science therefore their opinion about the effectiveness of your helmet is outside their expertise and is no more valid than anyone elses. It would be like expecting someone who repairs car bodywork for a living to be an authority on accident prevention.

Academic qualifications and experience in practice are two different things.

Does David Beckham understand and have qulifications in the physics of bending a free kick like he does?

Doctors are not qualified automotive engineers but can give opinion on the nature of injuries in car accidents.

I'm not a burglar but am often asked for my professional opinion on the nature of how burglaries are likely to have occurred.

I'm happy to believe their experience over your disparagement of their academic qualification. I'm also very happy that I landed head first on the road and something broke that wasn't my skull.

 

[ufkacbln]

I've done a very brief analysis of the numbers/percentages quoted in the case-controlled study (as provided by the cyclehelments website). I've also looked at the responses to this study given by the cyclehelments website and have the come to the following conclusions: (Please feel free to challenge my conclusions - as you know my forum name does include the word 'spin' )

The numbers seem very straightforward; people wearing helmets (involved in a collision causing head injury) had significantly reduced head/brain injuries than those not wearing helmets. The scope of the study didn't seem to investigate any other issues apart from this.

The cyclehelmet reviewers then seem to introduce lots of other details/information that do not appear to be relevant to the study but are used to question the study's conclusions eg
a) the percentage of cyclists wearing a helmet
the income and educational levels of one of the control groups
c) whether the children in one of the control groups were members of a 'group healthcare cooperative'
d) whether the collision involved a motor vehicle (I would agree that the study did not provide enough data to complete a thorough investigation into this area.)
e) whether different age groupings would have produced different results
I could go on (but I won't).

As I said before, this is only a very brief review of the information provided by the cyclehelments website but it seems to me that this website would like to dismiss the results of this particular study. I can only imagine that the website wants to do this because the results have been used elsewhere to promote helmet wearing (and also provide evidence to support helmet wearing legislation). What do others think?

Therein lies the problem - no-one disputes that helmets may provide protection in some circumstances..... but the study actually only examines a small group of those who suffer head injuries and could benefit from helmet use.

The flaw in the argument is simple when you look at cohort studies of head injuries, as pedestrians, drivers and others all appear in greater numbers.

For instance Thornhill et al studied almost 3000 admissions and found that:

The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

Cyclists were so common they didn't even bear a mention!

Equally in the BMJ Wardlaw shows that 10 cyclists die per annum, but 350 people die falling down steps.



So if we are serious about preventing head injury we should be looking at the groups that are most prevalent.

So lets for a moment assume that helmets are as god as the claims made - just think how many more Glaswegians could have benefited if all those suffering falls had been wearing helmets, or indeed those drinking alcohol.

The savings in personal trauma, social costs and financial costs to the NHS would be far greater if these groups wore helmets as well or instead of cyclists

 

[shouldbeinbed]

.. and the same is true of a pedestrian in the same accident - does this prove therefore the need for pedestrian helmets?

?? there wasn't a pedestrian in my accident & theres no correlation between this accident and a pedestrian striking a car.

Pedestrians don't travel at anywhere near the speed I was doing when I collided with the car (yep me hit it) and a pedestrian striking a car in the same manner would more likely crumple onto it and strike their face rather than be catapulted over by the structure of a non existent bike taking the initial impact and acting as a pivot to send them up into the air and down spiking the ground.

A helmet for a pedestrian in the same style of accident would need significant face protection to have been of any possible benefit.

Like I said (but have not been quoted by either correspondent interestingly enough) is basically each to their own.

I'm not advocating helmets for all or compulsion, simply giving the entirely subjective reason why I wear one in support of my point that all the studies in the world won't make a scrap of difference to the majority who will have equally subjective reasons as me for wearing one or not.

 

[4F]

(but have not been quoted by either correspondent interestingly enough)

This is probably due to the fact that this subject has been done over and over and over again.

 

[HJ]

Isn't rather strange the helmets are only widely worn in countries where cycling is less common. In paces where cycling is common i.e. Denmark, The Netherlands, etc. helmets are rarely worn and aren't a big issue. Oddly these place don't have high rate of cycle related head injury either, but in this country there is a religious believe in the necessity of wearing a silly plastic hat in order to ride a bicycle.

According to the likes of Spincity if a web site has a large body of evidence which suggest that cycle helmets are not as effective as is often claimed, then it must be wrong. Indeed if it were looking at the effects of buying a lottery ticket we should only consider studies based on surveys of jackpot winners, all other evidence must be ignored!

 

[Spin City]

I won't find this post easy to write as I will be putting down some of the comments made since my last post. But here goes:

I have been looking at the use of helmet wearing for cyclists but not for other people such as drunks, people attacking each other, etc, etc.
Cunobelin: You may believe that people going out for a drink should wear a helmet but I couldn't possibly comment.

I know as much about the head/brain injury occurrence of cyclists in other European countries as I do about these injuries in this country. I was just making some comments about a study that was conducted in the USA. Also, I was looking at one particular study and didn't notice the large body of evidence which suggests that cycle helmets are not as effective as is often claimed.
HJ: Please advise me whether people in the countries you mention who are involved in a collision causing head injury fare better with or without a helmet. I'll ignore your spurious comment about jackpot winners as I think there isn't any connection between this comment and the use of helmets by cyclists.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Fetches bag of popcorn and glass of beer...

.....i did say sorry.....

 

[ufkacbln]

I won't find this post easy to write as I will be putting down some of the comments made since my last post. But here goes:

I have been looking at the use of helmet wearing for cyclists but not for other people such as drunks, people attacking each other, etc, etc.
Cunobelin: You may believe that people going out for a drink should wear a helmet but I couldn't possibly comment.

I know as much about the head/brain injury occurrence of cyclists in other European countries as I do about these injuries in this country. I was just making some comments about a study that was conducted in the USA. Also, I was looking at one particular study and didn't notice the large body of evidence which suggests that cycle helmets are not as effective as is often claimed.
HJ: Please advise me whether people in the countries you mention who are involved in a collision causing head injury fare better with or without a helmet. I'll ignore your spurious comment about jackpot winners as I think there isn't any connection between this comment and the use of helmets by cyclists.

Selective......

Why limit head injuries and protection to a minority group..... so many more would benefit if we looked at the whole picture, although I recognise this is inconvenient.... hence the refusal to consider or discuss this.

I always find it amusing looking at the excuses for not recognising the truth.

 

[Spin City]

So you should!

 

[Spin City]

Cunobelin: I have looked at the use of helmets by cyclists and no other group.

I could have included motorcyclists, construction site workers, etc but in this debate I am not interested in the use of helmets by these particular groups of people.

 

[Theseus]

I've done a very brief analysis of the numbers/percentages quoted in the case-controlled study (as provided by the cyclehelments website).

I know you have posted a bit since you wrote this, but could you tell me which study you are referring to? I will then be able to discuss the results you refer to later in your post.

 

[ufkacbln]

Cunobelin: I have looked at the use of helmets by cyclists and no other group.

I could have included motorcyclists, construction site workers, etc but in this debate I am not interested in the use of helmets by these particular groups of people.

The technical phrase is "In denial"