Deaths when not using helmet

[ufkacbln]

You are correct

As many of you will be aware I am fully cognizant with the BHSI website, and the way it works.

Now we can give the information that was removed from the OP's table, the original has the following qaulifications

*Total includes other and/or unknowns. BHSI Note: cause of death may or may not have been head injuries

Twenty-six percent of bicyclists killed in 2008 had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent.

Bicyclist deaths in 2008 occurred most often during August-October and between the hours of 6pm and 9pm.

Deaths among bicyclists younger than 16 have declined 86 percent since 1975, while deaths among bicyclists 16 and older increased 91 percent.

Deaths of bicyclists younger than 16 were 13 percent of all bicyclist deaths in 2008.

Once again we have the situation where having consumed or not having consumed alcohol is a bigger factor than helmet use when you examine the background of the figures.


If you wish to read the full as opposed to the edited table it is available here

 

[david k]

Not unless all deaths are from head injuries. Wearing or not wearing a helmet will be irrelevant in most cases.

Those stats are just numbers with no real meaning. More information would be needed to draw any conclusion from them.

average of 750 deaths a year, if 500 subtracted the percentages would be the same

 

[Angelfishsolo]

This is a wonderful case of statistics proving whatever somebody wants them to prove. This is why I prefer personal experience and experiences of people I know.

 

[ufkacbln]

average of 750 deaths a year, if 500 subtracted the percentages would be the same

... and the number of death in helmet wearers would still be increasing and the number of deaths in non-helmet wearers decreasing.

 

[Red Light]

This is a wonderful case of statistics proving whatever somebody wants them to prove. This is why I prefer personal experience and experiences of people I know.

No its another example of david k not having a cluex4 about what he posted so he posted a set of meaningless figures.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No its another example of david k not having a cluex4 about what he posted so he posted a set of meaningless figures.

Seems like everything is open to interpretation doesn't it.

 

[Red Light]

Seems like everything is open to interpretation doesn't it.

No, there are well tried and trusted methodologies that have been developed over centuries and work. Unfortunately the OP is not aware of them and tried to impute meaning to gibberish instead.

 

[tigger]

Well I really wanted to stay out of these, but can't help myself

I don't think thats very fair, a) its a personal attack b) I've found you guilty recently of exactly the same

Can we not leave the ding dong personal battle out of all this? Its been odd removing myself for a couple of days and watching all the pecking - it really does look sad and pathetic - not just aimed at you Red Light. Have you guys not got anything better to do? Really, do you ever actually ride a bike???

Those figures could be useful if we knew what the % of helmet wearers was for each of those years - then its dead easy to work out whether there is a greater likelihood of death either way. Without them they prove nothing, but interesting none the less.

As you were

No its another example of david k not having a cluex4 about what he posted so he posted a set of meaningless figures.

 

[martynjc1977]

Bicycle Deaths by Helmet Use
1994-2006


Year/ No Helmet(%), Helmet (%), Total Num

1994
776 (97%)19 (2%)796

1995
783 (95%)34 (4%)828

1996
731 (96%)27 (4%)761

1997
785 (97%)23 (3%)811

1998
741 (98%)16 (2%)757

1999
698 (93%)42 (6%)750

2000
622 (90%)50 (7%)689

2001
616 (84%)60 (8%)729

2002
589 (89%)54 (8%)663

2003
535 (85%)58 (9%)626

2004
602 (83%)87 (12%)722

2005
676 (86%)77 (10%)784

2006
730 (95%)37 (5%)669

2007
646 (92%)50 (7%)699

2008
653 (91%)58 (8%)714

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm



Make your own decision if you want to wear a helmet or not, here are the stats, total deaths, how many were and how many were not wearing a helmet

YAWN

 

[cycleruk]

I am interested that there is a trend that more cyclists are now killed whilst wearing helmets.

Does this indicate that proportionately more cyclists are wearing helmets than previously?

Does this indicate that drivers are becoming riskier towards cyclists wearing helmets?

There are many ways to interpret those figures.

hang does that mean by wearing a helmet you are more likely to die then not wearing a helmet! i just cant seem to get my head around this, so does this mean i should not be wearing a helmet when im cycling................... yer but, no but, yer but no but

 

[Zoiders]

so from total cycle deaths the approx 95% didnt wear a helmet,5% did, allowing for some discrepancy this is still an alarming swing to no helmet = more likely to die in an accident

Sorry - no.

You are quoting that which is merely incidental.

It's like that now struck off gibbon of a doctor who told parents that vaccinating children causes autism - it does no such thing it just so happens that the onset of the condition comes on around the same time as the early vaccinations, it doesn't indicate any cause or effect.

Same thing with your quoted figures, it's all incidental, it doesn't indicate a direct link.

 

[tigger]

Anyone want to splash some Aussie cash?

http://www.sciencedi...001457500000488

 

[Red Light]

Anyone want to splash some Aussie cash?

http://www.sciencedi...001457500000488

I wouldn't waste your money. Its not very good study and had a number of methodological problems. It was re-analysed by the Elvik this year resulting in a much reduced benefit compared to the ones reported in the abstract you linked to. None of the four more recent studies Elvik also reviewed found a reduction in head injuries from helmet wearing.

 

[tigger]

I wouldn't waste your money. Its not very good study and had a number of methodological problems. It was re-analysed by the Elvik this year resulting in a much reduced benefit compared to the ones reported in the abstract you linked to. None of the four more recent studies Elvik also reviewed found a reduction in head injuries from helmet wearing.

Interesting study Red Light. Not read through this in enough detail yet, but, if this an accurate study, then the conclusion shows positive benefits of helmets in terms of pure head injuries but an alarming trend of the more modern soft shells seeming to be less effective, but effective none-the-less. Neck injuries are the real concern though, consistently higher liklihood of neck injuries with helmets whether in new or old studies. No real surprise that facial injuries are only slightly, and fairly negligably, less likely with helmets.

So, based purely on this, the trade off seems to be whether you value your head or your neck...

Would neck injuries be reduced for helmet wearers if the rotational issues were improved?? I also liked your link about the Phillips superskin helmets the other day. Possibly a cycling version within a year.

http://www.bikeradar.com/COMMUTING/...ld-protect-against-rotational-injuries-25081/

At this point we should introduce the dreaded C word. Maybe it would be better if it was introduced, then maybe the focus would shift back to positively improving helmet safety...

 

[david k]

No its another example of david k not having a cluex4 about what he posted so he posted a set of meaningless figures.

they are figures i found whilst looking into the subject, similar to the figures you have put forward, open to interpretation yes, just like yours