Forum menu
Hey Molgrips / Horatio. I've got access to the journal. Let me know if you want me to send you a pdf of the study. It's very stats heavy though!
Beagy 🙂
aracer - Member
D0NK » Making a case for compulsion - literally knock yourself out.
But it does make the case more difficult for those who oppose mandatory helmet wearing, they said.
“The legislation of mandatory helmets for cyclists is a controversial topic and past research on its effectiveness has been somewhat mixed,” the study said. “Irrespective of past research, the results of this review do not support arguments against helmet legislation from an injury prevention perspective.
it's a good job that isn't the argument being used against mandatory helmet laws then
Indeed.
aracer - Member
scud » For me the question is why would you not wear a helmet?
Well if we're doing the full bore helmet thread, then the usual reply is: why would you not wear a helmet when doing various other activities?
Also, a fair point.
I wear helmets usually, but for riding to the shops, why would you bother?
Why not? An extra thing to carry around in the shop, it gets sweaty and smelly a lot of the time, I can't be arsed, the average benefit to my health from the ride to the shops will exceed the average detriment from head injuries even without a helmet. And for those thinking that comparing the consequences both ways is apples/oranges, if I die from a head injury or suffer debilitating injuries, it's just a chance. Conversely I could've had a heart attack or cancer if I hadn't, it's just a chance. I could never ride a bike and live to 120, I could never wear a helmet and never crash until I was 120. (Both are fairly unlikely)
[quote=kerley ]Why are there no studies to show that x% of people driving would have been less injured if wearing a helmet, x% of people falling on slippery surfaces would have been less injured if wearing a helmet etc,.
Quite. I should think that it would be possible to come up with an almost identical study to this regarding the protective effects of helmets for any activity where there are head injuries (it appears to be a meta study, so that's on the proviso that all the other studies need to be done first). What such results don't do is provide any new argument in favour of helmet legislation, or even in favour of encouraging helmet use for cycling any more than they do for any other activity where similar levels of injury prevention might be found.
I've had a quick skim of the study - thanks Beagleboy - and there doesn't appear to be much wrong with it in itself. TBH the findings aren't exactly surprising - and the conclusions even stop short of the sort of definitive statements used in the article - the final sentence of the conclusions is:
These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.
...and in the section on compulsion the final sentence is even more equivocal:
Any comprehensive cycling safety strategy should consider the promotion or legislation of bicycle helmets only in concert with other injury prevention strategies.
Though as discussed above, I'm sure you could substitute driving for cycling in either of those sentences.
I've been in the strange situation of being out riding with my son, stop off at the local swings and slides park for a play. Nipper takes his helmet off and promptly rattles his head of one of the bars on the climbing frame 🙄a lot of people think (incorrectly) that cycling has a higher risk than other activities where they would never where a helmet.
(I normally tell him to keep it on but he can take it off himself and it seems like he feels a bit self concious being the only kid in the park with a lid on)
The trouble with kids wearing helmets for doing things like that is the risk of strangulation when the helmet gets caught on something. I hate doing risk assessment on gut feeling, but with the little evidence I have I'd tend towards them being safer without a helmet. It's not like him banging his head on the bars does any long term damage, so it's only the risk of hitting his head from a fall you're mitigating.
My MIL was telling me that cyclists should be forced to wear hi-viz jackets so that drivers could see them.
😯
Can't read the full paper (might see if I can blag access through Uni) but this from the abstract leaped out at me:
The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury.
So according to this study, helmets are better at preventing more serious head injuries, they have less effect on milder head injuries?
That seems odd. Depends how the injuries are categorised of course (and may well be categorised differently in different sources) but you'd generally expect a piece of safety equipment to be most effective in mild cases, and decrease in effectiveness as the severity increases. Especially as the helmet standards only really test for relatively mild 12mph impacts.
I wonder if it's down to variation in reporting of injuries, and variation in reporting of helmet wearing in incidents?
Professional race car drivers have to wear helmets.
So why don't the public have to on the roads? 😕
[quote=bencooper ]Can't read the full paper
you can now 😉
I wonder if it's down to variation in reporting of injuries, and variation in reporting of helmet wearing in incidents?
I've not yet gone through it in fine detail (and not sure I will), but I suspect there's quite a large element of reporting bias relating to that at least.
So according to this study, helmets are better at preventing more serious head injuries, they have less effect on milder head injuries?That seems odd. Depends how the injuries are categorised of course (and may well be categorised differently in different sources) but you'd generally expect a piece of safety equipment to be most effective in mild cases, and decrease in effectiveness as the severity increases. Especially as the helmet standards only really test for relatively mild 12mph impacts.
It isn't odd - most helmets are designed with safety standards that aim to prevent your skull from being cracked open, hence they are designed to withstand hard impacts - a 12mph 90 degree impact is actually pretty hard. This translates to materials that tend to cause energy spiking during low speed impacts as the material cannot deform easily enough during low energy events.
you can now
Aye, thanks for that 😀
This translates to materials that tend to cause energy spiking during low speed impacts as the material cannot deform easily enough during low energy events.
But the ANSI etc standards are for low speed impacts, that's what helmets are built and tested for.
What I found interesting was this,
Some authors have posited that helmet use exacerbates
the occurrence of diffuse axonal injury (DAI), which has
prompted biomechanical research into helmet use and angular
acceleration......this review found a DAI diagnosis is rare among cyclists in a crash. There were no
DAI diagnoses reported by Dinh et al. (0/110), McIntosh
et al.25 (0/137) or Malczyk et al. (0/239), whereas
Javouhey et al. reported DAI in 2.3% of cyclists (28/
1238). Sethi and colleagues reported DAI in 2/225 unhelmeted
cyclists and 1/110 helmeted cyclists (OR ¼ 1.02,
P ¼ 0.99), and Bambach et al. identified only 0.1% (8/
6745) of cyclists in a motor vehicle collision that met one
criterion for DAI. There is some evidence in the motorcycle
helmet literature that travel speed interacts with helmet effectiveness,
i.e. there is a threshold where helmet use
switches from beneficial to detrimental. However, this
study estimated a switch at 124 km/h which is only possible
under extreme conditions on a bicycle.
I don't have one of those fancy pants 'MIPS' helmets, but now I know to keep my speed below 124km/h if I ever do get one!
why would you not wear a helmet when doing various other activities?
I'd wear one for climbing or skiing. Most other things that I do don't involve high speeds or mixing with other large high speed objects.
But the ANSI etc standards are for low speed impacts, that's what helmets are built and tested for.
When have you ever crashed at 12mph into a kerb at a perfect 90 degree angle?
If you did so without a helmet, you would be ****ed.
[quote=molgrips ]Most other things that I do don't involve high speeds or mixing with other large high speed objects.
Neither does climbing.
But how about the ones which do, like driving?
Is it not mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets?
Where have I been on this, I really thought for road use you had to wear one.
Why are they different to mopeds?
I dislike paywalled science, but recognise that publishers have to make money somehow.
Those that have access: Does the review examine overall risk or estimate reduction of risk in a smaller sample? The abstract seems to suggest 64000 injured cyclists were included, whereas cycling UK's stats indicate 2 million daily cycle users [url= http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics#How many people cycle and how often?]stats[/url].
To a bear of little brain, that seems to indicate that helmet use plays a part in reducing the risk of a vanishingly infrequent event (although the event itself may have substantial consequences).
Also, for the statisticians, how does 'odds reduction' of 0.31 for serious head injuries equate to 70% reduction as claimed by the headline?
Pro-choice, btw.
It's all about choice. I tend do but don't always
rosscore - Member
Is it not mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets?Where have I been on this...
Australia?
Neither does climbing
Falling does, though, whether it's you or rocks from above.
I learnt to tuck my head in when I fall through Judo training
You're obviously not going fast enough when you crash. I've written off two Giro Air Attacks this year in racing crashes over the bars, First was at 30 mph, second was at 20. Never had time to react and really have no recollection of the impact. I also put one into the side of a car at 20 mph last year. All three worked as they should (crushed not shattered). I'm a huge fan, personally. Will read the article anyway.
And while we are on anecdotes. a clubmate died two weeks ago of complications from a head injury whilst on a (helmetless) pootle back from the pub on her Pashley. She fell into the road at almost no miles per hour and fractured her skull. It's not all high speed stuff, sadly 🙁
I'm always skeptical of meta-analyses. Need to find BIG effects for validity (see Rory Collins's recent statin review, for example)
Also, for the statisticians, how does 'odds reduction' of 0.31 for serious head injuries equate to 70% reduction as claimed by the headline?
it's 1 - the odds ratio for the amount of reduction. SO 0.5 would be 50%, 0.75 would be a 25% reduction.
Beagleboy - could you send me a copy of the paper (email in profile)? I'd be interested in taking a look. I have a degree in maths from many years ago, hopefully i haven't forgotten ALL of it 🙂
My MIL was telling me that cyclists should be forced to wear hi-viz jackets so that drivers could see them.
If you MIL cannot see cyclists she needs to get glasses or needs to stop driving. Have you discussed that with her?
This review is like a black swan for me, but cannot help notice a few things:
1. The strongest evidence of helmet effectiveness comes from 'children' (as in under 16 years old) with two obvious examples - [url= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039606015003116 ]Gulack 2015[/url] and [url= http://search.proquest.com/openview/0f95b56905f6d00322dcc3f91a1889df/1?pq-origsite=gscholar ]Lindsay 2014[/url] providing around 40% of the data points;
2. Main author clearly has an interest in the area, as he has previously tried to [url= http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075424 ]discredit Ian Walker's study on driver behaviour around helmeted vs non-helmeted cyclists[/url]. All this coming from NSW, not subjective at all...
Most other things that I do don't involve high speeds or mixing with other large high speed objects.
So you don't drive, but do you think people who do drive should wear helmets and if not why not?
The last helmet I wrote off, I broke my arm protecting my head.The one before that was a crash that happened so quickly I was on the floor before I knew what was going on. The back wheel caught a small stump in the middle of a berm just as I pumped, stopping the bike dead, so I went headfirst into the berm just ahead of the front wheel at full speed.
The one before that I went over the front in a chute of rocky steps, I actually had time to aim my head at the rock whilst falling because it seemed preferable to my face because I could see the exact pointy rock I was about to land on.
I'm skeptical..
The only way to find out is to repeat the crashes after learning all the break falls and honing them to instinctive perfection by getting a black belt who is twice your size to throw you on the floor hard and fast several thousand times.
Anyway I am not trying to make out that learning to fall is going to make anybody infallible and not require a helmet, but i think that learning it in Schools would save lives and reduce injuries, would probably have far more benefit than wearing helmets brings. Surely the average person is more likely to need to break their fall at some point in their adult life than they will need to throw a javelin, or play hockey etc
There was some rubbish floating around on the internet a few years ago about cats falling from buildings and surviving and how over a certain height they lived and had minor injuries.
All based on some study by a New York Vet on the people who had taken their cats in after a fall.
Problem with that was no one took any of the dead cats into a vet, they were scraped off the pavement and disposed of.
So the idea that cats falling over a certain number of floors was completely flawed as there was a huge unknown number of the cats that died.
Helmets is the same, who reports a minor crash with a dented helmet? You buy a new one and go and ride.
Doesn't matter how many studies you do, the figures you get are for the accidents that are serious enough to get reported and none of the figures for who just walked away and logged on to CRC.
No one will ever know. Wear one, don't wear one. Your choice, I wear one as I only get one brain and want to give it as much chance as possible.
who reports a minor crash with a dented helmet? You buy a new one and go and ride.
People who are surveyed?
Read the methodology before you criticise. I haven't read it, so you might be right, but don't jump to conclusions.
Copied from BTL in the Guardian:
thelonggrass
22 Sep 2016 11:16
0 1
The data on helmets is led from the hospital looking out. Definitely from this point of view helmets help. In the UK we might reduce cyclist fatalities from 113 to around 60-70. However there are 25 million bike owners in the UK, and 3.6m cycling at least once a month. So at a typical cost of a helmet of £30, compulsory helmets would cost the population between £110m-£750m. So the first question is that value for money, or could we improve cyclist safety better by spending £100m on something better?
Secondly, the view from the hospital out ignores the exposure rate. So it fails to consider the risk per individual or per individual journey. The UK has about 9000 hospital admissions for cyclists per year of which 2,800 are serious injuries with 110 fatalities. This is from a population of 3.6m regular/occasional cyclists (may actually be 6.6m). So one estimate of the likelihood of being KSI because of not wearing a helmet is about 0.04% per year - ignoring cycling time and journey length. Accidents are also disproportionally likely for those under 14 and over 65 and those cycling more adventurously (mountain bikes or racing). These are not high levels of risk (there were 30 fatalities related to angling in 2011 as a comparison), and may be better dealt with in other ways - reducing the factors that cause accidents for instance.
It also ignores a problem that requiring helmets may reduce the amount of cycling (I've seen estimates of a 13% drop in journeys). Since for cycling there is a safety in numbers effect - more cyclists leads to fewer accidents - so forcing helmet use might not be a positive trade off against other benefits from cycling itself. For example there were 9,500 estimated deaths in London from air pollution. Bikes on the road would reduce the car fumes that aggravate asthma and other lung problems so the net cost of discouraging cycling could be many times higher than the reduction in fatalities.
Since adults continually have to balance and judge risks, my feeling is that the scale of the problem is small for the relative burden that would be imposed, and so it is better to let cyclists choose.
You're obviously not going fast enough when you crash. I've written off two Giro Air Attacks this year in racing crashes over the bars, First was at 30 mph, second was at 20. Never had time to react and really have no recollection of the impact. I also put one into the side of a car at 20 mph last year. All three worked as they should (crushed not shattered). I'm a huge fan, personally. Will read the article anyway.And while we are on anecdotes. a clubmate died two weeks ago of complications from a head injury whilst on a (helmetless) pootle back from the pub on her Pashley. She fell into the road at almost no miles per hour and fractured her skull. It's not all high speed stuff, sadly
I'm always skeptical of meta-analyses. Need to find BIG effects for validity (see Rory Collins's recent statin review, for example)
Yup, Im an expert at Judo, Karate and high speed running, but, I have never banged my head, because Im an expert. On a bike, I try too hard sometimes and have also totally knackered a couple of helmets. On one occasion, I am absolutely certain Id have been lucky to survive.
Its a choice but one I whole heartedly support. Also, folk who dont ride with helmets arent welcome with me as it would be me who has his sunday spoiled getting the senseless bod to the hospital. 😆
Why do Bike parks make helmets mandatory? Why is all cycle sport like that?
Why do Bike parks make helmets mandatory? Why is all cycle sport like that?
Liability?
Because racing on bikes will lead to crashes and is much higher risk than when riding along the road not racing?
All motor sport has mandatory helmet use too but it all goes quiet when you ask why you don't where a helmet when driving your car. Tell me again, why don't you?
The answer is because people think car driving is a normal everyday thing that everyone does, whereas riding a bike is an unusual and probably dangerous activity.
Which tells you a lot about what attitudes we need to change, really.
I haven't read it, so you might be right, but don't jump to conclusions.
I did read it, pretty much sourced from multiple medical databases and peer reviewed studies. The studies are valid but biased, based on reported medical incidents.
Interesting point about surveys, don't know how you'd get a representative group though.
Still a futile argument.
I'm not sure but I get the feeling most are saying 'no' to helmets? Or maybe they are saying 'yes' to choice? I'm not sure. I hardly ever see anyone not wearing a helmet. A few roadies and the very very occasional offroadie. Surrey is hardly a small proportion of cyclists either. I fell off road riding last year and smashed my helmet on the side. I really don't want to think of the outcome if I hadn't been wearing it. My choice is to wear one but I do think there should be choice.
Maybe I am not crashing fast enough, or crashing enough. However, I am quite certain that I have benefited from learning how to fall. E.g. chain snapped when I was sprinting out of saddle ~30mph, I front flipped and landed flat on my back only partially broke my fall with my feet, I was still holding onto the handlebars. However, I did not hit my head as I held if off the ground by tucking my chin onto my chest. My post crash hunch is that if I was untrained in the art of falling I would have cracked the back of my head on the road and at the very least trashed my helmet.I learnt to tuck my head in when I fall through Judo training
You're obviously not going fast enough when you crash.
This is exactly my point. There is at the very least a portion of incidents where knowing how to fall well would be helpful. This is not restricted to cycling, I bet a significant portion of general injuries admitted to hospitals etc are due to falls and this could be mitigated by teaching people how to fall safe in schools.It's not all high speed stuff, sadly
It is obvious why. In the event of a crash on the highway the driver (and passengers) of a car have various levels of protection provided by the car (the metal chassis, crumple zones, seatbelt, airbags). A cyclist or motorcyclist does not have those various levels of protection which makes wearing a helmet more important for safety.All motor sport has mandatory helmet use too but it all goes quiet when you ask why you don't where a helmet when driving your car. Tell me again, why don't you?
Motorsport, they are going over 100mph and in general doing much riskier stuff than general highway driving, helmet wearing is one of the things done to mitigate the risk back down a bit.
*implodes*
It is obvious why. In the event of a crash on the highway the driver (and passengers) of a car have various levels of protection provided by the car (the metal chassis, crumple zones, seatbelt, airbags). A cyclist or motorcyclist does not have those various levels of protection which makes wearing a helmet more important for safety.
You have highlighted the confusion very well - thanks.
This is a very good summary of the evidence - beware secondary effects
I'm not sure but I get the feeling most are saying 'no' to helmets? Or maybe they are saying 'yes' to choice?
I think what people are saying (well, I am) is that all the work and expense of making helmets compulsory would be far better invested in improving facilities for cycling.
Making people wear plastic hats when they still have to share a dual carriageway with an artic is putting the money and effort in the wrong place.
Is anyone arguing for compulsion here?
Not here, no - but this study will be used to argue for it elsewhere I'm sure.
Is anyone arguing for compulsion here?
The compulsory threat is in the background otherwise there is no discussion and may as well be about what colour socks you should wear when cycling
kerley - Member
Is anyone arguing for compulsion here?
The compulsory threat is in the background otherwise there is no discussion and may as well be about what colour socks you should wear when cycling
I'm pretty sure it's white that you should wear, my dad told me when I was younger, although I tend to wear black.
And shorts have to be black, harking back to the times when TTing was illegal on public roads, so riders wore dark clothing to be inconspicuous.
Anyway yeah I think the compulsion argument is always in the back of people's heads, and rightly too. Compulsion would be, overall, a very bad thing - the motorsports analogy is a good one.
Edit- that said I've wondered for years why 4 or 6 point harnesses aren't mandated instead of airbags becoming standard. It'd be a similar level of faff to putting a helmet on, and would enhance safety as you're not relying on everything working (or on remembering to turn on/off the passenger one when you have rear facing child seats in)
tjagain - Member
*implodes*
*Laughs loudly.*
I think what people are saying (well, I am) is that all the work and expense of making helmets compulsory would be far better invested in improving facilities for cycling.
+1.
If I fall off my bike, I'd rather be wearing a helmet, but it's just not that important in the big scheme of things.