Helmets Save Your Bonce
- Thread starter ratbane
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
When I first posted in this thread I was of the opinion that helmets will help to protect your head in an accident. However, for experienced riders in certain riding conditions the very low likelihood of an accident occurring means they are not at all essential.
I have now seen some accident data based research that identifies evidence which suggests that wearing a helmet can actually increase the likelihood of head injury. The statistics relating to the number of head injuries when compulsory helmet laws are introduced are especially intriguing....
The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
"Helmet laws in Australia provided excellent data sets with which to test the effectiveness of cycle helmets because a principal effect of the laws was to increase substantially over a short period of time the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets. This enabled a comparison of a very large number of individuals not wearing and then wearing helmets, eliminating most of the other variables present when comparing different people or dissimilar riding conditions."
"At first, reports suggested that legislation had achieved its aim of reducing head injuries. But the researchers did not take into account the very large decline in cycle use brought about by the laws. Robinson found that although more than 75% of cyclists wore helmets post-law, this was mainly because of the disappearance of formerly bare-headed cyclists rather than because of an increase in the absolute numbers wearing helmets. The main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than to encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Although cycle use fell on average by about 30%, head injuries fell by only 13%, so the risk of head injury per cyclist would appear to have increased. Furthermore, the proportional reduction in head injuries for cyclists was very similar to that for unhelmeted pedestrians over the same period."
"In 1999, the Australian Road Accident Prevention Research Unit compared head injury rates of cyclists, pedestrians and
other road users. All followed similar declining trends, and the data (see graph above) suggests that there was no enduring benefit at all for cyclists. The report concluded that the law had not been cost-effective."
"New Zealand followed Australia with a mandatory helmet law. This law was also found not to have been cost effective and the head injury rate did not decrease more than for the population at large."
"In Canada, too, in those provinces where helmet laws have been enforced, no benefit is apparent. In British Columbia and Nova Scotia there was no change in the proportion of cyclists suffering head injuries post-law, although cycle use fell markedly. In Alberta, the helmet law reduced cycling by children by around 56% while the absolute number of injuries went up."
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
This research does not identify the marked reduction in head injury incidence, that you would expect to see when compulsory cycle helmet laws are introduced. Does this mean that helmets are infective in preventing head injuries? Or are their other forces at work?
I have now seen some accident data based research that identifies evidence which suggests that wearing a helmet can actually increase the likelihood of head injury. The statistics relating to the number of head injuries when compulsory helmet laws are introduced are especially intriguing....
The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
"Helmet laws in Australia provided excellent data sets with which to test the effectiveness of cycle helmets because a principal effect of the laws was to increase substantially over a short period of time the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets. This enabled a comparison of a very large number of individuals not wearing and then wearing helmets, eliminating most of the other variables present when comparing different people or dissimilar riding conditions."
"At first, reports suggested that legislation had achieved its aim of reducing head injuries. But the researchers did not take into account the very large decline in cycle use brought about by the laws. Robinson found that although more than 75% of cyclists wore helmets post-law, this was mainly because of the disappearance of formerly bare-headed cyclists rather than because of an increase in the absolute numbers wearing helmets. The main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than to encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Although cycle use fell on average by about 30%, head injuries fell by only 13%, so the risk of head injury per cyclist would appear to have increased. Furthermore, the proportional reduction in head injuries for cyclists was very similar to that for unhelmeted pedestrians over the same period."
"In 1999, the Australian Road Accident Prevention Research Unit compared head injury rates of cyclists, pedestrians and
other road users. All followed similar declining trends, and the data (see graph above) suggests that there was no enduring benefit at all for cyclists. The report concluded that the law had not been cost-effective."
"New Zealand followed Australia with a mandatory helmet law. This law was also found not to have been cost effective and the head injury rate did not decrease more than for the population at large."
"In Canada, too, in those provinces where helmet laws have been enforced, no benefit is apparent. In British Columbia and Nova Scotia there was no change in the proportion of cyclists suffering head injuries post-law, although cycle use fell markedly. In Alberta, the helmet law reduced cycling by children by around 56% while the absolute number of injuries went up."
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
This research does not identify the marked reduction in head injury incidence, that you would expect to see when compulsory cycle helmet laws are introduced. Does this mean that helmets are infective in preventing head injuries? Or are their other forces at work?
Attachments
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
Helmets!
seems if they are to understand the stats then need a good explanation as to why the steady declines in rates before helmets introduced, and why it stopped? its also very old data so in terms of preventative not sure helmets built using 20 year old technology and materials is comparable. It's such an emotive subject, as indeed it sometimes is for motorcyclists where not mandatory, that an independent definitive view is probably hard to find, what this data does show is that it's grey or foggy. Surprised by reduction in cycling, really people enjoyed cycling before but a need for a helmet stopped them, what else is going on with this ?
Tazio":llikervo said:
exactly, but part of it is understanding what questions asked and how data collected to avoid this, so often these technical bits are conveniently "overlooked", such as a cyclist is anyone owning a bike ? even if not used in a year but who thinks will in future who is then not a cyclist as says wont use as don't have a helmet, not saying this is applicable in the above data just thinking of examples. A cynic may suggest that the trick to the right answer is in asking the right question..........
- Feedback
- View
Complex, counter-intuitive and fascinating!
This Dutch study may to some extent explain the what is going on in the minds of people when they choose to use or not to use cycle helmets.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted."
"However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 200
, 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?"
"The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 200. In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle."
"Crashing is much more likely when racing than when making ordinary trips about town. Because they are moving at substantially higher speeds almost all the time, racing cyclists are more likely to be in collisions requiring hospital treatment. Similarly, mountain bike riders often undertake tricky manoeuvres on rough ground, and are therefore more prone to falls than is the case for commuters, shoppers and school children riding on ordinary streets."
"Helmet wearers in the Netherlands are doing something different from normal everyday cyclists when they are wearing their helmets, which greatly increases their chances of being hospitalised. Helmet wearing is implicated in behaviour which is far more likely to end up in hospital than the cycling done when not wearing a helmet. However, in a country such as the Netherlands, where cycling is a commonplace everyday way of getting around, it is likely that most of the helmeted leisure time mountain and racing bike riders also ride utility bikes for their everyday journeys and they probably then ride unhelmeted. They choose to wear helmets only when they want to face a higher exposure to risk."
"Although the desire to take heightened risk probably comes before the decision to wear a helmet, it is likely that the act of wearing a helmet reinforces the acceptability of taking risks, leading to the taking of even greater risks. In professional sport, people may use helmets, their skill in bike handling and the protection from immediately available specialist medical care in order to facilitate the highest levels of risk taking."
"Sports cyclists wear helmets in an attempt to limit the consequences of the risks they want to take. However, the much greater representation of these cyclists in the hospital statistics suggests that their attempts to limit risks are inadequate for the risks involved. Indeed, putting their faith in 'technical fixes' such as cycle helmets may encourage many people to take greater risks than they should. In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1213.html
This Dutch study may to some extent explain the what is going on in the minds of people when they choose to use or not to use cycle helmets.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted."
"However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 200
, 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?""The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 200
. In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle.""Crashing is much more likely when racing than when making ordinary trips about town. Because they are moving at substantially higher speeds almost all the time, racing cyclists are more likely to be in collisions requiring hospital treatment. Similarly, mountain bike riders often undertake tricky manoeuvres on rough ground, and are therefore more prone to falls than is the case for commuters, shoppers and school children riding on ordinary streets."
"Helmet wearers in the Netherlands are doing something different from normal everyday cyclists when they are wearing their helmets, which greatly increases their chances of being hospitalised. Helmet wearing is implicated in behaviour which is far more likely to end up in hospital than the cycling done when not wearing a helmet. However, in a country such as the Netherlands, where cycling is a commonplace everyday way of getting around, it is likely that most of the helmeted leisure time mountain and racing bike riders also ride utility bikes for their everyday journeys and they probably then ride unhelmeted. They choose to wear helmets only when they want to face a higher exposure to risk."
"Although the desire to take heightened risk probably comes before the decision to wear a helmet, it is likely that the act of wearing a helmet reinforces the acceptability of taking risks, leading to the taking of even greater risks. In professional sport, people may use helmets, their skill in bike handling and the protection from immediately available specialist medical care in order to facilitate the highest levels of risk taking."
"Sports cyclists wear helmets in an attempt to limit the consequences of the risks they want to take. However, the much greater representation of these cyclists in the hospital statistics suggests that their attempts to limit risks are inadequate for the risks involved. Indeed, putting their faith in 'technical fixes' such as cycle helmets may encourage many people to take greater risks than they should. In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1213.html
- Feedback
- View
It could be that some people stopped cycling because the helmet laws debate made them reclassify cycling from being fun to being a potentially dangerous activity?daugs":3f7qqpox said:
Tazio":2iv6n59h said:
.....and the saddle bag too?
Can't believe I missed another 7 page helmet thread. Recently went out riding with an Australian - neither of us wearing helmets BTW in the country bike lanes and nature reserves. I asked about the compulsory helmet wearing in Australia and he reckoned it was necessary due to "war on the roads with motorists / general disrespect to cyclists". Pretty sad that an accomplished experienced cyclist MUST wear a helmet due to others' moronic behavior.
One report I read suggested that compulsory helmet use put off women and young, fashion conscious people especially, because it messes up their hair. Messed up hair might seem trivial to a middle aged man with hair that is rarely much over half an inch long, but I guess if I'd spent £50.00 on a hair-do, or half an hour styling it to look like I'd just got out of bed, then maybe it would be an issue.
Having to wear a helmet for a 10 minute journey to pop to the shops and then have to carry the thing about is also a nuisance. In addition to giving the impression that cycling is dangerous, the added nuisance of having to wear a helmet is likely to put off casual cyclists that are making short, utility journeys, which can easily be replaced by walking, using public transport or going by car, leaving only the committed bicycle enthusiasts.
I think it's easy to see why compulsory helmet use would reduce the number cyclists quite dramatically, there are plenty of people that use a bike as a cheap, practical way of getting about, so as soon as you make it more expensive, and less practical, they think "sod it, I won't bother".
Similar threads
