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

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.

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.

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....

tomasrojo

chakattack wrote: »

Back to helmet laws....

Oh right, well, that invalidates my claim that the board of cyclehelmets.org have scientfic expertise.

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.

monkeybutter

good article here from the dutch of course

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

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

chakattack

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

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

chakattack

Any non-dutch studies? :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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!

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.

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???

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.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

A lot of homeopaths are also well qualified academics. That doesn't mean I'll swallow their weak pills* or weaker arguments. Any studies / articles or whatever that are put forward on an open forum as fact are open to critical analysis, regardless of who wrote them. Surely this is what differentiates critical thinking from blind faith?

(*unless I'm looking for a small tasty treat and am all out of other sweeties)

jimmycrackcorm

seamus wrote: »

Pretty fair discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia

The key point is that mandatory helmet laws have been demonstrated to reduce cycling numbers. And cycling numbers have been demonstrated to be directly correlated to cyclist safety - more cyclists, more safety. The percentage of helmets in use appears to have no correlation to the overall safety of cyclists on the road - more cyclists wearing helmets appears to have no effect on the injury or fatality rates.

So mandatory helmet use proportionally makes cycling more dangerous overall.

Choosing to wear a helmet individually makes no difference to the overall figure, but if the individual feels safer, then fire away.

http://bicyclesafe.com/images/helmetchart.gif

The problem with that argument is that like the place where I got knocked down it doesn't matter what effect compulsory helmets or not have as there would never be a critical mass of cyclists traveling there to add to the safety in numbers effect.

boege

I lived through the compulsory motorbike helmet debate and the arguements on both sides here are very similar.

Motorbike helmets afford little protection for impacts 30mph, the brain just keeps travelling! For me bike helmets are the same, probably most city accidents are going to involve other vehicles and a helmet is probably only going to help where speeds are low.

The comments about sports riding are probably more accurate in that it is where a helmet may come into play, especially in group riding. My only accident was in a sportif where I touched a wheel in front ("breaking" shout came late) and went up and over. I had scan for safety and was discharged within hours, my helmet was wrecked and had to buy a new one. Watching races I often wonder why knee and shin pads are not worn!;)

Back to the motorbikes. Volvo drivers were famous for being involved in more motorcycle collisions than any other car type and this was statistically proven. At the time Volvo cars were advertised as the safest car in the world. The knickname for Volvo drivers became "sorry mate I didn't see yah".

My sense is that the question of compulsory helmets will only arise when deaths/accident rates become signicant in absolute number terms. Then it becomes a political issue and all the stats on either side won't matter. That's how motorbike helmets became compulsory.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

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?

The obvious thing to do is to work out how many professional cyclists were partaking in how many events in the ten years before and after UCI made helmets mandatory. The records are definitely there. I'm not doing it though!

smacl wrote: »

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.

What's on cyclehelmets.org is generally a fair presentation of what evidence has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, followed by a sceptical commentary (critical of poorer papers that happen to chime with the cychelmets.org world view as well). You might take issue with the commentary and the universally sceptical stance, but they link to all the original papers and even for someone who is less sceptical than them, it's a useful resource for that reason alone.

Incidentally, what homeopaths are well-qualified academics? They generally have Gillian McKeith-style qualifications.

(Incidentally, since you keep returning to homeopaths, I wasn't comparing helmet advocates to homeopaths. Someone said that a bunch of anecdotes from helmet enthusiasts was a compelling example of real-world evidence, and I was giving a concise reason why it isn't. Helmet advocates rely on more than anecdotes, though they probably lean far too heavily on one particular case-control study.)

Agent Smyth

Have been cycling anywhere between 100 to 400 miles per week for the last 20 years and refuse to wear a helmet and as you can imagine I've had plenty of crashes during this time and up to the last crash never did any damage to myself or bike other the a bit of road rash.
all the bike shops I have dealt with have all said I am mad not to wear a helmet, my wife thinks I am a lunatic for not wearing one and some cyclists I meet on the road will pass a comment on my lack of helmet. But for me when I tried them on in the shops they never feel right, when I look in the mirror I think I look stupid with one on and I haven't found one I totally like there is always something I don't like about the helmet. All the usually arguments for not wearing one.

Having said all that I am seriously considering buying a helmet because it is finally sinking into my thick skull that cycling is a dangerous sport and accidents do happen quite often and more times then not due to somebody's Else's mistake. my last crash resulted in a broken bone and my bike frame been written off. while my bike shop was assessing my bike there was another one there from a crash that happened in bray, I think some car pulled out in front of him but I can honestly say only for him wearing a helmet he would not have walked away from that crash

A bicycle helmet wont save you if a car runs over your head but it might be the difference between feeding yourself or having somebody else feed you should your head hit the side of a car, a lamppost or whatever. I can understand why people don't wear helmets but I cant understand how people argue that helmets don't offer a level of protection that could make that difference

death1234567

dave_o_brien wrote: »

That's fair enough, but what I am saying is that that same logic applies to wearing a helmet while flying, or while driving, or getting vaccinated for hepatitis before using straws in Eddie Rockets, or generally wrapping yourself up in cotton wool. Does it make you safer? Yes. Is it a sensible cost? Not by most practicable standards. By most practicable standards, it is paranoid.

Absolute Nonsense. You comparing things which aren't comparable and you know it.

When your cycling a bike you have a much higher chance of being in an accident than pretty much everything else you do on a given day (apart from driving your car). I cycle at about 15mph on a road bike with thin, little or no thread tyres on roads that are often wet and/or busy with traffic. There's a decent chance that at some point in my life I will come off my bike at some stage for whatever reason. Therefore to mitigate the potential harm I wear a helmet, eventhough I have never needed one. I wear my seatbelt on an airplane/in a car eventhough I have never needed one of them either. In fact there's a much much much bigger chance of me being in an cycling accident than in a airplane accident.

So to answer your question "Q. Is it a sensible cost <to wear a cycling helmet>? A. Not by most practicable standards."

I disagree and I think it is a sensible cost the same way I think it's sensible to have mandatory helmet wearing for motorcyclists. In some US states you don't have to wear a Helmet on a motorcycle IIRC. Do you agree with that? I'm not saying that their should be mandatory helmet wearing for cyclists but I don't think the argument against not wearing one makes much sense. I just would be dubious of the possible 'Nanny State' angle to mandatory helmet wearing.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

What's on cyclehelmets.org is generally a fair presentation of what evidence has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, followed by a sceptical commentary (critical of poorer papers that happen to chime with the cychelmets.org world view as well). You might take issue with the commentary and the universally sceptical stance, but they link to all the original papers and even for someone who is less sceptical than them, it's a useful resource for that reason alone.

Agreed, some of the linked peer reviewed papers are doubtless excellent. Many of the articles however, such as the one initially linked in this thread, don't appear to be ultimately based on such material, and are essentially opinion pieces designed to propagate and re-reinforce the collective world view of the site authors. I don't have particularly strong feelings about helmets one way or another, but I think it is essential to differentiate solid academic work from less substantial pieces, particularly in the context where we're dismissing anecdotal information out of hand.

Incidentally, what homeopaths are well-qualified academics? They generally have Gillian McKeith-style qualifications.

Meh, homoopathy is big business, and big business buys in all the academics it needs to support the product it is pushing. A quick scan on google scholar for pro-homeopathy papers shows a wealth of MDs and PHDs among the authorship. I wish I'd had the cop to sell packets of small harmless sugar pills to the masses at €10 a pop. Genius.

(Incidentally, since you keep returning to homeopaths, I wasn't comparing helmet advocates to homeopaths. Someone said that a bunch of anecdotes from helmet enthusiasts was a compelling example of real-world evidence, and I was giving a concise reason why it isn't. Helmet advocates rely on more than anecdotes, though they probably lean far too heavily on one particular case-control study.)

Fair enough, but since you brought up homeopathy it seemed like an ideal way to illustrate the need to critically differentiate between verifiable studies and faith based pseudo science. From where I'm sitting, the helmet debate appears to contain both, and much more unbiased work would be needed to arrive at solid conclusions on the subject. Personally, I think it would be a better use of resources to ignore the whole helmet thing, leaving it as an option for the individual, and spend the ever dwindling available funds on education and wider promotion of cycling.

smacl

death1234567 wrote: »

When your cycling a bike you have a much higher chance of being in an accident than pretty much everything else you do on a given day (apart from driving your car).

I think you're possibly falling foul of perceived risk rather than actual risk there. How many accidents of any kind have you had in the last 10 years, and how many bike crashes? Of those bike crashes, how many were commuting?

I know that in the last three years, I've had three crashes. Once learning how to mountain bike, where the helmet did get a ding. Once towing my daughter over a narrow cattle grid on the Mayo greenway, plenty of road rash for us both, but no bangs to the head. Once learning how use cleats, and having that classic static SPD fall, sore shoulder. Basically, all sport / leisure related, but then you're going to pick up injuries in many sports.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, but since you brought up homeopathy it seemed like an ideal way to illustrate the need to critically differentiate between verifiable studies and faith based pseudo science. From where I'm sitting, the helmet debate appears to contain both, and much more unbiased work would be needed to arrive at solid conclusions on the subject. Personally, I think it would be a better use of resources to ignore the whole helmet thing, leaving it as an option for the individual, and spend the ever dwindling available funds on education and wider promotion of cycling.

This pseudoscience issue is what in part is driving the whole debate. The most quoted pro-helmet research uses a methodology that shows that helmets also prevent leg injuries.

Part of the problem with establishing the actual effects of helmet wearing is that to do it definitively we would really need to conduct a randomised trial over a very large population. i.e. assign people randomly to helmet wearing or non helmet wearing and follow the patterns over a decent length of time.

This is not really practical.

In the absence of this, we have to draw conclusions based on less direct indicators. This unavoidably descends into speculation. However there is a difference between speculation based on some guys chatting on a bulletin board and speculation based on extrapolating from the findings of published research according to published models.

The helmet debate is undoubtedly serves to absorb energy and effort that would be much better spent elsewhere.

However, given that helmet promotion is seen as one of the biggest threats to growing cycling as a form of transport it is something that cannot be ignored.

dave_o_brien

death1234567 wrote: »

Absolute Nonsense. You comparing things which aren't comparable and you know it.

They are all things that present risk. Thus, they are comparable from the perspective of risk assessment. Some are more realistic risks than others, but all are risks.

death1234567 wrote: »

When your cycling a bike you have a much higher chance of being in an accident than pretty much everything else you do on a given day (apart from driving your car). I cycle at about 15mph on a road bike with thin, little or no thread tyres on roads that are often wet and/or busy with traffic. There's a decent chance that at some point in my life I will come off my bike at some stage for whatever reason. Therefore to mitigate the potential harm I wear a helmet, eventhough I have never needed one. I wear my seatbelt on an airplane/in a car eventhough I have never needed one of them either. In fact there's a much much much bigger chance of me being in an cycling accident than in a airplane accident.

Ok, then let's compare bicycles and cars exclusively, for the purposes of this conversation. A helmet will make driving a safer pursuit. Would you wear one driving? Would you wear one as a passenger of a car?

Given the infrequency of circumstances in which a helmet would be useful on a bicycle, it seems an over-reaction to insist that they are necessary. Pretty much any piece of safety equipment will make any activity safer, but most people make reasoned decisions based on the likelihood of their necessity. The helmet argument in relation to bicycles has moved away from a logic based decision based on actual risk and towards perception based decisions, namely that cycling is a dangerous activity where you will bang your head.

As I said, I'm a victim of this logical fallacy: I mostly wear a helmet.

death1234567 wrote: »

So to answer your question "Q. Is it a sensible cost <to wear a cycling helmet>? A. Not by most practicable standards."

I disagree and I think it is a sensible cost the same way I think it's sensible to have mandatory helmet wearing for motorcyclists. In some US states you don't have to wear a Helmet on a motorcycle IIRC. Do you agree with that? I'm not saying that their should be mandatory helmet wearing for cyclists but I don't think the argument against not wearing one makes much sense. I just would be dubious of the possible 'Nanny State' angle to mandatory helmet wearing.

You are welcome to disagree. As I said, my behaviour runs contrary to my understanding of the argument, so I often find myself disagreeing with what I have written.

For what it's worth, I am totally not in a position to give you an opinion on the motorbike helmet issue. I don't know what standard they are tested to, I don't know the frequency with which head injuries occur, I just don't know enough. All I know is that cycling is a pretty safe thing to do, and cycle helmets are tested to a very low standard.

I agree that they shouldn't be made mandatory, but not out of some Orwellian suspicion of nanny-stateism, or whatever. I just think it'd be a really, really dumb law to introduce.

NeedMoreGears

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the biggest benefit of helmets is in the types of falls I have had - usually travelling 25 - 35kph when I lose a wheel and fall over sideways or bang into something and go over the bars. I seem to hit my head more than most in these types of event. The benefit in my case being avoided cuts bruises stitches and probably concussion in one instance. To me the risk of banging my head off the road or similar, although quite small (maybe once every 8,000km or so in my case), makes wearing the helmet worthwhile.

I'd be sceptical that they're worth the trouble for a general modest speed commute - I'd speculate that the fall rate is perhaps lower and the energy involved is probably lower too. I wouldn't be counting on a helmet to do much in a high speed/high energy collision.

So for me it's a good idea if you're cycling for sport but it shouldn't be compulsary

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In the absence of this, we have to draw conclusions based on less direct indicators. This unavoidably descends into speculation. However there is a difference between speculation based on some guys chatting on a bulletin board and speculation based on extrapolating from the findings of published research according to published models.

Ok, but then when referring to this work, surely you should point out that it is speculation based on extrapolating from the findings of published research. The credibility gap between this type of speculation and anecdotal accounts being considerably narrower than that between peer reviewed scientific work and anecdote. People arrive at their own conclusions based on weighing up the relative merits of what they read in total. Confusing the speculation with the verifiable work is giving it more weight than it deserves, which in turn could be seen as being misleading.

Out of interest, do you believe that if all helmet promotion, outside of sport cycling, in Ireland were to cease, there would be a surge in the uptake of utility cycling, cycling to school, etc...? I think the larger problem is the perceived danger of cycling, and while helmets and high viz may have contributed to some extent in the formation of this perception, removing them at this point isn't going to make that significant a difference. Pure speculation on my part of course. I'd rather see a program where children were encouraged and facilitated in cycling to school, so we end up with a future generation that knows that cycling is safe and highly functional. Put it on the curriculum as well as the agenda.

petethedrummer

CaoimH_in wrote: »

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.

My advice: Slow down.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

Meh, homoopathy is big business, and big business buys in all the academics it needs to support the product it is pushing. A quick scan on google scholar for pro-homeopathy papers shows a wealth of MDs and PHDs among the authorship.

Yes, but they're generally, as I said, Ph.Ds similar to the one that Gillian McKeith has -- i.e. not from a reputable university, and easy to get.

It's more informative to look at how much and where they've been published, and the CHO board have good form in that regard: reputable journals, much-cited papers by the standards of the field. Doesn't mean anyone has to unquestioningly assume they're right, but it was excessive for you to use terms such as "mumbo jumbo". The key papers used by both advocate and sceptics are all, whatever flaws they have, published and peer-reviewed. None of them is flat-out nonsense.

This is all a little bit off-topic, but I agree about homeopathy, as I'm sure you can guess.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Ok, but then when referring to this work, surely you should point out that it is speculation based on extrapolating from the findings of published research. The credibility gap between this type of speculation and anecdotal accounts being considerably narrower than that between peer reviewed scientific work and anecdote. People arrive at their own conclusions based on weighing up the relative merits of what they read in total. Confusing the speculation with the verifiable work is giving it more weight than it deserves, which in turn could be seen as being misleading.

I will bring that to the attention of the Cyclehelmets.org folks

Out of interest, do you believe that if all helmet promotion, outside of sport cycling, in Ireland were to cease, there would be a surge in the uptake of utility cycling, cycling to school, etc...? I think the larger problem is the perceived danger of cycling, and while helmets and high viz may have contributed to some extent in the formation of this perception, removing them at this point isn't going to make that significant a difference. Pure speculation on my part of course. I'd rather see a program where children were encouraged and facilitated in cycling to school, so we end up with a future generation that knows that cycling is safe and highly functional. Put it on the curriculum as well as the agenda.

Yes, I believe that if helmet promotion ceased cycling uptake would be increased. "Surge" would be too strong a word. It is a fact that some schools ban children from cycling without helmets. Therefore if you remove such bans, cycling should increase.

Cyclist.ie is engaged in a separate strand of activity where we want to see on-road cycle training for all children. We would like similar training as part of the driver training curriculum, garda training and training of roads engineers.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Cyclist.ie is engaged in a separate strand of activity where we want to see on-road cycle training for all children. We would like similar training as part of the driver training curriculum, garda training and training of roads engineers.

Fair play to you and keep up the good work! I honestly believe that the largest part of whether Ireland will end up a cycling friendly society will be determined by the number of children that cycle regularly. Like most things with kids, this needs a carrot and a stick.

chakattack

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However there is a difference between speculation based on some guys chatting on a bulletin board and speculation based on extrapolating from the findings of published research according to published models.

What is the difference? The boffin factor?

Extrapolating "results" is fraught with error.

Show me a scientific study defending an anti-helmet stance (without discussing mandatory legislation - off topic) that can be reasonably extrapolated to cycling in Ireland.

galwaycyclist

chakattack wrote: »

What is the difference? The boffin factor?

Extrapolating "results" is fraught with error.

Show me a scientific study defending an anti-helmet stance (without discussing mandatory legislation - off topic) that can be reasonably extrapolated to cycling in Ireland.

Why do you want to exclude mandatory helmet wearing legislation? If you want scientifically sound conclusions you need to work off the largest populations possible.

Helmet law countries provide large population evidence for the likely outcomes of general cycle helmet wearing.

Define "reasonably extrapolated"

chakattack

Because it's not the question originally asked in this thread.

Reasonable assumptions and transferable results.

galwaycyclist

chakattack wrote: »

Because it's not the question originally asked in this thread.

Here is the original post

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I'm interested in a lot of recent comments about wearing or not wearing a helmet. It never occurred to me not to wear one but recently I'm picking up a lot of people who seem to have a different view. Why is that? Does wearing a helmet not make it safer if you fall, even a little bit? And those who advocate not wearing one, is it a safety thing or a style thing or a macho man thing or what? Or is there some evidence that a helmet doesnt actually give you any protection or even that wearing one could be dangerous in itself.

The parts of the post in bold are best addressed by considering what has happened in helmet law countries such as Australia.

The evidence provided by Australian injury trends suggests that, following helmet laws, cycling became more risky than it might otherwise have been without them.

toomevara

Let me preface this post by saying I am not a cyclist, but I saw the thread title and really wanted to add my two-cents for what it's worth. I gather there are arguments around whether or not wearing a bicycle helmet initially predisposes a cyclist to accident/injury. I won't engage in that argument because frankly I'm not knowledgeable enough to do so and I do believe ultimately that the decision is an individual's to make. But having said that I would urge cyclists to inform themselves of the possible outcomes following accidents when not wearing helmets.

I am a nurse and up to last year I worked in a busy ICU over here in the UK. I saw a number of cyclists whose lives were catastrophically altered by sustaining acquired brain injuries (ABI) following cycling accidents while not wearing helmets. You become inured to hard-cases in my trade (you have to to be able to do your job) but these are some of the toughest patients emotionally and psychologically to deal with. You have spouses/partner/children/parents trying to come to terms with the fact that their loved one is no longer the person they knew, is now seriously cognitively impaired, may not be able to continue to work, may have to relearn basic physiological functions such as walking/toileting etc... etc.. etc...

I have spoken to the relatives in many of these cases and they liken the experience to a bereavement without an actual physical death having taken place. You decide whether that is a blessing or a curse, but I know what they tell me. One young man particularly stays in my mind. He had A young family,a beautiful wife and a thriving career when he sustained an ABI following a collision with a car. He ended up with the cognitive function of an 8 year old boy with absolutely no long term memory. Utterly, utterly heart breaking.

Almost invariably, in these cases the neurologists involved say that wearing a 20/30 quid helmet would have vastly improved outcomes and allowed the patient involved to carry on with their lives. As I say, the decision, as a sentient adult human being, whether or not to wear a basic piece of safety equipment is yours to make, but at least you can't say you weren't warned as to the devastating possible consequences of not doing so.

galwaycyclist

toomevara wrote: »

Almost invariably, in these cases the neurologists involved say that wearing a 20/30 quid helmet would have vastly improved outcomes and allowed the patient involved to carry on with their lives.

Is the average neurologist qualified to make such a claim? Particularly for a device that is not tested or designed to withstand impacts with moving cars?

If such a claim is valid for cycling head injuries is not also valid for head injuries sustained in a variety of other circumstances?

toomevara

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Is the average neurologist qualified to make such a claim? Particularly for a device that is not tested or designed to withstand impacts with moving cars?

Look, these guys have spent 30-40 years dealing with this stuff, i appreciate there are many different types of helmets, of varying quality etc..etc.. but yes, they say a standard british bicyle helmet is, literally a person saver. As I say I'm not an expert, but these guys are the best in the business so yeah I'd take their advice on the matter over most other folks..but hey-ho the decision is ultimately yours...

droidus

toomevara wrote: »

Almost invariably, in these cases the neurologists involved say that wearing a 20/30 quid helmet would have vastly improved outcomes and allowed the patient involved to carry on with their lives. As I say, the decision, as a sentient adult human being, whether or not to wear a basic piece of safety equipment is yours to make, but at least you can't say you weren't warned as to the devastating possible consequences of not doing so.

Do these neurologists also make the same observations regarding those who suffer head injuries as a result of driving, or being a passenger in a car which is involved in a crash?

If not, why not?

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Define "reasonably extrapolated"

Very close to, but slightly outside of, the bounds of what is known to be true. Most data is both contextual and dynamic. It becomes less trustworthy as you change the context and over time. Hence what is true for Australia or Copenhagen may be true to a much lesser extent in Dublin or Galway, and what was true in 1990 may be not apply today.

For many, extrapolation equates to guesswork, providing a direction for further investigation rather than anything definitive in itself.

galwaycyclist

toomevara wrote: »

Look, these guys have spent 30-40 years dealing with this stuff, i appreciate there are many different types of helmets, of varying quality etc..etc.. but yes, they say a standard british bicyle helmet is, literally a person saver. As I say I'm not an expert, but these guys are the best in the business so yeah I'd take their advice on the matter over most other folks..but hey-ho the decision is ultimately yours...

If they are making life saving claims for a piece of polystyrene packing foam then by that fact their understanding of the field is open to question.

In most cases these "guys" primary field of expertise is in the treatment of injuries. We are not discussing treatment.

When neurologists start getting into making claims on matters of injury prevention based on an apparently flawed understanding of material science then it is time to find other sources of advice.

chakattack

I think the OP was concerned about whether or not a helmet is a good idea for him..not the australian public

Agent Smyth

The original question basically was to wear or not to wear and why ??

There is perceived risk and actual risk and if you where to think about all the things that could go wrong in life you would never leave the house but where is the fun in that. Instead we calculate the risk involved and take appropriate action and try and protect ourselves against the perceived risk.

The Neurologist was making a general statement based on their experience, we will never know if the outcome would have been different but I am sure the patient wishes they could relive that moment with a helmet

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Very close to, but slightly outside of, the bounds of what is known to be true. Most data is both contextual and dynamic. It becomes less trustworthy as you change the context and over time. Hence what is true for Australia or Copenhagen may be true to a much lesser extent in Dublin or Galway, and what was true in 1990 may be not apply today.

For many, extrapolation equates to guesswork, providing a direction for further investigation rather than anything definitive in itself.

Accepted and I would be the first to argue that we cannot cherry pick isolated interventions from places like Copenhagen and expect them to work the same way here.

However on issues like official/popular road culture and driver attitudes I suspect we lean more towards the Australians than the Danes. The old National Safety Council was quite fond of Australia as a role model and the same staff came into the RSA.

As for what was true in 1990 not applying today that is a weakness we must acknowledge. However it is perhaps most relevant in the observation that the level of protection provided by current EU helmet standards are likely to be lower than those which applied in Australia in the early 1990s.

galwaycyclist

chakattack wrote: »

I think the OP was concerned about whether or not a helmet is a good idea for him..not the australian public

If you read the mod note at the start it is clear that it is hoped that this thread should capture wider aspects of the debate.