Jeeze, I'll try again:
So are you volunteering then TJ?
🙄
risk and cycling - a load of data here which shows how safe it is.
http://cyclehelmets.org/1026.html
http://cyclehelmets.org/1011.html
Look I don't care whether helmet usage makes some fatties decide not to use a bicycle and then die due to a myocaridal infarction as a result.
The point that heavy helmet usage increases disease is besides the point.
What needs to be asked is whether helmet usage reduces the rate of TBI's suffered by keen cyclists in population groups that cycle with a helmet compared to a control population that cycle without helmets.
Problem ****ing solved. Why? Because if it can be proven that helmets do in fact reduce the amount of TBI's, you can then wage a campaign to try to make helmets cool. Perhaps manufacturers could... say...... push the BMX pisspot lid design for urban commuter use etc.
TandemJeremy, references please? Got journal articles to back up our claims? Having difficulty finding them on NCBI.
EDIT: Found them. It appears the types of journal articles supporting your arguments are epidemiological and not case-controlled. So perhaps helmets are not a benefit for overall public health but may be of benefit for certain types of cyclists.
TJ - I thought you would have posted a vid by now of my road headbutting challenge. Hurry up, I could do with a laugh.
bwaarp
Waht in particular Bwaarp - I will dig stuff out if you are interested
Much can be found thru the CTC pages
Skywalker - read the stuff on relative risk in cycling yet?
Edited my post TJ.
I found them. It appears the types of journal articles supporting your arguments are public health type epidemiological surveys and not case-controlled. So perhaps helmets are not a benefit for overall public health but may be of benefit for certain types of cyclists."
Mmmm maybe I could do this for my Medical Statistics Msc
No helmet= blood
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6582620489_006927ff4d.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/63916749@N02/6582620489/ ]390164_10150438237909566_690169565_8342952_958657515_n[/url] por [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/63916749@N02/ ]kala y simon[/url], en Flickr
Bwaarp - pisspots aren't cool! they're hotter, sweatier and almost always less comfortable/secure than an mtb lid.. plus TJ has one! 😆
I pretty much agree with all this... (the cyclists in the city stance, not the WI)
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2011/12/please-sign-our-letter-to-womens.html
EDIT: Found them. It appears the types of journal articles supporting your arguments are epidemiological and not case-controlled. So perhaps helmets are not a benefit for overall public health but may be of benefit for certain types of cyclists.
Indeed. I would be very interested in explanation for the discrepancy because its huge.
Case controlled studies show massive protective effects, epidemiological show none or a negative effect.
IMO the case control studies vastly over estimate as they have a self selecting sample and only use a part of the data set and risk compensation, injuries cased by helmets and difference between helmet wearers and non helmet wearer may have some effect
certainly if the 60% plus protective effect from helmets espoused by some was a real effect we would expect to see it in the epidemiological studies of which there are a few but there is no seen effect of any reduction in head injuries
EDIT -Do it Bwaaarp - there is a real need to understand this difference
I think may be a problem related to the type of user. In populations that are keen experienced cyclists that are road aware then I bet there would be an increase in safety as these types of cyclists may know that helmets have their limitations, when compared to similar cyclists who do not use them.
But these types of cyclists are not not your average user and so other factors may decrease their efficacy in other cyclists. Perhaps that could be addressed.
As to the problem of putting off people from riding. Could we not develop some sort of lid with ballistic gel in it, that hardens up when impacted. You could put it in a beanie and it could also be sold to other users such as epileptics/syncope/avnrt patients who have to hear bulky headgear that never quite resemble proper beanies.
Mummy I want to go home now.
Elf, we all do.
Yawn, this is moronic.
They are not compulsory so who actually gives a damn?
I've fallen off my dh bike umpteen times and cracked my head into rock gardens, trees, hard packed trail and once a discarded steel wheel rim off a car. If it wasn't for my lid I'd be very unwell or dead. It's obvious. Get a grip. If you do not want to wear one, then just don't, the rest of us don't give a shit.
bwaarp
You are certainly looking for small changes that could get lost in large amounts of data. However a halving of head injury as is commonly claimed and a doubleing of helemt usage as has been seen you sholuld get a 25% reduction in head injuries that one would think could be seen and not lost in noise.
Of course you are also comparing different time periods as what they measure is head injury rates per mile cycled before and after helmet compulsion.
Lots of links on here to conflicting research although the whole site requires a healthy scepticism
I've got some friends who are epidemiologists at the John Radcliffe hospital. I'll track them down and get some advice. Time to nerd out and read my epidemiology textbook. I like a challenge. I'll have a think about this subject over the next few days and post my thoughts.
I've come across similar public health topics before, where case control studies show a benefit but public health studies do not. It's a distant memory but I seem to remember that health benefits can be lost in a large population because of the increased amount of variables inherent a large population. (However if there have been randomized case controlled trials done on helmet usage then there is something seriously odd going on)
Basically some people are doing something that may negate the protective affects of the helmets and are messing up the data. If you could find the cause of that you could potentially address it and lower the amount of injuries.
I don't know much about this topic though at the moment.
bwaarp
Do it. I have loads of bits of research saved if you want more. there are at least half a dozen of these surveys - the Robinson one being the most often cited but others exist in the US and other countries and all show no effect
One thing that is really clear is the research is of ruddy awful quality mainly.
The cochrane rewiew is often taken as a defining piece of work - but here is a damning critique of it
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html
Okay will have a look TJ. It's rather interesting actually especially if randomized case controlled studies have shown a benefit but public health studies have not. Finding the reason for that might get one a publication and a bit of attention in the academic world! 😀
I have loads of bits of research saved
Why?
Because he's a medic. I'm not a medic but a biomedical scientist. We are an odd bunch that find this sort of thing interesting.
It's why you don't die at the age of 40.
And would do us all a service.
Have a look at the critique of the cochrane review some of what is said is consistent with all case controlled studies.
This is interesting and has a load of references
Thanks for the link TJ....interesting.
Just looking at the rest of that paper at the bottom entitled "
Arguments against helmet legislation are flawed". Have you read it? What are your thoughts?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410864/ Here we go.
Fairly unconvincing I thought. Its all data and argument to consider however. The thing is the Original Robinson paper showed conclusions that were unexpected and there has been a search for "why" since with a lot of folk desperate to find the major flaw but I have not seen any analysis that shows any major flaws in the work. Others have seen the same effect in other countries.
I cannnot get the full refernces to check but I bet she is using the cochrane review and case controlled studies to back up the claim that helmets do reduce injuries.
Its between these two positions that there is a lack of reasons whey this difference occurs.
Edit - I wrote that before you posted that link. Intersting and yes she does refer tot eh cochrane review
Jesus Christ TJ; why? WHY?
Why do you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this quite frankly boring bloody subject what you've done to death and beyond, for years and years and years (you get the picture by now...) on this forum?
Why? Seriously?
Don't you ever get bored of it? Does there not come a point where you think 'bored now said me piece I'll leave them to it'?
FFS give it a rest mate. Chill out. So, you've got some valid points. So have others.
Why can't you just be more like me, and be nice and friendly and non-argumentative? 🙂
I struggle with long sentences, can I get a summary please?? Extra points for delivering it in the style of a limerick. Ta
I wear a lid because I reckon it tips the odds slightly more in my favour of not getting a brain injury that might either kill or incapacitate me. Same reason I wear a hard hat on a building site. I don't give a **** what a bunch of statisticians say, in the couple of serious crashes I've had that involved my bonce, the hat DEFINITELY mitigated the injury. That's good enough for me, and good enough for my kids.
Elf -I was actually having an interesting conversation with bwaarp. I gave up arguing with others ages ago if you care to look after giving them links to the data
Oh ok then fair enough.
FWIW my helmet's not at all uncomfortable, and the only time it's ever been all that sweaty was august in the south of france (coincidentally, I wrote off a helmet in that same week, so, glad I was wearing it.)
OTOH, I like this guy.
[img] 
[/img]
As for Cracknell? Doesn't practice what he preaches
As for whether a helmet saved his life. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Avoiding the crash in the first place is better though. Like using a mirror and swerving to avoid the truck hitting him in the first place. Riding east towards a rising sun at dawn is best avoided as well.
"The accident happened just after sunrise at 5.30am "
TJ, go and have a cold beer or something instead. Please.
irc, what an incredible discovery, do you think thats perhaps why he preaches duh..
jesus, this old chestnut...
just decide for yourself if you should wear a helmet or not, and dont force your opinion on anyone else. can we please stop having these threads now please...?
I could not give a sh*t about "data" I can only relay my own real world experiences
from both 30+ of racing and recreational cycling including BMX, Mountain Bike (XC, DH, FR) and commuting
and from running the Esher Shore mountain bike park for 5+ years and dealing with too many accidents including head injuries, broken bones and more serious..all of the riders at Esher wore helmets as a condition of entry to the bike park
the most serious head injuries were severe concussions, and each of the 12 riders who smashed /split their helmets, I have NO DOUBT (and neither did the paramedics) that their head injuries would have been substantially more damaging without a helmet?
if you are going to get thrown over the bars into a tree, why not wear a helmet?
in my own experiences, I have had many big slams over the years, especially during BMX and commuting :
-having my BMX land chainring first on my head from 6 feet up and split my BMX piss-pot helmet down the middle and give me a sore head for several days
-having a pedestrian in Surbiton, Surrey step off the pavement without warning whilst I was doing 20+ mph, causing me to go head first into the road, split my helmet open, cut my eye brow and need medication for several days
-having a speeding driver in Akeley, Buckinghamshire run into the back of my bike (squashing the stays and back wheel flat against the seat tube) and catapult me head first into the kerb edge, splitting my helmet and knocking me unconsciousness until a Police car found me lying on the road
-taking a detour to avoid some ramblers and suddenly putting my front wheel into a 2 foot deep hole, getting thrown over the bars and smacking my head on the ground, cracking a Giro Xen helmet in 1/2 and having a nasty head ache for days
no doubt, without a helmet in each of these situations, I would not be here typing these messages on a computer:- would either be dead or dribbling into my soup 🙁
CFH - I gave up arguing with folk on this thread ages ago - But I was having an interesting discussion about the discrepancies in the data with bwaap, Is that allowed?
You gave up arguing "but....". You see, it's that "but" which ruined it. 🙂
Yeah but Flashy; it were you what summoned him in't first place, so it's all your fault I'm afraid. 😐
(Gives Flashy a virtual Chinese Burn and a Wedgie)
Aye but it wasn't the usual daft argument with people who think anecdote is evidence or who prefer their commonsense to real data 🙂
But which is the real data...the research you promote or the research you dismiss out of hand TJ?
Plus there is some very misleading arguments eg, confusing the issue of fatal injuries versus other injuries and inflammatory (unsupported) comments such as:
So the FACT that across the whole population promoting helmets cost lives does not move you?
So working out the daft arguments becomes a challenge!!
[img] 
[/img]
What sort of riding does TJ actually do such that he's never hit his head hard in all that time ? Anything that could be described as mountain biking ?
Help me elf!
That may have sounded insulting, wasn't really meant to be, but I'm curious and amazed. Maybe I'm totally crap because I trash helmets frequently...and I really only ride XC.
the real data in the 2009 report Appendix H Review of Cycle Accidents in Police Fatal Files.
71% of fatalities caused by head injury in non helmeted riders
whether a head injury is the cyclist's most severe injury [b]is dependent[/b] on whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not.
I'm not helping you; you've brought it on yourself.
Flap jack - From red trails with the odd black at Glentress and other trail cntres to wandering around the scenery. I wear a helmet at trail centres but not when just wondering around but I have never had a hard impact on my head - one decent one on an overhanging branch that I [i]might[/i] have missed without a helmet.
Only been riding 40 years
I think Elfin's test is sensible
😆
Even I've got to laugh.
No but seriously; that's the only kind of testing what'll produce any definitive conclusive answers.
Hmm, slight difficulty with that plan though, not least the lack of volunteers....
TJ? 🙂
So an open face helmet protected your face when you were on your back.
right. Magic helmets eh?
I might have known that You would know more about my accident than I do 🙄
Believe it or not, I'm going to wear my helmet despite what some pompous nobber on the Internet says about them,
So you may as well save your breath.
You are either a Trolling Genius......
Or a total @rsehole.
I'll let you choose which one, but you only have those two choices.
You're clearly more aware of where your head is than I am. Long may your luck or skill hold out. Sadly I have appear to have neither, and nearly 50 years of riding doesn't seem to have helped.
I remember this exact same argument in the motorcycle fraternity when I first started riding - indeed, I was taught without a helmet - but really no one questions that now, and I think the cycle helmet thing will go the same way, with hopefully a similar quantum leap in protection and comfort.
From red trails with the odd black at Glentress and other trail cntres to wandering around the scenery. I wear a helmet at trail centres but not when just wondering around but I have never had a hard impact on my head - one decent one on an overhanging branch that I might have missed without a helmet.Only been riding [b]like a fairy[/b] for 40 years
Thats probably why then.
I see TJ is on the butt end of people not understanding the scientific process as usual. You know if it wasn't for us anal retentive scientists, you guys wouldn't have suspension forks that tracked the ground properly. In fact you'd still be throwing turnips at witches.
He wasn't arguing with me, we were having a discussion. One that I found rather interesting because if answers were found to my questions then potentially cycling could be safer for road users.
You know if it wasn't for us anal retentive scientists
He's not a scientist, so you're only partly right.
Flashy stop mucking about I need your advice here please.
In fact you'd still be throwing turnips at witches.
I woon't waste good turnips; I'd throw my poo at them instead.
Shoon't waste food when there's people starving and dying of plague and that.
Like a fairy skywalker? whatever do you mean? Are you insinuating I am "Light on my loafers"? Is this an insult in your funny little world?
Or are fairies very good mountain bikers that don't crash?
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
etc, etc, etc...
KCR, I salute you. That is superb work! 😀
Whats with the bunny rabbits?
By the way TJ (or others) since you are so keen on the effect of helmet wearing on a population basis. Would you like to tell me why, if cycling is so beneficial to overall population health, the Danes and the Dutch don't outlive us by many years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
I'll answer it for you: Becuase the equation isn't that simple. Similarly the efrfects/non effects of helmet wearing are also crowded by other issues. The trouble with many of these arguments is that a lot of the stats are garbage. For example if you are going to judge the safety or otherwise of cycling against, say, walking you are a complete idiot if you just judge it on the raw stats.
Dutch? I suspect its bad diet and smoking. Danes - dunno.
There is plenty of evidence of cycling being a positive benefit to health if you want to see it.
oh, go on then.. 😆
Just like there is plenty of evidence that hitting your head on the ground results in less injury if you have some form of protection....
point is, some of us choose not to wear protection when there is very little chance of injury from impact in the first place.
On a day to day basis there is very little chance of me dying of congestive heart disease. Therefore I'll just sit on my fat backside & reach for crisps...
Each year
Around 100 000 die from heart disease
Around 100 on bikes
Around 10 from head injuries preventable by helmets
cycling does not need to have much effect to save more people than it kills.
Around 10 from head injuries preventable by helmets
How many serious injuries are prevented by helmets though?
BDB - don't. That question gets asked over-and-over without a sensible response!!
70 a year dies in DIY accidents as a comparison. cycling really is safe 🙂
Big dugs baws - its impossible to be sure but no more than a hundred or so would be my guess ( only 600 serious injuries total to cyclists) and probably more like a dozen or two. Too few to be seen in population studies
Lots of cuts grazes and bruises tho.
& how [i]old[/i] are the people who die from heart disease? If you are aged 30 and cycle: What are the chances that you will die/be seriously injured while riding compared to being 30/not riding and dying from heart disease? The point is making the comparison between death from old age and death from youthful trauma is completely fallacious.
Lets be clear what the argument is about here.
There is ample medical evidence to support the fact that helmet usage protects individuals against head injuries.
This has been demonstrated in properly conducted case controlled studies which is probably the greatest level of evidence you could achieve for such a subject. It is not possible to double blind helmet wearers for the purposes os a study so case controlled studies is the best we've got.
The only argument here is whether helmet legislation actually offers protection to the population as a whole.
Demonstrating this protective effect statistically is obviously confounded by many factors which are difficult to measure such as compliance, traffic behavior, infrastructure changes etc.
The landmark paper here cited here by Prof Robinson who is a statistician is purely a statistical analysis on whether hospital data was affected by helmet legislation.
Speaking from a background of a full time hospital medical practitioner who specializes in trauma rather than community medicine ( see above comments) I can confidently say that data used draws some very far stretched conclusions. For one example it uses hospital admissions as a measure of number of head injuries as this is a very readily available dataset. The obvious flaw is that the changes in medical practice means that the threshold for admitting head injuries has substantially increased and this data set is not really an appropriate measure of minor head injuries that cyclists predominantly suffer from.
The paper was in effect not much more than intellectual trolling which is what academics do to gain recognition.
The statistics have subsequently been refuted by at least 10 subsequent papers.
The one credit I give this paper is in it's opening line where she states that in proper case control studies there is a protective effect offered by helmets on cyclists head injuries.
The paper should have ended there but it would have not achieved the attention it has if it did.
As somebody who does not want look after any of you, my advice is that you wear one.
There is no argument that as an individual you are safer.
It has not been demonstrated that legislation changes offer protection to the community at large, but a properly constructed prospective study has never been performed, so I say there is an absence of evidence not evidence of absence.
hugor, most sensible answer so far. In fact having read all of this and now the papers reffed here above, I would accuse TJ of cherry picking the data to suit his agenda.
Agree with you there. Its easy to find papers to support any given opinion particularly when you only read the pubmed abstracts. Thats what the media do. To read the paper and critically look at the stats yourself takes a lot more work.
Thankfully the BMA do not agree with TJ's opinion and their current stance is to support compulsory helmet usage despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. 🙄
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/transport/promotingsafecycling.jsp?page=6
"There is no argument that as an individual you are safer."
The argument is risk compensation.
Not read all 4 pages of cranial angst but is this an official 'TJ-thread' yet?
I am afraid Hugor misses a couple of things.
The case control studies have two at least major flaws.
1) - its self selecting sample and only a part of the data set. this leads to over estimation of the protective effects of helmets. You simply do not know if the helmet wearers crash more for example
2) - They ignore other factors such as risk compensation, injuries caused or exacerbated by helmets as well as other minor factors. this again will lead to a gross overestimate of the protective effects of helmets.
There is other significant flaws in the evidence as well
If the protective effects of helmets were as good as the pro helmet protectionists claim then it would appear in the epidimological data. Robinsions results have been widely replicated in other places and other countries.
I would accuse TJ of cherry picking the data to suit his agenda.
.......does the pope shit in the woods !! 😉
(or something like that 
)
Crossed posts -
Hugor - do you know how much fury that caused that decision in the BMA?
Many doctors including MY GP were outraged by it. There was a very fierce debate a the conference and there was much dissent when long standing positions were reversed at the whim of the chair without a proper vote.
I stood in horror at the last BMA Annual Representatives Meeting as
it voted for
compulsory cycle helmets.
A quick seach of the BMA website shows this
http://www.bmj.com/search/cycle%2520helmets
They ignore other factors such as risk compensation, injuries caused or exacerbated by helmets as well as other minor factors. this again will lead to a gross overestimate of the protective effects of helmets.
TJ you don't honestly believe in the ramblings of that physiologist who cycled down the streets of Bath wearing a womens wig as evidence that helmet wearing increases your risk? Cmon man geez!!
There has been a lot of data extrapolated from motorcycles onto cycling.
Most of this is not comparable. The speeds involved and weights of the helmets are not comparable.
Excuse my slow response I'm on a ipad.
Crossed posts -Hugor - do you know how much fury that caused that decision in the BMA?
OK what about the AMA which is my association?
They wrong too?
Is is a conspiracy!!!
How many serious injuries are prevented by helmets though?
BDB - don't. That question gets asked over-and-over without a sensible response!!
An answer I'd be very interested in knowing but I'm not sure how you'd get any figures.
I'm not pro-compulsory wearing or anti-helmet and here's why; if I choose to pop down the street on my bike to get a packet of fags, or visit a mate down road I'll not wear a helmet. why would I? The likelihood of [b]any[/b] kind of head injury is negligible.
However, when riding the twisty paths of St Cuthbert's way with over-hanging branches, I'll wear a helmet. Not because I'm worried about a traumatic\major head injury leading to death; but because banging my head against a branch and taking a layer of my scalp or causing a gash deep enough to warrant stitches is something I'd prefer to avoid.
Hence I'd be interested in the answer to the question above. It would also be interesting to know how many A&E visits could be avoided that weren't life threatening (like my example) but obviously tie up resources.
The trouble with cycling is that it is done on very many different levels and conditions etc, and isn't that where the problem lies, i.e. applying legislation across such broad spectrum of activity.?
Has TJ hit himself with a hammer yet?