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

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

Options
12467…85

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Ah yes but the shoulder strap model was based on a hypothetical 75kg 175cm tall male user. What happens when much smaller people use the same device? What happens if its a small adult or a child with the diagonal belt nearly going accross their neck and with the "waist" component crossing the upper thighs?

    From memory, when the UK brought in compulsory seatbelts for children there was a 10% increase in fatalities and a 12% increase in injuries among the target users.

    Witness our recent regulations compelling booster seats etc. I would not be at all surprised if some future statistician does a meta-analysis and decides that child seatbelts initially caused more damage than they prevented after being imposed.

    The relevance for cycle helmets is that for something like 96% of children who wear cycle helmets, they don't fit them properly - the size is wrong - the straps incorrectly adjusted - they have them on back to front etc etc


    Even though all this is miles off topic, but road deaths, not injuries peaked at 640 in 1972 and was 240 last year, falling by 50% since the 1990s alone.

    Seat belt have been madatory since 1971. And there are more people and cars on the road now than then.

    You could argue that the 1972 peak was caused by seatbelts alone just looking at the curve, but this is not the case

    If all the safety devices added were not actually producing results and everyone was going I'm invincible now you wouldn't see these decreases.

    ABS, Seatbelts, education, crash testing etc etc


  • Options
    #93
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Here is an interesting statistic from the Netherlands



    The answer appears to be that helmets are worn by sports cyclists and sports cyclists fall off more often.

    More here:
    Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?
    http://cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

    It reinforces the view that we should treat helmet anecdotes from sports cyclists on internet bulletin boards as something that very clearly should not apply to the rest of the cycling population.

    This shows that stats can give a very skewed view when looked at in isolation.

    How many cyclists were killed in Amsterdam say last year in relation to ireland. How many head injuries are being reported? How good is the data gathered on these?


  • Options
    #94
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Figures from 2007 say that there were 179 cycling fatalities in NL that year.

    Seems high, right? Well, break down the figures first. NL has a population of ~17m. Ours is ~6.5m. So in Irish terms that's about 68 deaths. Still pretty high?

    Well consider that in 2008 according to the CSO, 1% of all journeys in Ireland were by bicycle, presumably that hadn't changed much from the previous year when there were 15 cyclist deaths.

    How does that compare to the Dutch? In 2007 they conducted 25% of their journeys by bicycle. And 68 people died.

    Which if you crunch the figures means that Dutch people do 25 times more cycling per person than the Irish, but their cycling fatality rate in 2007 was a whopping 82% lower, in relative terms.


  • Options
    #95
    bogmanfan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭bogmanfan


    Some say they don't wear a helmet because it makes them look stupid. If you're already wearing lycra, overshoes or wraparound sunglasses, then that battle is already lost


  • Options
    #96
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The answer appears to be that helmets are worn by sports cyclists and sports cyclists fall off more often.

    More here:
    Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?
    http://cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

    It reinforces the view that we should treat helmet anecdotes from sports cyclists on internet bulletin boards as something that very clearly should not apply to the rest of the cycling population.

    Problem I have with this is the quality of references. cyclehelmets.org is a site dedicated to questioning the efficacy of cycle helmets, and is regularly either self referencing or based on very weak references. e.g. the dangers of sports cycling reference is the self same one from earlier in this thread based on total number of sports cycling fatalities taken from wikipedia, the weaknesses of which have already been discussed. From what I can see, it is a pseudo-scientific heap of mumbo jumbo presented in a roughly academic layout. Sure, there's some worthwhile content, but it is well buried.

    Not that this says anything positive about helmets, but in terms of evidence, I don't see it as being any more compelling than the anecdotes it attacks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Rob A. Bank
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Rob A. Bank


    Lumen wrote: »
    Most racing crashes are caused by inattention. What the ProTour needs is more speedballs.

    You may have something there... but not the speedballs more of a hot brain. ;-)

    Tests were conducted in 2003 and 2004 at the Northumbria University School of Psychology and Sport Sciences by Dr Nick Neave on cricketers with and without helmets. The research revealed that wearing helmets led to significant attentional impairments and slower reaction times in certain tests. In fact helmets can delay a batsman’s reactions by up to a quarter of a second.

    "Helmet use reduces airflow over the head and this has led to speculation that individuals who routinely wear safety helmets may be prone to heat-related stress and tasks requiring a high degree of attention can be more affected by this.

    They also say “The remifications of these findings will not only have an impact on cricketers, but also for anyone who routinely wears a helmet for safety purposes, from construction workers and military personnel through to other sports uses including horse riding, motor racing, motorcycling, cycling or whenever a significant increase in body temperature is likely to occur.”

    http://www.gizmag.com/go/5232/


  • Options
    #98
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    smacl wrote: »
    Problem I have with this is the quality of references. cyclehelmets.org is a site dedicated to questioning the efficacy of cycle helmets, and is regularly either self referencing or based on very weak references. e.g. the dangers of sports cycling reference is the self same one from earlier in this thread based on total number of sports cycling fatalities taken from wikipedia, the weaknesses of which have already been discussed. From what I can see, it is a pseudo-scientific heap of mumbo jumbo presented in a roughly academic layout. Sure, there's some worthwhile content, but it is well buried.

    Not that this says anything positive about helmets, but in terms of evidence, I don't see it as being any more compelling than the anecdotes it attacks.

    The figures on helmet wearing rates in the Netherlands and reported helmet use among injured cyclists are taken straight from official Dutch sources. If you don't like those numbers then with respect you need to take it up with the Dutch government not Cyclehelmets.org


  • Options
    #99
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    Even though all this is miles off topic, but road deaths, not injuries peaked at 640 in 1972 and was 240 last year, falling by 50% since the 1990s alone.

    Seat belt have been madatory since 1971. And there are more people and cars on the road now than then.

    You could argue that the 1972 peak was caused by seatbelts alone just looking at the curve, but this is not the case

    If all the safety devices added were not actually producing results and everyone was going I'm invincible now you wouldn't see these decreases.

    ABS, Seatbelts, education, crash testing etc etc

    Seatbelt wearing only became compulsory in Ireland in 1979. There is a general international pattern of falling road deaths with increases in car ownership. This is sometimes termed Smeeds law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law

    If we assume that car ownership is a proxy for general wealth then with that wealth comes all kinds of other factors, improved medical services, improved police services, upgrades to roads infrastructure etc. Most countries seem to be able to reduce unintentional deaths as the national wealth improves.

    In terms of cycling and pedestrian safety, the issue is do they reduce those deaths by making the roads environment safer? Or do they effectively eliminate walking and cycling as common forms of transport for large sections of the population?


  • Options
    #100
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    The figures on helmet wearing rates in the Netherlands and reported helmet use among injured cyclists are taken straight from official Dutch sources. If you don't like those numbers then with respect you need to take it up with the Dutch government not Cyclehelmets.org

    Not arguing the RWS figures, just on drawing conclusions based on internal references, which are in turn based on weak references from wikipedia. It's basically packaging speculation and opinion in a format that could easily be confused with unbiased academic work. Did someone mention homeopathy?
    In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory (BHRF, 1213).

    BHRF, 1213
    Fatalities in cycle sport.


  • Options
    #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Rob A. Bank wrote: »
    You may have something there... but not the speedballs more of a hot brain. ;-)

    Tests were conducted in 2003 and 2004 at the Northumbria University School of Psychology and Sport Sciences by Dr Nick Neave on cricketers with and without helmets. The research revealed that wearing helmets led to significant attentional impairments and slower reaction times in certain tests. In fact helmets can delay a batsman’s reactions by up to a quarter of a second.

    "Helmet use reduces airflow over the head and this has led to speculation that individuals who routinely wear safety helmets may be prone to heat-related stress and tasks requiring a high degree of attention can be more affected by this.

    They also say “The remifications of these findings will not only have an impact on cricketers, but also for anyone who routinely wears a helmet for safety purposes, from construction workers and military personnel through to other sports uses including horse riding, motor racing, motorcycling, cycling or whenever a significant increase in body temperature is likely to occur.”

    http://www.gizmag.com/go/5232/

    I knew Viv Richards was on to something...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    smacl wrote: »
    Not arguing the RWS figures, just on drawing conclusions based on internal references, which are in turn based on weak references from wikipedia. It's basically packaging speculation and opinion in a format that could easily be confused with unbiased academic work. Did someone mention homeopathy?

    Well, a lot of the people involved in cyclehelmets.org are academics, and have been published in peer-reviewed journals. One of them, Dorothy Robinson, certainly has written some of the most important papers in the debate about helmet laws.
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html

    You're entitled not to agree with them, but they're well qualified to write on this subject. You're wrong to suggest otherwise. They might be wrong, but they're not cranks.


  • Options
    #103
    chakattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭chakattack


    Specificity is an important concept.

    Dutch cycling infrastructure, culture, landscape etc. is nothing like what we have in Ireland so drawing conclusions based on their numbers is pointless.


  • Options
    #104
    chakattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭chakattack


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    One of them, Dorothy Robinson, certainly has written some of the most important papers in the debate about helmet laws.
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html

    Back to helmet laws....


  • Options
    #105
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    chakattack wrote: »
    Back to helmet laws....
    Oh right, well, that invalidates my claim that the board of cyclehelmets.org have scientfic expertise.


  • Options
    #106
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    smacl wrote: »
    Not arguing the RWS figures, just on drawing conclusions based on internal references, which are in turn based on weak references from wikipedia. It's basically packaging speculation and opinion in a format that could easily be confused with unbiased academic work. Did someone mention homeopathy?

    Ok do you have an alternative published source for death rates in professional cycling that you think is sufficiently defensible?

    If so I'm sure it could be added in to the Cyclehelmets.org article,

    Wikipedia does have its weaknesses as a source. However a list of pro cyclist deaths is something that should be easily enough verified.

    Looking at the comment on Risk Compensation in cycling sport I agree that it might be better with a primary source rather than a Wikipedia link.


  • Options
    #107
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    good article here from the dutch of course

    http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf


  • Options
    #108
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    seamus wrote: »
    Figures from 2007 say that there were 179 cycling fatalities in NL that year.

    Seems high, right? Well, break down the figures first. NL has a population of ~17m. Ours is ~6.5m. So in Irish terms that's about 68 deaths. Still pretty high?

    Well consider that in 2008 according to the CSO, 1% of all journeys in Ireland were by bicycle, presumably that hadn't changed much from the previous year when there were 15 cyclist deaths.

    How does that compare to the Dutch? In 2007 they conducted 25% of their journeys by bicycle. And 68 people died.

    Which if you crunch the figures means that Dutch people do 25 times more cycling per person than the Irish, but their cycling fatality rate in 2007 was a whopping 82% lower, in relative terms.

    I was looking around at some figures, it would appear that although the dutch conduct 25% of trips by bicycle, they dont go very far, so they travel by bike 5 times as much, rather than 25 times as much, going by a distance cycled per day per person

    http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf


  • Options
    #109
    chakattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭chakattack


    I read some of her work very quickly and it seems focused around the mandatory use law in Australia.


  • Options
    #110
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    good article here from the dutch of course

    http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf

    Position paper from the Dutch Cyclists Union

    Why bicycle helmets are not effective in the reduction of injuries of cyclists.
    http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Cycle-helmets.pdf


  • Options
    #111
    chakattack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,315 ✭✭✭chakattack


    Any non-dutch studies? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    kumate_champ07
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,150 ✭✭✭kumate_champ07


    every crash Ive been in Ive managed to use my hands to break the fall, cant see how it would be possible to land head first. it should be an instinct to react with your hands, they'll get scratched and cut up but its to be expected

    when people talk about friends or friends of friends that fell off their bikes at a very low speed I think of people that trip on the pavement walking, they would have been ok with a helmet.
    in motorsports they all wear helmets. if pro cyclists and casual cyclists wear helmets, why dont road drivers wear helmets like pro drivers?

    there are times when I should be wearing a helmet(wicklow descents) and I feel a little bad about it but I love the feeling of cycling with minimal fuss. I will try make an effort to wear a helmet for certain rides but not for in the city.


    right or wrong its up to the individual to decide


  • Options
    #113
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Position paper from the Dutch Cyclists Union

    Why bicycle helmets are not effective in the reduction of injuries of cyclists.
    http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Cycle-helmets.pdf


    not sure if it's the translation or what, but thats a poor paper in comparison to the smov one


  • Options
    #114
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    kumate_champ07 wrote: »
    every crash Ive been in Ive managed to use my hands to break the fall, cant see how it would be possible to land head first. it should be an instinct to react with your hands, they'll get scratched and cut up but its to be expected

    when people talk about friends or friends of friends that fell off their bikes at a very low speed I think of people that trip on the pavement walking, they would have been ok with a helmet.
    in motorsports they all wear helmets. if pro cyclists and casual cyclists wear helmets, why dont road drivers wear helmets like pro drivers?

    there are times when I should be wearing a helmet(wicklow descents) and I feel a little bad about it but I love the feeling of cycling with minimal fuss. I will try make an effort to wear a helmet for certain rides but not for in the city.


    right or wrong its up to the individual to decide

    your head makes up 1/13 of you body weight, it's pretty difficult to control

    It would make sense for people to use helmets when driving to make it as safe as possible, the fact they don't isn't a great argument against others using helmets


  • Options
    #115
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Seatbelt wearing only became compulsory in Ireland in 1979. There is a general international pattern of falling road deaths with increases in car ownership. This is sometimes termed Smeeds law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law

    If we assume that car ownership is a proxy for general wealth then with that wealth comes all kinds of other factors, improved medical services, improved police services, upgrades to roads infrastructure etc. Most countries seem to be able to reduce unintentional deaths as the national wealth improves.

    In terms of cycling and pedestrian safety, the issue is do they reduce those deaths by making the roads environment safer? Or do they effectively eliminate walking and cycling as common forms of transport for large sections of the population?

    citizen advice are saying it's 1971 not 1979

    smeeds law appears to be rubbish and clearly doesn't equate to the real world decrease in road deaths even with increased number

    Obviously theres a role to play in medicine, motorways, policing education and car safety in the reduction we have seen. But car safety makes up a significant propoertion of this as opposed to people now feeling safer and thus taking more risks.


  • Options
    #116
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    citizen advice are saying it's 1971 not 1979

    If you read the legislation they quote, it became mandatory to fit seatbelts to certain classes of vehicle in 1971.

    Compulsory wearing didnt come in until 1979.


  • Options
    #117
    Rob A. Bank
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭Rob A. Bank


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    your head makes up 1/3 of you body weight, it's pretty difficult to control

    Where did you get that figure from ?

    That might be true for ET or someone who is shocking brainy ! :)

    "An adult human cadaver head cut off around vertebra C3, with no hair, weighs on average somewhere between 4.5 and 5 kg, typically constituting around 8% of the body mass."


  • Options
    #118
    kumate_champ07
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,150 ✭✭✭kumate_champ07


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    your head makes up 1/3 of you body weight, it's pretty difficult to control

    It would make sense for people to use helmets when driving to make it as safe as possible, the fact they don't isn't a great argument against others using helmets
    I have a 39kg head?!
    when I crash I expect the worse and sacrifice my hands, I sprained a little finger once and banged my shoulder and elbow but my head didnt receive any impact. the only time I hit my head was at a velodrome and thats because the helmet is bulky at the back!


  • Options
    #119
    CaoimH_in
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭CaoimH_in


    I once fell sideways, and had the full brunt of impact on the side of my head. It was on a tricky descent at around 40-3kph. Helmet cracked, but I didn't feel very much on my head at all. It cracked in a few places and it certainly was a big enough crash that you'd assume would inflict a fair amount of damage, but my head was fine. No cuts, bruises, dizzyness, memory loss, etc. I did sprain my wrist's tendon, hurt my elbow, and gave myself a bit of road-rash.

    No one will stop you if you don't wear a helmet. But, in my personal opinion, you're going to get what's coming to you. A huge number of my near-misses, and accidents, I really didn't see coming. I was for the most part doing stuff that was safe enough.

    My advice: wear a helmet. You can't predict all the conditions of road use, and for me, once they're applied correctly, they work.


  • Options
    #120
    gilleek2
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭gilleek2


    Orinoco wrote: »


    Do you actually believe that? Some anecdotes from an internet forum are "as close to real world proof as you can get"?

    The helmet debate is daft. Of course some people want to feel safer and wear a helmet. Good for them. But you'd have to ask yourself why we never hear the same clamour about motorists wearing helmets (would have a far more significant benefit in terms of public health, and would be easier because they can be stored in the car).

    Anything can be dangerous, the question is: is it SO dangerous that we want to introduce an element of compulsion in terms of the safety equipment used. For competitive mountain biking and road cycling the answer is probably 'yes'. For commuting around town, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.

    The obsession with helmet use promotes cycling as a dangerous, eccentric pursuit rather than simply a smart way to get about. It conflates the sport of cycling with the means of transport that is just riding a bike. Because it does that, it doesn't help the cause of cycling as an alternative to cars, public transport etc.

    It also creates a misleading idea that being safe on a bicycle means having the right equipement, rather than exercising care and paying attention to what is going on around you. I cannot help but laugh when I see some of my fellow cyclists with their helmet on and a pair of earphones snugly beneath it. Take out the headphones and take off the helmet and you'd be a hell of a lot safer.

    Rant over!


    But would you be safer still if you just took out the headphones???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Ok do you have an alternative published source for death rates in professional cycling that you think is sufficiently defensible?

    Nope, but then I'm not asserting there is any strong correlation between pro cyclist mortality rates and helmet usage. My point is that strong defensible studies are thin on the ground and much of what I read on cyclehelmets.org does not constitute a reasonable substitute.
    Wikipedia does have its weaknesses as a source. However a list of pro cyclist deaths is something that should be easily enough verified.

    No argument with the facts presented in the wikipedia article. But as already discussed in this thread here and here, it is a major leap of faith to suggest the mortality numbers have any value independently of other variables such as the total number of pro cyclists and events they compete in during the same period. If nobody competed then nobody would die, but would that make competitive cycling a statistically safer activity?

    I suppose what I'm actually saying is that you have to draw your own conclusions by treating all and any material presented with a critical eye. Much of what I read on cyclehelmets.org seems to fall at the first hurdle.


Advertisement