Research into helmet compulsion

[very-near]

A lot of the knowledge has come from medical studies of boxing injuries. I believ they modified head guards and re-emphasised the importance of gum shields on the back of it. It's why rugby players wear gum shield now - they use more of the neck and jaw muscles to stop the head rotating on impact. Maybe cyclists should wear them.

Make them out of wine gums and you have yourself a new business

 

[Dan B]

Nah, Wiggle will undercut your prices on anything involving wine gums

 

[very-near]

Nah, Wiggle will undercut your prices on anything involving wine gums

I was too impatient to wait for Wiggle so I opted for my LBS instead. The Techies know their stuff but the sales staff are a bit hit and miss.

They would be rock hard by the time wiggle sent them out.

 

[Greenbank]

http://www.lobv.org/15reasons.html is an interesting read. It obviously has an anti-MHL bias and a mild underlying anti-helmet bias which spoils (in my mind) its pro-choice position.

I'll definitely agree with its point about "The only statistically significant trend associated with Mandatory Helmet Laws is a general decrease in bicycling." and the one about being fitted properly ("According to one study, individuals whose helmets were reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold increased risk of head injury compared with those whose helmets fit well." see article for reference to the source paper).

I do like the "helmets reduce the incidence of leg injuries by as much as 72%" claim that can be gleaned from the Seattle ER data though

 

[CopperBrompton]

Some rather bizarre arguments in there (like a 'properly fitting helmet' being less comfortable than a badly fitting one!), but it does make the point (which I suspect applies to most or all of the studies) that the studies aren't big enough to prove anything one way or the other.

I would also agree completely with the assertion that making helmet use mandatory pretty much guarantees that your data is junk: anyone wearing a helmet just to be legal isn't going to take the trouble to buy and adjust a properly-fitting one.

 

[HJ]

There is some interesting theory here, but back in the real world I would like to state for the record that I am also Pro choice. Wear a helmet if you want to, but don't pretend that it is anything more than a fashion statement. If cycle helmets are such a serious aid to road safety how come there data from around the world the show the greater the frequency of cycle helmet wearing, the frequency of cycle fatality?

The following is from the British Medical Journal

Do helmets protect the head?

Experience shows helmets give only limited head protection. Studies in Australia show some prevention of superficial injuries (such as scalp lacerations) but only marginal prevention of “mild” head injuries and no effect on severe head injuries or death. When helmets were made compulsory in Australia, admissions from head injury fell by 15-20%, but the level of cycling fell by 35%. Ten years later, cycling levels in western Australia are still 5-20% below the level they were before the introduction of the law yet head injuries are only 11% lower than would be expected without helmets. Incidentally, 17 times more motorists than cyclists died of head injuries in Australia during 1988.

The situation in New Zealand is poorly documented, but even sophisticated analysis reveals either no reduction in head injury with increased helmet use or a modest reduction (19%) when superficial injuries are included in the definition. Misreporting of the cause of injury among people cycling without helmets after the law made cycling compulsory must have influenced the figures. The United States and Canada have had similar experiences to Britain.

Many articles have been published claiming that a helmet will prevent 60-90% of serious head injuries while neglecting to evaluate the risks of cycling versus driving. But in 1988 the largest survey of cycling casualties ever undertaken concluded that helmets did not prevent injury; indeed, increased use correlated with increased risk of death. How could real world experience diverge so enormously from the savings promised by clinical research? The trouble was, researchers did not compare like with like. If you compare a helmeted minority who fell off in parks with an unhelmeted majority injured in collisions with motor vehicles, it is no surprise that people wearing helmets have much less severe injuries. Other studies did focus on road accidents but drew conclusions from a small group of helmeted cyclists, typically 10% of the sample. In the early days, those who wore helmets were cautious, mature, educated, life long cyclists. Researchers failed to consider that this group would be more likely to attend accident and emergency after receiving a head injury or that they would have better anticipation, thereby reducing the risk of an accident or the risk of serious injury in a given accident. In fact, the case-control studies confirm what experienced cyclists already know—that skill and a sense of caution cut the risk of serious injury by 80-90%.

Our tarmac world is stuck in the Dark Ages; if you get hurt, you're wrong. The assault on cycling has vandalised the appeal of the safest, cleanest, most efficient, healthy, and fun means of personal transport that exists—right at the time we most need it. Cyclists don't need helmets, they need priority.

My real objection to cycle helmets is the fear mongering used to sell them, road cycling is, for a properly trained cyclist, no more dangerous than walking and yet many people are put off cycling because the think it is dangerous. The perception is that cycling must be dangerous because to have to wear a helmet to ride a bike...

 

[HJ]

Some rather bizarre arguments in there (like a 'properly fitting helmet' being less comfortable than a badly fitting one!), but it does make the point (which I suspect applies to most or all of the studies) that the studies aren't big enough to prove anything one way or the other.

I would also agree completely with the assertion that making helmet use mandatory pretty much guarantees that your data is junk: anyone wearing a helmet just to be legal isn't going to take the trouble to buy and adjust a properly-fitting one.

To fit properly a helmet has to be tight, a loose fitting helmet is more comfortable, which is which most cyclist on the road are wearing badly fitting ones. Why you say that "making helmet use mandatory pretty much guarantees that your data is junk", the data is not effected by the law...

 

[CopperBrompton]

A properly-fitting helmet needs to be snug, it does not need to be uncomfortably tight. Decent modern helmets have things like thumbwheel systems to ensure the helmet cannot slip but is still comfortable.

The data is indeed affected by the law. Those who choose to wear a helmet will take the trouble to buy a decent one, and properly adjust it. Those who are wearing one only because they are forced to do so by the law will do neither.

 

[ferret fur]

My real objection to cycle helmets is the fear mongering used to sell them, road cycling is, for a properly trained cyclist, no more dangerous than walking and yet many people are put off cycling because the think it is dangerous. The perception is that cycling must be dangerous because to have to wear a helmet to ride a bike...

This is a classic case of inverse logic that keeps getting repeated. People don't think cycling is unsafe because they wear helmets: They wear helmets because they feel unsafe when they are cycling. Perhaps you might like to take a look at these threads:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33164
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33162
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33169
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33139
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=33104

All of which feature in this section of the forum and are in the last 15 posts.
Now you can argue about the effectiveness of helmets, but what you can't argue is that if you ride regularly you don't suffer from the dangerous behaviour of other road users. I walk about quite a lot. I have never had this sort of stuff happen to me when I am a pedestrian: It happens all the time when I cycle. That's why I wear a helmet & that is why other people are unwilling to take the perceived risk of cycling.

 

[ufkacbln]

A motorcycle helmet is also a polystyrene hat ...

One that is sytructurally sound, has a considerably greater volume of absorbent material, and is not compromised or weakened by vents!

 

[ufkacbln]

A helmet does increase the diamete of the head, but helmet skins are required to be slippery precisely to increase the chances of the head sliding rather than grabbing and rotating. Scalps are not slippery.

UNlss like most modern helmets it has squared vents and "snag points" which can arrest this motion and change the energy often causing rotational and torsional stresses that in turn cause a whole new series of brain damage

 

[ufkacbln]

According to the "Childrens Hospital" in California, Children whose helmets fit poorly are twice as likely to sustain a head injury in a bicycle crash than children whose helmets fit properly......

 

[CopperBrompton]

One that is sytructurally sound, has a considerably greater volume of absorbent material, and is not compromised or weakened by vents!

Motorcycle helmets have vents too.

No-one is arguing that cycle helmets are as strong as motorcycle helmets: the typical impacts they have to protect against are very different. All that is being argued is that cycle helmets afford worthwhile protection in some proportion of cycle accidents.

 

[HJ]

Motorcycle helmets have vents too.

No-one is arguing that cycle helmets are as strong as motorcycle helmets: the typical impacts they have to protect against are very different. All that is being argued is that cycle helmets afford worthwhile protection in some proportion of cycle accidents.

And all the real world data suggest other wise, try looking at the real risk rather than the perceived risk. In stead of admiring the Emperor new clothes...

 

[ufkacbln]

And what if their helmets fit well?

The comparison didn't state... it was outside their research