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

RayCun

The study
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb160.html
is from 1997

the report
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html
was published in 2004, but as far as I can see is referencing the same study.
Both Australian sources, and both compare helmets to interior padding, side airbags and improved restraints.

I haven't read the full study, but the abstract and executive summary (and the text of the report in the second link) are clearly comparing helmets to padding

Results indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear.

If there is a report somewhere that says driver helmets are more effective than steering column airbags, I'd like to see that stated explicitly.

RayCun

side-note, but there is a big difference between design features - airbags, crumple zones, ABS - and features that require behaviour changes - seatbelts, speed limits, helmets - to be effective.

magicbastarder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnyhkBU1yaw

Iwannahurl

Government report on children's physical activity and health avoids helmet hysteria: http://www.growingup.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Conference_2012/GUI_KF_A4_2_obesity.pdf

bambergbike

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Government report on children's physical activity and health avoids helmet hysteria:http://www.growingup.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Conference_2012/GUI_KF_A4_2_obesity.pdf

While unfortunately also avoiding the entire topic of (active?) travel ... surely a report on physical activity among 13 year olds should report back on how they get around the place? Biking, walking, public transport (which usually involves some walking or biking) or being driven?

Iwannahurl

The above report focuses on key findings based on preliminary figures.

The GUI project has looked at school travel in at least one previous report: http://www.growingup.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Second_Child_Cohort_Reports/Growing_Up_in_Ireland_-_Overweight_and_Obesity_Among_9-Year-Olds.pdf

Iwannahurl

Brief case report in the New England Journal of Medicine (2010) showing how a patient in the Netherlands suffered severe problems with walking due to Parkinson's disease but retained his ability to cycle. The NEJM felt obliged to include a disclaimer with regard to the fact that the patient was not wearing a helmet: "The patient is not wearing a safety helmet because in the Netherlands, wearing a safety helmet is neither required by law nor customary."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm0810287

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaY3gz5tJSk

Foyler

Thanks for the link and vid IWH, very interesting and a welcome change from a lot of the BS in this thread.

Iwannahurl

Found these while looking for something cycling-related in Limerick. The second is the by now ubquitous politician's tick-box exercise. Still funny though, imo.

<snip>

Seweryn

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Found these while looking for something cycling-related in Limerick. The second is the by now ubquitous politician's tick-box exercise. Still funny though, imo.

"Some drivers don't know how to pass cyclists. It's a big safety concern..."

Who issued them driving licences in the first place?

Beasty

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Found these while looking for something cycling-related in Limerick. The second is the by now ubquitous politician's tick-box exercise. Still funny though, imo.

<snip>

Sorry but the copying of newspaper articles and other copyrighted material is not permitted on Boards. You are permitted to link to an online version (if one exists)

tomasrojo

Interesting development in Queensland. May go nowhere, of course.


Inquiry into Cycling Issues: Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee
November 2013

The Committee is appreciative of the fact that bicycle helmets, that meet national standards and are correctly fitted, provide some protection against head, brain, and facial injuries and is therefore of the view that the use of helmets should be encouraged. However the Committee is not convinced there is sufficient evidence of the safety outcomes of compulsory helmet wearing to justify the mandating of helmet wearing for all cyclists of all ages regardless of the situational risk.

The Committee is concerned that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws may have had an unintended, adverse impact on cycling participation rates in Queensland and therefore the overall health of the state. It also believes there is sufficient evidence provided by the Northern Territory example that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws in lower risk situations (such as cycling on footpaths and on dedicated cycle paths), does not inevitably reduce the safety of cycling.
The Committee is therefore of the view that relaxing mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances is likely to increase cycling participation rates with a range of associated health benefits and economic benefits in tourism areas. The Committee also believes that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws may assist in normalising the perception of cyclists by motorists.
The Committee is therefore making a number of recommendations regarding relaxation of the mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/THLGC/2013/INQ-CYC/rp-39-29Nov13.pdf

I think it's getting a negative response in official circles so far.

Iwannahurl

Found a reference to this on the ETSC website. It's a cycle helmet report published by MAPFRE, a Spanish insurance company.

http://www.fundacionmapfre.org/fundacion/en/road-safety/research/cyclists-helmet-research.jsp

Helmets, for cyclists but not for pedestrians or car occupants, were also mentioned in a recent road safety campaign.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2013/Vulnerable-Road-Users-Represent-70-Of-All-Brain-Injuries-As-A-Result-Of-A-Road-Collision/

NeedMoreGears

I've never heard of the Elvik or Corchane studies referenced on pages 7 and 8. They do (at least as summarised by MAPFRE) seem to suggest wearing a helmet is a good idea in terms of head injury reduction (possibly at the cost of increased neck injury).

Any of the members of the science community able to comment on the validity of the findings or otherwise?

I'd be grateful for comments regarding the injury reduction claims only ; i.e. not those claims re reduced participation rates, visibility issues etc etc

tomasrojo

I haven't looked at the PDF, and I don't have time, but Cochrane is presumaby the Cochrane Review, which purported to take an unbiased look at the best available evidence and summarise it. Unfortunately, the authors of the review decided that their own work and work very similar to it constituted the best available evidence, which means it's really rather lop-sided, consisting only of case-control studies.

Elvik is Rune Elvik, who is a distinguised researcher, from what I've read. He actually takes the Cochrane Review to task for omitting good-quality research and including poor-quality research in that very paper referenced. Of all the studies done in this area, Elvik's is the only one that can't be understood with undergraduate-standard statistics. For that reason, I can't comment on it, and neither, it seems, can many of the researchers in this area. I haven't seen any attempt to call it into question or discredit it.

If you take Elvik as being broadly true, I guess you can summarise it as:
* helmets have a modest protective effect, at the expense of increased risk of neck injury
* soft-shell helmets don't work as well as hard-shell helmets (this being based on the protective effect diminishing over time, and disappearing if you take later data in isolation)

Something recent about Elvik:
http://sciencenordic.com/bike-helmets-are-less-effective-we-think?utm_source=ScienceNordic.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d0875d123-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bb7f89ffc-6d0875d123-239715405

Not sure whether that's just a journalist playing catch-up on the research from a few years ago.

Unknown Soldier

I choose too wear one, bar the short trip through the estate to the shops.
I do it for the same reasons I wear a seat belt when driving and a hard hat when on site. There are a myriad of circumstances on a bike, in a car, on site, when nothing will save my life but there are those small instances where they all might make the possibility of a serious injury slightly less so. Depending on the type of accident, obviously.

Gorman700

How do lads find them uncomfortable and heavy, they adjust and are light as ****!! People are stupid not to wear them, try leather in your head off a step at 10mph, never mind 30!

Chips Lovell

Gorman700 wrote: »

...try leather in your head off a step at 10mph...

If I do it, should I put it on YouTube?

CramCycle

Gorman700 wrote: »

How do lads find them uncomfortable and heavy, they adjust and are light as ****!! People are stupid not to wear them, try leather in your head off a step at 10mph, never mind 30!

MOD VOICE: Please read the thread fully before commenting, there have been several opinons and reasons given for both sides of the argument on the yay or nay to wearing helmets. Do not respond to this post in thread, please PM me if you wish to discuss.

Seweryn

Gorman700 wrote: »

People are stupid not to wear them, try leather in your head off a step at 10mph, never mind 30!

Do you also put your helmet on when running or walking at 10mph?

Gorman700

Seweryn wrote: »

Do you also put your helmet on when running or walking at 10mph?

I'm not Rob Heffernan pal so a 10mph walk isn't my usual gig. Pair of **** knees too so on the bike, I stick it on ya!

BadCharlie

My self & my friend always put our Helmet on. One time as he was cycling along someone on the side of the road asked for the time. He looked down at his watch and looked left at the person to tell them the time. Before he knew it he had rammed the back bumper of a car with his wheel and put his head and helmet through the back window. On that day im sure my friend was quite happy that he put on the helmet before his ride.

I know a little off topic but found it funny. Was playing Hurling when the days you did not have to have a helmet on. And was going up for a ball which i won but the guy i was marking just slamed his hurley into the back of my head and i was split open. Went to hospital and the doctor said you should have been wearing a helmet, then you would not be cut up as you are today. I told him i infact was wearing a helmet...... he stops and looks at me and then says "just as well you had your helmet on" as he preceded to stich me up.

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

I haven't looked at the PDF, and I don't have time, but Cochrane is presumaby the Cochrane Review, which purported to take an unbiased look at the best available evidence and summarise it. Unfortunately, the authors of the review decided that their own work and work very similar to it constituted the best available evidence, which means it's really rather lop-sided, consisting only of case-control studies.

Elvik is Rune Elvik, who is a distinguised researcher, from what I've read. He actually takes the Cochrane Review to task for omitting good-quality research and including poor-quality research in that very paper referenced. Of all the studies done in this area, Elvik's is the only one that can't be understood with undergraduate-standard statistics. For that reason, I can't comment on it, and neither, it seems, can many of the researchers in this area. I haven't seen any attempt to call it into question or discredit it.

If you take Elvik as being broadly true, I guess you can summarise it as:
* helmets have a modest protective effect, at the expense of increased risk of neck injury
* soft-shell helmets don't work as well as hard-shell helmets (this being based on the protective effect diminishing over time, and disappearing if you take later data in isolation)

Something recent about Elvik:
http://sciencenordic.com/bike-helmets-are-less-effective-we-think?utm_source=ScienceNordic.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d0875d123-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bb7f89ffc-6d0875d123-239715405

Not sure whether that's just a journalist playing catch-up on the research from a few years ago.

Agree re the Cochrane reviewers citing a number of their own studies. I'm told (by someone who has done training in Cochrane methodology) that it's acceptable practice, but to me it's an obvious flaw. Human nature being what it is, the authors are not going to omit their own studies on the basis that they're flawed.

Elvik is an authority that I would trust (fwiw) and I would accept his findings which suggest that there is a modest benefit to be had from cycle helmets. The methodology he used, such as trim and fill, is way over my head, however.

In this paper Elvik discusses why the supposed benefit for individual helmet wearers does not translate into the expected benefit at population level: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/elvik.pdf

That's the kernel of the whole cycle helmet debate, imo. Much of the rest is just noise.

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Agree re the Cochrane reviewers citing a number of their own studies. I'm told (by someone who has done training in Cochrane methodology) that it's acceptable practice, but to me it's an obvious flaw. Human nature being what it is, the authors are not going to omit their own studies on the basis that they're flawed..

Very common in fact, I got pulled up for not citing my own lab enough at a conference. The more times a paper is referenced, the higher it will appear to be valued. It is a flawed system. Luckily, it is usually only reference points in the introduction, and rarely as part of the important bulk.

tomasrojo

And, I imagine, really awful papers sometimes get referenced a lot by outraged researchers, pushing up their citations and impact factor.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

And, I imagine, really awful papers sometimes get referenced a lot by outraged researchers, pushing up their citations and impact factor.

The autism/vaccine paper being the greatest example ever.

enas

BadCharlie wrote: »

Went to hospital and the doctor said you should have been wearing a helmet, then you would not be cut up as you are today. I told him i infact was wearing a helmet......

I'm a bit confused. So are hurling helmets useful or not in the end?

Valentine1

BadCharlie wrote: »

I know a little off topic but found it funny. Was playing Hurling when the days you did not have to have a helmet on. And was going up for a ball which i won but the guy i was marking just slamed his hurley into the back of my head and i was split open. Went to hospital and the doctor said you should have been wearing a helmet, then you would not be cut up as you are today. I told him i infact was wearing a helmet...... he stops and looks at me and then says "just as well you had your helmet on" as he preceded to stich me up.

Presumably he was of the somewhat logical opinion that if you had not been wearing your helmet your injuries would have been much more severe.

Jackobyte

Picked up my first road-bike for Christmas today(Trek 1.1 2014), and got a BBB Elbrus helmet with it. First time having a helmet since I was about 6.

When I last wore a helmet on a bike aged 6, I fell while turning sharply and hit the ground with my chin, right where the buckle on the chinstrap of the helmet sat. The plastic shattered and cut up into my chin requiring stitches. Doctors said without the helmet, I'd have gotten away with a scratch. :pac:

However, now that I'll be cycling on roads around traffic and not just around an estate anymore, I'll be going back to wearing a helmet.

Capt'n Midnight

In the news recently , more appropriate to risk takers than commuters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html

In fact, some studies indicate that the number of snow-sports-related head injuries has increased. A 2012 study at the Western Michigan University School of Medicine on head injuries among skiers and snowboarders in the United States found that the number of head injuries increased 60 percent in a seven-year period, from 9,308 in 2004 to 14,947 in 2010, even as helmet use increased by an almost identical percentage over the same period. A March 2013 study by the University of Washington concluded that the number of snow-sports-related head injuries among youths and adolescents increased 250 percent from 1996 to 2010.

...
“The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much effect on concussions or T.B.I.’s,” Shealy said, referring to traumatic brain injuries. “Our guess is that this is due to the fact that those injuries are occurring at such a high magnitude of energy that they overwhelm what a helmet can do for you.”