Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

1…2425272930…51

Comments

  • #1302
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Doctor Bob wrote: »
    The RSA's Annual Academic Road Safety Lecture this year - on Monday 5th - is relevant to this thread:



    It seems to be by invitation only. Hopefully they'll publish the papers, or someone here might be on the invitation list and could report back.


    From the Irish Examiner:

    But a number of as yet unpublished academic studies conducted under the direction of Professor Michael Gilchrist, head of the UCD School of Mechanical & Materials Engineering as part of the RSA’s Academic Bursary Programme, have provided evidence of the protective benefits of helmets, particularly in lower speed collisions (50km/h) and in secondary collision impacts.

    Prof Gilchrist’s research is due to be published by the Road Safety Authority before Christmas.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/time-to-use-your-head-and-wear-a-helmet-when-cycling-302523.html


  • #1303
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,175 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Taking them along time to massage those stats. I heard mention of those reports coming out last year but to no avail.

    He may or may not be right but I get the impression the conclusion was written and they have worked back from there.

    Would love to be proven wrong although compulsory wearing still sounds insane, Boardman has the right idea. Far more important issues to be tackling for road safety.


  • #1304
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    monument wrote: »
    protective benefits of helmets, particularly in lower speed collisions (50km/h) and in secondary collision impacts

    Lower speed than what I wonder? I thought that 30kph was the usual "low speed" benchmark. I wonder which would have the bigger effect in a cyclist/car collision. Whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or whether the car speed is reduced from 50kph to 30kph.


  • #1305
    Seweryn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Seweryn


    CramCycle wrote: »
    ..compulsory wearing still sounds insane...
    I hope this is never going to happen. It would destroy the Dublin Bike and other bike schemes in the country.


  • #1306
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    monument wrote: »
    From the Irish Examiner:

    But a number of as yet unpublished academic studies conducted under the direction of Professor Michael Gilchrist, head of the UCD School of Mechanical & Materials Engineering as part of the RSA’s Academic Bursary Programme, have provided evidence of the protective benefits of helmets, particularly in lower speed collisions (50km/h) and in secondary collision impacts.

    Prof Gilchrist’s research is due to be published by the Road Safety Authority before Christmas.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/time-to-use-your-head-and-wear-a-helmet-when-cycling-302523.html

    Professor Gilchrist's team may well find much "evidence of the protective benefits of helmets". Regardless, I suspect it is unlikely they will also produce evidence that this protection should only apply to cyclists rather than also applying to motorists and pedestrians.

    Either head injuries are an issue that require helmets or they are not. The argument that helmet wearing should be mainly a matter for cyclists is spurious in my view.


  • #1307
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,140 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    The situation has always been the same for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians, in that helmets are available for all but mandatory for none. The bike industry just has better marketing.


  • #1308
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    I did a quick Google on Prof Gilchrist - as always there is a health warning on the analysis below - this just based on a quick read and should be taken as indicating points that merit further discussion.

    I found this

    Comparative head injury risk analysis for cyclists wearing helmets during collisions: Real-world case investigations
    T.T. Than*, M.D. Gilchrist*
    http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.pdf


    Apparently this is a modelling exercise based on an actual cycling fatality.

    It would seem that this work is being funded by the RSA
    Currently, the Irish Road Safety Authority is funding a project being undertaken at University College Dublin to study the protective performance of cycle helmets. The main objective of this project is to pave the way for recommended policies which will reduce cyclist fatalities and injuries. In order to study the kinematics involved in cyclist collisions as well as the specific injuries mechanisms and points of contact on the vehicles, a number of real collisions for which data from police reports and coroner reports was available have been reconstructed using mathematical dynamic model (MADYMO) simulation software. One of these fatality cases involved a male cyclist from a rural setting, for which the methodology as well as the results are presented in this paper.

    The abstract for this paper bears very careful reading - my emphasis in bold.
    Abstract Cycle helmets have continued to increase in popularity since their introduction half a century ago. Many studies indicate that overall, head injury can be significantly reduced by wearing them. This study was conducted using two distinct sets of real-world cycling collision data from Ireland, namely cases involving police collision reports and cases involving admission to a hospital emergency department. The analyses sought to simulate and analyse the protective performance of cycle helmets in such collision scenarios, by comparing the Head Injury Criterion score and peak head accelerations, both linear and angular. Cycle collisions were simulated using the specialised commercial software MADYMO. From the simulation results, these key metrics were compared between the same-scenario helmeted and unhelmeted cyclist models.

    Results showed that the inclusion of bicycle helmets reduced linear accelerations very significantly, but also increased angular accelerations significantly compared to unhelmeted situations. Given the modest protective performance of cycle helmets against angular accelerations, it is recommended that cycle helmet manufacturers and international test standards need to pay more attention to head angular accelerations

    The significance of this is that angular acceleration may be one of the things that causes brain injury. If you are increasing angular acceleration then it may be that you are increasing the risk of brain injury.

    Does anyone here recall the RSA announcing that they had commisioned research that indicated that helmets might increase the risk of certain types of brain injury? It seems like an important finding and one that would need to made public.

    The reason for the increase is not well discussed in the paper. They remark on a reduction in peak angular acceleration but don't appear do discuss any overall increase.

    This is a screen grab of figure 15

    363923.jpg

    If I am reading it right then blue is helmet and orange is no helmet. There is an angular acceleration event for the helmet case at the very start. I cant tell if there was an equivalent event for the non helmet case but if there was it is completely masked. This may be the source of the finding that there was an increase in angular acceleration. Unfortunately they don't give them as two separate graphs.


    This phrasing might be a bit confusing
    Effect of wearing a helmet
    As seen in Figures 13-15, the wearing of a cycle helmet in this particular real-world case decreased peak head linear acceleration for almost 55%, but only about 15% for head angular acceleration.

    A HIC score of almost 25000 was recorded in the simulation at the moment of head impact with the ground. Since a HIC score of such value corresponds to a fatal collision, this correlates with the actual fatality sustained. The maximum angular acceleration also occurred at the moment of secondary head impact. There are many studies linking head angular acceleration with brain injuries, especially diffuse axonal injury, as this is caused primarily by head angular acceleration [12].

    The reason I find it potentially confusing is they only give a graph for the HIC score for the non-helmet case. However taken on face value "Effect of wearing a helmet" => "A HIC score of almost 25000" it suggests that a helmet wearer would have died anyway even if the helmet partially reduced the linear acceleration.

    Time to get back to real work.

    Edit: HIC = "Head Injury Criterion"
    Edit 2: It looks like this paper is from 2013

    Edit 3: I had another look and in Figure 13, the unhelmeted HIC score over time does show a peak at the start. However this is nothing like the same relative size of the peak for angular acceleration seen at the start for the helmet case in Figure 15.


  • #1309
    A Jeffers
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭A Jeffers


    Angular acceleration would not necessarily increase the chance of brain injury, but more likely to cause bad neck injury by rotating the head. But there is a distinct chance that brain injury could also increase over less angular acceleration.


  • #1310
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I think the current understanding (which I get the impression is far from set in stone) is that rotational acceleration tends to lead to the more severe forms of brain injury, due to shearing of layers in the brain.

    Woodpeckers, for example, avoid brain damage, despite constantly using their head as a hammer, by lining up their heads very precisely with the target before each blow (among other adaptations). So it seems to be something to avoid.


  • #1311
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I think the current understanding (which I get the impression is far from set in stone) is that rotational acceleration tends to lead to the more severe forms of brain injury, due to shearing of layers in the brain.

    Woodpeckers, for example, avoid brain damage, despite constantly using their head as a hammer, by lining up their heads very precisely with the target before each blow (among other adaptations). So it seems to be something to avoid.

    While we should not rely on wikipedia it can make a good place to start

    Diffuse Axonal Injury
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_axonal_injury
    Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is a brain injury in which damage in the form of extensive lesions in white matter tracts occurs over a widespread area. DAI is one of the most common and devastating types of traumatic brain injury,[1] and is a major cause of unconsciousness and persistent vegetative state after head trauma.[2] It occurs in about half of all cases of severe head trauma.
    Mechanism

    Unlike brain trauma that occurs due to direct impact and deformation of the brain, DAI is the result of traumatic shearing forces that occur when the head is rapidly accelerated or decelerated, as may occur in auto accidents, falls, and assaults.[7] It usually results from rotational forces or severe deceleration.[8][9] Vehicle accidents are the most frequent cause of DAI; it can also occur as the result of child abuse[10] such as in shaken baby syndrome.[11]

    Which brings us back to increased angular acceleration.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Study Finds That Bicycle Helmets Most Effective in Low Speed Collisions
    RSA Academic Lecture Marks First Day of Irish Road Safety Week A UCD Professor who conducted a study of cyclists with fatal head injuries has recommended that bicycle helmets are worn to protect against head injuries in the event of a collision, particularly at speeds of less than 50km/h.

    The results of the study were presented at the annual Road Safety Authority (RSA) Academic Road Safety Lecture which took place in the Royal College of Physicians today (Monday 5 October). The lecture, which was chaired by RTÉ Broadcaster Bryan Dobson, marked the first day of ‘Irish Road Safety Week’ which runs until Sunday 11 October and focuses on three key areas – cycling safety, tyre safety and child safety.

    The theme of today’s lecture was ‘Cycling Safety’ and featured a presentation from Professor Michael Gilchrist, Head of School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at University College Dublin (UCD) who presented the results of his study ‘Analysis and Reconstruction of Bicycle Accidents’ which was conducted as part of the RSA Academic Bursary Programme.

    In his study, Prof Gilchrist and his team used data from 37 fatal collisions involving cyclists in Ireland over a 10 year period and staged computer reconstructions to determine whether a helmet would have offered protection. The study found that bicycle helmets offer effective protection at low speeds of less than 50km/h but their protective capabilities are reduced as speeds increase.

    I like that the definition of low speed is less than 50 km/hr :eek:


  • #1313
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Study Finds That Bicycle Helmets Most Effective in Low Speed Collisions

    The RSA are clearly still sticking to their mantra that wearing a helmet and hi-viz clothing are the highest priorities when it comes to road safety for cyclists, with “abiding by the Rules of the Road” (which I’m optimistically assuming they believe to cover the use of lights on a bike) coming in a poor third. There are matching quotes in that regard from both the Minister for Transport and the RSA Chief Executive, in the article above, which probably counts as progress in the name of cyclist safety as far as the RSA are concerned.

    If I’m being cynical their approach strikes me as being along the lines of “yerra you’re going to have an accident anyway, so we won’t focus on how to avoid/prevent accidents we’ll go straight to what we thing are fantastic options to mitigate the effects of your certain collision, polystyrene is yer only man”. Personally, if I thought a collision was inevitable I’d be very concerned about my eyes (wear shatterproof glasses), my back (wear something protective over the spine), my hands (wear decent gloves), etc., etc. The RSA’s repeated failure to express concern over potential loss of my eyesight, potential paralysis, etc., makes me wonder how much they value my safety at all. ’Tis scandalous, Ted!

    I’m impressed by this statement from their web page above though:
    To date this year, 121 people have been killed on Irish roads to promote the need to stay safe on the roads, 24 fewer than the same period last year.

    It’s very selfless of people to sacrifice themselves in the cause of promoting the dangers of using the roads. The RSA should probably be promoting less drastic approaches, only suggestions in helmet-clad and hi-viz -wrapped envelopes will be entertained though. Such envelopes are available from all conscientious stationary shops.


  • #1314
    PaulieC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/donohoe-rules-out-making-cycle-helmets-compulsory-1.2379891


  • #1315
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Thanks. Will put in helmet megathread.


  • #1316
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/donohoe-rules-out-making-cycle-helmets-compulsory-1.2379891

    Posted elsewhere.

    On the bright side, bike-share schemes have inoculated us against helmet laws.

    On the not so bright side:

    Reference to RSA's amateurish (or misleading) statistical analysis:
    He told the conference, which is part of Road Safety Week, there was a “complete mismatch” between cyclists accounting for only 2 per cent of all road users, but 8 per cents of all injured.

    (For those with short memories, the RSA conflated serious and minor injuries for one year alone to get the number up to 8%. Cyclists typically make up way fewer than 8% of all injured, and even in that one year the serious injuries viewed on their own aren't anomalously high.)

    Head nod to Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's much contested Cochrane Review as well.

    Not sure what they expect helmets to do about all the spinal injuries, but it's interesting to see people framing healthy, benign travel in terms of death and impairment without reference to cars.


  • #1317
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Not sure what they expect helmets to do about all the spinal injuries, but it's interesting to see people framing healthy, benign travel in terms of death and impairment without reference to cars.

    Absolutely. I've become so used to people reacting with shock to the fact that I commute by bicycle that I no longer find it as mystifying a reaction as I really should.

    I can't swim, but I don't recoil in horror at the idea of boarding a boat. I can't fly, but I'm not shocked that people travel by plane. Boats sink, planes crash, but generally speaking people maintain a rational perspective and don't believe these to be anything other than rare tragedies. But apparently cycling, and particularly commuting by bicycle = certain death or serious injury, according to many.

    People get irrational about the strangest and simplest of things, it seems. And, as per your reference above, many of these people will happily climb into a car and utterly believe, with the same conviction with which they believe that cyclists are suicidal, that they are taking the logical and safe option. Bizarre.


  • #1318
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Not to mention that if cycling is disproportionately likely to result in death of impairment, there are other strategies to change that, reducing the danger at source.


  • #1319
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Wow, I just read that Irish Times article and it's a catalogue of figures, presented as incontrovertible truths, portraying cycling as extremely dangerous. I despair.


  • #1320
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The repetition of the 2%/8% "mismatch" is especially depressing. It's such a flimsy bit of stats, and is really only about minor injuries (if it's about anything).


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    kenmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,277 ✭✭✭kenmc


    thank fcuk


  • #1322
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    very surprised with the 8%/2% figures, of the trauma I see the vast majority is MVC, - mostly hit form behind, certainly high morbidity when you consider whip lash injuries. Cyclist certainly do not make up 8% of injuries from the roads.


  • #1323
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    Cyclist certainly do not make up 8% of injuries from the roads.

    In 2012 there was a very big increase in minor injuries (as classified by Garda collision reports) and a relatively big increase in serious injuries. In that year and that year only cyclists made up about 8% of all injuries combined. If you look at serious injuries alone, cyclists don't make up 8%, even in 2012.

    (In 2012, 30 cyclists were seriously injured, up from 16 the previous year. 600 minor injuries.)

    I think you might expect cycling to be somewhat more prone to producing minor injuries than travelling by car or public transport. It's a minor drawback to being active. While that rise in minor injuries in 2012 is unprecedented, and actually kind of puzzling and interesting, it's not really that worrying. Certainly doesn't justify this week's scare-fest.


  • #1324
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    doozerie wrote: »
    Wow, I just read that Irish Times article and it's a catalogue of figures, presented as incontrovertible truths, portraying cycling as extremely dangerous. I despair.

    I think the technical term is "infomercial" rather than "article". (or whatever the print equivalent of infomercial is)


  • #1325
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Incidentally, that infomerical clarifies what "low-speed, 50km/h" means in the context of the Gilchrist research: it's a car-bike collision, with the speed being the speed of the car, not the bike.


  • #1326
    Vincenzo Nibbly
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Vincenzo Nibbly


    "Some 83 per cent of cycling accidents occur when there is a vehicle such as a car or a lorry involved. This is higher than the international average, a fact Mr Morris suggests may be down to underreporting of falls from bicycles in Ireland."

    Come on everyone, fess up properly about your cycle spills. We're making the poor cars and lorries look bad.


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    For a bunch of road safety professionals, they throw the word "accident" around a lot. This is no longer regarded as an appropriate term for collisions or falls, for what I hope are obvious reasons.


  • #1328
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Vincenzo Nibbly wrote: »
    "Some 83 per cent of cycling accidents occur when there is a vehicle such as a car or a lorry involved. This is higher than the international average, a fact Mr Morris suggests may be down to underreporting of falls from bicycles in Ireland."

    Come on everyone, fess up properly about your cycle spills. We're making the poor cars and lorries look bad.

    A statement which suggests that Mr. Morris is blissfully ignorant of general patterns in reporting of cycling accidents. Research in Galway in the 1970s found that about 85% of cycling injuries don't involve other vehicles (and 83% of these were minor injuries). It also found that the Gardai only recorded 9% of serious injury crashes involving cyclists and 4% of minor injury crashes.

    The weird thing is this guy is supposed to be a doctor he should have ready access to hospital data.


  • #1329
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    For some much-needed positivity, and just out:
    The health benefits of cycling are considerably larger than the risks associated with the inhalation of pollutants and increased exposure to road accidents, according to a study published in the Bulletin épidémiologique hebdomadaire (BEH) de l'Institut de veille sanitaire (Invs).
    http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_le-velo-benefique-pour-la-sante-meme-dans-une-ville-polluee?id=9100185&utm_source=rtbfinfo&utm_campaign=social_share&utm_medium=twitter_share

    HT @cosaingalway on Twitter


  • #1330
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    How are they coming up with those stats?

    For every one person killed in a road accident, 400 people are being saved from death by being healthier, per year.

    For every 1 person killed in a road accident, 4 are being killed from inhaling fumes during the cycle.

    How are they collecting this info?

    How are they relating this to actual physical activity? How much cycling are they reckoning to be beneficial? 20 mins a day? Is there a point where it's of no benefit?

    What happens if I cycle 20 mins and have an unhealthy diet? If I cycle from ages 20 to 40 and then drive the rest of my life, how does this affect my chances of dementia?


  • #1331
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    the.red.baron wrote: »
    How are they coming up with those stats?

    For every one person killed in a road accident, 400 people are being saved from death by being healthier, per year.

    For every 1 person killed in a road accident, 4 are being killed from inhaling fumes during the cycle.

    How are they collecting this info?

    How are they relating this to actual physical activity? How much cycling are they reckoning to be beneficial? 20 mins a day? Is there a point where it's of no benefit?

    What happens if I cycle 20 mins and have an unhealthy diet? If I cycle from ages 20 to 40 and then drive the rest of my life, how does this affect my chances of dementia?

    You're overthinking it really. They're looking at high-level stats, e.g.

    You control it by taking a large cross-section of society - all age ranges, all kinds of dietary habits, all kind of fitness habits.

    Take 1,000 people from who do X amount of cycling in a given week, call them "cyclists".
    Take 1,000 people who do less than this, call them "non-cyclists".

    Of the 1,000 cyclists, you find that in a given year 5 are killed in road collisions, and 20 die in hospital from causes unrelated to collisions.

    Of the 1,000 cyclists, 2 die from road collisions, but 40 die from other causes.

    So you can say that while your chances of death on the road raise from 0.2% to 0.5% as a cyclist, your chance of death off the road reduces from 4% to 2%.

    All figures illustrative, obviously :D

    The google translate of the above article gives;
    In particular, according to the "model" chosen for the study, the bicycle system self-service "would have, increasing physical activity for individuals to save 12 lives per year against an increase of 0.03 deaths per year due to traffic accidents and 0.13 deaths per year associated with a higher inhaled pollutants "during these trips.
    In other words, you see a reduction in hospital admissions amongst users of the bike-sharing scheme in general, even though you see a small increase for road collisions and pollutant-related diseases. Giving a net 12 people less in a given year who die in hospital.


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Vincenzo Nibbly wrote: »
    "Some 83 per cent of cycling accidents occur when there is a vehicle such as a car or a lorry involved. This is higher than the international average, a fact Mr Morris suggests may be down to underreporting of falls from bicycles in Ireland."

    Come on everyone, fess up properly about your cycle spills. We're making the poor cars and lorries look bad.

    The problem as I see it with all these studies is that by accidents they mean accidents resulting in a hospital visit or Garda being called out. The data on which the studies are based don't include the many lesser spills, and there seems to be no information as to whether or not the helmet in some cases is what keeps the cyclist out of hospital on some of these occasions. There's quite a few posts in this thread where cyclists have felt that the helmet was of benefit, but this is anecdotal evidence at best. Of the three spills I've had in the last five years, two resulted in light road rash, and one in me landing on my back where I was lucky to be wearing a rucksack. Of the two more serious accidents I've seen first hand riding in a group, one was a broken collar bone, and one was a fractured elbow and concussion where a helmet may have saved the concussion if it had been on the guys head rather than hanging off the bars. Of those accidents, only the last one involved a vehicle, which overtook to pull into a drive way on the left.

    It would make for an interesting study to poll a significant sample of cyclists that have cycled regularly for the last number of years, whether they typically wear a helmet, how many accidents they've had, the severity of those accidents, whether they were wearing a helmet, and whether it was of benefit or detriment. I don't believe that analysis of accidents involving hospitalization of cyclists provides a reliable indicator on the efficacy of helmets as a safety measure, or says much about the safety of cycling in general. The sampled data excludes too many minor accidents, the long periods of accident free cycling, and the total number of KMs cycled.

    Like many here, I feel the safety benefits of cycling helmets are massively exaggerated by the businesses promoting them and the lazy safety authorities looking for a quick fix. That said, without a broader study on cycling safety it is IMO impossible to tell.


  • #1333
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    seamus wrote: »
    Take 1,000 people from who do X amount of cycling in a given week, call them "cyclists".
    Take 1,000 people who do less than this, call them "non-cyclists".

    Of the 1,000 cyclists, you find that in a given year 5 are killed in road collisions, and 20 die in hospital from causes unrelated to collisions.

    Of the 1,000 cyclists, 2 die from road collisions, but 40 die from other causes.

    So you can say that while your chances of death on the road raise from 0.2% to 0.5% as a cyclist, your chance of death off the road reduces from 4% to 2%.

    Not really, correlation is not causation. For the last statement to be true you'd need to prove that not cycling was the cause of death in the second group. Only sayin'...


  • #1334
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    doozerie wrote: »
    The RSA are clearly still sticking to their mantra that wearing a helmet and hi-viz clothing are the highest priorities when it comes to road safety for cyclists, with “abiding by the Rules of the Road” (which I’m optimistically assuming they believe to cover the use of lights on a bike) coming in a poor third.
    Some of the coverage of yesterday's event had a surgeon from the Mater telling us to wear helmets, hi-vis and not earphones.

    The conference had some evidence about helmets, but nothing about hi-vis and earphones. Is it too much to expect that there might be some evidence behind these statements?


  • #1335
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    smacl wrote: »
    Not really, correlation is not causation. For the last statement to be true you'd need to prove that not cycling was the cause of death in the second group. Only sayin'...

    That's why you need a lot of participants, so that you get a big sample of most of the things that kill you. Then you can detect a decline in any of these between your cycling and non-cycling group. The larger your number of participants, the more likely you are to get a clear, albeit maybe small signal in all the noise of causes of premature death.

    The problem then is "confounding": is cycling just an indicator of some other attribute that prevents premature death, such as having a decent income. That might be the case in Ireland, but the effect is seen in China too. Been seen in quite a few countries now, I think.

    Sorry if you know all this already and I'm belabouring the obvious. It's just that you never really can "prove" causation in epidemiology. You can just make a very plausible case until there's a consensus that you're right. Actually, you can't really "prove" much in science generally.


  • #1336
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Some of the coverage of yesterday's event had a surgeon from the Mater telling us to wear helmets, hi-vis and not earphones.

    The conference had some evidence about helmets, but nothing about hi-vis and earphones. Is it too much to expect that there might be some evidence behind these statements?

    Even in the case of Gilchrist's work (which I have yet to read), it seems to be based on a model of what happens in a collision.

    So we have real-world statistics (the basis of Professor David Spiegelhalter's comment about the direct benefit of helmets being too modest to capture) saying one thing and models and case-control studies saying another.

    Which makes me think of a slogan for the RSA: That's all very well in practice, but what about in theory?


  • #1337
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Some of the coverage of yesterday's event had a surgeon from the Mater telling us to wear helmets, hi-vis and not earphones.

    The conference had some evidence about helmets, but nothing about hi-vis and earphones. Is it too much to expect that there might be some evidence behind these statements?

    The IT reported an increase in spinal injuries, but no recommendation about back protectors... maybe fluorescent clothing does the same thing if it has a falsified ce mark by some sweatshop in the far east...


  • #1338
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The consultant who put so much weight on the flimsy 2%/8% mismatch also is a useful reminder that you don't go to consultants to find out about stats.


  • #1339
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Actually, you can't really "prove" much in science generally.

    One school of thought is that you can't prove, you can only fail to falsify using the methods available - but now we are getting into whole different topic.


  • #1340
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    seamus wrote: »
    You're overthinking it really. They're looking at high-level stats, e.g.

    You control it by taking a large cross-section of society - all age ranges, all kinds of dietary habits, all kind of fitness habits.

    Take 1,000 people from who do X amount of cycling in a given week, call them "cyclists".
    Take 1,000 people who do less than this, call them "non-cyclists".

    Of the 1,000 cyclists, you find that in a given year 5 are killed in road collisions, and 20 die in hospital from causes unrelated to collisions.

    Of the 1,000 cyclists, 2 die from road collisions, but 40 die from other causes.

    So you can say that while your chances of death on the road raise from 0.2% to 0.5% as a cyclist, your chance of death off the road reduces from 4% to 2%.

    All figures illustrative, obviously :D

    The google translate of the above article gives;
    In other words, you see a reduction in hospital admissions amongst users of the bike-sharing scheme in general, even though you see a small increase for road collisions and pollutant-related diseases. Giving a net 12 people less in a given year who die in hospital.

    Thanks for the response.

    Do you actually believe such a survey exists and if so do you think it was the basis for the article that was linked, as it's pretty hard to find anything on the existing study other than the conclusions the article comes to.


  • #1341
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    That's why you need a lot of participants, so that you get a big sample of most of the things that kill you. Then you can detect a decline in any of these between your cycling and non-cycling group. The larger your number of participants, the more likely you are to get a clear, albeit maybe small signal in all the noise of causes of premature death.

    I think by dividing the population into cycling and non-cycling, and considering this a significant variable in cause of premature death, you've created a false dichotomy of sorts. Just because cycling as a healthy physical activity can prolong life, not cycling does not imply a lack of comparable but different healthy physical activity. So the assertion that cyclists live longer than non-cyclists would be considerably harder to support than say physically active people, such as cyclists, will live longer than physically inactive people. The variable affecting longevity here is taking the correct amount of exercise; cycling regularly makes you healthier sure, not cycling regularly says nothing much about you one way or the other.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The two presentations from the RSA event can be found linked within the text on this page:

    http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/Study-Finds-That-Bicycle-Helmets-Most-Effective-in-Low-Speed-Collisions/


  • #1343
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    smacl wrote: »
    The variable affecting longevity here is taking the correct amount of exercise; cycling regularly makes you healthier sure, not cycling regularly says nothing much about you one way or the other.

    I think that it's the nature of cycling that sets it apart from other ways of being active: nearly daily, not too strenuous

    For example.
    Those who used the bicycle as transportation to work (20% to 28% of the sample, according to educational status) experienced a much lower mortality rate even after adjustment for leisure time physical activity and sports participation
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1185.html


  • #1344
    Traumadoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    monument wrote: »
    The two presentations from the RSA event can be found linked within the text on this page:

    http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2015/Study-Finds-That-Bicycle-Helmets-Most-Effective-in-Low-Speed-Collisions/

    It does not say how many cyclists would have been saved if they wore a helmet?

    It is a very spun report.

    Any fatal cycling injuries I have been involved, with a cycle helmet would not have saved them.( in fact they were all wearing helmets).


  • #1345
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    It does not say how many cyclists would have been saved if they wore a helmet?

    It is a very spun report.

    Any fatal cycling injuries I have been involved, with a cycle helmet would not have saved them.( in fact they were all wearing helmets).

    They don't say because they can't possibly know.

    This is the nature of the pro-helmet argument. They focus on two cases. Firstly ones where a cyclist without a helmet dies, which are cited as cases where a helmet may have saved them (with no real account taken of the severity of the injuries). There is no way to tell if a helmet would have save a person in this situation but the assumption is that it would have. Then ones where a helmet wearing cyclist hits their head but doesn't die which are cited as cases where a helmet may have saved a life (I say may, but the common phrasing is "I certainly would have died if I hadn't been wearing my helmet"). There is of course no way to know if the person who hit their helmet would have died if they hadn't been wearing it.

    Cases where a cyclist does not receive serious injuries are ignored, as are ones where a cyclist is wearing a helmet and dies anyway.

    If you question how much benefit a helmet gives you are faced with "if it saves even one life surely it is worth it?". An argument which is deemed ridiculous when it is turned around and applied to car helmets, walking helmets and shower helmets.


  • #1346
    ODEON123
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭ODEON123


    Personally I think its personal preference and what kind of cycling do you do, if you cycle through heavy traffic or high traffic areas where the cycle track is on the road definitely wear a helmet because you are most likely going to get hit by a car, bus, lorry etc more then your going to crash into a wall or something

    Me personally I dont wear a helmet but i dont really ever cycle on the road or through an area where there is a high risk of getting knocked off, I mainly use my bike for going to the gym or just going around my area so never too far away from my house...:p


  • #1347
    Einstein?
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭Einstein?


    I know a few people who live to tell the tale only because of their helmet. I don't know anyone dead who lived to tell theirs though. Granted, they might have had a helmet - but there is that one family out there who's son/daughter/sister/brother/dad/mum isn't with them anymore whilst they could be had they been wearing a helmet. Those who argue that a helmet is useless need to go and present their arguments to that family, look them in eye and tell it with a straight face ... maybe then I'll find some credibility in all that camp.


    They're designed to protect your head - certain parts of it mostly; so yeah you can get hurt pretty bad and your helmet will be useless to you in that instant... but say that to the lad on the bike who checks his rear mechs or looks over the shoulder when the car or bus in front of him suddenly jams on the breaks.

    Personally, I don't wear a helmet cycling to work through the city, only when I go out 'to cycle' - long spins, with group, friends, new places, etc. I'm all for using a helmet to protect you, but I think it should be kept optional.


  • #1348
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Einstein? wrote: »
    I know a few people who live to tell the tale only because of their helmet. I don't know anyone dead who lived to tell theirs though. Granted, they might have had a helmet - but there is that one family out there who's son/daughter/sister/brother/dad/mum isn't with them anymore whilst they could be had they been wearing a helmet. Those who argue that a helmet is useless need to go and present their arguments to that family, look them in eye and tell it with a straight face ... maybe then I'll find some credibility in all that camp.

    Actually this is exactly what needs to happen. Bereaved families need to be given honest and open information regarding the limitations of helmets. In many cases a helmet would have made no difference - why should the family have their sense of loss deepened by being told a piece of polystyrene packing foam has "life saving" properties?

    I should point out that there are plenty of people out there who are quite happy to exploit the grief and credulity of bereaved relatives. Who are happy to go to them and tell them that a piece of polystyrene has "life saving" properties. People who are happy to exploit grieving families and use them to push a political agenda that seems to as much about victim-blaming and pushing car-culture as it is about head injuries.

    And many of us who are sceptical of helmets would have no problem explaining the limitations to families - but we are honourable people - we have enough sense of personal embarrassment not to go out of our way to intrude on peoples grief. Is that supposed to be a failing?


  • #1349
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Einstein? wrote: »
    I know a few people who live to tell the tale only because of their helmet. I don't know anyone dead who lived to tell theirs though. Granted, they might have had a helmet - but there is that one family out there who's son/daughter/sister/brother/dad/mum isn't with them anymore whilst they could be had they been wearing a helmet. Those who argue that a helmet is useless need to go and present their arguments to that family, look them in eye and tell it with a straight face ... maybe then I'll find some credibility in all that camp.


    They're designed to protect your head - certain parts of it mostly; so yeah you can get hurt pretty bad and your helmet will be useless to you in that instant... but say that to the lad on the bike who checks his rear mechs or looks over the shoulder when the car or bus in front of him suddenly jams on the breaks.

    Personally, I don't wear a helmet cycling to work through the city, only when I go out 'to cycle' - long spins, with group, friends, new places, etc. I'm all for using a helmet to protect you, but I think it should be kept optional.

    Can't we have a rational debate without all the emotive hyperbolic crap? Is that too much to ask? Really?

    And you do realise that cyclists die while wearing helmets too right? And not because their other injuries were so severe, but simply because the helmet did not protect them in what would generally be considered to be an otherwise "minor" collision. Helmets are not magic, sometimes they help and sometimes they don't. Those deaths are also tragedies, and using them to argue that *no-one* should wear a helmet is as distasteful as the emotional blackmail your post is filled with.


  • #1350
    Einstein?
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭Einstein?


    Both of ye lads must have misread my post.

    I know this from my mates who have been involved in serious cycling accidents. This is my personal opinion.. if you think it's crap then don't get your knickers in a twist.

    Go on have your discussion or more like get accused of blackmail because I shared my own personal view??? ... I was only throwing my 2 cents in the hat, and I do stand by my views which I think are only logical in my opinion.

    • People have fatal accidents cycling with AND without helmets.
    • People survive accidents with AND without helmets.
    • People (some) have lived on BECAUSE THEY WORE A HELMET (like my mate did).
    • People (some) who have had fatal accidents COULD have survived had they been wearing a helmet.


    Based on this and this alone.... helmets are NOT useless. That's all I was saying.



    All this technical stuff is all well and good and I see nothing against it, although I do think making any sort of experiments to assess the effectiveness of a helmet are extremely difficult to control due to the many variables involved, and setting for each variable. This large degree of variability is to some extent the cause of this debate... which again is all well and good... but helmets are not useless.


    And what :eek: are helmet ''skeptics'' ... lads this isn't is God real or did we land on the moon ... this is a cycling helmet we're talking about, it saves people, not all of them, just like seatbelts don't save everyone (I know, bad comparison but it's too late to think straight) . And on my last post about coming face to face... again I challenge you, because it's all well and good writing on this thread about it and coming back at me with internet farts (blackmail? seriously dude?!) but preaching that helmets are useless is nonsense and SOME (not all) families know it best. My mate who survived and his family sure do, they bought him a really expensive helmet after his old one took the fractures he would have sustained to his skull, cracking the helmet into several pieces. It didn't stop the glass from scarring his nose & chin, but it saved him from much further injury and possibly brain damage/death.


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Einstein? wrote: »
    Both of ye lads must have misread my post.

    I know this from my mates who have been involved in serious cycling accidents. This is my personal opinion.. if you think it's crap then don't get your knickers in a twist.

    Go on have your discussion or more like get accused of blackmail because I shared my own personal view??? ... I was only throwing my 2 cents in the hat, and I do stand by my views which I think are only logical in my opinion.

    • People have fatal accidents cycling with AND without helmets.
    • People survive accidents with AND without helmets.
    • People (some) have lived on BECAUSE THEY WORE A HELMET (like my mate did).
    • People (some) who have had fatal accidents COULD have survived had they been wearing a helmet.


    Based on this and this alone.... helmets are NOT useless. That's all I was saying.



    All this technical stuff is all well and good and I see nothing against it, although I do think making any sort of experiments to assess the effectiveness of a helmet are extremely difficult to control due to the many variables involved, and setting for each variable. This large degree of variability is to some extent the cause of this debate... which again is all well and good... but helmets are not useless.


    And what :eek: are helmet ''skeptics'' ... lads this isn't is God real or did we land on the moon ... this is a cycling helmet we're talking about, it saves people, not all of them, just like seatbelts don't save everyone (I know, bad comparison but it's too late to think straight) . And on my last post about coming face to face... again I challenge you, because it's all well and good writing on this thread about it and coming back at me with internet farts (blackmail? seriously dude?!) but preaching that helmets are useless is nonsense and SOME (not all) families know it best. My mate who survived and his family sure do, they bought him a really expensive helmet after his old one took the fractures he would have sustained to his skull, cracking the helmet into several pieces. It didn't stop the glass from scarring his nose & chin, but it saved him from much further injury and possibly brain damage/death.

    Challenge accepted. Pm sent with contact details.


Advertisement