The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Mugshot]

Have we had THIS one posted yet?
Basically it's a study by psychologists at the University of Bath which is due to be published in Psychological Science that has found that if you wear a cycle helmet you're more likely to blow up balloons.
HERE'S the link from the Daily Mail as I know some of you like to read the comment section.

 

[benb]

Have we had THIS one posted yet?
Basically it's a study by psychologists at the University of Bath which is due to be published in Psychological Science that has found that if you wear a cycle helmet you're more likely to blow up balloons.
HERE'S the link from the Daily Mail as I know some of you like to read the comment section.

That's really interesting.
I do wonder whether you can directly translate the point at which someone stops blowing up a balloon to behaviour on the road though.

 

[Licramite]

from the latest Wiltshire police road users casualty list the safest mode of road transport is the horse, at zero kills. bikes got 2; pedestrians 1 and motorbikes 6.
which is conclusive proof of the danger of wearing a helmet. Horse's don't wear them nor do pedestrians - the only two groups that do took the highest casualties.

 

[youngoldbloke]

from the latest Wiltshire police road users casualty list the safest mode of road transport is the horse, at zero kills. bikes got 2; pedestrians 1 and motorbikes 6.
which is conclusive proof of the danger of wearing a helmet. Horse's don't wear them nor do pedestrians - the only two groups that do took the highest casualties.

Horse RIDERS wear helmets.

 

[Licramite]

I subscribe to the Schrodinger's helmet theory.
If you wear a helmet you can think of it as "Useless" and "it will save your life" equally at the same time.
And you won't know until the moment of impact.

 

[al78]

from the latest Wiltshire police road users casualty list the safest mode of road transport is the horse, at zero kills. bikes got 2; pedestrians 1 and motorbikes 6.
which is conclusive proof of the danger of wearing a helmet. Horse's don't wear them nor do pedestrians - the only two groups that do took the highest casualties.

No it is more likely evidence of the dangers of traveling at speed, since the two slowest forms of road transport (horses and pedestrians) have only one casualty combined whereas motorcyclists (the fastest) have 6 casualties. Oh, and trying to compare road accidents to stabbing is just absurd.

 

[Justinslow]

No it is more likely evidence of the dangers of traveling at speed, since the two slowest forms of road transport (horses and pedestrians) have only one casualty combined whereas motorcyclists (the fastest) have 6 casualties. Oh, and trying to compare road accidents to stabbing is just absurd.

Welcome to the "great helmet debate"..........

 

[martint235]

No it is more likely evidence of the dangers of traveling at speed, since the two slowest forms of road transport (horses and pedestrians) have only one casualty combined whereas motorcyclists (the fastest) have 6 casualties. Oh, and trying to compare road accidents to stabbing is just absurd.

But surely comparing a stab vest (masses of testing done and data published on their effectiveness in protecting the body) against cycling helmets (very little testing done, no publicly available evidence) is pertinent to the debate.

 

[Licramite]

But surely comparing a stab vest (masses of testing done and data published on their effectiveness in protecting the body) against cycling helmets (very little testing done, no publicly available evidence) is pertinent to the debate.

There's loads of studies on the effectiveness of helmets in accidents, there's statistical studies, test studies - it then comes down to if you choose to believe the studies. If you don't believe in helmets you will rubbish them, if you believe in helmets you will accept them.
Helmet effectiveness is really a matter of faith. (and your predisposition to see how you see cause and effect.)
I believe in helmets - up to a point - I believe they will provide a level of protection for 99% of the head collisions I'm going to take. - its the one offs that nail you.
This show me Evidence is a cover for I don't believe in it. If I could show an anti-helmet person 100% proof and they would still dispute it.

 

[Licramite]

Or indeed at that moment, or anytime after.

assuming there is an any time after that. - If your helmet fails to save your life - you will never know.

 

[Profpointy]

You sure about that? One of the things that the BHRF points out is actually how little substantive research there is out there of the efficacy of helmets.

I agree with licamite on this. There's loads of reasearch on helmet efficacy - none of it shows they're effective or helpfull though

 

[mjr]

There's loads of studies on the effectiveness of helmets in accidents, there's statistical studies, test studies - it then comes down to if you choose to believe the studies. If you don't believe in helmets you will rubbish them, if you believe in helmets you will accept them.

Err, no. The studies suggest that helmets don't seem to improve outcomes significantly. They don't make them significantly worse either, but no improvement is a surprising result given the demonstrable protection in a certain type of impact, which makes me wonder what drawback is negating it.

So if it's no significant change then it's a placebo and a relatively expensive one at that, in financial, environmental and public health marketing terms.

Helmet effectiveness is really a matter of faith.

It's really not and the religious helmet nobbers really stifle sensible debate. It would be far better if we could understand the mysterious drawback(s) and eliminate them by design changes or by limiting helmet use to certain uses/users or something else.

This show me Evidence is a cover for I don't believe in it. If I could show an anti-helmet person 100% proof and they would still dispute it.

Ah, a preemptive attack on anyone who disagrees with you? Just what this discussion needs(!)

This tends to be public health, so "100% proof" is very rare and many people have trouble accepting uncertainty, probability and risk.

 

[martint235]

There's loads of studies on the effectiveness of helmets in accidents, there's statistical studies, test studies - it then comes down to if you choose to believe the studies. If you don't believe in helmets you will rubbish them, if you believe in helmets you will accept them.
Helmet effectiveness is really a matter of faith. (and your predisposition to see how you see cause and effect.)
I believe in helmets - up to a point - I believe they will provide a level of protection for 99% of the head collisions I'm going to take. - its the one offs that nail you.
This show me Evidence is a cover for I don't believe in it. If I could show an anti-helmet person 100% proof and they would still dispute it.

So where is this evidence? Why aren't the manufacturers shouting it from the rooftops rather than just lobbying people like the UCI to promote helmet use?

We're now on page 102 and the only evidential study we've seen so far is one that was discredited years ago.

If you could show me 80% proof that a helmet would (not could or might) prevent injury then I would probably wear one but I doubt that exist cos if it did and I was working for SpeciaTrekBell it would be at the top of my advert in a very large font.

 

[Licramite]

So where is this evidence? Why aren't the manufacturers shouting it from the rooftops rather than just lobbying people like the UCI to promote helmet use?

We're now on page 102 and the only evidential study we've seen so far is one that was discredited years ago.

If you could show me 80% proof that a helmet would (not could or might) prevent injury then I would probably wear one but I doubt that exist cos if it did and I was working for SpeciaTrekBell it would be at the top of my advert in a very large font.

helmets are made to various standards to comply with EEC and US manufacture regulations.
these scientifically demonstrate the helmet can withstand certain impacts.

now a helmet manufacturer can say its made to this or that standard, he cannot say it will protect you as it would lead him to be liable to claims. - actual impacts and circumstances of an impact are to variable.

the only test I can suggest as to will a helmet help, is put helmet on - headbut a brick wall as hard as you can. then take helmet off and repeat. - which results in less blood / injury. - in that impact the helmet probably made a difference. - so it worked (we hope) beyond that , different impact could be completely different result - its upto you after that to decide if it will make a difference. - so do, some don't.

Faith - I mean not in god or some man made deity (same thing isn't it?) - I mean faith in the helmet. in the same way we have faith in , the brakes on the car. - they have demonstrated in the past they worked, so you have faith they will work when you need them. - there's absolutely no guarantee they will , in-fact they may cause the crash (as in skidding). Helmets tend to stay on heads that have experience bumps were you felt it made a difference, - you have a degree in faith in them.

all the empirical evidence in the world won't change your attitude unless you believe in helmets.

 

[Profpointy]

I agree with licamite on this. There's loads of reasearch on helmet efficacy - none of it shows they're effective or helpfull though

Correction - I only agree with the quote

The problem is that there isn't.

The majority of what is out there are case control studies (one of the least reliable forms of research), meta-analyses of previous case control studies (in particular the thoroughly discredited Thomson and Rivara stuff), or attempts to analyse data collected for other purposes.

As you say, what little there is doesn't actually support the claims around the efficacy of helmets - but when you compare the research base to other public health issues, like smoking, drinking or seatbelts, then you see how very, very insignificant the research base actually is.

Ooh, reading again I see I only agree with the bit you quoted of Licramite - ie there have been lots of studies and evidence. I disagree with him on the rest, and agree with you that the evidence does not show any evidence of helmets being usefull