How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[JonnyBlade]

However, the Aussies and New Zealanders are not convinced http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

We will forget about the helmets they have stashed in their wardrobes,contributing to the helmet use as in sales of helmets, which im assuming is the method being used to gauge the increase.

Huge and incorrect assumption. % of helmet measuring technique

 

[lukesdad]

Huge and incorrect assumption. % of helmet measuring technique

Fair enough what measuring technique are you using then ?

 

[ufkacbln]

You both either didn't read or didn't understand my earlier post:

After much pressure from doctors and 'concerned parties', Boxing (and many Martial Arts) adopted the protection of head guards because these would "obviously" reduce head injury. Very similar groups are now pressuring for cycle helmet compulsion, for the same reasons.

Medical opinion now accepts that the boxing head guards have increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

This is the case despite the awareness that boxing and Martial Arts have the potential for brain injury and the frequent attendance of doctors and first aiders at matches.

One assumes that these people would be looking out for "loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds" AFS, but the presence of the head protection has still increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

Obviously the later symptoms such as loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds are not disguised by a helmet (I'm surprised at you AFS as a professed first aider for thinking they would be ). However these are later indicators and I'm sure you know that they may show up only several hours after a head injury - because the brain trauma is getting worse! Again I am surprised at a first-aider suggesting that if these don't immediately show, there is no brain injury.

Lukesdad, hair, or wooly hats may indeed give some protection against cuts and bruising, I'm glad you are coming round to a more informed view of the degree of protection offered by cycle helmets. Anyone selling a wig or wooly hat as protection for cycling would (probably) be laughed off. They were not promoted as so doing by the medical profession (nor do they make so much profit for manufacturers), but (as some people have tried to point out already) they may well give better protection against injury on the roads than a helmet - because you will probably be given more room in an overtake.

I was involved in research some years ago that showed boxers had perfusion defects (poor blood supply) in th brain even after one or two fights

We also showed that when matched to a control boxers scans were distinguishable by these defects

 

[Wobblers]

The lack of replies suggests a negative. Which quite frankly would astound me if true.

So we ll apply some of LYBs famous logic to make some assumptions.

Assumption 1. The vast majority of serious head injuries occur on the highway. As general consenus is that this is by far the most likely enviroment for serious injurys to occur.

With me so far ? Good.

Next we ll take the increase in helmet use.

Assumption 2. The increase in helmet use coincides with the explosion in mtb and off road leisure riding. The replys to the various threads show that it is roadies who are going helmetless. (evidence by the way ) We will forget about the helmets they have stashed in their wardrobes,contributing to the helmet use as in sales of helmets, which im assuming is the method being used to gauge the increase. So it would follow that the vast increase in helmet use is mainly due to the off road and leisure rider.

So what can we conclude from this ?

Well I may be wrong ( it has been known) but it seems to me the increase in serious head injuries are happening where the Smallest percentage of helmet use is.

And may I say one Bl**dy great hole in the evidence !

Increase in head injuries? I'd be much obliged if you could provide the source of that (if only because I'm supposed to be working at the moment... )

You've failed to account for any change in the numbers of mtb and road cyclists. You haven't looked at the absolute numbers of cyclists in both populations that don't wear helmets. If, for instance, the number of mtber's tripled and helmet wearing increased from 50% to 75%, that would still mean the number of helmetless mtber's increased by half. Which would rather bugger up any analysis based on it.

In other words, this is all a bit meaningless without the raw data - and proper statistical analysis to go with it.

 

[Wobblers]

Interesting read http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm seems at least one USA institute feels wearing a helmet reduces the risk of head injury by up to 85%

Apparently 91% of those that died were not wearing a helmet

Go figure

85% ... could be based on the Cochrane metasurvey on bike helmet effectiveness. They looked at four surveys of hospital admissions from the 80s and early nineties. It's regarded as the best evidence for helmet effectiveness. It found a 70% reduction of head injuries with a helmet. But the uncertaincies in the data mean that this figure could be between 55% and 85%. That they quote the highest figure is fundamentally dishonest.

And that's the most charitable interpretation. Rather more likely is that they simply cherry picked the best study they could find, and ignored the flaws. Science it most certainly isn't. Scientific fraud, yes.

Oh, 91% died were not wearing a helmet? A meaningless number when you fail to state the percentage of cyclists who don't wear helmets. If 95% don't wear helmets, then that number would indicate that helmet wearing increases the chance of death.

Neither can the Cochrane study be regarded as the last word. It relies on only four previous studies, the latest of which is twenty years ago. Helmets were different (specifically, they were better at absorbing energy). It is very telling that more recent papers consistently show a much smaller benefit from helmets. How applicable it is to today is uncertain.

Nor does the Cochrane study, or the papers it's based on, make any effort to differentiate the type of cyclist - whether it be roadie, commuter or mtber. The answer to your question, Luke's Dad, is that too my knowledge, no effort has been made to differentiate any differences between road and mountain bike. And that's a major failing.

 

[lukesdad]

Increase in head injuries? I'd be much obliged if you could provide the source of that (if only because I'm supposed to be working at the moment... )

You've failed to account for any change in the numbers of mtb and road cyclists. You haven't looked at the absolute numbers of cyclists in both populations that don't wear helmets. If, for instance, the number of mtber's tripled and helmet wearing increased from 50% to 75%, that would still mean the number of helmetless mtber's increased by half. Which would rather bugger up any analysis based on it.

In other words, this is all a bit meaningless without the raw data - and proper statistical analysis to go with it.

Exactly mcWobble this is my point there are a lot of failures to account for, and its the data Im after.

 

[david k]

ive been told i have to accept the data, regardless of it being flawed. as i dont accept it as accurate and have my own mind im judged to be irrational. There are many irrational people out there as i see a lot wearing helmets

 

[mickle]

ive been told i have to accept the data, regardless of it being flawed. as i dont accept it as accurate and have my own mind im judged to be irrational. There are many irrational people out there as i see a lot wearing helmets

There are a lot of Christians and Muslims in the world too - and they can't all be right (and may all be wrong).

So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that very large numbers of people are mistaken in their belief that cycling helmets serve any useful purpose.

Not irrational necessarily, just misinformed.

 

[david k]

There are a lot of Christians and Muslims in the world too - and they can't all be right (and may all be wrong).

So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that very large numbers of people are mistaken in their belief that cycling helmets serve any useful purpose.

Not irrational necessarily, just misinformed.

ill accept that as a point of view, its not beyond the realms of possibility that many people are wrong in this or other situations. Just because the majority think something to be true doesnt mean it is. However, in this case i do, majority or not

 

[benb]

ill accept that as a point of view, its not beyond the realms of possibility that many people are wrong in this or other situations. Just because the majority think something to be true doesnt mean it is. However, in this case i do, majority or not

Do you even care about evidence?

 

[david k]

Do you even care about evidence?

Yes benb, ive had it drummed into me on here, there is so much conflicting evidence its not possible to form a judgement from it, and i dont accept the risk compensation thing.

IMO its irrational to accept it as convincing evidence when it has been shown to have many conflicting and variable factors. therefore it has not changed my view

 

[mickle]

Risk compensation is a very interesting aspect of human behaviour (worthy of a discussion in its own right). I remember discovering it for the first time in an article on road safety where a road had had its 'dangerous' curves straightened in an effort to reduce the number of drivers crashing through the armco. All that happened was that the accidents migrated to the next available corner. And the next after that.

We humans each have our own inbuilt risk assessment programming. We do it on a daily basis, often without even thinking about it - don't slam your fingers in the kitchen drawer, don't stub your foot on the bedpost, etc.

I know for a fact that when i got my first cycle helmet that my behaviour changed. I took the extra safety and adjusted my of personal vulnerability upwards to use it up.

Whether you believe that you are susceptible to it or not - it exists in human behaviour.

 

[lukesdad]

Do you even care about evidence?

We all care about evidence, its the deciphering and analysing thats the problem.

 

[david k]

Risk compensation is a very interesting aspect of human behaviour (worthy of a discussion in its own right). I remember discovering it for the first time in an article on road safety where a road had had its 'dangerous' curves straightened in an effort to reduce the number of drivers crashing through the armco. All that happened was that the accidents migrated to the next available corner. And the next after that.

We humans each have our own inbuilt risk assessment programming. We do it on a daily basis, often without even thinking about it - don't slam your fingers in the kitchen drawer, don't stub your foot on the bedpost, etc.

I know for a fact that when i got my first cycle helmet that my behaviour changed. I took the extra safety and adjusted my of personal vulnerability upwards to use it up.

Whether you believe that you are susceptible to it or not - it exists in human behaviour.

interesting that you say you noticed your behavior change with a helmet on. If its subconscious would you necessarily notice it?

However i do agree that we assess risk continually, we mentally do risk assessments all the time. I just dont accept it really happens with a helmet on, not a cycle helmet, i havnt noticed any change and suspect if there is a change its very small and not really worthy of note. However you may claim that if its subconscious i wouldnt know, and if so how would we ever know and be able to prove it? Stats will be used to try to prove it but i dont see how that would affect me, only groups, therefore i dont accept it a worthy point for me