The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[srw]

What?

Coo... so artificial tests only for new helmets and then annual relicensing (or not) based on the injury stats of its users? Mind.... blown!

This.

 

[ufkacbln]

You could also ask for realism in the tests.

Some time ago there was a question over helmets remaining on the head in an accident if the sharp points caught

The answer was to apply lots of tape to keep the helmet in position during tests

So in reality many of these helmets only work to test standard of you carry a roll of Gaffa tape and tape it to your head

 

[ufkacbln]

This is an interesting perspective from Australia showing a graph of head injury trends pre and post helmet law.

Look at the two curves, one for pedestrians, and one for cyclists

Once again proof that pedestrian head injuries are a far greater public health issue than cyclist head injuries, and occur more frequently

I also love the fact that helmet compulsion caused an increase in pedestrian head injuries!

 

[The Jogger]

The protection I have for my head is SPF 50 but then that's another debate.

 

[ufkacbln]

The protection I have for my head is SPF 50 but then that's another debate.

Helmets are a partial answer - some parts match SP50, others don't

 

[srw]

This is an interesting perspective from Australia showing a graph of head injury trends pre and post helmet law.

Look at the two curves, one for pedestrians, and one for cyclists

Once again proof that pedestrian head injuries are a far greater public health issue than cyclist head injuries, and occur more frequently

That does depend on what "rate" is being measured. It's certainly not the case that 60% of cyclists or pedestrians suffer head injuries, so at the very least two different kinds of "rate" are being constructed.

 

[ufkacbln]

That does depend on what "rate" is being measured. It's certainly not the case that 60% of cyclists or pedestrians suffer head injuries, so at the very least two different kinds of "rate" are being constructed.

Very simplistically, if the same criteria are used for both graphs, then there is a comparison between the two sets as the errors, and bias will be the same for each

 

[srw]

Very simplistically, if the same criteria are used for both graphs, then there is a comparison between the two sets as the errors, and bias will be the same for each

It's impossible to interpret without knowing that definition. Rate per person, per mile, per trip, per injury, per death, per news report - all are possible definitions and all tell a different story. Some support your proposal, some don't.

 

[Big Andy]

Personally the stats for pedestrians are irrelevent to me when considering whether to wear a helmet when cycling.

The graph does appear to show that the increase in helmet wearing corresponds with a fall in head injuries. Although there could be other contributory factors such as safer cycling infrastructure.

 

[srw]

The graph does appear to show that the increase in helmet wearing corresponds with a fall in head injuries.

That's one thing the graph definitely doesn't show. The fall in injury "rate" significantly preceded the rise in helmet wearing"rate". Causality never works backwards in time.

 

[Big Andy]

The rapid decline in head injuries corresponds precisely to the rise in helmet wearing the fact that there was a gentle decline before could be down to a number of factors too such as better infrastructure, more safety awareness from cyclists and car drivers. Perhaps also a gentle increase in helmet wearing too.
So we will have to agree to disagree the graph shows an increase in helmet wearing and a corresponding decrease in head injuries.

 

[Big Andy]

None of which changes my view that it should be down to an individuals choice on whether to wear one or not.

 

[Big Andy]

You must be looking at a different graph to me then. 1984 helmet wearing increasing, head injuries falling.

 

[Big Andy]

What it does show is that the helmet law had no positive effect.

 

[ufkacbln]

Personally the stats for pedestrians are irrelevent to me when considering whether to wear a helmet when cycling.

However on a wider view they would save lots more lives than cycle helmets

The graph does appear to show that the increase in helmet wearing corresponds with a fall in head injuries. Although there could be other contributory factors such as safer cycling infrastructure.

It does show a steady decrease in head injuries, which flattens out after compulsion
There is also the fact that there should have been a greater decrease when there was a drop in cyclist numbers

The graph shows compulsion to be counter-productive in terms of reducing head injuries in cyclists