No helmet

[Jaded]

It is amazing how protection can have the same effect as no protection isnt it?

It isn't the same effect though. If you read the post carefully.

 

[Brock]

Iv seen an experiment where a raw egg was put inside a polystyrene box, and thrown from a great hieght,the egg was not cracked,i think that shows that having some of this on your head would indeed save your skull to some extent,i still dont understand the stance that it doesnt help?

But what did the yolk look like inside the shell?

 

[ufkacbln]

When I looked into the the Bristol study it looked like pretty poor science to me. It used just one rider in one city (Bath from memory), and didn't run either test for long enough to start making sweeping generalisations about driver behavior towards helmeted cyclists.

But................. any poorer science than the BHIT claiming in Parliament that more head injuries would be saved by cycle helmets than actually occur due to all causes?


The Bristol results have been verified by other independent research which in some ways triangulates the results.

 

[thePig]

I found this video on YouTube - just in case you are thinking of going for a ride without one.

http://www.cyclepig.com/archive/always-wear-a-helmet/

I have never heard of anyone putting their foot in the spokes before....come to think about it I have never seen anyone ride a bike like this.

 

[Jaded]

I always wondered what I had to wear to stop me putting my foot in the spokes.

Do you need one helmet for each foot?

 

[Smokin Joe]

I found this video on YouTube - just in case you are thinking of going for a ride without one.

http://www.cyclepig.com/archive/always-wear-a-helmet/

I have never heard of anyone putting their foot in the spokes before....come to think about it I have never seen anyone ride a bike like this.

So what would a helmet have done? She didn't seem to be laying there with a head injury afterwards, in fact she looked remarkably unscathed.

The smug tosser doing the commentary (Name escapes me) is the bloke who has two convictions for drunk driving himself, so he is hardly one to preach about safety.

 

[col]

But what did the yolk look like inside the shell?

I dont know,but whatever it looked like,it didnt have a cracked skull aswell

 

[Jaded]

So as long as the skull is intact, it doesn't matter if the brain is scrambled?

 

[Danny]

But................. any poorer science than the BHIT claiming in Parliament that more head injuries would be saved by cycle helmets than actually occur due to all causes?


The Bristol results have been verified by other independent research which in some ways triangulates the results.

One of the problems with the whole helmet debate is that there is not enough good research done to conclusively prove their effectiveness one way or the other. So for example in a recent issue of C+ they reviewed a range of helmets but admitted that they had no meaningful way of testing how effective any of them are.

Personally I think the way forward is for the government to fund some proper studies. There's a huge amount of testing that goes on into car safety and simulating the effects of different kinds of accident on realistic dummies. It should be possible to do something similar to simulate the effect of different kinds of cycling accident on the human skull, with and without helmets.

Meanwhile I would be interested to know what the "independent research" was that you say verified that Bristol result. Was this documented in peer reviewed scientific papers - if not it is quite frankly worthless.

 

[col]

So as long as the skull is intact, it doesn't matter if the brain is scrambled?

what do you think?

 

[piedwagtail91]

Personally I think the way forward is for the government to fund some proper studies. There's a huge amount of testing that goes on into car safety and simulating the effects of different kinds of accident on realistic dummies. It should be possible to do something similar to simulate the effect of different kinds of cycling accident on the human skull, with and without helmets.

i agree thats probably the only way forward,
i doubt companies would fund expensive independant testing if there was a chance the results weren't going to go their way and lead to compulsory wearing and lots of sales to cover their costs.

i'd like to know if the damage done to the brain by a sudden impact is any less with a helmet than without.helmets may prevent surface damage/skull fracture in the right conditions but don't stop the brain being thrown around..

 

[Jaded]

I'd like to see research into the behaviour of road users and its impact on crash statistics before there is research into potentially passing the responsibility for safety onto one small group.

 

[col]

i was hoping that it was made law,just like motorbikes were years ago,as i find them awkward to carry or store,and feel very strange with them on,and having to would not give me a choice,as i feel there is a benefit in safety with them,but just dont use them now.

 

[ufkacbln]

One of the problems with the whole helmet debate is that there is not enough good research done to conclusively prove their effectiveness one way or the other. So for example in a recent issue of C+ they reviewed a range of helmets but admitted that they had no meaningful way of testing how effective any of them are.

Personally I think the way forward is for the government to fund some proper studies. There's a huge amount of testing that goes on into car safety and simulating the effects of different kinds of accident on realistic dummies. It should be possible to do something similar to simulate the effect of different kinds of cycling accident on the human skull, with and without helmets.

Meanwhile I would be interested to know what the "independent research" was that you say verified that Bristol result. Was this documented in peer reviewed scientific papers - if not it is quite frankly worthless.

TRL report 549


However the problem is still going to be proving the neccessity. Too much of the helmet and insurance debate is about lessening the injury when the cyclist is knocked off rather then about lesening the chances of th cyclist being knocked off!

Wardlaw, Hillman and others all "prove" that head injuries occur more often in car drivers than cyclists.

Thornhill et al in Glasgow took head injury admissions as they happened and found that:

The characteristics of the cohort agreed with previous surveys1: 1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury. Most (83%) were discharged within 48 hours

This is where there is a problem. By all means let's look at helmets and their contribution, but lets look at all vulnerable groups, not select a group with a llow level of incidence.

That is where the research needs to be done. Pedestrian helmets, Pub helmets and car helmets should be researched as urgently as cycle helmets if not more so!

 

[ufkacbln]

I dont know,but whatever it looked like,it didnt have a cracked skull aswell

Which neatly avoids discussing the contribution that helmets may make due to rotational forces........

Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury- V J M St Clair, B P Chinn. TRL Project Report PPR213, 2007, ISBN: 978-1-84608-846-9

the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.

Although there is some limitation as to the efficiency of "Headforms", the fact is that there is a link to an increase in head injury severity!