Helmets

skivenov

Car drivers wear a big metal protective box full of air bags!

thelawnet

Around half of car fatalities are caused by head injuries. This is a similar proportion to bicycle fatalities.

So are helmets effective or not? If they are, then clearly it would make sense to start by campaigning for people to wear them in cars.

Idiophreak

thelawnet wrote: »

Most of the population of the Netherlands doesn't wear a helmet, and likewise most of them cycle.

Anecdotes are pretty pointless IMO, every helmet-wearing cyclist swears blind how they've had their life saved 100 times over and yet there's no epidemic of non-helmet-wearing cyclists (the majority, thankfully), in A+E with head injuries.

You're trying to create a correlation where there isn't one.

A bunch of cyclists wear helmets. Some get head injuries.
A bunch or cyclists don't wear helmets. Some get head injuries.
So helmets make no difference. Right? Err...no.

Take fitness cylists..whether roadies or mountain bikers, they travel far faster than your average commuter. They do far more miles. They use cycle paths less. In short, they expose themselves to far more risk than average cyclists. Now, there are a number of factors here...the perceived increased risk, rules at races/events, "looking the part" - but whatever the reason, the proportion of "proper" cyclists that wear a helmet is *massively* higher than the proportion of "normal" cyclists that do. Where I see the bulk of hybrids ridden without a helmet, I'd say 99% of "serious" cyclists I see wear a helmet, if not more.

Comparing the accident rate of those that wear helmets against the accident rate of those that don't is just meaningless. There are different profiles that drive whether people wear a helmet or not - and these profiles also influence the likelihood of injury. The only way you could collect meaningful stats about this would be to stop *everyone* on the roads from wearing a helmet and see the difference that's made.

Saying "a bunch of slow cyclists that do a couple of miles on a cycle path each week don't get many head injuries..." really isn't particularly useful...and of course it works both ways..my "serious" cyclists, whilst exposing themselves to higher risk, are probably a little more savvy when it comes to defensive riding...the whole things just far too complex to draw simple conclusions from observed accident rates.

That being the case, I actually think that anecdotes are about the most useful evidence people have got to go on. Personally, I know plenty of people who've split their helmet in two, got up and said "glad that wasn't my head"...So that's abig upside. I've not actually hear of anyone suffering custardy's problem of bonking their helmet on a tree and falling off...So I view that as a *very* slight downside....that's "evidence" enough to persuade me to wear the thing...

(FWIW, I was running through a forest once and hit my head on a tree. Simple lack of spacial awareness...which can be an issue with or without a helmet on. Of course, had I been wearing a helmet, I wouldn't have got blood all over my tee shirt...)

thelawnet

As I understand it helmets are not designed to split in two, the design goal is to crush. It's rather silly to say that a split helmet implies (a) that you would have hit your head at all otherwise and (b) that your head would simply crack open like a £10 Argos helmet.

I've fallen off a couple of times, haven't hit my head, who knows if I was wearing a large plastic carbuncle on my head I would have been more likely to do so. I guess we as humans have evolved pretty well to protect our heads. It's pretty much proven that helmets make people ride less safely (unconscious, essentially unavoidable risk compensation), but in terms of the point of accident, I don't know if there's an effect of making a bigger target or whatever.

Idiophreak

thelawnet wrote: »

As I understand it helmets are not designed to split in two, the design goal is to crush. It's rather silly to say that a split helmet implies (a) that you would have hit your head at all otherwise and (b) that your head would simply crack open like a £10 Argos helmet.

OK...so if I had a hammer and smacked a helmet with it harder and harder until it fell to pieces, you'd be happy for me to hit you in the head with it just as hard, right...I mean, your head isn't just going to crack open like a £10 Argos helmet, so you'll be fine, right?

Marco_Panettone

Idiophreak wrote: »

You're trying to create a correlation where there isn't one.

A bunch of cyclists wear helmets. Some get head injuries.
A bunch or cyclists don't wear helmets. Some get head injuries.
So helmets make no difference. Right? Err...no.

There is a correlation - just not clear causation (for many of the reasons you gave). It's the same as the 'speed kills' message. The general public need clear messages to understand, not the actual "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" truth the science provides.

The helmet debate is SO wide of the mark with regard to cycling safety it's almost funny. However, it's easy and only costs the individual rider a small amount of money - clearly much better than actually fixing dangerous infrastructure, adjusting driver training legislation and the road traffic laws, and bringing cycling into the national curriculum in schools - things that would really make a positive, long-term difference to cycling in the country.

Tiddlywinks

thelawnet wrote: »

I've fallen off a couple of times, haven't hit my head, who knows if I was wearing a large plastic carbuncle on my head I would have been more likely to do so. I guess we as humans have evolved pretty well to protect our heads. It's pretty much proven that helmets make people ride less safely (unconscious, essentially unavoidable risk compensation), but in terms of the point of accident, I don't know if there's an effect of making a bigger target or whatever.

Really interested in this proof, could you post a linky please.

I'm also interested to know and understand why some people are so anti-helmet? Why do you feel so strongly about this issue?

Dave_C_2

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

The general public need clear messages to understand, not the actual "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" truth the science provides.

As an ex-engineer, this sort of statement winds me up. Why shouldn't they* release a full statement. By all means write a conclusion at the front, but all of the <Ben Goldacre quote> truth must also be there. As I keep banging on about, any choice should be an informed choice.

* whoever "they" are I hardly think that a "helmets save lives" message from Giro is going to highlight any negatives of helmet wearing.

The helmet debate is SO wide of the mark with regard to cycling safety it's almost funny.

Yep, couldn't agree more.

thelawnet

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Really interested in this proof, could you post a linky please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01589.x/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812000587
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

I'm also interested to know and understand why some people are so anti-helmet? Why do you feel so strongly about this issue?

I'm not anti-helmet any more than I'm anti-pink-polka-dot shirts.

Anyone who wants to wear one does so with my blessing. Just don't try and tell me that I should.

cinderfella

I remember back in the sixties when they introduced helmets for motor cyclists, one of the reasons was to save surgeons time repairing smashed skulls. My neighbour who was a few years older than me (a young man) came off his scooter/motorbike just prior to the introduction of the compulsory wearing of helmets. He suffered serious brain injuries & it took him about 10 years to return to 'normality'.
The Dutch have a good infrastructure in their cities for cyclists. In London I have watched with horror at the way many people on two wheels seem to play russian roulette with the traffic. Having said that it is also a very dangerous place for pedestrians. With buses being allowed to go through red lights at certain junctions I think the golden rule is to obey the pedestrian green light at all times when crossing roads.
I think the young folk on two wheels need to be protected from their own over confidence & inexperience on the roads & that is why we have helmet rules in this country. Not forgetting of course that we also need to protect the plain stupid who would rather not wear a helmet for their own obscure reasons.