Helmets - increase injuries

tomasrojo wrote: »

The idea is that the _propotion_ of cyclists suffering serious injury falls as the numbers rise.

Safety in Numbers:

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

There are people who disagree, including (very vociferously) John Forester, but it's a theory that's going through a period of popularity of right now.

I think its misleading to bring that into this argument. Safety in numbers refers to multiple individuals acting for the benefit of the group as a whole. e.g a shoal or flock. More cyclists acting as individuals is not increasing their safety in any way.

The most important and accurate part of that wikipedia entry is "conclusions of causality may very well be based on a statistically spurious relationship"

Slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to say that although I am very much for helmets and won’t get on my bike without one (after a crash 200m from my front door destroyed my helmet and collar-bone), the helmet threads on Boards have brought up a point that I personally never considered before –
That mandatory helmets would really discourage the average person from seriously considering changing their main form of transport to a bike.
Whether it’s because of a perceived danger caused by requiring safety equipment, worrying about hairstyle interference, or the general feeling that walking through the office with a helmet in their hands isn’t quite cool () I think most non-cyclists I know would think twice if this was forced on them

So, even though a lot of furious and angry agreeing with each other goes on in helmet threads (“More cyclists is good” “Yes, but more cyclists with Helmets is good too!”), they can change people’s opinions... or at least give them a very slightly different angle on their current opinions.

Anyway, carry on...

GreeBo wrote: »

"Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head."

To me that doesnt say anything conclusive either way....?

Exactly.

I agree 100% that its not a coverall but other than sitting at home, what is? Do you agree (with the study) that in all but the most extreme/freak cases helmet wearing has positive results?

petethedrummer wrote: »

Helmets can protect you from some (probably most) types of impact but can in certain cases cause excessive brain rotation or, in the example outlined in this thread, cause injury to the neck and paralysis.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Noone said it does more harm than good in an accident. Certainly not me. But it is not a coverall against all types of brain injury.

GreeBo wrote: »

"Personally I dont think helmet wearing has any impact on your likelihood of being in an accident. ?

Well, there is where we disagree.

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread which has been very good from a number of different viewpoints - well done to all.

However, I would like to add to the risk compensation debate a bit more.

A few people have said that if you watch people in every day scenarios you do not see people acting more dangerously with helmets, rather the opposite. This is in my opinion irrelevant. Comparing people with or without helmets serves no purpose, rather comparing the actions of the same person with or without a helmet is the important factor.
A number of people on this thread and others have said that they would never get on their bike without a helmet. That is risk compensation in itself, they admit that they would not engage in an activity without a helmet but are happy to with one.
Add to this that a lot of cyclists say they would never descend a hill as fast without a helmet as they would not feel safe. Again classic risk compensation.

I agree with petethedrummer that training is far more important as you take the onus on your self to avoid spills rather than depending on your magic hat. I also take GreeBos point about not being able to account for all other road users, but I believe you can slow your own speed / increasde your own alertness to make a helmet far less useful.

Oh and anybody who doubts risk compensation, put a helmet / body armour on a child and see what the first thing they do is.

dub_skav wrote: »

Oh and anybody who doubts risk compensation, put a helmet / body armour on a child and see what the first thing they do is.

I did as ya said and put my cycling helmet on a 18month old child. The first thing she did was pick her nose, I was wondering why I was at it so much when cycling.



As for the science of helmet/non-helmet, the Cochrane library (independent body, no axe to grind) have done a review of ALL the studies done and eliminated any that where done poorly. The conclusions they came up with are;

1. Bicycle helmet legislation appears to be effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates in the populations for which it is implemented
2. However, there are very few high quality evaluative studies that measure these outcomes, and none that reported data on an possible declines in bicycle use

So the evience points towards a decrease in injuries with the use of helmets but more quality studies needed.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html

Well there you have it folks, Pro-Helmeters win. See you all in the next life.

Pity Cochrane didn't take into account how dorky you all look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osXU2u5OhiI

Crackkkkk

There was also another video in which a biker fell off a wooden trail maybe 20 feet onto his head. The noise and screaming was scary. Cant find that video atm.

Thought I'd dig this one up as I had a nasty spill on Saturday during the Surf and Turf 300 and so have a datapoint for you.

Bike slipped out from under me on a greasy/gravelly hairpin (I was going too fast) and I hit the tarmac at some speed. Bounced once on my shoulder and then came down solidly and slid for a bit. Knee warmers and jersey badly ripped. My Descente Optima shorts amazingly are fine although the worst road rash was under them, I never credited it as anything but marketing before but maybe there actually is some benefit to putting carbon fibre in the things. I have certainly ripped shorts before in lesser falls.

Now for the helmet anecdote (and I claim no more for it):

Helmet is a write-off but not for the obvious reason... To look at it from the outside it doesn't look bad at all, just very lightly scraped, but it did impact and the subsequent sliding appears to have produced rotational forces that ripped the retention system out of its anchor, breaking it. It has also given me a nasty crick in my neck.

Now I am pretty sure had I not been wearing a helmet that I would NOT have hit my head at all and (probably) would not have these neck injuries. I was sliding on my shoulder and my head did not "feel" that close to the road. It seems that the helmet expanded the effective diameter of my head just enough that the helmet made this particular situation worse...

Having said that it makes no difference to my view on helmets, I don't wear one 100% of the time but if I am in an accident I still think it improves my odds overall.

Injuries not that serious, just bad road rash in around seven places on my right side... Can't sleep on it and laughing and coughing hurts but thankfully doesn't impact the cycling too badly. Managed the remaining 225km with the help of a couple of Nurofen.