Would You Be Here Today If You Hadn't Been Wearing A Helmet?

[Angelfishsolo]

No, because its some research head injury data is normally normalised to injuries to another part of the body that is not protected by the helmet, usually the legs, to take account of the factors you suggest and others such as riding style, type of accident etc.

By normialised do you mean getting rid of out-lying data? Also why would a study of head injuries be interested in other parts of the body unless its aim was to blur any meaningful results.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I believe the relevant studies are 'before' and 'after' studies of countries which introduced mandatory helmet laws, and found that although head injuries declined, cycle use declined even faster. So, no

But it's a good question to ask. Much of the "analysis" on this subject has quite big statistical or logical holes in it and does demand to be appraised sceptically

Ah we are not talking mandatory use here though are we? Many will rebel against mandatory use even though they would otherwise wear a helmet. That is human nature.

 

[Red Light]

By that token the BMJ itself is discredited then? And there was me thinking it had world wide respect.

Only in the same way that the Lancet has been discredited by the Wakefield paper. A journal is only a filter on the paper quality, not a guarantee which is why students are taught to read published papers critically.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Only in the same way that the Lancet has been discredited by the Wakefield paper. A journal is only a filter on the paper quality, not a guarantee which is why students are taught to read published papers critically.

I agree. Trouble is those who seek to discredit something will find a way. It's how the court system works and it's how human nature works.

I come from a MTB side and so yes my opinion is skewed slightly but I have seen and had falls where without a helmet they/I would have been in A & E without a doubt. Head-first into a tree, a rock, stony ground etc. When the helmet cracks in two you realise what would have happened to you skull. No medical PhD required, just common sense.

 

[Bman]

Interesting. We have 1 more self-diagnosed "cabbage" than people who think a helmet saved their life...

 

[Red Light]

Ah we are not talking mandatory use here though are we? Many will rebel against mandatory use even though they would otherwise wear a helmet. That is human nature.

Its not restricted to mandatory use. Helmet promotion puts people off cycling too. See TRL Report 286

"Eleven Local Authorities had however held a helmet campaign when their activities were focused solely on the promotion of helmets. In these Local Authority areas, a larger increase in helmet wearing was found than in the areas which had not held such a campaign. However, this increase was found to be strongly linked to a decrease in the numbers of cyclists observed: in those areas where a campaign had been held and the numbers of cyclists had increased, helmet wearing fell."

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Its not restricted to mandatory use. Helmet promotion puts people off cycling too. See TRL Report 286

"Eleven Local Authorities had however held a helmet campaign when their activities were focused solely on the promotion of helmets. In these Local Authority areas, a larger increase in helmet wearing was found than in the areas which had not held such a campaign. However, this increase was found to be strongly linked to a decrease in the numbers of cyclists observed: in those areas where a campaign had been held and the numbers of cyclists had increased, helmet wearing fell."

What does this have to do with safety? I am not promoting helmet use (although I am pro use myself). The evidence presented suggests people don;t like being told or encouraged to wear helmets. That is human nature, especially teenage human nature!

 

[Red Light]

I agree. Trouble is those who seek to discredit something will find a way. It's how the court system works and it's how human nature works.

I come from a MTB side and so yes my opinion is skewed slightly but I have seen and had falls where without a helmet they/I would have been in A & E without a doubt. Head-first into a tree, a rock, stony ground etc. When the helmet cracks in two you realise what would have happened to you skull. No medical PhD required, just common sense.

I am an avid mountain biker too. You'd be amazed at the numbers of cyclists pulled off the the Seven Stanes routes into hospital that thought they were protected because they were wearing a helmet and tried things they would never try without one. About ten a weekend at just one hospital at the last count. Have a read of the telling comments from Paul Taylor about his helmet in this report and then try an experiment. Go out without your helmet and see how it affects what you are prepared to ride and how you ride it. That is risk compensation in action.

As for the helmet being broken in two, that is a helmet that has failed in brittle fracture with little if any protective effect. A helmet that has worked will have a large area of squashed polystyrene in it. To illustrate the difference to yourself take a slab of 1" thick polystyrene and try and compress it to a thickness of a quarter of an inch. Now take it in two hands and snap it in two. The former took a hell of a lot more energy to do than the latter.

 

[Red Light]

What does this have to do with safety? I am not promoting helmet use (although I am pro use myself). The evidence presented suggests people don;t like being told or encouraged to wear helmets. That is human nature, especially teenage human nature!

So given human teenage nature and given the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 do you think its better to try and get them to wear helmets and put them off cycling or let them cycle and leave it up to them over helmets?

 

[Red Light]

By normialised do you mean getting rid of out-lying data? Also why would a study of head injuries be interested in other parts of the body unless its aim was to blur any meaningful results.

That is the wierdest interpretation of the term normalisation I have ever heard. You look at leg injuries because its a way of accounting for variations in the number of accidents occurring. If the ratio of head to leg injuries goes up it means people are at greater risk of a head injury in an accident, if it goes down, at less risk.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So given human teenage nature and given the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1 do you think its better to try and get them to wear helmets and put them off cycling or let them cycle and leave it up to them over helmets?

The latter. If I am taking out a group, under 16's wear helmets or do not ride over 16's make a choice. That is because of the rules laid down by the communities first groups though, not personal choice.

 

[Red Light]

i think we need to aim for some reasonable ground if it can be found. Formula one is an extreem

But given the analysis that cyclists in motor vehicle accidents undergo impact energies that exceed Formula 1 helmet design specs, why would you want to protect against less than that? What is common can hardly be extreme. Surprising maybe, extreme no.

So what are you suggesting? Motorbike helmets? They are designed for impacts up to 20mph IIRC. Is that high enough? Should it be higher, lower? Where do you want to draw your compromise line?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That is the wierdest interpretation of the term normalisation I have ever heard. You look at leg injuries because its a way of accounting for variations in the number of accidents occurring. If the ratio of head to leg injuries goes up it means people are at greater risk of a head injury in an accident, if it goes down, at less risk.

I though this was about the value of helmets protecting the head in a crash not the most likely places people will be injured.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I am an avid mountain biker too. You'd be amazed at the numbers of cyclists pulled off the the Seven Stanes routes into hospital that thought they were protected because they were wearing a helmet and tried things they would never try without one. About ten a weekend at just one hospital at the last count. Have a read of the telling comments from Paul Taylor about his helmet in this report and then try an experiment. Go out without your helmet and see how it affects what you are prepared to ride and how you ride it. That is risk compensation in action.

As for the helmet being broken in two, that is a helmet that has failed in brittle fracture with little if any protective effect. A helmet that has worked will have a large area of squashed polystyrene in it. To illustrate the difference to yourself take a slab of 1" thick polystyrene and try and compress it to a thickness of a quarter of an inch. Now take it in two hands and snap it in two. The former took a hell of a lot more energy to do than the latter.

I have tried it an my riding was identical. What I did not try was falling. Maybe I should have tried that as well

The cracked helmet was both compressed and snapped. The compression is a sign of dissipated force, the cracking the helmet reaching the end of its usefulness.

 

[david k]

there seems to be a direct attempt to discredit anyone who has fallen off and felt the helmet reduced their potential injuries, whilst i accept one offs cannot be taken to prove the whole case it cannot be ignored or trivialized either