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

tomasrojo

2RockMountain wrote: »

I haven't had time to go digging out the actual paper as yet;

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/22/wearing-a-bike-helmet-reduces-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-almost-70-says-study-6144333/

When I first heard about this, saw 70%, and saw Olivier was the prinicpal author, I figured this was a resurrection of Thompson, Rivara and Thompson. So it seems to be. Their work figures very heavily. I've never rated TRT's work, for reasons outlined earlier in the thread, I think.

It's discussed here, (this post was quite interesting), and I think there's a link to the paper there.

This seems to be written specifically to counter Rune Elvik's meta-analysis of five years ago, which wasn't all that glowing about helmets' efficacy.

Olivier's use of statistics in general I find bizarre, such as his argument that Ian Walker's study about close passes was burdened by having "too much data". He wrote a paper that simply removed data until the statistical significance disappeared and claimed he'd discredited Walker's paper.

His testimony to the Australian senate hearing into "nanny state" laws was quite odd too, claiming that street counts had no place in determining how many cyclists there were, but that we should hospitalisation data instead.

EDIT:
Link to paper:
http://urbactiv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IntJEpidemiol.-2016-Olivier-ije_dyw153.pdf

tomasrojo

Also in the news: here comes the folding, recyclable, erm ...



http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.ie/2016/09/free-your-head-and-your-bike-will-follow.html

Dermot Illogical

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/mother-dies-from-bike-crash-moments-after-taking-this-smiling-selfie-35103791.html
A sad case, with the inevitable call for mandatory helmets. The husband's logic seems to be that because she died riding a bike one-handed and drunk over rough surface at night while taking selfies, everyone else should be forced to wear helmets.

nak

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/mother-dies-from-bike-crash-moments-after-taking-this-smiling-selfie-35103791.html
A sad case, with the inevitable call for mandatory helmets. The husband's logic seems to be that because she died riding a bike one-handed and drunk over rough surface at night while taking selfies, everyone else should be forced to wear helmets.

Ban pubs and selfies - problem solved.

endagibson

She died back in August. Well done the Indo for bringing us this newsflash.

"...moments after she took a smiling selfie..." - ban selfies?
"...had had a drink before cycling home..." - drunk in charge of a bicycle perhaps?
"...may have had one hand on the handlebars..." - control the bike properly?
"She had been taking some selfies on the main road, she did that regularly and was media savvy," :rolleyes:

"...next second it's a trainwreck." Ah jaysus, now there's a train involved.

Out of nowhere - "He called for legislation to be introduced to require riders to wear a helmet."

No call for high-vis? There is, but not until the comments.

Strange that there's no mention of anyone going to the council about the road condition that caused the fall in the first place.

Seweryn

endagibson wrote: »

"...moments after she took a smiling selfie..." - ban selfies?
"...had had a drink before cycling home..." - drunk in charge of a bicycle perhaps?
"...may have had one hand on the handlebars..." - control the bike properly?
"She had been taking some selfies on the main road, she did that regularly and was media savvy," :rolleyes:

"...next second it's a trainwreck." Ah jaysus, now there's a train involved.

... and she was a mother.

Chips Lovell

What's a factor in more head injuries, alcohol or cycling?

Mandatory drinking helmets all round.

alexinkildare

alexinkildare wrote: »

It's a matter of choice but I chose to wear a good helmet. Nothing macho about not wearing a helmet.

I think the reverse is often true.

Wearing a helmet is - in some circumstances - a statement that the rider is involved in some sort of 'extreme sport'. Not wearing a helmet is a statement that the cyclist is merely going somewhere on a convenient method of transport.

I suspect, based admittedly on zero real evidence, that more men than women wear helmets, often as part of that image.

I don't think the lovely ladies of Copenhagen eschew helmets for 'macho' reasons, and thank god they do not.

CramCycle

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

What's a factor in more head injuries, alcohol or cycling?

Mandatory drinking helmets all round.

I found people who don't like me are a far greater risk to my head, more so than drinking or cycling, although both seem to attract these people.

endagibson

alexinkildare wrote: »

Nothing macho about not wearing a helmet.

Nobody claimed it was.

NiallBoo

endagibson wrote: »

Nobody claimed it was.

Standard stuff.
If people disagree with us we assume that there's some illogical, emotive thing at play rather than because they looked at the same things but reached a different conclusion.

If anything is likely to cause brain damage it's the constant bickering about helmets.

endagibson

NiallBoo wrote: »

If anything is likely to cause brain damage it's the constant bickering about helmets.

Arguing helmets?

Chuchote

TED talk; interesting

BigDickLanger

the coastguard did!

Dermot Illogical

Chuchote wrote: »

TED talk; interesting

Very interesting. How does an industry shill get on to TED Talks with that many logic fails?

He states that helmets are the best at preventing brain injuries. Not falling off your bike is likely to be far more effective, but you don't hear the industry pressing so hard for better infrastructure or more roadcraft training.

He dismisses out of hand the effect of mandatory helmets on bike share schemes. It's almost as if Australia doesn't exist.

He makes a leap from bicycle related brain injuries to talking about how it costs 100b per annum in the US, but neglects to mention that he's no longer talking bicycles with that figure. What he is doing is taking the annual estimate of all injuries, doubling it and then attempting to associate it with bikes. The biggest culprit for those injuries is the simple household fall.

He states that the problem with bike share schemes is low rate of helmet use. That's only likely to be a concern if there is a high rate of head injuries that could be mitigated by helmet use among users of those schemes. If that's not the case he is simply advocating a commercial fix to a non-existent problem.

Dublin Bikes, 16m journeys in the busiest traffic in this country over 7 years. 1 head injury fatality, a student who fell off after a few late-night beers.

Beware those selling a solution for imagined problems, especially when they dress it up as an academic presentation but base it on assumptions and anecdotes. He does say follow the money for bike injuries and it leads to brain injuries. Follow the money for his research and it leads to the Snell foundation, funded by Bell helmets. He's awfully quiet about that in his talk.

CramCycle

He really does nothing for the belief that medics should not try to be scientists and vice versa. If there were anymore holes in his advertorial it could have been marketed as a Swiss cheese.

dub_skav

I stopped watching at his straight faced assertion that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.
Any modern speaker still taking that as gospel is not worth listening to.

magicbastarder

When you have a hammer...

tomasrojo

dub_skav wrote: »

I stopped watching at his straight faced assertion that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.
Any modern speaker still taking that as gospel is not worth listening to.

I didn't watch the talk. I have a limited download allowance, so I tend not to watch longish videos.

I presume though that he is this Rivara. So he's responsible for the 85% figure in the first place.

Fascinatingly, he is still pushing the 85% figure, even though he co-authored a paper that corrected that figure downwards, based on exactly the same dataset from the late 80s.

tomasrojo

Based on what Dermot Illogical said, it also lends support to my suspicion that bike-share schemes pose a problem for people who push helmets heavily, in that they represent a very large dataset of largely helmetless cyclists who are overwhelmingly having safe journeys.

Dermot Illogical

http://crag.asn.au/misguided-doctors-or-marketing-agents/

PokeHerKing

So are people advocating not wearing helmets?

CramCycle

PokeHerKing wrote: »

So are people advocating not wearing helmets?

I advocate making your own mind up, if you want to wear one, wear one. If you don't, then don't. Do not criticise those who do not, and do not chastise those who do.

magicbastarder

PokeHerKing wrote: »

So are people advocating not wearing helmets?

i'm not wearing one.

WindomEarle

PokeHerKing wrote: »

So are people advocating not wearing helmets?

For what? Driving? Walking?

PokeHerKing

WindomEarle wrote:

For what? Driving? Walking?

For cycling of course. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I wear one, I'm fairly new to the cycling gig. I commute to and from work.

I was more interested to know why people who would be avid cyclists would be arguing against wearing one?

I sense some tension, I'm not looking to throw stones. Just genuinely interested in people's reasoning for not wearing one.

Chips Lovell

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I was more interested to know why people who would be avid cyclists would be arguing against wearing one?

The level of risk doesn't call for wearing of one at all times.

Chuchote

PokeHerKing wrote: »

For cycling of course. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I wear one, I'm fairly new to the cycling gig. I commute to and from work.

I was more interested to know why people who would be avid cyclists would be arguing against wearing one?

I sense some tension, I'm not looking to throw stones. Just genuinely interested in people's reasoning for not wearing one.

Because the figures suggest that they're not needed. As Dermot Illogical writes above:

Dublin Bikes, 16m journeys in the busiest traffic in this country over 7 years. 1 head injury fatality, a student who fell off after a few late-night beers.

Mind you, that one fatality might have been avoided if he'd had a helmet on.

In places where there are wide, well-paved, clearly-signalled cycle lanes separated from motor traffic, people seldom wear helmets and the rate of head injuries is low. However, even in those places brain surgeons often call for use of helmets, since they're the ones who see the effect of head injuries when they do happen.

In countries where helmets are compulsory, there is often a low take-up of cycling; there's a theory that this is because helmets make it seem like a dangerous activity.

My own feeling is that it's like seat belt use - when both cycling and helmet wearing become the norm, this will be less important to people, it'll just be part of cycling.

It's up to yourself; you make your own decision.

dub_skav

tomasrojo wrote: »

I presume though that he is this Rivara. So he's responsible for the 85% figure in the first place.

.

D'oh, the name should have clicked.

Makes more sense then, but as you say it is odd that he still hasn't changed the figure, must just be too lazy to update his slides

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

Mind you, that one fatality might have been avoided if he'd had a helmet on.

Your implied suggestion is to always wear a helmet when cycling drunk.

My brain is itching for an alternative solution but I just can't quite put my finger on it.