Northwind - its also interesting in that cyclehelmets.org highlights the one side of the debate and TRL is evangelical on the other side.
TRL research and reviews make for interesting reading - the analysis is good then they extrapolate from that and ignore things that don't support their view that helmets are good. As in they ignore or discount risk compensation and in the full version of that they decide that rotational injuries don't happen
Edit - it also backs up my frequently stated point that the research is pish. We need more and especially on this specific point
MrSynthpop - MemberMust admit the Aussie issue has always confused me - did lots of cyclists just give up their hobby/mode of transport because the mean ole government told them to wear helmets? I can imagine someone flaunting the law if they didn't like it but not waking up one day and deciding to sell on the bike because they just can't face the 'shame' of a helmet, I wonder if there isn't more to the Australian issue than helmets.
Who knows? As far as I can see there is no explanation of this at all.
We dont know why this happened. My guess is that the experienced cyclists stopped cycling but risk compensation on behalf of the cyclists or less consideration from car drivers could be a part of it.
It could also be that helmets don't offer much protection and make serious injuries worse - so less minor injuries that don't show in the stats?
all feasible explanations but no real evidence
No one has bothered to find out
Its about choice and risk assessment.
Exactly. I wear a helmet for some rides, but to compel me to wear one for pootling along a towpath is absurd.
I'm in Australia and the situation is ridiculous. They're trying to launch a Velib-style citybike scheme... except the riders will have to wear a helmet. So they'll have to go to a bike shop, buy a helmet, return to station, rent bike for their 20min journey... There's a $50 (that's about £2583 these days) fine.
Cycling did drop off after the law was introduced. In Melbourne it has picked up a lot and doesn't seem to put off most people. Sydney, however, was described by an academic recently as having the most cyclist-hostile drivers he'd ever experienced. A state transport minister last year suggested cyclists should not even be on the roads... I suspect if they made cycling in Australian cities a little safer the helmet issue would be irrelevant. I also think that it's well established that a greater number of cyclists on the road makes cycling safer - in which case helmet laws that put off new cyclists (and they do) make cycling in general less safe.
I got a ticket for riding without a helmet here - $40 or $50 i think it was. Police stopped me and ticketed me for it. Fair enough, its the rules and I had left my helmet at work the night before. Main thing for me was it felt weird riding without a helmet on ! I'm so used to it I wouldn;t even think about not wearing one now irrespective of the 'facts' as well as they are presented. Like all great arguments its all about the presentation of the facts ...
OK TJ I’ll grant you there appears to have been a tad more research done that I thought, I also agree that it doesn’t seem complete and a lot is out of date by now, the conclusions as presented do leave a little to be desired, like you say both sides of the debate can and do put their own spin on it…
I read it as the balance of probability still being that a helmet will reduce the riders risk of brain injury, primarily through impact, however there is some evidence to show in certain circumstance it may exacerbate rotational injury, the 35-50% chance while it may sound like quite a broad spread is actually pretty precise given the massive list of variables affecting a cycle accident, so ‘m not too sure their analysis is wide ranging enough, the TRL testing only looks at one set of crash geometry (8.5m/s at 15º as they describe it), it would be good to see simulations for various differing types of cycle crash, with a full dummy not a dismembered head form; obviously resources, time and the scope of the research all affect this…
I took from what I read that the bigger your noggin the greater risk you are at (helmeted or un-helmeted) of rotational injuries, due to larger head mass and providing a bigger moment, it sort of suggested that large head size (which you can do very little about) provided as much of a potential risk to a cyclist as a Pin head wearing a bulky helmet…
It also suggests to me that more rigid shells (Dirt jumpy piss pot style ABS jobbies perhaps) could be better with Oblique impact from a rotational injury POV as the outer shell deforms less in and oblique impact giving less transfer of liner-rotational motion, making them closer in some ways to a Motorcycle helmet than a “traditional” XC style, thin shell lid, have I understood that correctly?
Question; would I be right in believing all current Standard helmet tests (Snell, ANSI, etc) only look at direct impacts, nothing oblique?
I have to say I’m still in favour of compulsion, as I think on balance helmets reduce injury risk more than they exacerbate it, however I will admit that neither position is totally unequivocal…
I do still think all of the evidence is insufficient…
Cookea - pretty much as I understand it. Motorcycle helmets now have an oblique blow test and TRL recommended that cycle helmets do but currently they dont. More reseasrch and evidence is really needed - a lot of what we see is pish
I think that 35-50% risk of rotational injury is overstating it and we need more and better research but while the helmets are so limited in usefullness and can in some cases increase harm there can be no case for compulsion - especially against the background of so few accidents.
Helmets are good at preventing minor injury - so when the odds are high - trail centres and gnarly trails - I wear one as there is a significant risk of minor injury - cuts bumps and bruises. When I am out for an RSF style "wander round the scenery" the odds are so low that I am prepared to accept the risks of not wearing a helmet.
Coffeeking, I don't know what aspect of the report caused my colleague to stop wearing a helmet. He just said it influenced his choice and he has leant me the report to read, but as I said, I have not read any of the report yet myself, so I don't know its slant, context or conclusions as I have not even opened the cover yet.
cookeaa - on the pispot style helmet - I believe they are more protective both for impact as they extend further round the head and against rotation due to the smoother shells as well as the more rigid shell. I wear it sometimes but its too hot to wear for long - good for trail centres where you can take it off for climbs and put it on for descents.