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

HivemindXX · 15-11-2014 10:57pm

ROK ON wrote: »

You know I found the theory difficult to believe, however I spent a bit of time working in Milan. Man junctions have no lights and yet traffic simply flows. This is Italy - a place renowned for inconsiderate driving. If it can work in a large contested Italian City then surely it could be considered here.
I mentioned this to a mate of mine who is a local politician. He responded that they had considered it but the council legal officer and insurance company warned against it -that's what we are up against.

I've seen this idea before and I think it's interesting. However my experience whenever I come to a junction where the traffic lights are out really makes me question it.

I have no doubt that we overuse traffic lights and there are plenty of junctions that would be better served by four way stop signs, however I find it difficult to believe that if you took away the traffic lights on the Grand Canal people would suddenly stop blocking the junctions.

On the other hand I often tell foreigners that they need to be careful when crossing the road. To some Irish drivers a green light means go and that's the end of that, they won't slow down approaching a junction and there is a good chance they won't notice if a pedestrian is still crossing. I guess the point of this approach to traffic management is less green lights (which mean engage accelerator and disengage brain) and more slow down and think when approaching a junction.

CramCycle · 17-11-2014 12:59pm

Maybe something along the lines of camera and yellow box enforcement. I was surprised at how well it worked but have to say, from experience abroad, we have alot of road users with no manners which may make the system fail. Lights will be needed for minor onto major roads (eg taking a right across a national road in a place renowned for heavy traffic) but there are junctions where a camera and a flashing amber (like the UK zebra crossings) should be sufficient.

galwaycyclist · 17-11-2014 1:20pm

RayCun wrote: »

That's a red herring.
Children in areas of social deprivation are more likely to be injured in traffic - yes, for obvious reasons.
The NEJM of medicine did not reason
- children in areas of social deprivation are more likely to be injured
- children in these areas are less likely to wear helmets
- therefore helmets good

They found that, of those people treated for head injuries, people without helmets were more likely to have serious head injuries.

Writing this off because it is in a medical journal, and offering no critique of the methodology beyond that!, is a fine example of HISS.
(head in sand syndrome)

if the NEJM writers said "we found cyclists without helmets were more likely to have serious head injuries THEREFORE government should make helmet wearing and hi-vis use mandatory!" you could argue that they are moving too far from their area of expertise, and they should be aware of all the other things that affect safety etc etc etc. But that doesn't mean you should write off medical research because the people who carried it out were only doctors.

Actually no in my view it is highly applicable to the underlying method of the original NEJM paper.

The authors of the NEJM paper compared two groups of cyclists. One group was the general population of injured cyclists the other group were injured cyclists who were members of a health insurance co-operative either directly or via their parents.

The NEJM authors found that the people with health insurance were more likely to wear helmets and also seemed to show lower injury severity. The latter finding was attributed to the first observation.

The problem is that, in the US particularly, the membership of a health insurance scheme is likely to be indicative of family income and social status.

Do you see the problem?

In any case the NEJM paper has been comprehensively criticised for a range of methodological failings.

I wouldn't write off anything simply because it was in a medical journal - but if I am asked to accept that someone is an expert in cycling safety because they hold a medical degree then don't be surprised if the answer is negative.

And yes Thompson, Thompson and Rivara - the original authors of the NEJM paper have been at the forefront of efforts to bring in mandatory helmet wearing legislation.

Par1 · 04-12-2014 12:02am

CatFromHue wrote: »

Bikestore.ie have some more affordable MIPS helmets. The ones I saw on other sites would be very high end and so very expensive helmets.

http://www.bikestore.ie/catalogsearch/result/?q=mips&x=0&y=0

Cheers that is a very interesting site..thank you, il check them out - very good prices also.

Also thank you all above for feedback its much appreciated

equivariant · 09-12-2014 9:03pm

Anyone tried one of these?

http://www.hovding.com/

Kinet1c · 09-12-2014 9:49pm

Santa's bringing a Catlike Whisper Plus Deluxe, looking forward to getting rid of the scrub Bell helmet I have.

CatFromHue · 10-12-2014 1:09am

equivariant wrote: »

Anyone tried one of these?

http://www.hovding.com/

300euro each so way out of my league

CatFromHue · 10-12-2014 1:12am

Kinet1c wrote: »

Santa's bringing a Catlike Whisper Plus Deluxe, looking forward to getting rid of the scrub Bell helmet I have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIOtZ5TYhI

Koobcam · 15-12-2014 4:43pm

There surely must be some sort of thread on this, but I can;t find it. Anyway, just read this article in the Examiner which basically argues that we should have a law which makes the wearing of a helmet while cycling compulsory. I have mixed views on this. What do people think?

mcgratheoin · 15-12-2014 4:45pm

where's that Michael Jackson gif.....

Chips Lovell · 15-12-2014 4:46pm

Koobcam wrote: »

There surely must be some sort of thread on this?

Yep, there is

tomasrojo · 15-12-2014 5:36pm

Little style or coherence in that article. Still, if you want excerpts from things recently written about helmets all jumbled together without alteration, this is for you.

tomasrojo · 15-12-2014 5:42pm

Actually, some new bits there, to me at least:

The most recent (2013) observational study of over 17,000 cyclists conducted nationally on behalf of the RSA showed that just over one in two (52%) were observed wearing a helmet.

A sub-sample of cyclists participating in the Dublin City Bike Scheme was also included in the study, and much lower rates of helmet wearing were observed (7%).

First time helmet wearers a majority in a study here.

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.

Ruining moderators' Christmases.

CramCycle · 15-12-2014 5:49pm

A sub-sample of cyclists participating in the Dublin City Bike Scheme was also included in the study, and much lower rates of helmet wearing were observed (7%).

??? I am surprised it is above 0.1% (or even close to it), I would heavily dispute any findings of that report.

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.

50kmph is a low speed collision now

In Canada the bicycle-related head injury rate declined significantly (45%) in provinces where legislation had been adopted, compared with areas that did not adopt legislation.

Along with a significant drop in cyclist numbers, I wonder is it related?

There is only one small part of the article that explores the other side, but it doesn't go into any depth and bookends it with a quote from acquired brain injury ireland. I feel sorry for myself that I skimmed through that woeful piece of click bait.

tomasrojo · 15-12-2014 5:51pm

CramCycle wrote: »

50kmph is a low speed collision now

I thought that was curious too.

CramCycle · 15-12-2014 6:05pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I thought that was curious too.

I thought the 7% observed helmet use with Dublin Bikes was the most astounding, in fact, I'd go as far as to call shenanigans on such a claim.

Iwannahurl · 22-12-2014 12:09pm

Garda Ashling Connor was awarded the Emergency Services ‘Leading Light in Road Safety’ award. As a result of complaints from the public in relation to young people cycling in the Ratoath area, Garda Connor invited young people in Ratoath N.S. to contribute ideas to help alleviate this problem. The pupils developed and introduced a ‘cycling licence’ whereby they identified three golden rules in relation to cycle safety which all pupils should abide by. These are: 1.Always wear a helmet, 2. Dismount the bike when entering the school, and 3. Always obey the Safe Cross Code.

See more at: http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/roundup/articles/2014/12/12/4034519-three-meath-leading-lights-awards-for-road-safety-/#sthash.Kg2gUBrI.dpuf

Leaving aside the fact that one of the above "golden rules" concerns the school yard, making the roads safer for child cyclists is a cinch: make the children personally responsible for their safety. Job done.

CatFromHue · 22-12-2014 1:32pm

It makes sense to me......if you abide by those rules only you're going to need a helmet

galwaycyclist · 22-12-2014 2:10pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought the 7% observed helmet use with Dublin Bikes was the most astounding, in fact, I'd go as far as to call shenanigans on such a claim.

Would these be the same Dublin Bikes users that the RSA criticised for not using hi-viz even though 100% of them are using daytime (and even nighttime) running lights?

monument · 22-12-2014 3:35pm

CramCycle wrote: »

50kmph is a low speed collision now

It explains the court reports I've read where collisions are "at low speed" or where "no speeding was involved" -- anything below the standard urban limit is grand regardless of the conditions.

Beasty · 22-12-2014 5:35pm

CramCycle wrote: »

50kmph is a low speed collision now

Jeez!! - took me 3 attempts before I managed to crash at that speed - must try harder:pac:

tomasrojo · 22-12-2014 5:38pm

I guess the 50km/h must be the speed of the car colliding with the cyclist. I guess the RSA is preparing for another media campaign on helmets, with this research from UCD as the jewel in the crown: helmets useful even when struck at speeds common in urban areas.

check_six · 22-12-2014 6:29pm

Would it be fair to say that if 1500KG+ of steel runs into you at 13m/s you are going to have a very unpleasant experience regardless of your polystyrene hat?

To try to infer that you'll be okay if you have a helmet is kind of disgraceful in my opinion, yet that is the top tip that comes out of the RSA.

What's the actual rating for a helmet? Effective for a portion of your body weight (say 20KG to be generous) hitting the ground from a standing start at about 5m/s. That's grand if you topple off your bike while doing a track stand, but fleck all use if there is any other party involved, specifically a motor vehicle shaped party.

I cannot understand why they don't throw in some actual helpful advice while they are at it, it's not like they are short on media coverage.

- Maintain good situational awareness
- Check your brakes
- Get good lights

Three biggies in my opinion, but they hardly get a look in with all the helmet boosting and the hi-vis guff.

Bah!
Humbug!

Iwannahurl · 18-01-2015 8:17pm

Just found this report within the past hour. It's from the [URL="[URL]http://www.transportandhealth.org.uk/"]Transport[/URL] & Health Study Group[/URL] and dates back to March 2014. I don't believe it has been posted previously.

[URL="[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25568838"]The[/URL] role of bicycle sharing systems in normalising the image of cycling: An observational study of London cyclists[/URL].

Goodman et at, Journal of Transport & Health, March 2014

Bicycle sharing systems are increasingly popular around the world and have the potential to increase the visibility of people cycling in everyday clothing. This may in turn help normalise the image of cycling, and reduce perceptions that cycling is 'risky' or 'only for sporty people'.

This paper sought to compare the use of specialist cycling clothing between users of the London bicycle sharing system (LBSS) and cyclists using personal bicycles. To do this, we observed 3594 people on bicycles at 35 randomly-selected locations across central and inner London.

The 592 LBSS users were much less likely to wear helmets (16% vs. 64% among personal-bicycle cyclists), high-visibility clothes (11% vs. 35%) and sports clothes (2% vs. 25%). In total, 79% of LBSS users wore none of these types of specialist cycling clothing, as compared to only 30% of personal-bicycle cyclists. This was true of male and female LBSS cyclists alike (all p>0.25 for interaction).

We conclude that bicycle sharing systems may not only encourage cycling directly, by providing bicycles to rent, but also indirectly, by increasing the number and diversity of cycling 'role models' visible.

This paper, and its key message that cycling is a normal and healthy activity, ought to be circulated widely. Go forth and multiply.

Iwannahurl · 18-01-2015 8:23pm

By way of contrast to the positivity in the above paper, here's yet another example of US-style coercive healthism:

Helmet wearing among users of a public bicycle-sharing program in the district of columbia and comparable riders on personal bicycles.

Kraemer et al, American Journal of Public Health, August 2012.

Bicycle-sharing programs are increasingly popular and have the potential to increase physical activity and decrease air pollution, but anecdotal evidence suggests helmet use is lower among users of bicycle-sharing programs than cyclists on private bicycles. We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess helmet use among users of a bicycle-sharing program in Washington, DC. Helmet use was significantly lower among cyclists on shared bicycles than private bicycles, highlighting a need for targeted helmet promotion activities.

For "targeted health promotion activities" read "let's save those unhelmeted shared bike users from their own folly, whether they like it or not."

Unknown Soldier · 18-01-2015 8:44pm

Wow. What a long thread.

Having a helmet is better than not having one.

It's not rocket science.

RainyDay · 18-01-2015 8:44pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

By way of contrast to the positivity in the above paper, here's yet another example of US-style coercive healthism:

For "targeted health promotion activities" read "let's save those unhelmeted shared bike users from their own folly, whether they like it or not."

It's not unusual to find researchers who are great at research, but step outside of their own competency when they attempt to develop policy from their research.

CramCycle · 18-01-2015 11:40pm

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Wow. What a long thread.

Having a helmet is better than not having one.

It's not rocket science.

The thread covers a multitude of issues including, but not limited too the efficacy of helmets, their promotion (agree/disagree), what situations are they useful, positive attributes and negative attributes to name but a few.

It is not rocket science, but there are several sciences it involves, and not all are as sure as you.

magicbastarder · 19-01-2015 10:37am

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Having a helmet is better than not having one.

It's not rocket science.

do you wear a helmet at all times so (except maybe in bed)?

tomasrojo · 28-01-2015 5:27pm

Ben Goldacre discusses helmets at 1:12:45
http://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/188278861-britishcomedyguide-richard-herring-lst-podcast-61-ben-goldacre.mp3

(To save you downloading it if you don't want to, he says much the same as in the editorial in the BMJ published a while back: "it probably doesn't really make any real difference".)

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

Comments

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