Another helmet press release

RobFowl

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=19360

Wearing a helmet while cycling reduces the risk of a head or brain injury by up to 88% should a collision occur, Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) Ireland has said.
The charity is highlighting this issue as part of National Bike Week, which runs until June 26. It emphasised that cyclists who ride their bikes without the protection of a helmet are putting themselves at risk of a serious injury.
"It makes me so angry when I hear people saying that wearing a helmet reduces the enjoyment of cycling. In actual fact, wearing a helmet reduces the risk of a head or brain injury by 65-88% should a collision occur.
"Anyone who has this attitude should come and visit one of our residences and see the terrible consequences and life-long injuries, which are suffered by people with an acquired brain injury as a result of a cycling accident," commented ABI Ireland chief executive, Barbara O'Connell.
She noted that as well as reducing the risk of brain injury, wearing a helmet will also reduce the severity of the injury by absorbing the impact from the collision. This in turn will reduce the amount of time a victim spends in recovery and rehabilitation.
Ms O'Connell also emphasised that it is not always the ‘drastic accidents' that lead to the most devastating consequences. Even a simple fall from a bike can lead to long-term brain injuries.
Meanwhile, according to Noel Brett, CEO of the Road Safety Authority (RSA), cyclists are vulnerable road users and ‘your bicycle will not protect you if there is a crash'.
"The law does not require you to wear a helmet. However, in the interest of road safety, and in your personal interest, you should wear a helmet at all times," he insisted.
Mr Brett added that when buying a helmet, you should look for a mark to show that it has been made to a recognised national standard and check that it does not restrict your field of vision or your hearing.
"When you own a helmet you should replace it when it is damaged or dropped, adjust the straps on your helmet to fit you correctly and always check the manufacturer's instructions."
ABI Ireland provides a range of services to some of the 10,000 people who suffer a head injury in Ireland every year. For more information, click here
For more information on National Bike Week 2011, click here

RobFowl

Some very questionable stats there !!

Captain Havoc

Does this mean I've to read the same horse manure that's produced here about helmets again? I'm starting to wonder if the hackers and cake is worth it.

Hail 2 Da Thief

RobFowl wrote: »

wearing a helmet reduces the risk of a head or brain injury by 65-88% should a collision occur.

How did they come up with this figure?

Korvanica

RobFowl wrote: »

Some very questionable stats there !!

64% of Statistics are made up on the spot so its probably one of those....

Lumen

"Noel Brett, CEO of the Road Safety Authority (RSA), cyclists are vulnerable road users and ‘your bicycle will not protect you if there is a crash'."

Thanks Noel. Until I read this press release I was of the opinion that an airbag would pop out of my Canyon's gaping headset-orifice, lovingly envelop my spinning body and gently deliver me to the kerbside.

"It makes me so angry when I hear people saying that wearing a helmet reduces the enjoyment of cycling. In actual fact, wearing a helmet reduces the risk of a head or brain injury by 65-88% should a collision occur. Anyone who has this attitude should come and visit one of our residences and see the terrible consequences and life-long injuries"

It makes me so angry when I hear people saying that pasteurising cheese and keeping it in the fridge reduces the enjoyment of eating it. In actual fact, pasteurisation and refrigeration reduce the risk of food poisioning substantially. So everyone should eat cold, tasteless cheese because I say so. In fact, I'm going to start a pressure group for mandatory pasteurisation and if anyone dares to disagree with me I'll force them to look at pictures of all the dead children who ate raw milk so they can realise how grossly irresponsible they are.

niceonetom

Does anyone know what kind of percentage of acquired brain injuries are the result of cycling crashes? As opposed to road accidents in general? Or falls in the home? Do strokes come under their remit?

I struggle to see why the ABI are making cycling helmets central to their efforts.

tomasrojo

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

How did they come up with this figure?

Case-control studies by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html

85/88% is a figure that even Thompson, Rivara and Thompson have conceded is a statistical error.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Thompson,_Rivara_and_Thompson_(1989)

In 1996, the authors adjusted their own assessment of the reduction in head injury by helmets to 69% [3], but the original figure is still the one that is widely quoted.

Even at that, the study's conclusions are not warranted by their shaky study design. But it's a nice big figure, so who cares.

Which is why I have concluded that Headway has no interest in informing themselves about this subject. They have their papers from 1989, and they're happy with them.

tomasrojo

niceonetom wrote: »

Does anyone know what kind of percentage of acquired brain injuries are the result of cycling crashes? As opposed to road accidents in general? Or falls in the home? Do strokes come under their remit?

I struggle to see why the ABI are making cycling helmets central to their efforts.

Someone on the forum at CTC said that 2% of Headway's UK clients were victims of a cycling injury, if I recall correctly. Of course, one post on an internet forum isn't a very good source. It would be interesting to ask them directly. I guarantee you this: it isn't a very high number.

tomasrojo

Interesting to see that the RSA is not including its claim this time that helmets halve the risk of dying on the road while cycling. We dealt with it here already, so I won't go into it again.

ROK ON

[QUOTE=Lumen;72868517
It makes me so angry when I hear people saying that pasteurising cheese and keeping it in the fridge reduces the enjoyment of eating it. In actual fact, pasteurisation and refrigeration reduce the risk of food poisioning substantially. So everyone should eat cold, tasteless cheese because I say so. In fact, I'm going to start a pressure group for mandatory pasteurisation and if anyone dares to disagree with me I'll force them to look at pictures of all the dead children who ate raw milk so they can realise how grossly irresponsible they are.[/QUOTE]


About fu*kin time that someone brought this up. This country is clueless about cheese.
Thank you.
You have done us a great service.

Here's to weeping, melting unctous stinky cheese.

tomasrojo

Just to bring something new to the debate:

Ian Walker tweeted
http://twitter.com/#!/ianwalker/status/81342054743015426
about his involvement with this.

http://www.cost.esf.org/domains_actions/tud/Actions/TU1101

"Cycling is an excellent sustainable alternative to driving. Cyclists have few safety options, of which a helmet is one. However, there are strong indications that law-mediated increases of helmet usage for cyclists cause confounding factors which temper the positive effect of these helmets on head and brain injury. Furthermore, current helmet design is suboptimal. Since several fields are important to bicycle helmet optimization, a combined effort involving all of these is necessary; so that a given parameter is not optimized at the cost of another. Finally, the attitudes of cyclist towards helmets will be focused upon; providing tools for improving helmet usage. The multidisciplinary approach respects the complex nature of the issue, it is unique in Europe, and will provide more complete information to legislators, manufacturers, end-users, and scientists, ultimately leading to increased safety for cyclists."

Ian Walker mentions on Twitter, in a response to a question, that he hopes it will also engage with why emphasis is placed on bicycle helmets when cycling isn't associated with unusually high rates of head injury.

EDIT: I'm quite interested to see them mention that the current helmet designs are sub-optimal. I have thought this for some time. The liners are too stiff, the helmet is too rugby-ball-shaped, possibly exacerbating neck injuries on impact (compare a soccer ball bouncing with a rugby ball), and the vents don't seem to improve ventilation all that much, while also possibly increasing the risk of catching on the road surface.

Cookie_Monster

once again unto the breach...

removing trucks and buses from the roads would cut cycling deaths by a huge amount, lets do that. Save far more lives than mandatory helmet use!

ednwireland

tomasrojo wrote: »

Someone on the forum at CTC said that 2% of Headway's UK clients were victims of a cycling injury, if I recall correctly. Of course, one post on an internet forum isn't a very good source. It would be interesting to ask them directly. I guarantee you this: it isn't a very high number.

thanks i was wondering that

i'm still amazed i got to this age since i didnt get my first helmet untiil i started mtb'ing in my 20's :eek:

tomasrojo

While we're having a helmet thread, I'll take the chance to point out that, having watched a lot of children's TV in the last year, I have come to the conclusion that there is a lot of explicit and implicit helmet promotion for children, but nobody seems to care whether the children are wearing the helmets correctly. Virtually none of the children shown wearing helmets is wearing the helmet correctly. Usually very loose, and pushed back on the head.

Vélo

ROK ON wrote: »

About fu*kin time that someone brought this up. This country is clueless about cheese.
Thank you.
You have done us a great service.

Here's to weeping, melting unctous stinky cheese.

mmmm Easi Singles

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

...but nobody seems to care whether the children are wearing the helmets correctly. Virtually none of the children shown wearing helmets is wearing the helmet correctly. Usually very loose, and pushed back on the head.

It's not just kids:

Undercover Elephant

tomasrojo wrote: »

While we're having a helmet thread, I'll take the chance to point out that, having watched a lot of children's TV in the last year, I have come to the conclusion that there is a lot of explicit and implicit helmet promotion for children, but nobody seems to care whether the children are wearing the helmets correctly. Virtually none of the children shown wearing helmets is wearing the helmet correctly. Usually very loose, and pushed back on the head.

I noticed that too - I think that's so you can see their faces and/or light them properly. Same reason you rarely see hats on the children, even if there's half a bottle of suncream smeared on their noses.

Of course it could just be that the producers don't actually know how you're supposed to wear a helmet.

Undercover Elephant

Mind Your Head!
Don't be a fool, it's not un-cool
Wear a helmet!

George Orwell wrote:

A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.

Don't get me started on the comma.

Cookie_Monster

The Road Safety Authority figures show that between 1997 and 2009, a total of 175 bicyclists died on the roads, but many of these deaths could have been avoided if people had been wearing a helmet.

Ah, vegetable for life rather than killed outright. Hmmm which would you choose

(ok, a bit extreme)

cantalach

I don't always agree with the analysis of people like Mr Brett and Ms O'Connell. Nevertheless, I accept their bona fides and recognise that their intentions are good, if sometimes misplaced. I think some people in this forum could do with reflecting on that.

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

........

It makes me so angry when I hear people saying that pasteurising cheese and keeping it in the fridge reduces the enjoyment of eating it. In actual fact, pasteurisation and refrigeration reduce the risk of food poisioning substantially. So everyone should eat cold, tasteless cheese because I say so. In fact, I'm going to start a pressure group for mandatory pasteurisation and if anyone dares to disagree with me I'll force them to look at pictures of all the dead children who ate raw milk so they can realise how grossly irresponsible they are.

Too late - raw unpastuerised milk has laready been taken care of!!........

"The draft legal instrument to introduce this ban is at an advanced stage. Officials from my Department have been in consultation with the Department of Health and Children with a view to implementing the ban by means of a Statutory Instrument under the Health Act of 1947 (as amended).

Russman

cantalach wrote: »

I don't always agree with the analysis of people like Mr Brett and Ms O'Connell. Nevertheless, I accept their bona fides and recognise that their intentions are good, if sometimes misplaced. I think some people in this forum could do with reflecting on that.

+1 to that

I was hit by a car a few weeks ago while cycling and my helmet definitely saved me from a serious injury, my head hit the road, I was knocked out, and the helmet was cracked open, you can see the indented pattern of the tarmac on the helmet. I daren't think about the outcome had I not been wearing it.

That said, some of the apparently random stats do nothing for the argument really. Wearing a helmet is not a rule that could ever be enforced so its best to use education and let people make their choices.

petethedrummer

cantalach wrote: »

I don't always agree with the analysis of people like Mr Brett and Ms O'Connell. Nevertheless, I accept their bona fides and recognise that their intentions are good, if sometimes misplaced. I think some people in this forum could do with reflecting on that.

So I reflected on it and I still wish they would take their good intentions and shove them.

Lemag

Lumen wrote: »

It makes me so angry when I hear people saying that pasteurising cheese and keeping it in the fridge reduces the enjoyment of eating it. In actual fact, pasteurisation and refrigeration reduce the risk of food poisioning substantially. So everyone should eat cold, tasteless cheese because I say so. In fact, I'm going to start a pressure group for mandatory pasteurisation and if anyone dares to disagree with me I'll force them to look at pictures of all the dead children who ate raw milk so they can realise how grossly irresponsible they are.

I see what you did there

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

once again unto the breach...

removing trucks and buses from the roads would cut cycling deaths by a huge amount, lets do that. Save far more lives than mandatory helmet use!

But a lot of our nice shiny bike bits come in trucks.

Kav0777

Jawgap wrote: »

Too late - raw unpastuerised milk has laready been taken care of!!........

"The draft legal instrument to introduce this ban is at an advanced stage. Officials from my Department have been in consultation with the Department of Health and Children with a view to implementing the ban by means of a Statutory Instrument under the Health Act of 1947 (as amended).

Does that mean we now have to wear a helmet when eating cheese?

tomasrojo

cantalach wrote: »

I don't always agree with the analysis of people like Mr Brett and Ms O'Connell. Nevertheless, I accept their bona fides and recognise that their intentions are good, if sometimes misplaced. I think some people in this forum could do with reflecting on that.

To be fair to Noel Brett, he makes safety-related announcements on all modes of transport, since that is his job. I know his use of statistics is occasionally incorrect (such as his use of risk ratios, back in the spring), but I wouldn't accuse him of misleading anyone.

Headway, not so much. They deliberately lump together, obfuscate and confound, because they are hell-bent on getting mandatory helmet laws passed.

Joeyde

I've also had a crash and cracked my helmet, just above my left eye. Came down hard, helmet was in pieces. I didn't go back out again until I purchased another one.

It is a personal choice but I wont go out on the road without one.

Cookie_Monster

Lemag wrote: »

But a lot of our nice shiny bike bits come in trucks.

we can replace them with horse cyclist drawn wagons, thus reducing emissions and deaths, providing lots more employment and increasing cyclist numbers. Fool proof way of ending the recession I tells ya!

Lumen

Jawgap wrote: »

Too late - raw unpastuerised milk has laready been taken care of!!........

"The draft legal instrument to introduce this ban is at an advanced stage. Officials from my Department have been in consultation with the Department of Health and Children with a view to implementing the ban by means of a Statutory Instrument under the Health Act of 1947 (as amended).

They can have my cheese WHEN THEY TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!

TinyExplosions

cantalach wrote: »

I don't always agree with the analysis of people like Mr Brett and Ms O'Connell. Nevertheless, I accept their bona fides and recognise that their intentions are good, if sometimes misplaced. I think some people in this forum could do with reflecting on that.

I'd 'accept' their bona fides more if they weren't misquoting the statistics that are out there

Russman wrote: »

+1 to that

I was hit by a car a few weeks ago while cycling and my helmet definitely saved me from a serious injury, my head hit the road, I was knocked out, and the helmet was cracked open, you can see the indented pattern of the tarmac on the helmet. I daren't think about the outcome had I not been wearing it.

You see, this is the core of the problem. Without some serious forensic analysis, you cannot say for sure that the helmet saved you from serious injury. It's just as valid in fact to say that it was the rigidity of the helmet that transmitted the force of hitting the ground into your head, and caused you to black out. If you weren't wearing a helmet, your shoulder might have hit the ground first, and you would have had less of a blow to the head.

No, unfortunately, the wearing of a helmet, or lack thereof seems to be touted as the only reason someone involved in an accident escaped/sustained a serious injury. It's all bullshit stuff that has little to no basis in fact.

Brett and O'Connell could go on about far more pressing concerns for cyclists, or even put their time into training or talking about ways to stay safe on the bike, but harping on and on about helmets doesn't do anyone any good

Chips Lovell

Many years ago I was at a party in some student flat on Baggot Street. Someone who lived there had a big stone as a paperweight up on a shelf. It fell off the shelf and onto my head, splitting my head open.

These days I never go to a house party without a helmet.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

Many years ago I was at a party in some student flat on Baggot Street. Someone who lived there had a big stone as a paperweight up on a shelf. It fell off the shelf and onto my head, splitting my head open.

Getting dangerously stoned is always a risk at a student party.

Bluefoam

One Christmas I was walking along an icy path behind an RTE Television reporter. I slipped in the ice and was humiliated by the YouTube coverage that emerged after...

Now I never go on television without wearing a helmet and some padded underwear.

C3PO

TinyExplosions wrote: »

You see, this is the core of the problem. Without some serious forensic analysis, you cannot say for sure that the helmet saved you from serious injury. It's just as valid in fact to say that it was the rigidity of the helmet that transmitted the force of hitting the ground into your head, and caused you to black out. If you weren't wearing a helmet, your shoulder might have hit the ground first, and you would have had less of a blow to the head.

No, unfortunately, the wearing of a helmet, or lack thereof seems to be touted as the only reason someone involved in an accident escaped/sustained a serious injury. It's all bullshit stuff that has little to no basis in fact.

Brett and O'Connell could go on about far more pressing concerns for cyclists, or even put their time into training or talking about ways to stay safe on the bike, but harping on and on about helmets doesn't do anyone any good

I'm not really sure where I stand on the compulsory wearing of bike helmets but surely common sense will tell you that in the vast majority of "head impacts" you would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one? I simply don't accept that you could be safer not wearing a helmet except in very unusual cirmumstances! It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

tomasrojo

I like the tag this thread has!

"not this sh!t again"

Lumen

RPL1 wrote: »

It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

7,000 people die from smoking related disease in Ireland every year (source).

How many people die from unhelmeted cycling?

The point is not whether it's safer, the point is whether the advocation is in any way proportionate to the risk.

Cycling deaths are almost all avoidable accidents caused by poor cycling skills, driving skills and/or infrastructure (road design etc). So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

Because they're idiots.

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

because it's a cheap and effective way to draw attention to themselves and promote their agenda

tomasrojo

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm not really sure where I stand on the compulsory wearing of bike helmets but surely common sense will tell you that in the vast majority of "head impacts" you would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one? I simply don't accept that you could be safer not wearing a helmet except in very unusual cirmumstances! It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

It's interesting that you mention smoking and lung cancer, since the initial evidence for that link came from case-control studies. The tobacco lobby said that case-control studies were hardly definitive evidence -- and that is true, though they were saying so out of expediency. Then other forms of evidence, based on large populations, followed and they corroborated the case-control studies.

Evidence from large populations in relation to bicycle helmets has been available for years now, and it does not corroborate the case-control studies at all; generally, no change in head injury rates is seen when large numbers of cyclists start wearing helmets.

C3PO

tomasrojo wrote: »

Evidence from large populations in relation to bicycle helmets has been available for years now, and it does not corroborate the case-control studies at all; generally, no change in head injury rates is seen when large numbers of cyclists start wearing helmets.

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

They can have my cheese WHEN THEY TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!

keeping eating unpasteurised cheese and we will be prising it from your cold dead hand.:)

Isn't this really a question of personal choice rather than the nanny state dictating our behaviour?

some people like cheese - some don't.

some prefer to eat cheap cheese (like Easi-singles) and even buy their cheese from Aldi or Lidl when they have specials on.

others like smelly French stuff that's difficult to get and must ordered over the internet.

Euro-style is the key ingredient for some, hence the demand for Parmesan

and a lot of us our just happy with a bit of cheddar - nothing fancy, but it does the job.

.....bit like bike helmets really

mcgratheoin

Lumen wrote: »

Cycling deaths are almost all avoidable accidents caused by poor cycling skills, driving skills and/or infrastructure (road design etc). So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

+1 Any H&S person will tell you that PPE gear is the last resort and the least important facet of safety. That's why there are courses such as safepass etc., rather than just cocooning workers in a big protective shell.

@RPL1
The argument made by most people on boards is that money spent on compulsory helmet advocacy would be much more effective if spent on cycling education (for all road users).

Lumen

RPL1 wrote: »

are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact?

No, he's saying that no change in head injury rates is seen when large numbers of cyclists start wearing helmets. :pac:

tomasrojo

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

That's a good question. These large studies don't say anything about individuals, any more than Boyle's Law can tell you much about an individual gas molecule. The failure of a protective effect to show up in the population-level studies could be for one of many reasons -- one of which could be that the protective effect of helmets is too small to be measured by the studies in question. Other possibilities are that most people don't use helmets properly, or that they take more risks when wearing helmets, or that motorists take more risks around helmet-wearers. Or some combination of all of the above.

The wikipedia page has a good summary of the strengths and weaknesses of both case-control and population-level studies, if you really are interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

TinyExplosions

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm not really sure where I stand on the compulsory wearing of bike helmets but surely common sense will tell you that in the vast majority of "head impacts" you would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one? I simply don't accept that you could be safer not wearing a helmet except in very unusual cirmumstances! It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

No need to apologise mate!

I'm not saying that you are safer not wearing a helmet at all, because it may well lessen injuries, in the same way that wearing knee, elbow and wrist pads could lessen injuries in a fall.

The problem I (and many others on here I think) have, is the "I fell off my bike and hit my head, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I'd be dead" camp, as you cannot say for sure that the helmet saved your life. This is a very common thought in the eyes of the public and (worse in my view), the medical profession, and isn't backed up by any studies, or any basis in fact.

It all comes down to personal choice at the end of the day, and if you feel safer in a helmet, then fine, nobody here is going to give out to you (or anyone) for wearing one, but the spouting of "Helmets save lives, if you don't wear one you're an idiot" by people (not yourself though) is a silly argument, and should be ignored. Make your choice, live with it and get one with your life, just don't tell me what to do!

fenris

Helmets and it's not even Friday!

will someone think of the nazi's they had helmets sometimes and so did everybody else sometimes, did I mention nazi's?

What was that Mr Goodwin, "move along, nothing to see" was it?

TinyExplosions

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

What I'm really saying is that it's next to impossible to tell, as there are no conclusive studies, and the range of accidents are so great as to render most studies useless.

In certain cases, wearing of a helmet will lessen injuries. In certain cases, wearing a helmet may increase the risk of injury (to do with the increased circumference of your head when a helmet is on causing an increase in angle between your neck and the ground in certain low speed crashes). In certain cases, wearing a helmet will have no bearing whatsoever on the extent of your injuries (the tragic death of Wouter Weylandt in the Giro being an example of this). In certain cases, wearing a helmet will have no major bearing on the severity of injury.

So, in 1 out of 4 cases, a helmet will lessen injuries. Now you need to figure out the likelihood of crashing, and the likelihood of that crash being that specific case where helmet use reduces injury, subtract from that the likelihood of the crash being one in which your risk of injury is raised by wearing a helmet, and figure out if it's therefore worth wearing a helmet.

Or go with your gut instinct, but again, don't tell others what they should do, as they may have simply come to a different conclusion

Bluefoam

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

I think that there is a consensus that a helmet can protect you from a mild injury & that the chances of that happening are mild compared with the need to wear a helmet every time you get on a bike.

The chances of a helmet saving your life in an impact are rare. In fact most fatal accidents on Irish roads (close to 99% as far as I know) are caused by massive traumas involving HGV's, in which case a helmet would be of no use. There was a very unfortunate case last year of an elderly man who was hit by a car driven by his son, in this case the use of a helmet would arguably been useless.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Cycling deaths are almost all avoidable accidents caused by poor cycling skills, driving skills and/or infrastructure (road design etc). So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

After a demonstration of truly moronic and obnoxious driving recently, which threatened to take out my wife and our daughter that she was towing by trailer, the daft bint of a driver concerned told my wife that she [my wife] was putting our daughter at risk by transporting her by bike/trailer. Apparently it's not the behaviour of people that is the source of all safety concerns, it's that us cyclists are allergic to large metal objects. Presumably the solution then is to fight this allergy by increased exposure to the irritant. Cyclists should wear helmets during this phase to minimise the splatter effect on the irritant/vehicles.

It's the kind of "logic" that goes on to suggest that all flying insects should be fitted with helmets too, to keep them safe when they inevitably collide with a windscreen.

tomasrojo

I'm very sorry to hear that, doozerie.

tomasrojo

Bluefoam wrote: »

I think that there is a consensus that a helmet can protect you from a mild injury

Actually, that's another potential explanation for the failure of the protective effect to show up in population-level studies: the injuries that can be mitigated are too mild to require hospitalisation or medical treatment, so they don't generally show up in the national statistics.