Wear your helmet kids!

Real peer reviewed studies

TJ, you do realise that he's one of the people actually DOING the research, not just googling it at home, don't you?

You are in danger of making an even bigger fool of yourself here.

From the link you posted:

cycle helmets give only very limited head protection

Is that not better than no protection at all?

In any case, the quote on that page is from a doctor, not an engineer. He many not even seen a cycle helmet, much less be familiar with the physics involved. Plus it's a court case involving litigation, prosecution and defence and lots of money.

I totally fail to see why you think this is sound science.

+1 Molgrips (other page)

To my mind he's absolutely correct in saying that the first 2 comments are wrong and the third is correct. Personally, I find the first two statements from TJ quite bizarre TBH.

I'm not sure why we're even debating this; but 'round we go again, only to surface in another 6 weeks time or so!

ti29er – unfortunately the evidence does not agree with you.

A helmet that has split has failed and has not made significant difference to the severity of any injury.

Helmets provide little protection against major injuries even when they have worked properly

I'm sorry but simple common sense and a life well lived tells me that these two statements simply aren't accurate.
You must start to read between the lines when reading statitical papers and reports as many are loaded as they're commissioned by non-partisan bodies.

This discussion has now run its course for me.

so all the research and evidence and opinion that says those two things are correct are meaningless because you say they are? Without a shred of anything to back them up?

One of the key things you find if you read the research – what little there is published – is that the real evidence is counterintuative and contradictory.

Don't they only protect up to, like 5mph any thing more and they not strong enough,motorbike lids are stronger, wear it don't wear it , I don't give a shit if yo fall off and injure you selfs

The need to be right. I get holding an opposing view, it's good, it makes for lively balanced debates, sometimes though paints you kinda of a penis.

Just to muddy the water……

In my infrequent posts on here,I have sometimes mentioned that I run the scouts in my village. 5 of them have just spent three days doing a sponsered bike ride (110 miles, Berwick to Tynedale, through the Cheviots as you ask).

During one of the practice sessions before I unleashed out alone I was speaking to one of their parents who is a neuro-surgeon and a very keen cyclist.

I asked him to speak to the kids about the importance of helmets. He said that "there was no good evidence one way or another on helmets".

Two of his colleagues are also keen cyclists, one reads the evidence to support helmets, one reads the evidence the other way.

So if top neuro-surgeons spend their lunch hours bickering on the subject, and can't agree, I suspect this place has no chance.

As it happens the parent always wears one, based on experiance, rather than "good evidence".

So if top neuro-surgeons spend their lunch hours bickering on the subject, and can't agree, I suspect this place has no chance.

Probably true, but I bet 99% of people here do wear a helmet.

Peer-reviewed science is great, but I get the feeling certain types of people would insist on seeing some before they started breathing.

On canal / bridalway type rides i never wear a lid…
Does that make me a bad man?

I'm able to post this today because I wore a helmet when cycling along the Union Canal one month ago. Over handlebars at speed directly onto the top right of my head, didn't even have time to let go of the handlebars. Four stitches above my right eye and lots of bruising but my skull would have been fractured without the helmet.

Just thinking about how hard my helmet encased head hit the ground sends shivers down my spine.

I sometimes took my helmet off when on that canal but for some reason that day I didn't.

TJ, From your link..

Most experienced trauma surgeons believe that cycle helmets give only very limited head protection

Based on what? No link to any research whatsoever. Are these surgeons also expert helmet designers and do research in there spare time?

The three cases he includes, none of them are wearing helmets. How the heck do you reach a conclusion like that? Sounds like this solicitor is fishing for evidence as to why his customers should receive a substantial payout.

When i was a kid, before all this helmet shizzae came to the fore, i endo'd my bike down a park slide built on a 4 meter high steep cone of concrete with steps sort of cast in it.
done it hundreds of times before, until one day i caught one of the steps an OTB'd right on to my bonce. Reet down the concrete hill…

Not a fookin scratch! I'm bullet proof i tells thee!

These days i'll lid up on blue red and blacks mind…..

1. Cycle helmets should not be made compulsory. It would be arbitrary to impose legislation on cyclists, who do not face clearly higher risks than pedestrians or drivers. Enforced helmet laws drive cycle use down, thereby increasing the risk per cyclist and harming public health. Enforced helmet laws have not effected material prevention of serious head injury at the population level.

😯

LHS – as I said anecdote not evidence. I have come across that view from neurosurgeons many times but it remains anecdotal. Worth giving some thought to but not proof by a long stretch.

Edit – found some good stuff on athens – however as usual all contradictory and flawed research. I think this debate has really reached the end.

an interesting take on it – and many studies have found no link across populations between helmet usage and head injury reductions – indeed sometimes the opposite is true
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688

CTC thinks that it should be up to you to decide whether you want to wear a helmet or not

They're perfectly right, i think its usually referred to as Darwinism.

if only there was some decent evidence that helmets reduce injuries eh? 😕 😉

Have a browse around the links on the CTC site – makes for interesting reading.

CTC thinks that it should be up to you to decide whether you want to wear a helmet or not

They're perfectly right, i think its usually referred to as Darwinism.

I'm still alive, have bred successfully and i'm reasonably erudite…

We have plenty of evidence, but like most subjects you're mind is already made up to the contrary. Keep believing the tripe that a no win no fee solicitor spouts – makes interesting reading alright! 😯

I assume you are familiar with the British Medical Journal?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/308/6922/173

LHS – not at all – I like evidence based practice. Have you followed the llinks on the ctc site?

Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety – and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.

Its not rubbish that a no win no fee solicitor sppouts – its good stuff – have a look at eh links on the CTC site

Still – attacking the person to avoid listening to them is a good tactic is it not..

Is your mind open to the evidence?

As you can see, this helmet has given considerable protection:

I would have been killed had someone hit me directly in the top of the skull with this pick

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Bicycle Deaths by Helmet Use
1994-2008

Year No Helmet Helmet Total
Num
1994 776 (97%) 19 (2%) 796
1995 783 (95%) 34 (4%) 828
1996 731 (96%) 27 (4%) 761
1997 785 (97%) 23 (3%) 811
1998 741 (98%) 16 (2%) 757
1999 698 (93%) 42 (6%) 750
2000 622 (90%) 50 (7%) 689
2001 616 (84%) 60 (8%) 729
2002 589 (89%) 54 (8%) 663
2003 535 (85%) 58 (9%) 626
2004 602 (83%) 87 (12%) 722
2005 676 (86%) 77 (10%) 784
2006 730 (95%) 37 (5%) 669
2007 646 (92%) 50 (7%) 699
2008 653 (91%) 58 (8%) 714

LHS – there are many studies of that type that show the same result – unfortunately they all have the same faults – self selecting samples. You only have a part of the data set there ( no one who has not worn a helmet and has not had an accident, no one who has been in an accident and not sustained and injury etc) and there is no consideration given to whether the ones with helmets are more likely to have accidents, there is no consideration to the now known and understood mechanism for helmets to have the potential to exacerbate injuries.

Out of date and badly flawed design. As self selecting sample needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Populations studies across the whole population not just a part of it show no benefits – a part of the contradiction

I give up. Take your chance. 😯

Edit – No I don't. Now i dont suspect that you are that ignorant that you think that taking self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor outweights peer reviewed journals on the BMJ website do you?

Seriously? You can admit you are wrong occasionally if you like?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a

The evidence seems clear and consistent across all mandatory jurisdictions – helmet laws increase the accident/injury risk per cyclist. In the face of such evidence, it seems incumbent upon the British Medical Association to reverse its call for mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in the United Kingdom.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a#130761

Ok – enough – we can bat this about all night! I ask LHS that you have a look at teh BMJ stuff I link to there, it might just open your eyes a bit

Edit –

No I don't. Now i dont suspect that you are that ignorant that you think that taking self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor outweights peer reviewed journals on the BMJ website do you?

I am not taking "self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor"

I am looking at a broad range of peer reviewed evidence. That pievce you link to is flawed – as is much of the research on both sides

As I repeatedly say – much of it is flawed, much is contradictory and counterintuative.

Looked at it, read it, and much much more. Its all part of my job. You can believe what you like, that's your choice. You obviously know a lot more about helmet design and the protection it offers so I will leave you to your research. I just hope for your sake when you do have an accident you are wearing a helmet. Genuinely.

I am not taking "self selecting data from a no win no fee solicitor"

The link you posted was to an injury specialist lawyer who quoted 3 injuries of people who weren't wearing a helmet and a surgeon who said it wouldn't have made any difference. Conclusive obviously!! 😯

LHS – thats just a link to a piece of discussion as I repeatedly said. Anecdotal.

I have also linked to a lot of peer reviewed stuff and to the BMA discussion on this.

I gave up on reading the thread…

But I recently had a Spesh crash replacement. I rang them up and they didn't need the receipt, just a cheque for £20 (mine was an Instinct) and the helmet back.

Back by return post, in a couple of days.

Lost my best friend at school to a direct impact on the top of his skull on a garage door at about 10 mph with no helmet on. That was about 20 years ago just as helmets started to come out properly. Never ride without since cracked 2 myself and glad I had them on, strikes me you see more people riding with more armour than less now, saw a group the other day with full body armour on top, lycra below and shin guards for good measure.

TandemJeremy – Member

"As self selecting sample needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt."

Which basically invalidates every statistical analysis of helmet use vs injury unfortunately. There'll never be a reliable reportage of "Would have suffered an injury but didn't because I wore a helmet" or for that matter "Wouldn't have suffered an injury but is convinced they would have if they hadn't been wearing a helmet". It is IMO an insurmountable problem for most attempts to analyse this.

A lot of people choose to interpret "No good data" as "No correlation" though which is obviously wrongheaded. (TJ as far as I've seen doesn't do this btw) But, what I do object to a little is where people shoot down all the studies then say "There's no proof". Proof of prevention is one of the hardest things to demonstrate, so basing an argument on the absence of proof is a bit of a dodge IMO.

LHS – why do these studies not show any reduction in injury across poulations

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a paper by Dorothy Robinson (a statistician at the University of New England, New South Wales in Australia) reviewing the effects of helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Robinson shows that, despite significant increases in helmet-wearing, there was no greater improvement in cycle safety than for pedestrian safety over the same period. On the other hand, there were substantial reductions in cycle use, amounting to a significant loss of the health and other benefits of cycling.

An article in Injury Prevention magazine by Paul Hewson finds no detectable relationship between helmet-rates and on-road cycle safety in Great Britain. A second article, also by Hewson (this one published in Accident Analysis and Prevention journal), reaches the same conclusion for child cyclists. Hewson emphasises that this doesn’t necessarily mean that helmets are ineffective; an alternative explanation is that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling, and he points out that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that road safety professionals have no grounds for being involved in helmet promotion, given the lack of detectable benefits for on-road cyclists.

Finally, a report on children’s cycling from the National Children’s Bureau includes a very useful appendix surveying the literature on helmets. It states, “Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.” Coming from a children’s charity, this is an important finding.

TJ what do you do for a living?

I am a nurse. Trained in understanding and interpreting research and evidence based practice. 😉

I just wish the people who are so evangelical about using helmets would accept that the evidence base is poor and contradictory

I do wear a helmet – two differnt ones selected on teh basis of the evidence in the belief they will be useful against minor injuries – where the evidence is good.

I am a nurse

Ok, good to know.

Think we should just leave it there, before people are bored to death.

LHS – can you answer why the various whole population studies as above show no reduction in head injury from increased rates of helmet usage? Seriously – I'd be interested to know if there is a flaw I have not seen.

From teh sutdy you linked to there hould have been a significant reduction

edit

LHS – Member
Think we should just leave it there, before people are bored to death.

I would have thought there is no one left reading this now anyway but OK

Open minded scepticism is my basic stance to any research.

Hi, i am new to this forum, and after reading this post last night i felt compelled to register to give my 2pence…….

Personally, i had a good friend when i was younger that died from a bike accident as a direct result of head injuries!!! he was not wearing a helmet, and whilst i have no evidence to prove the fact i am sure that had he of been wearing a helmet his chances of survival would have been greatly improved!
To the best of my knowledge that was the only accident i remember of the times when my friends and i used to ride around with no helmets (15 years ago) since then i have worn one as have my friends. i have never personally known anyone to die as a direct result of head injuries after a crash when a helmet was worn, although i am sure you will give some examples!!!!

The fact of the matter is, this is life, not everything is perfect. I wear a helmet because i belive it gives me ADEQUATE protection, i dont think it is going to guarentee me life or pain free accidents if the worst happened, but it will help! If you dont think the designs are as good as other sports helmets then wear one of them (motorbike helmet for example) it may not offer the same heat dissapation/cooling, but if you are so concerned about the aspects of helmet design that are not covered then that is a price you have to pay!!!!

also, TJ i read in this post somewhere you had written that helmets provide a little protection for low speed, low impact impacts, and they provide no protection for high speed/high impact collisions.
I also read words to the effect of "i wear a helmet for anything gnarly, but not when just pootling around" (it was something like that but not word for word i admit) well, if they provide protection for low impact only then surely you should be wearing it when pootling around and take it off for the gnarly stuff????

A helmet that has split has failed and has not made significant difference to the severity of any injury.

WRONG – as in the OP, if he had hit a sharp rock with his head there would almost certainly of been blood if nothing else. therefore the helmet made a significant differance to injury.

Helmets provide little protection against major injuries even when they have worked properly

That sentance is a contradiction, if a helmet has worked properly then it has provided the user with protection. as i said earlier in the post, my friend died in my opinion and that of many other people at the time, if he had of been wearing a helmet he would of had a much greater chance of surviving. I am under no illusion that he would of walked away scot free from the accident, however, if it prevented death then it would have indeed offered protection from the most mojor injury of all!!!!!

There are drawbacks to helmet design and they
could be improved

"no sh!t sherlock!!!" as with any design of any product, there are always going to be people who dont like the design, there are also always going to be elements of design that can be improved, but these products are for mass market and must meet certain saftly standards, whilst still appealing to people.

personally i see a helmet as risk reduction, not a guarentee. if i hit my head whilst wearing one i belive i am SAFER (not immune) from inury.
whilst i also realise that as with any product, in some very very rare circumstances the lid could cause injury, the risk imo is minimal and the pros far outweigh the cons.

if you really belive they only provide low impact protection, why do you wear one "on gnarly bits" and why dont you wear one "when pootling around"

jon