Cycling UK Forum

Peyote wrote:...I know drawing paralells between motorcycle helmets and cycle helmets is difficult, but I'm thinking more of the behaviour change to the target population, rather than any physical comparison bewteen the two products...

I know very little about motocycles.

Strangely, I don't think there are that many parallels. Given that both types of helmets are intended to protect your head, you might think there would be more... Dealing with the part you didn't ask first:

Motorcycle helmets are intended to provide protection at relatively high speeds and are generally close to spherical around the whole head and made of a hard material.

Cycle helmets on the other hand are designed for low speed, are anything other than spherical, perch on the top of the head and only have a very thin hard shell.

Rider behaviour might be best discussed by people who actually know something, but here goes anyway. Similarities are clearly present - We are both vulnerable to bigger vehicles, have limited stability and are badly effected by poor road conditions. The differences are perhaps more significant - A cyclist moves slowly whereas a motorcyclist has no such disadvantage - usually they are faster than the cars. A motorcyclist is passive as a rider, whereas a cyclist is working to move the vehicle along.

I think the speed differential is the most significant. It certainly seems to result in lots more motorcycle accidents! Motocycles are now faster than they used to be and many riders seem to take advantage of this. All other things being equal (which they clearly are not) motorcycle accidents should be rising.

Of course, motorcyclists do pay VED and so have a right to use the road, whereas we don't.

MartinC wrote:It's eminently possible that in a real life scenario this benefit is so small that it's irrelevant and or undetectable.

- Yes, It is also possibly a negative benefit - meaning that the helmet causes actual harm in a real life incident.

MartinC wrote:What all the current research signally fails to provide is any measure of what this benefit is or could theoretically be. Measuring the difference in deceleration of a rigid head form in a lab doesn't tell you what the real life difference it would make to a human head.

- Again, no dispute.

MartinC wrote:Studying accident figures is beset with problems of small samples, no control groups and confounding factors.

- Yup.

So what can be done? The suggestion is that most of the studies are flawed is one way or another. I do not believe that this matter is simply "too difficult". Complex - definitely, but surely there are ways to conduct research which wouldn't lead to the same degree of controversy?

By the way, I'd not read the Wiki article before! it was gratifying to see that there was nothing major not previously discussed here. I'd agree that it does seem to be a reasonably balanced article. Note again though that there is little in the article by way of a conclusion).

drossall wrote:Oops. Sorry, I quoted the BHRF link because it was the quickest one I could find...

...The actual problem with helmet arguments is the inability to control out (or even identify) all the variables, as one might do in a physics laboratory. You can easily show that a dummy head, when hit directly, gets some protection, but it's hard to say whether that has much to do with the mechanics of real cycling crashes and brain injuries, affected as they are by messy landings, rider and driver behaviour, and a thousand other things.

On the first point, i thank you for referencing in the way you did. BHRF are, I believe, quite firmly anti-helmet. That is not actually a bad thing as the anti-helmet stance is not otherwise widely supported. Where I have problems with the way they present references is their long, detailed and sometimes complex refutal of published data supporting helmets while it appears that less scrutiny is given to data seen to be anti-helmet.

I'd like to see the author's refutal of the BHRF refutals!

On the second point: Surely there should be no need to control out all the variables? It is these multiple variables which contribute to the statistics. In order to study any one, it is only necessary to manipulate one variable and monitor its effect...

The large population studies, as presented by BHRF and similar organisations, indicate that use of helmets has little effect on accident rates. The reason that this has not totally killed off helmet use may be because the conclusion is so hard to believe. Using an analogy previously given here - If we were to be hit on the head with a hammer, we would universally choose to wear a helmet rather that go bare headed. There is clear, and warranted, expectation of some benefit from a helmet during a collision.

Given that there "must" be some benefits in collisions from the use of helmets, there "must" be other factors at work which mask that benefit. Here you will find substantial speculation but little hard evidence.

The very first question in this thread was asked because my reading on the subject did not adequately address this paradox. This is the sort of thing scientists are meant to love! I surmise that the research is not being conducted because of a lack of clear definition of the problem and an associated lack of funding.

EdinburghFixed wrote:...we can welcome the steady increase in cycling numbers in the UK, but it's more accurate to say that this rise comes despite the promotion of helmets. All the evidence suggests that if the UK government (and many UK cyclists) didn't have an official pro-helmet policy, we would be seeing a much larger increase than we are.

Agreed - the increase in cycling comes about despite helmet promotion - But it is happening (so far as I can tell). We do not have helmet compulsion and have not seen any drop in cycling rates from which we are recovering.

EdinburghFixed wrote:A good comparison is in Denmark (do you read Copenhagenize?). The aggressive promotion of helmets there has led to a fall of up to 30% in cycling in some areas. Yet in Copenhagen itself, cycling is still increasing slowly. If the 30% fall could be corrected, we'd expect a very much larger increase in Copenhagen, right?

There is actually an active anti-helmet campaign over there, trying to reverse the damage that is being done. Something which I think we could benefit from here...

So is the anti-helmet campaign funding reseach to back its position? Facts would be needed as even in Denmark cyclists are still a minority. Any facts collected by an organisation firmly camped on one side of an argument cannot really be believed anyway. As always the argument will rage on and on!

It's worth remembering that the pro helmet lobby do really think that we would benefit from wearing helmets. I don't see them as a sinister collection of helmet manufacturers and associated fat cat capitalists simply lining their pockets whithout a care for the dead and maimed cyclists left in their wake! Actually now I've said it... What we need is proof. Any politicians claiming for a second helmet?

drossall wrote:To be fair, some of the more impressive hospital-based studies do do that, for example Maimaris et al. Estimates of benefits are somewhat lower than Thompson and Rivara...

The referenced article, and many more like it actually help illustrate the problem. Here is a study looking at actual hospital data. The study draws the conclusion that helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries. It is then immediately rubbished by BHRF.

Now BHRF claim to not be biased. I'll leave it to the reader to decide...

I think, in this instance, BHRF do make some valid points. The conclusions of the report do seem to overstate the benefit of wearing a helmet - for the individual concerned.

The main concerns in terms of the findings, are the size of the population. This alsways seems to be a concern in any of these studies. Given that the research was done in 1992 there should be fifteen or sixteen more years of data that could now be analysed.

I'd love to know the actual cost involved in this. I can't see why it would be particularly high.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Bike sales are on the rise. This probably means more people are cycling (?). So cycling should be getting safer.

At the same time, I seem to see more cyclists wearing helmets. We know that helmet use reduces cycling, so maybe there would be a theoretical further increase, but we can at least say that helmet use is not reducing numbers.

If the above is true then cycling should be becoming safer either though inceased numbers, use of helmets or both.

Davebax, We are in agreement and all is well with the world

Personally I'm not a member of CTC (although I'm still debating the benefits fo joining). For CTC to change it's current stance, I expect a significant portion of the membership would need to be in agreement. or at least, not actively disagreeing. I don't think that is currently the case...

George Riches wrote:I wonder if comparing the helmet wearing rate of cyclists with serious lower body injuries with the helmet wearing rate of cyclists with serious top of head injuries might shed a lot more light than the poor quality research that is often banded about. The helmet wearing rate of cyclists with serious neck injuries might also be an interesting number.

I agree - it would be very interesting. I don't know if the data to do it is actually available, but it shouldn't be hard to find a way to get it.

Way way way back at the start of this thread, I was looking for evidence on the benefit/harm created by wearing a helmet in isolation to the known effect of greater danger caused by the drop in cycling. This kind of study could go some way towards providing that information.

axel_knutt wrote:Risk debates are all founded on the tacit premise that risk is undesirable and unwanted. Says who?

No - there is risk associated with all activities. What is generally considered to be desirable is reduction of risk.

The pro-helmet lobby believe that helmets help prevent head injury.

Risk is usually described as a product of severity of result and likelihood of occurrence. The arguement becomes skewed and/or open to interpretation when you deal with a range of possible severities and likelihoods.

Risk assessments are conducted for all sorts of different purposes. It is usually the intent that once a risk assessment is made it is reviewed whenever there is a change in circumstances.

Back to the subject of helmets - It may be possible (although I've not seen real evidence) to conclude that a helmet will reduce the severity of injury in an accident. The likelihood of the accident would normally not be expected to change (Dr. Walker's research suggests that it does) by wearing a helmet. This would show a reduction in risk.

However if by taking advantage of this risk reduction (i.e. wearing a helmet) the likelihood of the accident occuring were to increase, the actual risk reduction would be lessened, negated or even reversed.

Making matters even less clear is the purpose of the helmet. What is a helmet intended to do? We probably all have different expectations as to helmet performance some of which I list here as example (and for fun).

Is a helmet worn to save your life in a serious RTA?
Is a helmet word to stop you grazing yourself when you fall off?
Is a helmet work to push away vegetation?
Is a helmet worn so you can take it into the office and demonstarate that you are superior to the drivers?

We also have our opinions reinforced through use. If you wear a helmet, every time you come home unscathed it's seen as a victory. If you don't wear a helmet, every time you come home unscathed it's firm evidance that you don't need one...

davebax wrote:It's a great pity if the summary on the desktop under helmets does not fairly represent the detail in the links at the bottom of the page, as most people won't read the latter.

I agree. The summary, however, does not fairly represent the detail...

davebax wrote:What a one-sided statement (why not "CTC thinks that it should be up to you to decide whether you want to wear a helmet or not, and is opposed to making it forbidden"?)

Surely the reason is obvious - There is no realistic possibility that helmets would be banned. CTC's wording go as far as suggesting that helmets may have positive benefits in some circumstances.

The main concern of those people opposed to helmet use for ordinary cycling, is that in this usage, they give a false impression of danger and reduce the likelihood that others will cycle. - and fewer cyclists mean more danger for those remaining...

The threat of compulsion may well be very real and I would support CTC in their opposition. I would like CTC to go further and take a more definite position and actually say what they think helmets are good for and what they are not good for.

...and on a second note - the vehicle lane is actually quite wide, but the central turn lane is narrow. I suspect turning vehicles impede the forward flow of other vehicles. An inattentive driver discovering this ahead of them might instictively move to the left...

irc wrote:No. I still use the route.

Sorry if my comment sounded glib (it does to me on re-reading). That looks like a nasty bit of road. You are correct to have reported your concerns to the authorities.

If it was me I would be looking for an alternative route! I'm guessing that there is not one readily available. This is one of those (not infrequent)occasions where the cycle lane actually makes matters worse. Given the relative danger of a car fast approaching from behind compared to the possibility of being doored, I think I'd go with the "slight" chance of being doored and use the cycle lane. Of course I don't know the road.

From the photograph the footway seems wide enough to support segregated use. This is far from ideal and never suitable at the speeds you describe but if they were then to remove the cycle lane from the road, cyclists riding in the road would be less inclined to pass so close to the parked cars and might even get more space from the overtaking motorists!

iamanidiot wrote:The difference is we want to be treated like any other vehicle while we're on the road

Of course, as a cyclist you stop being in charge of a vehicle and become a pedestrian when you get off and push. If it's a long queue, how do you know what's happening at the front? I'd guess that you'd be scooting past the queue for some time before you could see the front. So do you now cut in or continue to the control?

Flinders wrote:If anyone seriously thinks that a helmet offers no protection at all in any circumstances, how is it possible to have a sensible discussion with them?
If you are willing to accept that it can protect in some accidents, then you have to accept that there may have been some accidents that have happened that because the helmet has done its job have not been reported and therefore are not in the stats.

Flinders, You have caused a flurry of responses with that comment!

I'd like to try a different slant. If a helmet protects you from minor injuries - such that you don't go to casualty, then there is a benefit in wearing the helmet in those circumstances. What would happen in the same accident if you were not wearing a helmet? Clearly the less severe cases would still not go to casualty, but there would be a number of cases where a trip to casualty would be needed. Agreed?

Now there is evidence (which has been peer reviewed and does not seem to contain major errors) which says that the chances of ending up in casualty do not change if you wear a helmet. This suggests that either the benefit provided by a helmet is only in very minor accidents or the wearing of a helmet changes the conditions in which we cycle to make them more dangerous - More accidents such that those protected by their helmets who don't go to hospital are replaced by other accident victims who do!

There is speculation as to how this could happen but nothing is proved conclusively. The main possibilities are:
Risk compensation - cyclists ride more dangerously when wearing helmets.
Increase in rotational brain injuries/head and neck trauma - caused by the larger diameter of the helmet hitting an object when a bare head would either miss it or glance off it.
Drivers passing closer to helmeted cyclists - This is shown to be the case in research by Dr Walker. While not totally conclusive it does appear to be a thorough study.
And finally the "big" one. Helmets giving the perception that cycling is dangerous and reducing the number of cyclists.

I have some issues with CTC and its position on helmets but I'd suggest that you would benefit from some more extensive reading so please do start on the CTC web site. - Just type helmets into the search box - Remember that the useful information is contained in the links at the bottom, not inthe first few paragraphs...

...I thought it was actually 80%...

Of course this is a shop selling helmets. Nobody would really expect them to be anti-helmet. That sign though should be removed unless they can provide justification. - Advertising standards and all that etc.