Except that women prefer the genes from risk takers. They just get the helmet wearing wimps to raise the kids.

LHS
Now it is generally accepted that helmets prevent about 60% of cycling related deaths a year

Really ? – please feel free to substantiate
If correct, we should all shut up and wear helmets but I’m sceptical even that 60+% of deaths are head injuries
(and as TJ et al say, there’s very little to show that compulsory helmet wearing affects overall or TBI death rates once you correct for decreased activity overall)

Really ? – please feel free to substantiate

There are links to a lot of the research data online, a lot of data a helmets.org etc.

once you correct for decreased activity overall

For which there is only speculation and actually no hard data.

Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis

R. G. Attewell, , a, K. Glasea and M. McFaddenb
a Covance Pty Ltd, PO Box 64, Ainslie, ACT 2602, Australia
b Australian Transport Safety Bureau, PO Box 967, Canberra, ACT 2608, Australia

Received 6 December 1999; accepted 31 March 2000 Available online 5 February 2001.

Abstract
Bicycle helmet efficacy was quantified using a formal meta-analytic approach based on peer-reviewed studies. Only those studies with individual injury and helmet use data were included. Based on studies from several countries published in the period 1987–1998, the summary odds ratio estimate for efficacy is 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.55) for head injury, 0.42 (0.26, 0.67) for brain injury, 0.53 (0.39, 0.73) for facial injury and 0.27 (0.10, 0.71) for fatal injury. This indicates a statistically significant protective effect of helmets.
In conclusion, the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death. Despite this, the use of helmets is sub-optimal. Helmet use for all riders should be further encouraged to the extent that it is uniformly accepted and analogous to the use of seat belts by motor vehicle occupants.

highlights in bold added by me

hilldodger – I’m very sceptical wrt metanalysis and case-control studies generally, but esp when the BMA papers & correspondence throw up opposing stuff that challenges their apparent findings:

source

That is just a correaltion between helmet wearing and head injury overall and does not compare individual /similiar accidents or with ot without a helmet – whic is also less thna perfect. Clearly other factors afect the number and extent of injuries. Did they make loads of new cycle paths away from cars for example? We all know that helmets do not prevent accidents but other factors can and do.

well, indeed junkyard – research into whether, to what extent and under what circumstances, helmets are protective/more dangerous needs to be assessed (you’d imagine that a big study using crash-dummies might just do this if they could measure sensible things)

Regardless, the real data seem to show that there is little or no correlation between helmet %s and death/injury rates (even in that BMA analysis where helmet wearing rose dramatically and rapidly – thus the chances of observing an effect (most particularly if they prevent 60% of deaths!) should be maximised). That is likely hugely multifactorial as you suggest and much harder to analyse.

I don’t see why the top bit doesn’t get done though

scaredypants – Member
hilldodger – I’m very sceptical wrt metanalysis and case-control studies generally, but esp when the BMA papers & correspondence throw up opposing stuff that challenges their apparent findings:

That’s the thing though, “people” will gnash and wail at what they call “anecdotal evidence” (aka it happened to me so I know what I’m talking about) and demand ‘Peer Reviewed Evidence’, then when PRE doesn’t fit their preconceptions gnash and wail that ‘it’s a flawed study’.

Bottom line (IMO) is that in all circumstances I’d rather be twatted on a helmeted head than a bare one, rotational injuries be beggerd 😉

don’t get me wrong, I wear a hat too

but that evidence is no more peer reviewed than “mine” – though both stirred up minor shitstorms when published, exactly because the data are complex and open to differing interpretations

metanalysis – shit in, precise shit out

Wearing a helmet, I feel safer on the roads and that’s good enough for me.
Passed a bloke last night, no helmet, no lights – kinda wish I could be that blase about my safety, but riding amongst all the dickheads in cars that ignore me, don’t see me etc. I’ll stick with what makes me feel protected.

Regardless, the real data seem to show that there is little or no correlation between helmet %s and death/injury rates

TRUE but commonsense and a piss easy study also suggest tshat this is even TRUER [ did I get to scientific there 😉 ]

all circumstances I’d rather be twatted on a helmeted head than a bare one

the reason they seem to confer no advantage in those studies is because they are not looking at whether in any ACTUAL accident it made a difference just raw stats of number of helmets and number of injuries. It is intelectually interesting as to why that would be the case though and suggest we need to wear helmets and do something else as well.

Friend of mine fell off in local quarry with no lid, he was having proper convulsions and hospital confirmed he had indeed properly cracked his swede. He wore one after that.

“Cycling is basically safe”

About half the cycle commuters in our office have been in hospital after accidents.