No helmet

[Crackle]

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!

I seem to remember reading this and not being at all convinced by the study in its entirety. I don't dispute that it may be a factor, it makes sense logically and there's certainly anecdotal evidence (Ravenbait was it?) but the study didn't strike me as being too convincing but then a lot of helmet studies seem weighted in one direction. It makes it difficult to draw conclusions on their effectivness, even the standards don't equate.

 

[ufkacbln]

Exactly - my choice of phrase is deliberate - a "link" to an increase, not "definitive proof of increased head injury....

 

[col]

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



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!

Not avoiding at all,just think the benefits outweigh the non benefits,and to lessen this rotational force,use helmets that dont have the sticky out bits.

 

[Danny]

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:

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!

From what I can see the TRL report does not in anyway back up the Bristol study. On page 9 it does say that one of the the factor drivers used to assess whether a cyclist was likely to behave responsibly was whether they wear a helmet. However nowhere does it state that drivers pass cyclists more closely just because they are wearing a helmet.

Indeed, on page 30 it notes that "Drivers recognise that some cyclists are more unpredictable than others and state that they are prepared to take additional care when encountering cycle users that appear inexperienced or risk-taking". This is precisely my experience as a cyclist and car driver.

As to the Thornhill study, I fail to see its relevance to the debate about cycle helmets. If you are assessing the risks of cycling without a helmet, what you need to know is what % of serious cycling accidents involve a head injury, and of those how many might have been prevented if the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I do not hold with complicating matters. For every report in favour there is a report against, and that is to complicate the issue of helmet use.

So, basically you've seen some evidence which suggests that cycle helmets help protect against injury and on that basis you've decided that anyone not wearing a helmet is an irresponsible loon who should be forced to wear a helmet by the government. Any evidence which does not confirm your view is "complicating matters". Hmmmm. You haven't really got the hang of scientific objectivity, have you?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Not once have I suggested I would be IMPOSING anything...Again and again I have made it clear that I would support government action to make helmets compulsory. That isn't me imposing, that would be me supporting my beliefs.

You are imposing upon me and my beliefs. HOW DARE YOU!!!

You are, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, an idiot. How can you possibly accuse anyone else of "imposing upon [you] and [your] beliefs" when no one is trying to stop you wearing a helmet? If you support government action to make helmets compulsory because you believe it's a good thing for you, you are imposing your beliefs on the rest of us.
I speak as another pro helmet, anti compulsion cyclist, by the way.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

1. I would support government action based on my understanding of the arguments for and against.
2. I do have a right to support the government, and for that support to be called support instead of an imposition.
3. I have also made it very clear that the opposite view, I would not see as imposing. Now, ALLOW ME MY RIGHT TO THIS OPINION, and stop twisting it to be something it is not.

1. But you appear to have little understanding of the arguments against, having dismissed any evidence against the effectiveness of helmets as "complicating matters" earlier in the thread. Your understanding of the evidence for seems to be something like "it's obvious, innit, that a helmet will protect your head".
2. If you're supporting the government imposing compulsory helmet wearing, then you're imposing your view on the rest of us. There's no point trying to hide behind semantics.
3. You certainly have a right to your opinion. But because you'd also like to lmpose your opinion on the rest of us, we have a right to criticise you for holding it.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

While I am more than prepared to say (and have a number of times) that the opposite view of mine is not imposing, it seems to me that I am not going to be afforded the same. So, you can all support a government action that makes the use of helmets non-compulsory without imposition, but I can't support the other without insult and claims of imposition.

This is hilarious. How on earth could there ever be "government action that makes the use of helmets non-compulsory"?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

It's very little trouble to tattoo your forehead with the words 'stubborn but not very logical'. Why not go ahead and do this?

 

[ufkacbln]

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunobelin View Post
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:

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!
From what I can see the TRL report does not in anyway back up the Bristol study. On page 9 it does say that one of the the factor drivers used to assess whether a cyclist was likely to behave responsibly was whether they wear a helmet. However nowhere does it state that drivers pass cyclists more closely just because they are wearing a helmet.

Indeed, on page 30 it notes that "Drivers recognise that some cyclists are more unpredictable than others and state that they are prepared to take additional care when encountering cycle users that appear inexperienced or risk-taking". This is precisely my experience as a cyclist and car driver.

As to the Thornhill study, I fail to see its relevance to the debate about cycle helmets. If you are assessing the risks of cycling without a helmet, what you need to know is what % of serious cycling accidents involve a head injury, and of those how many might have been prevented if the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

The Thornhill paper illustrates just how small a number of cyclists suffer hhead injuries.

If you believe all the claims for helmets, then you must accept that the reasoning is suspect if w do not look at the groups that are most affected.

All the arguments (egg in polystyrene box, falling on the floor with / without helmet etc, cost to the NHS etc...) apply to these groups as well.

Unless of course there is a suggestion that head injuries hurt less, and are acceptable for pedestrians?

Instead of dismissal - can someone comeup with a reason that we shouldn't be supporting Government action for compulsory pedesrtrian helmets?

 

[Danny]

Instead of dismissal - can someone comeup with a reason that we shouldn't be supporting Government action for compulsory pedesrtrian helmets?

Because you are just making a facile debating point.

If you want to have a sensible discussion about accident levels than you need to look at these in terms of rates per thousand participants in an activity - not quote absolute numbers.

Nearly the whole population is a pedestrian at some point, so in absolute terms it is possible that pedestrians have more head injuries than cyclists. However the only way to compare the actual risk of having a head injury is to look at how many head injuries are there per 1000 pedestrians versus how many injuries there are per 1000 cyclists.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not "facile", just uncomfortable for some because it raises questions about the motives behind compulsion!


The pro-compulsion lobby is almost entirely base on the "absolute numbers" and not risk or "population level data"

You have just excluded 80 % of the pro compulsion argument..... and in the case of the BHIT, about 95%!


Helmets work exactly on this basis - on an individual level they are brilliant, but when you start looking at esoteric risks, population level data and altering the statistics - they are shown to actually make no statistically significant safety contribution whatsoever!


I am quite happy to remove all references from the debate that are not based on population level risk!

In the meanwhile the situation is quite simple

Do helmets save people from head injuries?
Are more head injuries seen in Hospitals by A/E departments from any particular group?
Why not reduce the incidence in such groups these with helmet use?

If not - why not....
Are these head injuries somehow "acceptable"?
Are pedestrians "Not worth saving"?

If you include "helmets may on on individual basis lessen the severity of head injuries in cyclists", and use this as an argument for cyclists using helmets then you canot exclude "helmets may on on individual basis lessen the severity of head injuries in pedestrians" as being eqaully valid.

So we can now exclude all the "my helmet saved my life" arguments.





PS - did you know that pedestrians are more at risk from being killed by a cyclist than by white van man?

 

[domtyler]

The latest studies have proven that wearing a helmet increases your chances of being in a collision by over thirty percent.

 

[piedwagtail91]

i think we should be looking at preventing the cause of head injuries rather than treating or trying to lessen the "symptoms"..
something needs to be done about driver attitude or no amount of protection will be enough.
we had some moron boy racer race past yesterday at about 60mph a few inches form my elbow, blasted his horn to make us jump as he got close behind us, all this on an otherwise empty road.if he'd hit us no amount of protection would have prevented serious injury/death.
it this sort of attitude that needs to be changed before we are forced to dress like gladiators to carry out our riding.

 

[Danny]

Not "facile", just uncomfortable for some because it raises questions about the motives behind compulsion!

The pro-compulsion lobby is almost entirely base on the "absolute numbers" and not risk or "population level data"....

While I do think helmets offer protection against head injuries in some circumstances, I am not pro-compulsion. I know some people on this thread have been arguing for compulsion and I disagree with them - but I do think they are entitled to put their point of view without having abuse heaped upon them.

In any case, the "pro-compulsion lobby" as you call it, is very tiny and has no prospect at all of making helmet use compulsory,

However I think the "anti-helmet lobby" is guilty of implying that any argument in favour of helmet use is an argument in favour of compulsory helmet use. They also cloud the issue by throwing out all sorts of spurious statistics about the numbers of head injuries experienced by pedestrians or people falling out of pubs and closing time; or by coming up with all sorts of improbable scenarios to try and make the case that you are more at risk of an accident if you are wearing a helmet.