Is there a stigma to only wear a cap?

[icowden]

The section you quoted said they developed it "with a goal to contribute to the evolution of helmet technology." Interpreting that as reducing head injury (rather than, say, lighter or fewer materials) seems like your assumption and may not be true. I expect their text went past both lawyers (so it would not be withdrawn) and marketers (so it would encourage that interpretation) before publication.

I think that most people looking at a technology developed by a Professor of Neurosurgey and Neuroengineering would make the reasonable assumption that developing new technology might be connected to their profession and a desire to reduce head injury. But, as you asked, here is the run down:

The start of 20 years of research into rotational motion
In 1995 Hans von Holst, a Swedish brain surgeon working at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, began examining how standard helmets were designed, as he was convinced that the helmets generally available were not providing sufficient protection against brain injuries. Hans von Holst contacted KTH (Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm) with a view to launching research into preventing head and neck injuries, which resulted in Peter Halldin, a student at the institute, commencing his doctorate on the biomechanics of injuries to the head and neck. In 1996 Hans von Holst and Peter Halldin presented their idea for the MIPS solution. During the same time period, Svein Kleiven was admitted as a PhD student, and started work on developing what has become one of the finest FE (Finite Element) models in the world of the human brain. This model is a key research tool for MIPS, as it makes it possible to visualize and measure the effects of MIPS BPS.

A summary of MIPS’s earlier history:

Research phase
1996—1997
Starting in 1996, the company works to develop the idea of the MIPS solution. Startup funding is obtained to cover the costs of performing experimental tests, and expenses linked to patent applications.

Startup phase
1998—2003
Starting in 1996, the company works to develop the idea of the MIPS solution. Startup funding is obtained to cover the costs of performing experimental tests, and expenses linked to patent applications.

2004—2007
An actual equestrian helmet featuring a MIPS solution is developed and launched on the Swedish market.

2008—2009
The first institutional investors choose to invest in the company, and the first agreement with an external customer is signed

Growth Phase
2010—2014
In 2010, the strategic decision is taken to focus exclusively on becoming a leading ingredient brand by selling and licensing the company’s technology within different helmet categories, rather than marketing of own brand helmets.

2015
2015 was a milestone year for MIPS, when the company sold more than a million MIPS BPS units to 28 helmet brands, corresponding to an increase in volume of 275 percent in comparison with the previous year.

2016
Having previously been available in motocross helmets, MIPS BPS is launched in a road motorcycle helmet in 2016, and MIPS experiences continued growth in volume, selling 1.7 million MIPS BPS units over the course of the year.

2017—2019
Under 2017 MIPS is listed on Nasdaq Stockholm, attracting more than 3,000 shareholders. Up to and including 2019, the company has sold more than 14.2 million MIPS BPS units, which have been implemented in as many helmets in the snow, bike, equestrian, moto segments and rock climbing.

Now - can we agree that MIPS was developed with the intention of reduce head injury / improving health outcomes from those sustaining a head injury and that therefore a helmet with MIPS technology based on the research and testing is going to do a better job than not wearing a helmet at all?

 

[mjr]

Now - can we agree that MIPS was developed with the intention of reduce head injury / improving health outcomes from those sustaining a head injury and that therefore a helmet with MIPS technology based on the research and testing is going to do a better job than not wearing a helmet at all?

No to either. I feel you are still colouring what you read. I have no reason to doubt what's written but it does not say they were trying to improve outcomes. Only that they were trying to improve helmets.

And on the second point, that's still far from proven in the real world, with increased helmet use not linked to improved outcomes. Better to do stuff that actually works instead of what makes licensors rich.

 

[Drago]

No, I don't think we can reasonably agree. MIPS was developed to mitigate a certain type of injury that helmets themselves either caused or exacerbated, as Von Holst ably discusses in his research.

Again, please feel free to show us some reasonable evidence that a MIPS helmet wearer is less likely to die or be seriously injured while wearing one. Lab testing and theory is not translating to a reduction in death or injury on the road.

 

[classic33]

No to either. I feel you are still colouring what you read. I have no reason to doubt what's written but it does not say they were trying to improve outcomes. Only that they were trying to improve helmets.

And on the second point, that's still far from proven in the real world, with increased helmet use not linked to improved outcomes. Better to do stuff that actually works instead of what makes licensors rich.

All helmets, not just for cycling.

They are also the license owners of the system they developed. In an attempt to address head trauma.

 

[icowden]

No, I don't think we can reasonably agree. MIPS was developed to mitigate a certain type of injury that helmets themselves either caused or exacerbated, as Von Holst ably discusses in his research.

Again, please feel free to show us some reasonable evidence that a MIPS helmet wearer is less likely to die or be seriously injured while wearing one. Lab testing and theory is not translating to a reduction in death or injury on the road.

Why does it have to save you from death or serious injury? I'm just as happy to be saved from minor to moderate injury. So we agree that MIPS will mitigate a certain type of injury, and that a helmet provides a degree of protection, and that helmets are not magical lifesaving devices?

 

[classic33]

Incidents 1, 2, 5 and 6 are outside the design spec of helmets. Incident 3 is only inside the spec of some Snell-approved helmets. And there still remains the elephant in the room of why helmet users crash more often. I'm certainly not rushing to use helmets again and start crashing more again. But it's your head.

Are you able to provide the evidence to back up your claim that we(helmet wearers) crash more often. Or is the claim based on the second part, that you'll not be rushing to start wearing a helmet again as you crashed more when you were wearing them?

 

[matticus]

Are you able to provide the evidence to back up your claim that we(helmet wearers) crash more often. Or is the claim based on the second part, that you'll not be rushing to start wearing a helmet again as you crashed more when you were wearing them?

I'm rubbish at the EXACT CITATION! game, but wasn't there a graph up-thread showing head injuries pre- and post- helmet law? possibly in Canada?
(purely answering in good faith ... )

 

[matticus]

EDIT (to my post not yet released):

My mistake - I was thinking of this one:
View attachment 530891
[/QUOTE]

 

[faster]

EDIT (to my post not yet released):

My mistake - I was thinking of this one:
View attachment 530891

[/QUOTE]

I've had a cursory look at this, and it's fair to say that the evidence is weak.

Google the name on the graph and who he works for and make your own mind up as to whether there may be vested interests at play.

I'll put something together on the data itself when I have a bit more time.

 

[classic33]

I'm rubbish at the EXACT CITATION! game, but wasn't there a graph up-thread showing head injuries pre- and post- helmet law? possibly in Canada?
(purely answering in good faith ... )

I ask @mjr the question because he'd made the clear statement that helmet wearing cyclists crash more often(than those who decide not to wear one), backing this up with the assertion that if he were to start wearing a helmet again, he'd start crashing more again. He's on no rush to start wearing one again for this reason.

I've heard many reasons for not wearing a helmet, but an increase in your crashes simply because you happen to be wearing one is a new one on me.

If he believes the last part to be true(He'll crash more wearing a helmet), then it clouds the reasoning used for saying helmet usage leads to a rider having a crash.

The graph you posted shows that cyclist numbers had already started falling, before helmet usage became mandatory. Ending with injuries falling and a slower rise in cycling numbers. It doesn't split head injuries from other injuries sustained whilst cycling. Heads are not the only part of the body that can be injured.

 

[icowden]

I have to say that I just can't see how they got an overall increase in injuries from the NIOS data.

The NIOS data for non-fatal in juries in cyclists in MVTC in terms of rate of discharge per 100000 clearly show a huge drop off for the under 20 age group a smaller drop off for over 65s (already a very small group) and a very slight drop off for Adults between 20 and 65.

Looking more closely at the adults, the mean is around 5.9 from 1988 to 1994, then numbers drop to around 3.7ish. As cycling numbers begin to increase that does push back up to around 4.6 but it is still lower than before the cycle helmet legislation. There is another marked drop from 2013-2016.

Fatal injuries show no meaningful change but are relatively few in number. So the conclusions I would draw from that is that if you are in a collision that is going to kill you, a cycle helmet won't help. In other situations, it does seem to have improved outcomes in that the rate shows a drop.

 

[matticus]

I ask @mjr the question because he'd made the clear statement that helmet wearing cyclists crash more often(than those who decide not to wear one), backing this up with the assertion that if he were to start wearing a helmet again, he'd start crashing more again. He's on no rush to start wearing one again for this reason. <I'm not speaking for MJR !!! - Matt >

I've heard many reasons for not wearing a helmet, but an increase in your crashes simply because you happen to be wearing one is a new one on me.

If he believes the last part to be true(He'll crash more wearing a helmet), then it clouds the reasoning used for saying helmet usage leads to a rider having a crash.

I see what you're saying, but there is plenty of good research on Risk Compensation. It's very hard to look subjectively at our own actions, but the science DOES show RC is a real thing for human risk assessment in general.

I can only say how _I_ interpret the bigger picture of studies; the example I keep coming back to is the pro-peloton - how come serious head injuries haven't dropped with compulsory helmet rules?

 

[Milkfloat]

I've had a cursory look at this, and it's fair to say that the evidence is weak.

Google the name on the graph and who he works for and make your own mind up as to whether there may be vested interests at play.

I'll put something together on the data itself when I have a bit more time.
[/QUOTE]

The creator of the graph used independent data - plus from what I saw before I posted the graph there does not seem to be a vested interest - his interest is in providing infrastructure http://transport-initiatives.highpeakweb.org.uk/index.asp?ID=145

 

[avecReynolds531]

Do you wear a cycling cap? If so, do you think other cyclists judge you because of it?

1. Yes.
2. Don't know.

 

[Fab Foodie]

View attachment 532551

1. Yes.
2. Don't know.

Nice collection!