Justinslow
Lovely jubbly
- Location
- Suffolk
Won't work for me in a TT though.....
The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread
- Thread starter Shaun
- Start date
-
- Tags
- helmet helmet debate
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Justinslow
Lovely jubbly
- Location
- Suffolk
If that's what happened then fair enough, we can all only draw on our own experiences, or take as gospel something written down (or not).
Justinslow
Lovely jubbly
- Location
- Suffolk
Can someone point me in the direction of the Australian injury data again, is it all cycle related injuries causing hospitalisation or specifically head injuries?
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
How many times? There is no evidence to suggest a "general" cycling helmet will be of use in a real world cycling scenario. The tests that they currently undergo are little more than a cosmetic exercise that does not demonstrate how the helmet will reduce head injury in the event of a cycling accident.
If I was to be cynical, I'd say that a "general" cycling helmet has been designed purely to relieve some people of cash whilst providing no real benefit. Bit like a Burberry handbag over a Sainsbury's carrier bag.
Come on Justin, you're better than this. We've been round this buoy so many times now.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
It should be on http://www.cycle-helmets.com/index.html somewhere. HTH
Justinslow
Lovely jubbly
- Location
- Suffolk
Well I did in the short time I had at lunchtime and the data I found was concerning all hospitalisation with cyclists, not just head injuries for the period after the law came into effect. Is this really about the effectiveness of helmets or more to do with the after effects of compulsion in general population health - obesity etc, coupled with cheap booze, more sugar, cheap processed food, cheaper and more gadgets and computers.
If it's general hospitalisation and not just head injuries there could be loads of things going on here.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
From memory, there's a graph showing head injury rates before and after compulsion to see if there's as sudden change. Can't quite remember if it showed nothing or even a getting worse
There's also a rather naughty research paper which compares head injuries against other injuries before and after compulsion - which on the surface seemed quite sensible - but then rather spoilt it by using entirely different dates than before and after compulsion. It looked like "policy based evidence" to use the phrase ie getting evidence to justify a position. Pity as this could have been a useful piece of work otherwise.
.. and therein lies the same old question
Why only cyclists when any cohort data shows they are a minority. It is a classic case of looking for information that confirms the bias of the person looking
Try looking at "ALL head injuries" and ask why we are making so much fuss about a minority. In most cohort studies, cyclists don't even mention a an "at risk group"
Its a bit like looking at exercise injuries in athletes and then ignoring the vast majority by concentrating all the research and effort in preventing exercise injuries in 2 year olds
Unfortunately the case, as I have shown a number of times. Design faults such as "snag points", denser material, less material, roll cages that have no protective function......
The "gold standard" used to be the SNELL B 95, and there is not a single helmet on today's market that can pass that. As fashion and ventilation have led the market helmets have become less and less effective and are designed for these parameters as opposed to cycling
Then again we have the professional input that suggests helmets offer inadequate protection to the face , or the fact that the accepted standard for the UK is unacceptable in some UK events or in the US because it is pathetically weak
So overall the answer is unequivocally that helmet design has little to do with the general cyclist
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
As Justin has stated numerous times, he's only interested in cyclists' head injuries because it's a cycling forum innit.
But what is a cyclist?
Tricycles were exempt from motorcycle helmet compulsion
Should we therefore exclude any data on tricycles
As for the weirdos who cycle around with a single pannier.........
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
to be fair to Justin that's a reasonable point.
Of course others do compare and say "well motorcylists wear helmets" so it's fair to reply "Lewis Hamilton wears asbestos underpants" so it's only a fair point from Justin
All that said, just because it might make more sense to wear beer drinking helmets, and I dare say a good case could be made - that isn't of itself a reason not to wear cycle helmets - even if it is a valid comparison for more or less risky activities.
Anyhow, helmets don't seem to help on average, so the rest is a bit moot
MY problem is that so much of this is the attempts to justify helmet use, and then refusing to accept logical progression
The classic is the mountain biker wearing a helmet as a lever to promote helmet use in the average cyclist
Then use the "its a cyclist forum" to avoid the fact that the point is in reality weak and indefensible when the valid comparison between rally drivers and ordinary drivers is made
Simply lazy and in denial of reality
This forum is basically screwed if we accept that premise
Looking at the "new posts" page this concept rules out about 50% of the forum's content
The classic is the mountain biker wearing a helmet as a lever to promote helmet use in the average cyclist
Then use the "its a cyclist forum" to avoid the fact that the point is in reality weak and indefensible when the valid comparison between rally drivers and ordinary drivers is made
Simply lazy and in denial of reality
This forum is basically screwed if we accept that premise
Looking at the "new posts" page this concept rules out about 50% of the forum's content
Justinslow
Lovely jubbly
- Location
- Suffolk
The link that @mjray provided is the one I was looking at lunchtime. This is interesting
From 2006 to 2011, car driver injuries increased 43%, car passenger injuries were stable, motorcyclist injuries increased 32.7%, pedestrian injuries increased 24.4% and pedal cyclist injuries increased 51.4%. Cyclists represented 11.4% of all traffic injury inpatients in 2006, compared to 13.8% in 2011.
So it seems all forms of transport are becoming more "dangerous".
There's a hell of a lot of data in there, and picking through it takes time but,
Recent trends in cyclist fatalities in Australia published July 2015 by Boufous and Olivier from the University of New South Wales found that multi-vehicle cyclist fatalities decreased 2.9% per annum from 1991 (helmet law enforcement 1990-92) to 2013 but cyclist-only fatalities increased 5.8% per annum, resulting in an overall 1.9% per annum reduction.
From 2006 to 2011, car driver injuries increased 43%, car passenger injuries were stable, motorcyclist injuries increased 32.7%, pedestrian injuries increased 24.4% and pedal cyclist injuries increased 51.4%. Cyclists represented 11.4% of all traffic injury inpatients in 2006, compared to 13.8% in 2011.
So it seems all forms of transport are becoming more "dangerous".
There's a hell of a lot of data in there, and picking through it takes time but,
Recent trends in cyclist fatalities in Australia published July 2015 by Boufous and Olivier from the University of New South Wales found that multi-vehicle cyclist fatalities decreased 2.9% per annum from 1991 (helmet law enforcement 1990-92) to 2013 but cyclist-only fatalities increased 5.8% per annum, resulting in an overall 1.9% per annum reduction.
