[url] http://road.cc/34527 [/url]
At a time when minister for cycling Norman Baker is in the headlines due to his choice not to wear a helmet while cycling, an academic from Norway has poured more fuel on the long-running helmet debate by claiming that they do not reduce the incidence of head injuries by the extent suggested by previous studies.
Dr Rune Elvik, an expert in risk analysis and cost benefit analysis from the Institute of Transport Economics says that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of head injury by 43%, much lower than the reduction of at least 60% he says that earlier research has claimed.
His conclusion, based on an analysis of previous research, have been published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, in an article snappily entitled Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001 which, in layman’s terms, points out what he believes to be flaws in that study and provides a reanalysis of its findings.
Deficiencies in Attewell, according to Dr Elvik, include publication bias – in other words, more weight was attached to positive findings from the researchers’ point of view than negative ones – and time-trend bias.
Dr Elvik employed a variety of techniques in his re-evaluation of the findings, conclusing that “the re-analysis shows smaller safety benefits associated with the use of bicycle helmets than the original study,” according to the article overview, which adds that “the findings of this meta-analysis are not consistent with a recently published Cochrane review,” published by the not-for-profit Cochrane Collaboration.
In New Zealand, where bicycle helmets are compulsory, the findings were reported by the NZ Herald, which adds that Dr Elvik also argues that an analysis of several studies published recently shows there was [b]“no net effect” through sporting a helmet once injuries to the head, face and neck were grouped together, because helmets increase the risk of the latter.[/b]
Professor Alistair Woodward, head of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland and a cyclist who himself wears a helmet, told the NZ Herald: "Cochrane is usually regarded as the gold standard in pooling studies and deriving a conclusion.
"It's reasonably clear to my mind that helmets do protect people's heads and on balance they do more good than harm," he continued.
However, he agreed that helmets were not intended to guard against neck injuries.
"Whether they cause the neck to bend more than otherwise, I suppose it's possible. If there is an effect [on neck injuries], it's much smaller than the protective effect from head injuries."
Professor Woodward said he was in accord with the conclusion that modern, lightweight helmets with a soft shell protected the head less than older ones with a hard shell.
"The first helmets were [made for] rock-climbing,” he explained. “Only later, people realised the energy-absorbing material inside the shell is probably what's more important ... and the surface of the helmet has become more vented and less rigid," Professor Woodward added
I once suffered concussion after crashing my bike. The force of the impact split my bike helmet. Had I not bin wearing it, there's a very good chance I wooduv sustained far more serious injuries.
Therefore, I'm not really interested in what such 'experts' claim. My helmet worked for me, so that's all the evidence I need.
+1 Helmet saved me from losing most of the skin on one side of my face, it's personal choice.
43% reduced risk of injury is still good enough for me. You only need to need it once to make it worthwhile.
You need to read the critique of the cochrane review as well - Makes for interesting reading. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html
Links to follow from here for those who are not already sick of the subject and would like to know more
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4688
No thanks. I've known, and known of people who've undoutedly bin saved from further more serious injuries because they've bin wearing a helmet. I have never personally heard of anyone injured [i]because[/i] they were wearing one.
pardon the pun, but its a no brainer really. if people don't want to, then that's their choice. helmets are so good now, there's no reason not to...
Fatmax - look ate the CTC links. Helmets provide much less protection than most folk believe and across populations do not reduce the number of deaths and injury.
i definitely prefer to wear a helmet and believe that they do, without doubt, give more protection than not wearing one provided they fit correctly and are worn correctly
try dropping a brick on your head;
1. With a helmet on
2. without a helmet on
Well, I'm glad that people are still researching and questioning, this is how we improve things.
This stood out to me though:
Professor Woodward said he was in accord with the conclusion that modern, lightweight helmets with a soft shell protected the head less than older ones with a hard shell.
Now I have been wondering this, as I have been doing a bit of kayaking and noticed the helmets have a tough shell. Why are bicycle helmets so flimsy? It's not as if they are cheep, and if they really are worse for the softer shell, why do they make them like that?
7hz - I think that thinking is out of line with most researchers who suggest that actually the shell does very little - its the EPS that does the protection.
Just a thought but would a softer shell maybe help reduce the rotational forces more than a hard shell? As a soft shell is more likely to give a little.
In that vein would piss pots be better or worse then an xc lid due to shape and a harder shell? Although they do cover a large area of the head/face.
slippy / smooth shell to reduce rotation. Piss pots have a smoother shell and more converage but no stats that I have seen. I have a pisspot helmet for appropriate occasions
Interesting, would be good to read some research into piss pot vs xc lid in terms of protection.
Headbutted a tree today!! 🙂 thank god I was wearing a helmet!! I don't see how not wearing a helmet would have been advantageous. Perhaps you could explain that to me TJ.
Never seen any in those specific terms. You can find some comparisons of different types of helmet ski / cycle / motorcycle / icehockey / horse riding etc.
Snell foundation usually has good stuff on how helmets work but they have revamped their site and I can't find it now.
TRL has some as well IIRC
I've had bad crashes without a helmet on and bad crashes with a helemt on (one splitting a helmet in two).
I 'prefered' the aftermath when I had been wearing a helmet.
That said if you choose not to wear one that's your choice.
I've just bought a shiny new Xar, I don't care if it saves my life because it says 'I care' and makes me ride like teh awesome.
To be fair last week I had a fair sized crash and landed (then bounced) on my head toward the rear. I reckon that there was certainly some rotation and my neck was rather sore afterward, however had i not been wearing the helmet then I'm not sure that I would have bounced so well and I doubt I would have got back up very quickly. I sure as sure aren't gonna give up wearing my full face doing dh either!
My noggin has been saved on several occasions from wearing a helmet so I think i'll carry on wearing one.
Bike helmets are supposed to be sacrificial, because bad crashes with head injuries are rare. Skateboarders or dirt jumpers I suppose wear tougher more re-usable lids.
That quoted article by the way seems to talk about INCIDENCE of head injuries. Would it not be better to talk about the SEVERITY of head injuries?
If a lid means you spend a night in hospital as a precaution rather than 2 weeks in intensive care and years in therapy, that would still count as an injury in his study, wouldn't it?
I work designing support packages and rehab pathways for people who have had brain injuries, some of which derive from trauma (that is, a blow or blows to the head.) I have dealt with a number of people whose traumatic injuries result from accidents involving bikes.
The first thing to say is that if the speed of impact is much more than 35-40mph, then a helmet will be of very little help. This is not just the case for cycle helmets - the same is true for motorbike helmets.
However, if the person falls or is knocked off the bike and hits their head with a combined velocity of less than 35mph, then the helmet will undoubtedly help to the extent that it is more likely to prevent mortal injuries (ie death.) That doesn't mean there will not be injuries - indeed there will be. One of the paradoxes of greater protection is that less death is likely to mean more injuries, because more people survive who would not otherwise have survived at all. Equally, a severe injury for someone without a helmet will most likely result in a lesser injury in the same circumstances if the rider has a lid on - and in many cases a bump that might have caused a minor (but still significant)injury to someone not wearing a helmet will leave the helmet wearer a little dazed, perhaps with abrasions where the rim hits the forehead, but essentially uninjured. This happened to me a couple of years ago.
So a helmet is not a magic cloak, but it is likely to diminish the severity of what happens in an accident.........and going back to Dr Elvik, the Norwegian academic, whether it diminishes it by 60%, 43%, or even just 4.3%, then any chance of preventing people die or having such serious injuries as they otherwise might have had is good enough for me. Surely that can't be wrong, TJ?
TJ isn't suggesting, nor has he ever suggested, that people shouldn't wear a helmet.
(maybe he'll do it now just to annoy me)
molgrips
If a lid means you spend a night in hospital as a precaution rather than 2 weeks in intensive care and years in therapy, that would still count as an injury in his study, wouldn't it?
This is one of the flaws in ALL studies of helmets and head injuries. Along with no allowance for risk compensation and no allowance for the injuries exacerbated by helmets thru rotation - which is not just neck injuries but a type of brain injury called diffuse axon injury - a very nasty injury. How prevalent this injury is is very debatable - LHS of this forum says it is negligible whereas some researchers state 30% of all brain injuries to helmeted riders are caused in thai manner.. This may be one of the explanations for the fact that as helmet wearing rates increase head injury rates do not decrease along with molgrips observation
dekadanse. I suggest you look at the CTC links. Its far more complex than your simplistic analysis.
Thank you awhiles
One of the things that is clear the more you read up on this is how poor, biased and limited much of the research is
In the vast majority of cycle crashes, both road and mountain, the bike had a saddle.
Ergo, I've taken my saddle off all my bikes, for safety like.....
DrP
I couldn't care less about experts or the law, until the idiots that are driving about everywhere, learn how to drive safely, I'm wearing a helmet!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Came off Wed night at Inners. Over the bars. Helmet severely bashed and lost skin off arm/shoulder.
Helmet certainly saved me from worse injury. No question IMO.
I had a big off last year. Upright at 20 to on my head and stopped. Knocked myself senseless (or out) apparently.
If I'd been wearing a helmet I'd be claiming it saved my life. I wasn't.
TJ, If people need a comforter in the form of an overpriced hat to ride a bike then let them get on with it.
Dekadanse, I presume you wear a helmet for all day to day activities as that is the logical conclusion of your view.
I've also had some shocking crashes and am certain my lid has saved me from more serious injury, I wouldn't ride on or off the road without one but it's personal choice.
I also don't understand how people can ride (on the road mainly) while listening to music on an iPod/etc but they do.
Slightly OT but while on a driving speed awareness course (where you can dodge the three points) it was pointed out that the human body is designed to crash at speeds up to 20mph, because that's about as fast as we can run. So surely if you are going over 20mph (more likely on a road bike for most) and come off chances are you'll hurt yourself pretty badly so a helmet will help?
Going off road of course you have the bonus of rocks and trees to hit yourself on.
Not sure what point I was trying to make there but I still wouldn't ride without a lid.
What a stupid argument I really don't know why you waste time on it TJ.
How are you going to conduct a conclusive study that helmets don't help prevent serious injury? Get a bunch of people, some wearing helmets, some not, then subject various parts of their bonces to blunt force trauma? See which ones sustain the most/least injuries?
No. Which shows how flawed any 'research' is. My own 'research' conclusively proves that all those wearing helmets did not sustain more serious injuries.
Good enough for me.
If I'd been wearing a helmet I'd be claiming it saved my life. I wasn't.
You might not have knocked yourself out, however. Had you considered that?
Anyway you've posted some utter rubbish on here recently. You sure you ain't sustained lasting damage? 😉
I don't know why the "helmet saved my life" brigade get all aggressive about this. No one, including TJ, is advocating not wearing helmets. Read the studies, listen to anecdotes, do your own risk assessment, make your own decision and take responsibility for it. I'd much rather we had the choice rather than leaving it up to some self important politician and the nanny state to legislate compulsory use of helmets.
I entirely respect those who choose not to wear a helmet on the road because the stats are ambiguous. Personally I wear one.
Unfortunately I doubt there's any data for helmet vs no helmet deaths off road because its probably very rare anyone MTBs off road without a lid. So in the absence of any stats on which to base an informed decision I've done my own risk assessment based on my judgement of the likely frequency of falling off combined with the chances of hitting a solid object and wear a lid off road as well- (I bet TJ does mostly too). I judge the probability of falling off off road to be so high I happen to think anyone not wearing a lid offroad is mental and would not ride with anyone not wearing one but if they want to feel the wind in their hair, realise that any head injury they sustain may well be worse without the mitigation of a helmet and they take responsibility for that decision then its up to them.
For MTBing and skiing death from head injury is rare enough to make a protective effect of a helmet difficult to show conclusively in a trial. But for skiing the evidence is pretty clear now it reduces the severity of lesser head injuries. I don't think enough real MTBers don't wear lids to do a sensible trial now.
On a road bike I think the impact speed and risk of multi-trauma/crush related death makes a helmet much less protective.
Anyway - I am now on a new helmet after I used my head and face to slow down at Swinley 3 weeks ago. I needed a Fire Brigade land rover, an Ambulance and a CT scan - and a few days off. But I'm nearly normal again and as long as I am in the trees, I'll be lidded up.
I don't know why the "helmet saved my life" brigade get all aggressive about this.
Are we? Or is the perceived 'aggression' all in your head? Hmm?
What are the voices telling you today?
Elfinsafety
What are the voices telling you today?
kill them allllllllll, inflicting massive rotational injury in the process......
You might not have knocked yourself out, however. Had you considered that?
I discussed it with a guy who saw the crash. I think the knocked out/senseless was caused by my neck, or my body try to rotate round it. I remember the sensation clearly. The other guys comment was "if you'd been wearing a helmet it would have dug in".
So, yeah, maybe a helmet would have helped and I'd be saying it saved me. Maybe it would have broken my neck and I'd have been saying how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been wearing a helmet.
Who knows?
One things for sure, it's amazing what you can get away with and I'm not convinced "the helmet saved me" stories mean very much.
I came off my bike with a helmet and once ages ago without a helmet.
First one I smacked the side of my head off the kerb which resulted in concussion for an hour and a sore head ,second one resulted in a smashed helmet and broken ribs.
No concussion or sore head.
I`ll keep wearing one ta.
I`ll keep wearing one ta.
Did anyone suggest you shouldn't?
