Helmet or no helmet??

[4F]

[QUOTE 1075305"]
Eh? How can you have 'may' it either does or it does not.

'Maybe' a word used by folk incapable of making a decision/statement and sticking by it.
[/quote]

As you are fully aware Lee much depends on the standard of the helmet in question, the speed of any incident and the part of the head that may may come into contact with the ground.

Hence the word "may" is very relevant by folk who are more than able to make an informed decision.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

I think Lee prefers "You may be involved in a certain circumstance where a helmet WILL save your life Of course, you may be involved in one where a helmet WILL have no effect whatsoever on your mortality, or even one where a helmet WILL contribute to your shuttling off this mortal coil"

Which is possibly more accurate but a lot more long-winded, just to eliminate misinterpretation

 

[4F]

[QUOTE 1075309"]
You are saying what 4F said - please don't plagurise.
[/quote]

LOL, I don't claim copyright

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Unfortunately the rest of us mere mortals are not clairvoyant so cannot state "You WILL be involved in an incident where a helmet will save your life...later you will meet a tall dark stranger..."

 

[JamesMorgan]

The problem with stating that helmet wearing is personal choice is that typically we are not very good at evaluating risk/reward. In particular we are likely to be excessively influenced by personal experience (either directly or indirectly). We also as individuals have different tolerances for risk and place different values on rewards. The following data may help individuals come to their own decisions.

In the UK there are typically around 4000 head injuries/annum for adult cyclists that require hospital treatment (this includes both helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers). I have excluded children as they have much higher accident rates on the assumption that most of us have passed through this dangerous phase of our lives. I have also excluded deaths as these are typically low (100-200/annum) and usually associated with catastrophic multiple injury where the helmet is unlikely to help.

It is estimated that in the UK there are approx 15 cycle trips/person/annum. So for the 50 million adults this is around 750 million trips.

This equates to a risk of one head injury for each 190,000 trips. For a reasonably active cyclist doing 5 trips per week, this equates to one head injury every 760 years.

So on the risk side, I am likely to experience an event once every 760 years where a helmet may provide some protection from injury. Working out how much protection becomes more subjective as it depends on the type of helmet and type of injury, I personally prefer to keep it simple and look at the best case scenario that I will get some protection every 760 years.

On the reward side of not wearing a helmet, the areas to typically consider are:
- cost (not a consideration for most of us, but could be a limiting factor for some)
- comfort
- freedom ('wind in your hair')
- some evidence of increased risk of accidents when wearing helmet (eg due to closer overtakes, or more risk taking from cyclists)
- some evidence of greater chance of some types of injury when wearing helmet (eg rotational injury)

Once you have assessed for own risk/reward profile, you need to decide how this fits in with you as an individual (ie how much of a risk taker are you). One way to do this is to look at other activities you do and assess the risk of them. This could be lifestyle (eg smoking, drinking, sexual), activites (other sports) or general (financial risks etc). Based on all of this you can then make a balanced decision whether wearing a helmet is right for you.

 

[Midnight]

That's an interesting read James, but I have an issue with some of the data. Can you tell us where that data comes from?

I agree with the first statement that people are not always good at evaluating risks, but I'd also like to add that not everyone knows how to objectively analyse statistics. I personally have a mistrust of statistics, and someone once famously said that 'There's lies, more lies, and then there's statistics'.

The data states that 'In the UK there are typically around 4000 head injuries/annum for adult cyclists that require hospital treatment' - presumably then it doesn't include those who have might have avoided serious head injury by wearing a helmet.

It also excludes 'deaths as these are typically low (100-200/annum) ' - The numbers of deaths may only be a small percentage, but IMO the number of deaths is very relevant to those who have an interest in the data.

'(Deaths are) usually associated with catastrophic multiple injury where the helmet is unlikely to help' - While it's true that in a fatal accident then multiple injuries are likely to be a factor, again IMO it is misleading to ignore those cases where a massive head injury may well have been a factor, even if it's not stated to be the primary cause of a death.

'It is estimated that in the UK there are approx 15 cycle trips/person/annum. So for the 50 million adults this is around 750 million trips.This equates to a risk of one head injury for each 190,000 trips. For a reasonably active cyclist doing 5 trips per week, this equates to one head injury every 760 years.' - If I'm reading this correctly, it assumes that every adult in the UK is a regular cyclist!, clearly not true, and means the figure of 'once every 760 years' is pure bunkum.

There's many people who own a bike, use it a couple of times then dump it in the shed. There are also bike owners who use their bike regularly, but only for short journeys and are probably clocking up just a few hundred miles a year, if that many. These statistics don't appear to make a distinction between bike owners and serious cyclists, like members of this forum, who use their bikes much more frequently and cover many more miles per annum, and surely miles ridden is a better basis on which to base any statistic relating to risk of injury than number of trips?

I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm attacking your post James, that wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to get some kind of grasp of the real issues regarding helmet usage so I can make my own informed decision, either way.

 

[4F]

Hi Midnight, lots of useful information here http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

 

[swee'pea99]

Have to say I'm a bit thrown by ' I have also excluded deaths as these are typically low (100-200/annum)'. 100-200? IIRC the true figure is way, way below that. 

 

[marzjennings]

[QUOTE 1075303"]
HELMETS SAVE LIVES
[/quote]


NO THEY DON'T

Some helmets may, but as an absolute, helmets do not save lives.


(I can find the caps key too)

 

[snorri]

In the UK there are typically around 4000 head injuries/annum for adult cyclists

To be meaningful, we need a breakdown of this figure to tell us which discipline these cyclists were engaged in at the time of their accidents, also the source of the data, police or hospital?
The majority of accidents occur off-road, but the majority of cyclists cycle on road.

 

[sunnyjim]

Probably.

The other very fruitful area of research would be into rates of serious injury amongst the pro cyclists. I don't know why no-one's done it yet - you've got 7 years of data after compulsion and years and years before compulsion/custom. You've got none of the issues that you'll have amongst the rest of us around risk compensation and compulsion turning people off cycling, or about changing exposure to risk.

'Data' is the appropriate word. There's lots of (arguably dubious) statistics on accident rates, lots of anecdotal 'helmet saved my life' , but precious little recorded data on how helmets have performed as structures in action.

Obviously it's not possible to re-run every accident under different conditions, but AFAIK there's been no attempt to measure & collect data on helmets which have been 'used' in real crashes. On the assumption that (lots of cyclists) * (low but finite probability of crash) =Quite a lot, I'd imagine there is potentially a ready supply of bent & broken helments which could provide statistically significant information on how much benefit they had actually conferred to the wearer during the crash.

The helmet industry might be expected to make an effort to analyse 'used' helmets to help develop improvements, as some vehicle manufacturers collect data from car crashes, but I hae ma doots.

What would help would be a record of:
Description of crash - speed/angles of impact etc.
Medical description of injury sustained, if any.
Measurement of post-crash helmet compared with example of identical un-crashed helmet.- foam thickness over entire surface, shell dent/crazing/cracking., Structural deformation /disintegration of entire helmet, etcetc

Hopefully there would be sufficient data to allow an analysis to determine the forces experienced by the helmet, the head inside it, and the road/other vehicle. This would have to be backed up by controlled experiments to validate the analytical process.
That covers the purely technical effects - medical effects are another territory.


For the record- I possess a helmet but never wear it.

 

[Eurygnomes]

I think we need an epidemiological perspective.

Sort out a prospective case control study - for each rider who has an accident, recruit a similar age/gender rider from a similar geographical area (i.e. likely to travel similar style roads). Yes, this is highly matched...but...

Compare outcome variables of QALY & DALY

(I've not done this, nor measured individual variables for that...but...there will be methods published somewhere).

Long study - approximately 1yr - across England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland.

V. publishable. And might actually provide some sort of body of evidence.

On the other hand, risk is self-measurable. And the outcomes are also relevant only to you. It'll be a combination of percieved risk and percieved outcome. High risk, vegetable outcome = more likely to wear a helmet. Low risk, slight graze to cheek making me look hard outcome = no need for helmet.

Oooh, perhaps we just need a knowledge/attitudes/behaviours study first....

 

[rich p]

NO THEY DON'T

Some helmets may, but as an absolute, helmets do not save lives.


(I can find the caps key too)

CAPS DON'T SAVE LIVES

 

[JamesMorgan]

I recognise that in my earlier post on data I was potentially opening up a can of worms. I wasn't really trying to provide a definitive statement on the absolute risk of not wearing a helmet - more a route map of the type of process an individual should go through to assess it. I also recognise that another key difference in how individuals assess risk is the relative importance and reliabilty they place on different statistical data (this is often influenced by the starting position they are coming from). I like to keep models as simple as possible. Others will try to make them more complex to reflect closer their exact cirumstances. Both approaches are fine as long as their limitations are understood.

For the record, my data came from the following sources:

a) Cycling death rate - Department of Transport, Statistical pages (2006 - 146, 2007 - 136, 2008 - 115). As I stated, I discounted these on the basis it was unclear the extent that wearing a helmet would have prevented death. If you want to include them, then do so. Using the 2008 figure equates to a fatal accident once every 26,000 years for a reasonably active cyclist.

B) Head injuries - Parliamentary briefing document 2004 relating to injuries in 2002. I believe these were collated from hospital figures. At the time no record was made of whether the patient was wearing a helmet or not (or other circumstances of the accident). If you are a road cyclist it is likely that these figures are a worst case scenario as many accidents are off-road.

c) Cycle trips per annum - National Travel Survey 2005. These don't assume that everyone is a regular cyclist - in fact the report states that only 19% of adults cycle at all. I have only used this figure to calculate total number of trips made in the UK by all adults, in turn to work out accident rates per trip. As an individual I can then work our my own personal accident rate based on the number of trips I make. A simple view as it ignores mileage. An alternative model could use mileage - it is probably more accurate. Other models may use hours travelled.

I actually think the government could play a stronger leadership role in this area by providing simple, easy to access statistics to help individuals make better informed choices.

 

[Boston Biker]

I would say that helmet while on the road is extremely important but it isn't a big deal if you are on a bike path/trail.