Plans to make cycle helmets compulsory in the North.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note: Threads merged

tomasrojo

John Franklin, author of How to be a better cyclist, and a cycling expert in court cases, says that the recent Department for Transport study showed there was no clear evidence of benefit from helmets in serious crashes.

I was wondering what study was being referred to, and it's this one, apparently:
TRL Report PPR 446,.The Potential for Cycle Helmets to
Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence, by D Hynd, R Cuerden, S
Reid, and S Adams

Abstract here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ppr446.pdf

The bit John Franklin is referring to is this, I think:

Overall, there appears to be a clear difference between hospital-based studies, which tend to show a significant protective effect from cycle helmets, and population studies, which tend to show a lower, or no, effect. This is likely to be due to the difficulties in adequately controlling for confounding variables, as well as limitations regarding how representative the cyclists are in the samples used compared with the whole cycling population.

The study isn't exactly helmet-sceptical on balance, I'd say from glancing at it.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

I was wondering what study was being referred to, and it's this one, apparently:
TRL Report PPR 446,.The Potential for Cycle Helmets to
Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence, by D Hynd, R Cuerden, S
Reid, and S Adams

Abstract here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ppr446.pdf

The bit John Franklin is referring to is this, I think:


The study isn't exactly helmet-sceptical on balance, I'd say from glancing at it.

The full report is available here, you have to register, but it seems to be free:

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm

Rob A. Bank

monument wrote: »

The full report is available here, you have to register, but it seems to be free:

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm

This report has a very important caveat attached :-

“It does not include detailed consideration of whether wearing (or not wearing) a helmet influences the likelihood of being involved in an accident, either through behaviour changes in the rider or in other road users.”

The BIG BIG problem the polystyrine fancy hat fans have is to explain why cycling is more lethal in countries where helmets are commonly worn and safer in countries where helmets are rarely worn. And also why cycling became MORE lethal for the remaining cyclists in Australia after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws.

I really can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would want to legislate for an unproven so called ‘safety device’ which definitely strangles children and seems to be associated an increase in cycling deaths.

tomasrojo

Well, my personal attitude was set once the Robinson papers appeared in the BMJ. If you can make that many people adopt a safety measure and then not be able to point to any real improvement on a graph, you really have to wonder what the point of the laws was. And that the law's major effect seems to have been to reduce the number of cyclists and make the Melbourne bike-share scheme die at birth is rather sad really.

And I feel bad about this, but I really have serious doubts about Headway, because they keep pushing that figure of helmets preventing 85% of head injuries. It's just not true. Even the authors of the paper that number comes from don't claim that anymore. Either Headway aren't keeping up to date or they just want to push the most impressive figure they can find, even if it's wrong. Neither scenario speaks well of them.

Victor

jimbo32123 wrote: »

should be the law and fineable to everyone no matter of age or location

Then you'll have no problem forcing them on pedestrians and motorists?

tomasrojo

Interesting development in Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-are-unnecessary-20100827-13vz2.html

Heady freedom as judge agrees helmet laws are unnecessary

IN 46 years of bike riding, Sue Abbott has never worn a helmet. So when the highway patrol pulled her over in country Scone and fined her for a no-helmet offence, she decided to fight.

...

Judge Roy Ellis happily admitted his own doubts about the laws.

''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of the ledger,'' the judge told Ms Abbott after she had spelt out her case against the laws that exist in few countries other than Australia and New Zealand.

''I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''

Whatever one's opinion about MHLs, Sue Abbott's tenacity is remarkable.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

My new-found interest in Google as a unit converter just received a fillip from visiting Ian Walker's blog.

http://bamboobadger.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-advice-we-need-more-information.html

Slow day today, I had to investigate why it gave this as an answer, so after 30 seconds on google I found the very reasonable reason:

so if it's 5 times during a 24 hour day, that gives us 4.8 hours (288 minutes) for one thing to happen. that is 17280 seconds. now how many times does a thing happen during a second...when you strech it over 172800 seconds ? 1/17280 = 5.78703704 × 10^-5

SIMPLES

Fighting Irish

It's sh1t like this that makes me laugh at the human race, we are so pathetic

monument

Bicycle helmets should be mandatory – Ramsay -- Clip of him on Highland Radio
17/Aug 08:23

Ramsey: 42 crashes - need for legislation
Mon 16th August 2010

Ramsey Calls For Cycling Law Change
Wed 13th May 2009

tomasrojo

"Rushed to A&E". Very vague. How many needed treatment, or an overnight stay? How many had life-changing injuries? How many even had head injuries, rather than, say, a broken arm?

The key groups he has consulted with seem to be Headway and Headway alone.

gsxr1

i dont think it should become law for adults. But under 16s I would agree with

I all the studies in the world would not stop me wearing mine in Dublin traffic.

If your head was to go through a windscreen , Its a nobrainer that one would be safer with a helmet. With out it your skull would crack like an egg.

I hear some silly helmet comments all the time on motorcycle forums. Lads who believe that helmets can do more harm than good. I wonder what type of drugs they are on... mine saved my skin more than once. Arai's best

If something like this was to be made law, then higher helmet standards would become compulsory as well. I can see lots of flaws in most cycle helmet design which could be improved to protect the neck better.

Stark

gsxr1 wrote: »

If your head was to go through a windscreen , Its a nobrainer that one would be safer with a helmet. With out it your skull would crack like an egg.

It's not a "no brainer" that your skull would crack like an egg. Your skull is resilient enough to remain intact upon impact with a windshield. The damage in car crashes is done by the brain going from 50mph to a sudden stop upon contact with the windshield and bouncing around inside an intact skull. A fractured skull would probably be preferable as it would take some of the impact. In any case, the windscreen argument is more justification for wearing helmets in cars than on bikes.

Gophur

Stark wrote: »

.......... In any case, the windscreen argument is more justification for wearing helmets in cars than on bikes.

Hardly, when one is already obliged to wear seat-belts, thereby negating the possibility of ever hitting the windscreen with one's head.

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

Hardly, when one is already obliged to wear seat-belts, thereby negating the possibility of ever hitting the windscreen with one's head.

More generally, and from the article linked to by tomasrojo:

Ms Abbott's success in court delighted Bill Curnow of the Cyclists Rights Action Group. In several peer-reviewed publications he has argued there has been no reduction in brain injury levels due to helmet laws.

Why force cyclists to wear helmets when politicians ignored a 1998 report from the Federal Office of Road Safety that showed brain injury rates among motorists would be cut by up to 25 per cent, even where airbags were fitted, if drivers wore bicycle helmets, he said.

seamus

Gophur wrote: »

Hardly, when one is already obliged to wear seat-belts, thereby negating the possibility of ever hitting the windscreen with one's head.

Car accidents are rarely head-on incidents with all forces moving in one plane. A seat belt primarily takes control of forward movements, but you still have 2 other axes - up and sideways - through which the driver has a lot more movement. Ever bang your head off the roof getting in/out of a car? Now do it at 50km/h and see if it hurts even more.

Gophur

...............................
1998 report from the Federal Office of Road Safety that showed brain injury rates among motorists would be cut by up to 25 per cent, even where airbags were fitted, if drivers wore bicycle helmets, he said.

So, car drivers should wear helmets to reduce injury?


(but cyclists should not wear them, to reduce injury? )


Let each responsible adult choose their own protection, but how helmets could be anything other than a safety measure is ridiculous.

Chips Lovell

Gophur wrote: »

So, car drivers should wear helmets to reduce injury?


(but cyclists should not wear them, to reduce injury? )

He didn't say that.

monument

Gophur wrote: »

Let each responsible adult choose their own protection,

It's contradictory to wear a helmet in one case (cycling) and not to wear one in another (in a car) when the benefits are just as proven (ie not that well proven, and very small at that).

Gophur wrote: »

but how helmets could be anything other than a safety measure is ridiculous.

There's a number of ways helmets can increase injury (ie increase rotation) or increase the chances of injury (your head plus a helmet is a larger target).

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

So, car drivers should wear helmets to reduce injury?

Not something I'd advocate drivers should do, and certainly not something they should be compelled to do, but if they were to wear helmets then there would be a benefit, it seems (and presumably even in situations where they were wearing a seatbelt).

Gophur wrote: »

(but cyclists should not wear them, to reduce injury? )

I do wear one. I also disagree with compulsion.

Gophur wrote: »

Let each responsible adult choose their own protection,

Up to a point, yes, and cycle helmets is one area where, I agree, individual choice does make sense. But then I'm less sure that that applies to seatbelts, for example.

Gophur wrote: »

but how helmets could be anything other than a safety measure is ridiculous.

There is a concern that they aggravate rotational injuries and so could make matters worse. In that situation it is far from ridiculous to say that a helmet is not working as a safety measure. There seems also to be some uncertainty around the impact of helmet wearing on the risk of being involved in an accident because of modified behaviour by the cyclist or other road users.

Tonyandthewhale

Gophur wrote: »

how helmets could be anything other than a safety measure is ridiculous.

Helmets protect your skull from damage (so long as the forces involved are relatively low and generally not life threatening anyway since a helmet is relatively fragile), this is fact, this is what headway and the like base their arguments on. The skull gives shape to the head and is one of a number of biological features that play a role in protecting the brain from damage. The second line of defence are the meninges (dura mater, pia mater and arachnoid mater. The meninges have a number of functions but one of the most important ones is to protect the brain from rotational injuries by acting as a flexible and shock absorbing membrane (unlike a helmet which is just a block of plastic). Sadly, the good work of the dura mater and co can be under-mined if the rotational forces are increased beyond their capacity to cope, basic physics tells us that a good way to do this is to add some sort of lever to the head, a helmet, which adds several inches to the head proves to be a very effective lever in certain crash situations (especially when worn incorrectly on the back of the head as is often the case with kids who just through a helmet on because someone's making them). As such a helmet can do nothing to prevent and may indeed exacerbate rotational brain injuries and problems such as subdural and epidural hematoma.
Apart from increasing the risk of serious brain injury which may result in life-long disability or death a helmet may also prevent detection of such injuries until it is much too late. This is because if (and this is a seriously debatable if) a helmet does its job and protects the skull and skin from superficial gashes and bruises the wearer may conclude that they have walked away from the accident unscathed and decide not to go to the doctor to see if there's any internal bleeding which could potentially kill them. If you don't believe that such serious brain damage could go un-noticed like that then why not sit in on a first year psychology lecture in your local university and get yourself an informed opinion on the role helmets play.

monument

There's also the point that motorists and passengers could wear helmets of far higher standards than are suitable for use while cycling. Motorbike like helmets are too heavy and restrict the ability of a cyclist look behind them (ie one of the most important things I cyclist needs to do), but the same can't be said of motorists and certainly not passengers.

As with others, I'm not suggesting that motorists should wear helmets, but there's a huge question mark* here as to why people think cyclists should wear helmets and others including motorists or those walking should not when the risks are equal or higher with the latter two.

* Ok, it's not that much of a question mark, people think cycling is more dangerous than it is. The reality is cycling's risks are low and the risks of commuting are outweighed by the health benefits. It's also the case that people are willing to buy a helmet and high-zis but never read up about cycling in traffic or get cycling training.

billaustin

i think it should be law to wear a helmet in public. I had never thought much about this until I was in an accident two weeks ago and cannoned offf the bonnet of a car as it pulled out on me as i was doing about 30km/h. My helmet really saved me.

Lumen

billaustin wrote: »

i think it should be law to wear a helmet in public. I had never thought much about this until I was in an accident two weeks ago and cannoned offf the bonnet of a car as it pulled out on me as i was doing about 30km/h. My helmet really saved me.

So you want a law to save us from your inability to avoid an accident?

Thanks, very considerate of you.

doozerie

There is a BBC Radio 4 programme called More or Less that discusses the way that we use numbers and statistics. It is usually an interesting programme that deals well with the topics that it covers. Last Friday's edition included the topic of whether it is really safer to wear a helmet when cycling. The cycling bit starts 12m40s with a talk about the "Boris Bikes" but the real discussion of helmet safety starts around 14m39s in. They interview Ian Walker about his study, and also talk to Angela Lee of Bike Helmet Initiative Trust who is there to provide the pro-helmet argument.

It's not as informative as I would have expected/hoped, completely ignoring any discussion about risks that the helmet itself may pose for a start, but there are some interesting bits of info in there such as the fact that hospital statistics don't record whether injured cyclists were wearing helmets (a known issue, but one worth repeating when statistics start to be thrown about as incontrovertible evidence in favour of helmet usage).

For all its failings, the report does sum up the issue well, in my view, stating that there is no strong evidence either for or against wearing helmets so it is up to everyone to decide for themselves whether to wear a helmet or not.

Gophur

It does seem the rotational argument is just being used as an excuse to not wear a helmet.

Common sense should tell one to wear what is appropriate to minimise injury. No helmet will do if you are clattered by a truck, just like no seat belt will save you if you go 100mph into a wall in your car.

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet because you may hit your head so hard a rotational injury will damage you? One has to wonder the effect such an impact would have on the un-helmeted head.

Gophur

Gophur wrote: »

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet because you may hit your head so hard a rotational injury will damage you? One has to wonder the effect such an impact would have on the un-helmeted head.

Less. Due to the smaller effective diameter of the unhelmeted head.

Gophur

Deleted User wrote: »

Less. Due to the smaller effective diameter of the unhelmeted head.

Less rotational damage, you mean?

But more impact damage.

Blowfish

Gophur wrote: »

Common sense should tell one to wear what is appropriate to minimise injury. No helmet will do if you are clattered by a truck, just like no seat belt will save you if you go 100mph into a wall in your car.

Would a sumo wrestler suit not minimise things like road rash? Do you cycle in one?

Lumen

Gophur wrote: »

It does seem the rotational argument is just being used as an excuse to not wear a helmet.

Common sense should tell one to wear what is appropriate to minimise injury. No helmet will do if you are clattered by a truck, just like no seat belt will save you if you go 100mph into a wall in your car.

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet because you may hit your head so hard a rotational injury will damage you? One has to wonder the effect such an impact would have on the un-helmeted head.

"Common sense" is not necessarily a good guide.

I suffered both whiplash and a brain haemorrage in a high speed unhelmeted car crash a few years ago. The brain haemorrage sorted itself out in a couple of hours, the whiplash took many months of physical therapy to overcome and still troubles me now.

If I'd been wearing a helmet, does "common sense" tell you that I'd have been better or worse off? I honestly have no idea.

Human beings have evolved to be pretty injury-resistant. If you go screwing with one part of the system in isolation, you may get unexpected consequences. There is a reason that race car drivers wear HANS devices - spinal injuries are really bad news.

Gophur

Blowfish wrote: »

Would a sumo wrestler suit not minimise things like road rash? Do you cycle in one?

How about you check the first two words of my post you quoted?

CramCycle

billaustin wrote: »

My helmet really saved me.

Are you sure/have proof?

doozerie

Gophur wrote:

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet because you may hit your head so hard a rotational injury will damage you? One has to wonder the effect such an impact would have on the un-helmeted head.

Many years back someone went over their bars right in front of me while we were riding off-road in a rocky area. He landed on his mouth leaving him with a burst lip and several loose teeth, though luckily nothing more serious. He was wearing a helmet at the time but it could do nothing to prevent his injuries. There are many examples of crashes where helmets don't actually help at all, whatever about cases where they actually hinder.

That isn't to say that you shouldn't wear a helmet, or that they don't help in some situations, but it simply highlights the fact that sometimes people put too much emphasis on wearing a helmet and almost seem to expect it to do miraculous things when in reality all it can really do is absorb some of the impact force in some types of crash.

Beasty

Gophur wrote: »

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet ...

Where in this thread has anyone told cyclists to not wear a helmet?

The only advocates of compulsion in this thread are those (who are definitely in the minority) who say you must wear a helmet!

I always wear a helmet - that is my choice. Other cyclists are perfectly at liberty to wear, or not wear, one as they see fit.

CramCycle

I've given up on a helmet after reading this thread, just e-mailed CRC and wiggle to see will they be getting one of those fancy full body armour kits in, in the near future, think they are from Stark Industries, not sure.



Front lights and batteries included

Stark

Too right. It could save your life if you fell off the bike and were impaled through the heart.

Tonyandthewhale

billaustin wrote: »

My helmet really saved me.

Could you perhaps explain how your helmet saved you, what it saved you from and how you know this? Could you also perhaps share with us your credentials as regards brain injury and crash assessment because whatever thorough research you've obviously been doing is going to be of great interest to the academic community at large.
Once you've settled all that could you explain how all this relates to a need for a mandatory helmet law? Since the facts clearly show that even if helmets are genuinely helpful in an accident they still result in a higher proportion of cyclist deaths as many people will inevitably give up cycling in favour of sitting in their cars and waiting for cardiac arrest to take them.

Tonyandthewhale

Gophur wrote: »

more impact damage.

Thing is, we can fix impact damage (up to a point) with stitches and plasters and the like. Internal bleeding in the brain from rotational brain injuries and the like can be treated by funeral arrangements at worst and by teaching people to live a new life with impaired brain functions in various areas at the lighter end of the scale.
This is not to say that all rotational brain injuries are catastrophic but if I had the choice I'd choose exterior rather than interior bleeding any day.

I'd also like to state that I'm not saying helmets will always cause such injuries (I don't think any serious academic would stand behind such sweeping generalisations) so I'm not saying avoid helmets at all costs (that issue is still up in the air) but do wait until we fully understand the risks and benefits (if any) before legislation is introduced.

gsxr1

Stark wrote: »

It's not a "no brainer" that your skull would crack like an egg. Your skull is resilient enough to remain intact upon impact with a windshield. The damage in car crashes is done by the brain going from 50mph to a sudden stop upon contact with the windshield and bouncing around inside an intact skull. A fractured skull would probably be preferable as it would take some of the impact. In any case, the windscreen argument is more justification for wearing helmets in cars than on bikes.

In a proper helmet there is the outer shell. the hard bit. But the inside is lined the a proper man made shock absorbent martial which compresses in the event of impact. This cushion can be the lifesaver. This subject has been done to death on other forums with overwhelming proof that in a 25mph impact your chance of survival is greatly increased with a lid...

any dangerous sport involves armor. From cycling to skydiving.

You head is so vulnerable and fragile that it just seems like common scene to protect it.
Your hair anit going to save ya.

I dont understand your statement about wearing them in a car.

CramCycle

gsxr1 wrote: »

You head is so vulnerable and fragile that it just seems like common scene to protect it.
Your hair anit going to save ya.

Incorrect ( I even have an example):

http://www.kctv5.com/news/18750792/detail.html

QED

Rob A. Bank

gsxr1 wrote: »

This subject has been done to death on other forums with overwhelming proof that in a 25mph impact your chance of survival is greatly increased with a lid...

any dangerous sport involves armor. From cycling to skydiving.

Where is the 'overwhelming proof' that bicycle helmets improve your chance of survival in a 25mph impact ?

Are you referring to motorcycle helmets... which offer a completely different level of protection ?

And cycling is no more dangerous than walking !

Blowfish

CramCycle wrote: »

Incorrect ( I even have an example):

http://www.kctv5.com/news/18750792/detail.html

QED

Wait, her ex boyfriend professed his love for her....by shooting at her? o.0

CramCycle

Blowfish wrote: »

Wait, her ex boyfriend professed his love for her....by shooting at her? o.0

At least he didn't require her to wear a cycling helmet

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

It does seem the rotational argument is just being used as an excuse to not wear a helmet.

So a point that supports your position is an argument and one that opposes it is an excuse? Explanation ≠ excuse.

Gophur wrote: »

Common sense

Also known as anecdotal (i.e., not very reliable) evidence.

Gophur wrote: »

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet because you may hit your head so hard a rotational injury will damage you? One has to wonder the effect such an impact would have on the un-helmeted head.

I thought Tonyandthewhale's post was a pretty answer to that.

tomasrojo

Under-16 laws are probably less controversial than all-age laws. Certainly far more jurisdictions have such laws than all-age laws. However, it seems unfair to me to criminalise small children (or their parents) for riding in the park bare-headed, for example. It also seems that a parent would be perfectly justifiable in not wanting a small child to wear a helmet while cycling unsupervised, given the well-documented cases of hanging that have occurred when children move on from playing on bikes to climbing games.

The wearing of helmets would be better left to the parents' discretion.

Stark

gsxr1 wrote: »

any dangerous sport involves armor. From cycling to skydiving.

Going for a cycle round town is not a "dangerous sport" though. No-one's argued against requiring helmets for racing and the like. Recreational cycling has more in common with walking and jogging than it has with extreme adventure sports.

Rob A. Bank

Legislating for universal helmet use by cyclists is akin to tackling knife crime by making everyone wear a stab-proof vest.

Gophur

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Legislating for universal helmet use by cyclists is akin to tackling knife crime by making everyone wear a stab-proof vest.

What a peculiar analogy!

Gophur

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

..........

I thought Tonyandthewhale's post was a pretty answer to that.

Pretty is the word to describe it, all right. :rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

Pretty is the word to describe it, all right. :rolleyes:

I meant to call it "a pretty good answer", which it is.