I love helmets

[Dan B]

I'm going to beg to differ on that one, if only because I could look back over the last few pages here and find 'because cycling isn't dangerous' as a specific quote from multiple people

Since I was one of them, and seeing as this particular branch of the thread seems to have run on a bit, maybe I could clarify my position:

I don't wear a helmet because cycling is not sufficiently dangerous to be worth the faff of wearing a helmet (that probably won't help much anyway). In this respect I bracket it with crossing the road, walking down stairs, or getting out of the bath.

 

[Mugshot]

Have you got access to the article or just the abstract? Would like to read it.

If it shows that helmets reduce scull fractures, is this not an important step forward? It is of course impossible to draw that conclusion without reading the full article.

Click on "Look Inside" in the blue bar at the top of the page.

 

[bianchi1]

Since I was one of them, and seeing as this particular branch of the thread seems to have run on a bit, maybe I could clarify my position:

I don't wear a helmet because cycling is not sufficiently dangerous to be worth the faff of wearing a helmet (that probably won't help much anyway). In this respect I bracket it with crossing the road, walking down stairs, or getting out of the bath.

Ta.

Didn't work on an I pad but is fine on my laptop. Well i have got some of it..still not all.

 

[ianrauk]

Since I was one of them, and seeing as this particular branch of the thread seems to have run on a bit, maybe I could clarify my position:

I don't wear a helmet because cycling is not sufficiently dangerous to be worth the faff of wearing a helmet (that probably won't help much anyway). In this respect I bracket it with crossing the road, walking down stairs, or getting out of the bath.

Spot on Dan....

 

[bianchi1]

As usual, it's not that straightforward. More helmet-wearers sustained cervical fractures (they broke their necks).

From the half of the article that i am able to access, it appears that the authors found that the the differences in cervical spine fracture or inter-cranial hemorrhage are not statistically significant, so no sound conclusions can be made. Hence the "further studies are warranted" stuff.

Shame..but that's the nature of academia.

Have you got access for the full article?

 

[bianchi1]

This sort of backs up the idea that helmets are effective at providing protection against some injuries..but certainly not all.

The concussion stats are surprising.

The full article is here:

http://www.ircobi.org/downloads/irc14/pdf_files/78.pdf

 

[benb]

No one said you have lied.

I did. An accurate statement.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

This sort of backs up the idea that helmets are effective at providing protection against some injuries..but certainly not all.

The concussion stats are surprising.

The full article is here:

http://www.ircobi.org/downloads/irc14/pdf_files/78.pdf

Interesting reading. The number of single vehicle accidents was a surprise (although kind of backs up my idea that a lot of cycle offs just don't hit the statistics). It makes sense, while a bicycle wants to stay upright once it's rolling at the end of the day you are balancing on something that will fall over given the chance.

I definitely seem to fall in to the 'worth wearing a helmet' group for my commute - regularly in excess of 20kph (12mph), likely to come in to conflict with cars, would prefer not to end up with serious head injury, or minor facial injury. Of course, that just supports what I do anyway, so it's hardly a difficult conclusion to come to for me.

The tiny number of impacts directly to the top of the head would seem to suggest wearing a Go Pro there isn't as stupid as it looks (but my, it looks stupid).

Interested to see what other people make of this article, hope they continue the study (it being Germany I'm guessing they will). Thanks to @User13710 for pointing it out.

 

[Mugshot]

Interested to see what other people make of this article, hope they continue the study (it being Germany I'm guessing they will). Thanks to @User13710 for pointing it out.

Ok I'll throw my hat into the ring. This from a very quick read without having the time to really study the detail of the figures quoted so if I've missed something or misread please point it out.
In 12 months from 2 hospitals there were 543 cyclists admitted, 239 of which had suffered head trauma this included both wearers and non-wearers, I didn't see this figure noted as a percentage of the total cycling population, so at the moment I can't see from this how likely the head injuries are unless I missed it.
I was surprised at the difference in the figures shown for general face injuries.
It was interesting to me that the study only used the data from on road riding.
It confirmed to me that in certain circumstances a helmet may offer protection, this may have been mentioned in this thread previously.
It also suggested that if you are riding quickly, over 18kmph I think, then "the positive effect of a cycle helmet may be outweighed by the effect of riskier cycling" which suggests to me that cycle helmets in general do not meet adequate safety standards, this may have been mentioned in this thread previously.
I'd like to see a similar study carried out over 12 months on the effects that wearing a helmet has when doing the things @Dan B mentioned.
It was as I said a quick read, I really should be doing some work!

 

[w00hoo_kent]

It was as I said a quick read, I really should be doing some work!

Know that feeling.

They don't mention how many cyclists there are in the area, they do suggest that because of the nature of the hospitals (they take trauma victims in from a wider catchment than standard patients) it isn't possible to specify an exact region for the study. They do state a very low percentage of helmet use, 18% I think.
They did add data in from non-road sources, but said it was negligible, I believe they specify that other studies only looked at road riding.
Quickly was 20kph, they mention that the average riding speed for Germany is 18kph, which is why they specified 20 as 'fast riding' as that's 12mph (or thereabouts) it seems a bit slow to me. They are a bit sketchy on how faster works for risks because the statistics for who wears helmets at what speed skews things a bit. While they seemed to say riding faster is riskier, they also noted that riders with helmets at speed didn't suffer the same severity of injuries as those without.

They do seem to have covered a lot of bases, but then I'm no expert.

 

[Mugshot]

Know that feeling.

They don't mention how many cyclists there are in the area, they do suggest that because of the nature of the hospitals (they take trauma victims in from a wider catchment than standard patients) it isn't possible to specify an exact region for the study. They do state a very low percentage of helmet use, 18% I think.
They did add data in from non-road sources, but said it was negligible, I believe they specify that other studies only looked at road riding.
Quickly was 20kph, they mention that the average riding speed for Germany is 18kph, which is why they specified 20 as 'fast riding' as that's 12mph (or thereabouts) it seems a bit slow to me. They are a bit sketchy on how faster works for risks because the statistics for who wears helmets at what speed skews things a bit. While they seemed to say riding faster is riskier, they also noted that riders with helmets at speed didn't suffer the same severity of injuries as those without.

They do seem to have covered a lot of bases, but then I'm no expert.

Cheers @w00hoo_kent Yes you're quite right, just had a very quick look again, contary to German national accident statistics they were NOT excluded, I knew I should have read it more thoroughly before I commented but those bathroom displays aren't going to clean themselves.
There is plenty of info to try to digest though.

 

[srw]

What a great bit of research.
There's lots I want say about it, but I'm constrained by a mobile phone keyboard.

It's a a severity article, so frequency (numbers) are out of scope - except to observe how small the number injured is. Munich is a cycling city a bit like Amsterdam - lots of parks and segregation, and lots of cycling. I don't know Muenster. I'm not surprised by the number of single vehicle accidents - I've long thought that some cyclists are their own worst risk factor.

My takeaway is the that if you have an accident a helmet might prevent minor surface injury but nothing you can do will alter the chances of major trauma materially - and they're low anyway.

 

[ianrauk]

[QUOTE="srw, post: 3331424, member: 1731"
My takeaway is the that if you have an accident a helmet might prevent minor surface injury but nothing you can do will alter the chances of major trauma materially - and they're low anyway.[/QUOTE]

another spot on....

 

[w00hoo_kent]

My takeaway is the that if you have an accident a helmet might prevent minor surface injury but nothing you can do will alter the chances of major trauma materially - and they're low anyway.

I'm just too pretty to risk minor surface injury :-)

(That or I just don't like pain which is why I'm crap at hills!)

 

[bianchi1]

Thanks to @User13710 for pointing it out.

Actually that was mine! I still can't find an open copy of the research @User13710 was quoting.