Keeping safe and being seen on the road

[icowden]

Alex, if these people were wisely dispensing advice on the basis of the injuries they see, they would be campaigning strongly for car passenger helmets.
They are not.

Airbags. Airbags prevent/reduce head injury amongst other injuries. That's why we have airbags.

I also doubt they are conducting any statistically sound studies; we have seen from innumerable PROPER studies how hard it is to find strong effects from helmet-wearing, so the idea that busy A&E staff can do better is laughable.

Yes, they won't have time to look at research which is part of their required clinical training, not to pursue research studies which is also a part of their required clinical work. They just stitch stuff and glue you back together.

It is not their job to assess cause and effect, and they are not trained to do so (it would be pretty hard given they never see the cause of injuries!).

What they do see is injured cyclists. If they see fewer injured cyclists or less injured cyclists when they have a helmet on, I'll stick with the medically trained.

 

[tinywheels]

I work in A+E in a large hospital. I choose to wear a helmet on the basis of what I see. However there's a significant cohort of cyclist's who choose not to wear one.
Let them get on with it it's their head.

 

[matticus]

Yes, they won't have time to look at research which is part of their required clinical training, not to pursue research studies which is also a part of their required clinical work. They just stitch stuff and glue you back together.

A couple of posts back you took the opposite view. Forgive me if I find your testimony unconvincing

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Airbags. Airbags prevent/reduce head injury amongst other injuries. That's why we have airbags

Sure, but proper crash helmets as could easily be worn in cars would reduce them far more (and by far more than flimsy bike helmets ever could for cyclists).

So why don't motorists get this advice?

 

[icowden]

A couple of posts back you took the opposite view. Forgive me if I find your testimony unconvincing

You may have missed the sarcasm :-)

 

[mjr]

That study shows that IF you are involved in a smash with injuries bad enough to require hospital treatment, THEN the likelihood of head injury or even death is significantly reduced if you were wearing a helmet. That is all it shows.

If only helmet pushers would include the qualifiers and stop at that claim, instead of exaggerating like the authors do, then there would be a far better chance of a sensible debate about the things.

That's not quite all it shows, though, is it? There may be a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury and facial injuries, but "there was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury" too. That's intriguing: why would using a helmet increase the risk of those injuries , except for risk compensation?

Not too sure how it would increase severity, while those numbers are showing the opposite.

There are no reliable numbers of crash severity, sadly, and definitely not cross-referenced by helmet use.

[...]
Males (and particularly young males) are generally accepted to be more risk-prone (which is why their car insurance premiums are higher - nor were until outlawed), so I would expect more injured male riders than the proportion of males in the overall riding population.

I would also expect far more drunk riders to forget to put on their helmet, if they normally wear one, which would probably be enough to explain that figure.

The male behaviour effect is debatable and I feel it would be better to have data than stereotypes.

The drunk riders difference seems like more than can be explained by drunk helmet users riding around looking at a helmet hanging from their handlebars and not remembering what it's for. The users I know who cycle and drink have never seemed anywhere near drunk enough to forget their helmets. They'd need to be seriously hammered and then I doubt they'd get far enough to count as a cyclist rather than a walker!

 

[mjr]

I'm not surprised at all by what you are describing as "anomalies" in their data.

Oh, I've just noticed that you didn't comment on helmet users outnumbering non-users 2:1 among hospital cases, when it's the opposite in the population. I'll grant you that racers are both required to use helmets and more likely to crash, but is that enough to explain the reversal of proportions?

 

[icowden]

If only helmet pushers would include the qualifiers and stop at that claim, instead of exaggerating like the authors do, then there would be a far better chance of a sensible debate about the things.

No-one is "pushing helmets". If you don't want to wear one that's up to you.

That's not quite all it shows, though, is it? There may be a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury and facial injuries, but "there was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury" too. That's intriguing: why would using a helmet increase the risk of those injuries , except for risk compensation?

Obviously it wouldn't. An increase in something else doesn't mean that it is related to the first thing.

 

[icowden]

Oh, I've just noticed that you didn't comment on helmet users outnumbering non-users 2:1 among hospital cases, when it's the opposite in the population. I'll grant you that racers are both required to use helmets and more likely to crash, but is that enough to explain the reversal of proportions?

Maybe the other ones just go straight to the morgue?

 

[classic33]

If only helmet pushers would include the qualifiers and stop at that claim, instead of exaggerating like the authors do, then there would be a far better chance of a sensible debate about the things.

That's not quite all it shows, though, is it? There may be a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury and facial injuries, but "there was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury" too. That's intriguing: why would using a helmet increase the risk of those injuries , except for risk compensation?


There are no reliable numbers of crash severity, sadly, and definitely not cross-referenced by helmet use.


The male behaviour effect is debatable and I feel it would be better to have data than stereotypes.

The drunk riders difference seems like more than can be explained by drunk helmet users riding around looking at a helmet hanging from their handlebars and not remembering what it's for. The users I know who cycle and drink have never seemed anywhere near drunk enough to forget their helmets. They'd need to be seriously hammered and then I doubt they'd get far enough to count as a cyclist rather than a walker!

Maybe if those who were so anti-helmet could do the same as they're asking others to do, or better still, let us make our own choice, we'd not be having these repeated rants about who's right.

You protect one area, you move the injury/injured area further on.
A bit like reinforcing one section of a simple tube. The area likely to suffer damage tends not to be the reinforced area.
No "risk compensation" required by the tube to move the area of damage.

 

[icowden]

That's not quite all it shows, though, is it? There may be a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury and facial injuries, but "there was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury" too. That's intriguing: why would using a helmet increase the risk of those injuries , except for risk compensation?

To be honest I'd prefer to be in hospital for chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury rather than neurosurgery. All the other stuff can be fixed fairly easily compared to brains.

 

[mjr]

No-one is "pushing helmets". If you don't want to wear one that's up to you.

If that were true, I would still be able to do charity fun rides backed by British Cycling.

Obviously it wouldn't. An increase in something else doesn't mean that it is related to the first thing.

It said the increase is "significant". So it's probably related. It might not be causal, but what's another probable explanation there?

 

[Alex321]

Oh, I've just noticed that you didn't comment on helmet users outnumbering non-users 2:1 among hospital cases, when it's the opposite in the population. I'll grant you that racers are both required to use helmets and more likely to crash, but is that enough to explain the reversal of proportions?

I have no evidence for this other than what I see on the roads, but I would be willing to bet that the statistics of helmets worn per road mile are much closer to that 2:1 ratio in favour of helmet wearers.

The ratio of 2:1 not wearing them includes all cyclists, many of whom are casual riders who only do a very few miles per week, maybe often on pavements or cycle paths, and few of whom will wear helmets. It also includes users of the city hire bikes, and I hardly ever see one of those riders wearing a helmet. But out on the open road, cyclists who look like they are reasonably serious (good bikes and/or proper cycling clothes, riding at reasonable speed) almost all wear helmets round here.

 

[matticus]

No-one is "pushing helmets". If you don't want to wear one that's up to you.

Can you please clarify this? Do you mean no-one in the world, or something more specific?

 

[icowden]

Can you please clarify this? Do you mean no-one in the world, or something more specific?

I mean that I have yet to see anyone addicted to helmets, standing on street corners trying to supply illegal helmets or trying to make people buy helmets under duress. I haven't noted anyone buying an entry level helmet and then buying more and more expensive helmets until they are on the hardcore helmets.

In the UK, helmets are optional. Many think they are a good idea. Many of those that think it is a good idea are the people that have to fix you when you have broken your bonce.