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

chakattack

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Could it be that cycling helmets aren't fit for purpose / worn incorrectly or is it that cycling is so intrinsically safe that the benefit is so marginal that it isn't statistically significant ?

"Intrinsically safe"....again...come on now!

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

Applying that buzzword you'd have to make a bike or means of cycling that is impossible to fall off

smacl

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Could it be that cycling helmets aren't fit for purpose / worn incorrectly or is it that cycling is so intrinsically safe that the benefit is so marginal that it isn't statistically significant ? Or is it that cycling is so dangerous / bicycles have so little momentum that a helmet isn't much use ? Anyone have stats on moped drivers vs. motorcyclists to see if that sheds any light ?

Could also be that the existing research doesn't conclusively determine the efficacy of cycle helmets one way or another, regardless of what lobbyists on either side of the argument would like us to believe. The volume of anecdotal cases here where cyclists involved in accidents consider (rightly or wrongly) that the helmet was of significant benefit suggests to me that further research is required.

AstraMonti

chakattack wrote: »

Applying that buzzword you'd have to make a bike or means of cycling that is impossible to fall off

But falling down does not require you to have a helmet on your head. You have your hands and your shoulders to stop you from hitting that precious head. You make it sound like you are piece of wood and you re just going to fall on the side. Well yeah, it might happen if you get a heart attack on the bike and you might need a helmet on this case, but I can take my chances with that.

chakattack

AstraMonti wrote: »

But falling down does not require you to have a helmet on your head. You have your hands and your shoulders to stop you from hitting that precious head. You make it sound like you are piece of wood and you re just going to fall on the side. Well yeah, it might happen if you get a heart attack on the bike and you might need a helmet on this case, but I can take my chances with that.

"Safety" covers all injuries, not just to the head.

Capt'n Midnight

chakattack wrote: »

"Intrinsically safe"....again...come on now![/url]

Applying that buzzword you'd have to make a bike or means of cycling that is impossible to fall off

You need a license to drive a car because it's a killing machine that you have to apply constant corrective inputs to it to prevent it killing people.

A bicycle requires constant inputs to keep it moving, if you stop applying the inputs you generally slow down and stop. If you stop the corrective inputs you fall over, so there is a lot of positive feedback there. Even with this constant care and attention and being directly in contact with the environment ( instead of being cocooned in an environment where the radio drowns out almost all external sound ) your main risk factor is motorists.

Put it another way , if there were no motorists and you didn't take chances what do you think your chances of ever needing a helmet are ?


Some car manufacturers are testing cyclist recognition systems. Will they distinguish between helmeted cyclists or not ? (re: famous AI study of tank recognition)

Should helmets have beacons that warn cars of proximity ? (it's a technofix , but do they make drivers lazy and thus more danger for those without the technology ?)

Spook_ie

doozerie wrote: »

I still don't understand what point(s) you are trying to make through posting those videos, hence my asking that you clarify what you are trying to convey.

The likely sequence of events of where and what your head and other bits are going to contact with, nothing other than that. I'm not making out that trailers are dangerous hence why I provided a translated link to the trailer tests, maybe yours is among them

smacl

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Put it another way , if there were no motorists and you didn't take chances what do you think your chances of ever needing a helmet are ?

17.6 to 1 against, prove me wrong.

Speculating relative probability of outcomes based on a 'what if' scenario hardly qualifies as science. People in countries with dedicated cycling lanes, with a multi-generational culture of cycling from a young age, seem to get along just fine without helmets. We have neither the infrastructure nor, for much of the local cycling population, the developed experience, so it's a rather moot point.

As per this post we've a lot of people taking to bikes in the country with poor skills, I was one about four years ago. I think the potential value of the likes of helmets (and do i even dare i say it, high-viz), varies significantly with cycling ability.

Capt'n Midnight

I tend to view a helmet as a Hi Viz Hat

The older style was fairly rain proof because there weren't lots of slits.

I've put retroreflective tape on them even though you are warned not to. It's a view that being seen at night to prevent a collision is more important than the possible reduction in protection afterwards. ( I usually put the reflectors on top of existing tape rather than the shell )

Wearing a helmet is a handy substitute for a pillow when camping, depends on the style of helmet and be hyper-aware of choking risks.

I used to fall off the bike about once a year, usually after doing something stupid, much easier to deduce in hindsight, or having a motorist doing something stupid and
:pac: I don't ever remember hitting my head :pac:


I've seen far too many people, especially women and kids wearing helmets on the back of their heads, in many cases with loose straps. Full Motorbike helmets win here. Has anyone done stats on correctly fitted helmets in collisions ? Maybe they really work when fitted properly but the effect is hidden because so many people haven't a clue how to fit them.


There is little or no discussion about people wearing helmets for cycling activities that people consider risky like off road or racing because most people already wear them.


I still find it scary to think that there is no unambiguous evidence that bicycle helmet wearing significantly improves safety for the average leisure cyclist or commuter. That is why I mentioned infrastructure and driver education because they are proven ways of improving safety. Survey after survey can be criticised because any benefits may be masked by other factors.


Perhaps there should be a different sort of helmet debate.
And the question we should be asking is "what type of cyclist would benefit most from wearing what sort of helmet ?"
And "what sort of cyclist would have no benefit from wearing a helmet because they aren't fitted correctly or the risk of strangulation are high, And if it was possible to mitigate that then would there then be a benefit ?"

chakattack

Lots of shoulds, woulds and coulds...

Better to look at cycling in the real world as it is now.

Goodlooking girls would be one cause to lose attention and fall off in a "killing machine" free world :cool:

I'm with smacl, the research just isn't there to answer this never ending story.

smacl

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Perhaps there should be a different sort of helmet debate. And the question we should be asking is "what type of cyclist would benefit most from wearing what sort of helmet ?" And "what sort of cyclist would have no benefit from wearing a helmet because they aren't fitted correctly or the risk of strangulation are high, And if it was possible to mitigate that then would there then be a benefit ?"

Sounds entirely sensible to me. The issue with this discussion to my mind is that it is far too broad, and for many of the studies that I've read I have to question how relevant they are to the particular circumstances of how I and my family cycle. (Hint: I don't think many model Dutch cycling citizens would be too impressed).

Jawgap

It bears repeating.....

doozerie

Spook_ie wrote:

The likely sequence of events of where and what your head and other bits are going to contact with, nothing other than that. I'm not making out that trailers are dangerous hence why I provided a translated link to the trailer tests, maybe yours is among them

But video footage of cars colliding with cyclist dummies (and their kid dummies) in itself adds nothing to the debate about the pros and cons of cycling helmets. Just like footage of cars colliding with pedestrian dummies wouldn't make a strong case for all pedestrians to wear helmets (well, it probably would actually, but it's not an argument that would be entertained by many), the fact that cyclist dummies may hit their heads too in such a collision isn't a convincing argument that cyclists would benefit from helmets.

Where such videos are used to analyse and explore exactly how effective, or not, helmets might be in such a situation and used to feed into the helmet design process then that would be useful and interesting, but other than promo videos for some helmet manufacturer or other I don't recall seeing something that really explores whether bicycle helmets are truly fit for purpose. All too often the bicycle helmet seems to be deemed as somehow "done", as if its basic safety features were so well designed and implemented that no further research is required, but in my view the reality is quite the opposite and for many people complacency about helmet design takes the place of proper research.

In terms of trailer safety (and thanks for the translated link, by the way), my trailer is not included in that test, which is odd because the version of the very same trailer designed to carry 2 kids is included (and fares best in the test). They tested both single and dual versions of at least one other trailer but for some reason chose to test only the dual version of mine. Mind you, I'm not sure of the value of their ratings anyway as the translation refers to "glaring security flaws" as if security was their prime concern in the tests, yet "security" seems to comprise only 15% of the overall rating going by the translation. Perhaps they clarify their reasoning elsewhere but a quick attempt to view their methodology didn't work for me on the translated page. The trailer stuff is a tangent to this thread though, it just piqued my curiosity.

Spook_ie

One of the things that seems to raise its head is also the "nerdiness" of some cycle helmets, maybe try out some of these if that's all that's holding you back
http://nutcasehelmets.com/eu/products
http://www.yakkay.com/Webshop/

Gavin

Spook_ie wrote: »

One of the things that seems to raise its head is also the "nerdiness" of some cycle helmets, maybe try out some of these if that's all that's holding you back
http://nutcasehelmets.com/eu/products
http://www.yakkay.com/Webshop/

Who said that?

Spook_ie

Gavin wrote: »

Who said that?

Might not be specifically in this thread but for backing up an argument in another thread I've come across it a couple of times during research. Figure it's probably just as relevant to some on here

EDIT:- Maybe nerdiness is the wrong word but there was this one, couldn't be arsed to trawl any further

buffalo wrote: »

Totes bumping the thread for one more letter to the Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/cycle-style-1.1397668



Has anyone seen a fashionable helmet? I've never noticed them on the catwalks... maybe there's a gap in the market here!

Jawgap

Ben Goldacre's editorial in the BMJ this week

"We have both spent a large part of our working lives discussing statistics and risk with the general public. We both dread questions about bicycle helmets. The arguments are often heated and personal; but they also illustrate some of the most fascinating challenges for epidemiology, risk communication, and evidence based policy.

With regard to the use of bicycle helmets, science broadly tries to answer two main questions. At a societal level, “what is the effect of a public health policy that requires or promotes helmets?” and at an individual level, “what is the effect of wearing a helmet?” Both questions are methodologically challenging and contentious.

The linked paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries “seems to have been minimal.”1 Other ecological studies have come to different conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior methodology—controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a proportion of all cycling injuries."

smacl

If the pressure gets too much, you could always pretend not to wear a helmet

Spook_ie

smacl wrote: »

If the pressure gets too much, you could always pretend not to wear a helmet

If I ever take up cycling again that's the one for me, disguise the old bald noggin

Jawgap

I think the evidence shows a long blond wig to be more effective

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

I think the evidence shows a long blond wig to be more effective

https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-built-in-wig/

BTW Try not to take any notice of the date.....

tomasrojo

Jawgap wrote: »

Ben Goldacre's editorial in the BMJ this week

I'm not sure I can quote the bit behind the paywall, but I think it's ok to paraphrase? His final words are along the lines that the direct benefit of helmets appears to be too modest to detect, compared with other strategies, but this debate will go on and on, mostly because of how the public discourse around risk is conducted.

"Too modest to capture" seems accurate to me. Again, that doesn't mean it's zero.

tomasrojo

I guess I can quote directly now, since it's on road.cc:

The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits – which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies – but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk

http://road.cc/content/news/85306-top-scientists-cycle-helmets-debate-will-go-and-and

Also, here's what he said on Twitter before. Not dissimilar to what he wrote, with more grammar and capitalisation, in the BMJ:
http://cyclingindublin.com/2012/08/02/ben-goldacre-on-bicycle-helmets/

And some of his wiser words, not about helmets:

eat fruit and veg, avoid excess alcohol and cigarettes, ride your bike to work, and ignore everything you see in the media

http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/867/

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

And some of his wiser words, not about helmets:

No mention of sunscreen?

monument

Great stuff from Ben.

Now that he's so openly on-side, he'll get attacked and then he'll debunk helmets more.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

Great stuff from Ben.

Now that he's so openly on-side, he'll get attacked and then he'll debunk helmets more.

This editorial actually throws a bit of a challenge out to the British Medical Association

Statistical models for the overall impact of helmet habits are therefore inevitably complex and based on speculative assumptions.
This complexity seems at odds with the current official BMA policy, which confidently calls for compulsory helmet legislation.

Be interesting to see who rises to this.

swansea

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At a personal level I try to go at a speed where I am confident of my ability to stop in the space available.

At a broader level it does not matter. Many of the cyclists who would prefer not to wear helmets will likely wish to travel at a speed where they do not start sweating or getting their clothes messed up, say if cycling to work, cycling to the shop, going to town for a meal etc

Thanks.

I was out for a spin this morning and got to around 30-35km/h with no helmet on. I felt comfortable, knew the road etc, so I'm not sure what category I go in to now!

Wondering how many cyclists with racer bikes out there cycle without a helmet?

Capt'n Midnight

A reminder that old studies may have involved hard shell helmets that are practically non-existent these days.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.3251&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Cochrane reviewHelmets for preventing head and
facial injuries in bicyclists (Thompson et al., 2004)is
clearly intended as a guide to intervention. It synthesises the
results of five “included studies” of cyclists who crashed:
Thompson et al. (1989, 1996), McDermott et al. (1993),
Thomas et al. (1994)and Maimaris et al. (1994).
...
Use of hard shells has
since declined, being only half for Thompson 1996, less still
by the time of the review and now rare. Whether soft bicycle
helmets can protect the skull is problematic.
For soldiers and the like, the risk of brain injury is slight if
the skull is undamaged. Bullets, for instance, have insufficient
mass to generate injurious angular acceleration, but Corner et
al. (1987)measured it at 12 times the 4500 rad/s2
for onset of
vein rupture when dummies wearing bicycle helmets struck
a floor at 45 km/h and showed by experiment that the mass
added by wearing a helmet can increase it. In the design
and testing of helmets, angular acceleration is disregarded,
however. Instead, helmets are lined with plastic foam and
tested for capacity to reduce linear acceleration, according to
a discredited theory that it is a major cause of brain injury.
...

Due to the decline in use of hard-shell helmets, past findings of their efficacy are not applicable to most helmets
now used

smacl

swansea wrote: »

Wondering how many cyclists with racer bikes out there cycle without a helmet?

I think it's as much about the type of trip and location than the bike. I go out leisure cyling on country roads, and the vast majority (say between 8 to 9 out of 10 people I see) wear a helmet. I also often commute around UCD, Nutgrove etc... and the more people don't wear helmets regardless of the type of bike.

Most cycling clubs mandate helmet usage which skews this slightly, and many people like myself who have to wear the helmet at certain times have the habit of wearing it for all cycling trips. Personally, I find the straps also hold my specs more firmly in place, which is a benefit on bumpy roads.

Capt'n Midnight

According to this cyclists at risk are more likely to wear helmets but aren't more likely to take more risks because of them which more or less answers the debate about helmet laws.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847812000587?np=y

The results show that the cyclist population in Norway broadly consists of two sub-populations: one training-oriented speed-happy group that cycle fast and have lots of cycle equipment including helmets, and one traditional, old-fashioned kind of cyclists without much equipment, cycling slowly. In the latter group it seems like the most careful and those who feel unsafe wear helmets.

The results of this study indicate that the lacking effect of helmet legislation most likely has to do with a population shift effect, in which the introduction of mandatory bicycle helmet wearing will lead to a decrease of traditional cyclists in the cycling population, who do not have much accidents anyway, whereas the speed-happy helmet- and equipment using cyclists will remain. Reduced cycling will quite clearly have negative social health consequences (Cooper et al., 2008, Gidske et al., 2007 and Hendriksen et al., 2010). Reduced cycling may also lead to a reduction in what is called safety in numbers, i.e. the fact that the fewer pedestrians or bicyclists there are, the higher is the accident risk for these road users (Jacobsen, 2003).

The results give less support to a risk-compensation explanation, in particular because the speeding behaviour of the speed-happy group is more connected to other types of equipment than to bicycle helmets. The helmet is more or less just one element in the total equipment package. So it is not because of the helmet that these cyclists ride fast; they use all the equipment (including helmets) because they want to ride fast.

However, as these results are based on cross-sectional data, further studies using longitudinal data on cycling behaviour, equipment use and risk perception is needed in order to resolve some of the issues concerning causal directions between the variables.

Jawgap

Picking up the theme from the recent BMJ editorial........

http://mindhacks.com/2013/06/13/protect-your-head-the-world-is-complex/

"The British Medical Journal has a fascinating editorial on the behavioural complexities behind the question of whether cycling helmets prevent head injuries.

You would think that testing whether helmets prevent bikers from head injury would be a fairly straightforward affair. Maybe putting a bike helmet on a crash test dummy and throwing rocks at its head. Or counting how many cyclists with head injuries were wearing head protection – but it turns out to be far more complicated."