The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Profpointy]

An interesting read. Makes some assertions that counter some of the claims regarding helmets.

Helmets prove test of time
13 July 2015. Twenty-five years ago Victoria became the first jurisdiction in the world to make bike helmets compulsory, and the results have confounded the skeptics.

Helmets have proved to be a highly effective injury prevention device.

And they have won broad acceptance from the riding community, with counts in Melbourne showing more than 99 per cent of riders with helmets.

Because wearing helmets has become normalised behaviour in the state, they do not have any negative effect on the growth of riding.

According to the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) in 1990, 24 cyclists died on the state's roads, following 34 the year before - more than triple the number of cyclists who were killed on Victorian roads last year (10).

TAC chief executive officer Janet Dore hailed the 25-year milestone, praising the dramatic reduction in deaths and severe brain injuries from bike crashes since the ground-breaking legislation was introduced.

"Studies in recent years show that wearing a helmet is the single most significant factor in reducing the magnitude of head and brain injury in a crash," Ms Dore said.

The TAC receives around 1000 claims from injured cyclists each year. In the past five years, just six per cent of these were for head or brain injuries.

In 2013, a TAC survey of 200 injured cyclists found 81 per cent thought wearing a helmet helped prevent a more serious injury. Those who didn't agree said so because their head was not involved in the impact.

"To reduce road fatalities by more than half—including cyclists—in the past quarter of a century is a fantastic achievement, especially given cycling's ever-growing popularity," Ms Dore said.

"Add to that the bike safety education programs rolled out in primary schools across the state and dedicated bike lanes in urban areas and you can see a really positive trend that's emerged in cyclist safety in Victoria.

"The challenge now is to make even greater gains in preventing road trauma and accept that we all have a role to play in achieving our vision of zero deaths and serious injuries."

Some further statistics:

- cyclist injuries recorded between 2010 and 2013: 78 per cent were recorded as wearing a helmet; 5 per cent not wearing a helmet and 17 per cent were unknown (Victoria Police data).

- 28 per cent of killed or seriously injured children (<18 years of age) were recorded as not wearing a helmet, compared to 5 per cent of adults aged 26 and over (Victoria Police data).

I dare say you know this but a lot of that is flat wrong or blatant lies

 

[david k]

Skulls save lots of lives. They're pretty good things.

They don't cease to help if wearing a helmet

 

[Big Andy]

I dare say you know this but a lot of that is flat wrong or blatant lies

I dont know that. I have however been doing some online reading and as yet i haven't really come across too much that suggests that there arent benefits to the individual wearing a helmet in the event of an incident involving a head impact.

The attached is from ROSPA.

 

[srw]

I dont know that. I have however been doing some online reading and as yet i haven't really come across too much that suggests that there arent benefits to the individual wearing a helmet in the event of an incident involving a head impact.

.

Start with the 346 pages of this thread. There's plenty of discussion here on that topic, as well as links to more neutral organisations than RoSPA.

 

[Big Andy]

Finding things in this thread is a nightmare. Sadly the majority of posts have no information at all in them. Also the majority of contributions are already very polarised.
The rospa file is a precis of lots of different studies and makes "interesting " reading, at least in the context of this debate.

 

[Profpointy]

I dont know that. I have however been doing some online reading and as yet i haven't really come across too much that suggests that there arent benefits to the individual wearing a helmet in the event of an incident involving a head impact.

The attached is from ROSPA.

There's already a clear logical error in the way you've phrased that. You have taken (cherry picked as the term is) a sample of people who have hit their heads. This doesn't take account of your head being significantly bigger hence WILL get hit between 50% more and twice as often purely from being a bigger target. And then there's risk compensation by both cyclist and passing drivers increasing the risk of an accident. Increase of rotational or neck injuries must be in there somewhere too

 

[Big Andy]

I appreciate the helmeted head is bigger and more likely to get hit. Can I ask what makes you suggest 50% more and twice as often though? Are there studies on that? May have been quoted in this thread but finding anything useful in it is a challenge.

 

[Profpointy]

I appreciate the helmeted head is bigger and more likely to get hit. Can I ask what makes you suggest 50% more and twice as often though? Are there studies on that? May have been quoted in this thread but finding anything useful in it is a challenge.

schoolboy level geometry. Target size is between 50% and double ergo ...

Remember your talking cross sectional area not linear after all

EDIT - admittedly there is an assumption that twice as big = twice as likely to hit, but I'd suggest that's not a wild assuption

 

[Profpointy]

I dont know that. I have however been doing some online reading and as yet i haven't really come across too much that suggests that there arent benefits to the individual wearing a helmet in the event of an incident involving a head impact.

The attached is from ROSPA.

Just done a skim read of the Rospa thing - and couldn't help noticing the now notorious and discredited Rivera Thompson 85% paper is quoted. And that's quite apart from the very dubious basis the other numbers are presented (eg taken those who've already presented in hospital, conflating motorcycles and bikes etc) so it was hard to believe an honest intention. To be fair I didn't get to the end, so maybe they did such an analysis later on, but there was so much wrong with the examples quoted it was akin to tobacco companies claiming smoking was OK

 

[Big Andy]

As i see it there are 2 elements to the debate,

1, the possible benefits or otherwise to the individual from wearing a helmet, it is a very subjective call and very much depends on the individual and the type of riding they do the location they ride and their own perception of the risk of an impact to the head and their own view on whether a helmet can actual help reduce the seriousness of injury. That can be based on scientific evidence, anecdotal evidence and the evidence of their own experience and even for that matter their own personal belief.

The second aspect is the affect of mass helmet wearing by compulsion on overall public health. I would suggest that can only be determined by statistical evidence.

 

[mjr]

(quoting) Even with a 10% increased riding velocity for the helmeted impacts, to take into account possible increased risk taking,

They've only included one tiny aspect of the suspected increased risk-taking... and even that, they phrase as "possible" despite it being a figure from a scientific study. Are they setting up the assumptIons like that because they're genuinely ignorant of risk compensation of helmet users, or because they want to ensure their model produces the desired results?

Well whatever or whoever is behind it, it is a scientific study.

A scientific study by a helmet maker CEO using solely computer modelling of a complex physical interaction. Do we often accept solely computer modelling for health interventions, or do we do clinical trials?

On another note I've had two mates come off their bikes in the last two days on the road, both good riders and not nutters.....

Remind me not to become your friend I like not crashing.

(quoting) In 2013, a TAC survey of 200 injured cyclists found 81 per cent thought wearing a helmet helped prevent a more serious injury. Those who didn't agree said so because their head was not involved in the impact.

81% of injured helmet users hit their head!?!? Such an increased head-strike rate would more than completely negate a 46% protection even if it were true!

 

[MarquisMatsugae]

Yep, your point?
Let me guess- reckless, over confident, riding beyond their ability level?

Now where have I heard this before ?

 

[velovoice]

...more neutral organisations than RoSPA.

Starting with (yet again) cyclehelmets.org.

 

[doog]

So wear a helmet when walking then........

Yep that old chesnut. Old folk and drunks being compared with a cycling population...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Well whatever or whoever is behind it, it is a scientific study.

Or sales promotion dressed up as science. 9 out of 10 cats might think this is science. And statistics.