Helmet reduces the risk of you getting a head injury by 69-85 %

[tyred]

Or so the Irish Road Safety Authority say:

Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of you getting a head injury by 69 to 85 per cent 1, 2.
The best helmet for you
Ask the experts at your bicycle shop about the best helmet for you.
• A helmet should have a “CE” mark and should be EN 1078 compliant to show it
meets European safety standards.
• Pick a helmet that fits your head well before adjusting it. Then use the adjustable
straps and/or sizing pads to make sure it is a snug fit for you.
• Pick a helmet that fits you or your child now, not a helmet to “grow into”.
A helmet is not a fashion statement. It is an essential, life-saving piece of cycling
equipment. If your helmet gets a bang in a crash, replace it even if you cannot see the damage.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle safety booklet.pdf

Basically, I was composing a letter to send to the RSA to question what is being done to educate drivers that cyclists are actually allowed on the road (it won't make any difference but will make me feel better) and I was having a look through the advice they give to cyclists. I've never paid too much attention to the helmet debate but this 69 - 85% thing seems to contradict a lot of the studies I have seen put forward here and elsewhere. I do have concerns that it's only a matter of time before someone tries to introduce compulsion here. I would like to question this with them but am unsure of the best studies to point to.

 

[Svendo]

Here are the details of the studies referenced by the booklet:

1 Thompson, D.c.; Rivara, F.P. and Thompson, R.S. (1996). Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injury.
A case-control study. JAMA, 276(24), 1968-1973.

2 Thompson, R.; Rivara, F. and Thompson, D. (1989). A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets.
New Eng J Med. 320(21), 1361-1367.

<gets popcorn, sits back to enjoy the bout>

 

[screenman]

First one the,
Conclusions. —Bicycle helmets, regardless of type, provide substantial protection against head injuries for cyclists of all ages involved in crashes, including crashes involving motor vehicles.

Second one,
We conclude that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents.

Thanks Svendo.

 

[tyred]

But am I not right in saying that these studies have been debunked - http://cyclehelmets.org/1068.html so that the info they are giving in the road safety booklet is in fact false?

 

[screenman]

This line is the one that interests me,
Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals.

How many people did not go to hospital because a helmet helped prevent injury?

 

[Nantmor]

Here are the details of the studies referenced by the booklet:

1 Thompson, D.c.; Rivara, F.P. and Thompson, R.S. (1996). Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injury.
A case-control study. JAMA, 276(24), 1968-1973.

2 Thompson, R.; Rivara, F. and Thompson, D. (1989). A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets.
New Eng J Med. 320(21), 1361-1367.

<gets popcorn, sits back to enjoy the bout>

If these figures were accurate then a country in which the percentage of of helmet wearing cyclists increased from 40% to 90% (because of a new compulsion law) would show a big drop in cyclist casualties. There could be no disputing that helmets work, if this happened. Instead, the drop in casualties is undetectable. That should raise the suspicion that there is something wrong with Rivara's and Thompson's work.
Using the figures in these studies and the same methods one can show that helmets also prevent leg injuries!
The rowlocks is because they looked at groups of cyclists going to hospital with head injuries, and at whether they had been wearing helmets. The helmet wearers tended to be middle class family cyclists riding in areas chosen for leisure, presumably less afflicted with busy traffic. The non wearers were lower class in urban streets. We have the same varieties of types here. Centre Parc cycling and urban Ninjas if you like. You cannot assume that these riders are identical in character except for helmet wearing.

Using the 85% figure is a sure indicator of ignorance of the subject. It is widely used by helmet promoters.

If you are actually looking for knowledge, and not just stirring, then read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1242.html

 

[tyred]

This line is the one that interests me,
Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals.

How many people did not go to hospital because a helmet helped prevent injury?

That's a very interesting point but equally, how many non-helmet wearers with a few cuts and scrapes on their heads went home and got out the Elastroplast and TCP and didn't feel the need to trouble the medics? If they had, it would probably have filed under minor head injury.

 

[screenman]

Just think though, if they had a helmet on they may not have even got cuts and scrapes.

 

[GrasB]

That's a very interesting point but equally, how many non-helmet wearers with a few cuts and scrapes on their heads went home and got out the Elastroplast and TCP and didn't feel the need to trouble the medics? If they had, it would probably have filed under minor head injury.

Here's an interesting one - I've come off my bike at >30mph on 3 occasions now when not wearing a helmet. The result has been merely superficial cuts to my head. In fact the only times I've had neck/head injuries when I've come off my bike has been when I've been wearing a helmet & at relatively slow speeds have resulted in whiplash injuries & mild-concussions. Personally I'll take cuts & abrasions over concussion & whiplash

 

[snorri]

Just think though, if they had a helmet on they may not have even got cuts and scrapes.

Just think though, if they hadn't had a helmet on they may well have taken more care and not fallen off.
Let the individual choose to wear or not to wear, please.

 

[screenman]

GrasB, you need to take more care.

 

[Theseus]

A crash at 41mph can break your back but leave your head with minor scrapes as a mate and one time member here found out. Of course this is anecdotal and should not be taken as anything but an interesting tale.

 

[GrasB]

GrasB, you need to take more care.

Offs with influences besides me (wildlife/pets bolting mostly) are more like once every 25'000-30'000 miles or 3 years over the last 15 years of cycling.

I worked out I have an off every 8'000 miles or so from pushing to hard & only have my self to blame for small miss-judgments, as time goes on I'm getting better. They're always up at high speed as I need to see through the corner to take those risks. When you're at high speed just tucking into the corner that little bit too fast & clipping the mud that's runs off the verge has a high probability of putting you on the deck. To push the limit you need to be making judgments to within 2 or 3 cm. That's the risk I'm willing take when I can see clear road ahead & behind so push the envelop. Of course the advantage to this is you actually learn how to handle the bike really well in adverse conditions

 

[BentMikey]

Oh the 85% claim? That's so embarrassing for them.

 

[marafi]

I knew it! Though, some state that driver may start caring if you don't wear a helmet. It may freak them out more on your safety. Still though i wear a helmet.