New study on helmet effectiveness

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Steady rider » 26 Sep 2016, 7:16pm

The paper states;
Methods
In accordance with study protocol (unpublished, available
from first author),


I am not clear why the study protocol should not have been included.

landsurfer
Posts: 5081
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby landsurfer » 26 Sep 2016, 8:13pm

In the past 41 years I have been involved in 3 cycling incidents that resulted in more than 2 days off work.
1. Hit by cyclist in group from behind. Concussion.
2. Car turned left causing me to impact car door. Bruised leg. Signed off work for 4 days. Cycled on all of them.
3. Crashed on ice. Bruised hip. Ouch !

Number 1 occurred in 1985, not a lot of helmets available.

Effective helmets only assist in a VERY small % of accidents. Has this % been quantified ?

I worry that every reported cycling accident generates a " wearing a helmet, not wearing a helmet" tick by medics totally distorting actual events where an accident has occurred
Last edited by landsurfer on 26 Sep 2016, 10:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Road Goes On Forever

Mattyfez
Posts: 353
Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 7:24pm

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Mattyfez » 26 Sep 2016, 10:32pm

There does seem to be a lot of 'cyclist got a broken colar bone, thank god they were wearing a helmet' going on.

I wear a helmet if I'm doing risky mountain bike trails, but its not going to save me from a broken jaw/neck/back/arm/leg/rib

The logic behind the helmet lobby is quite odd.

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 817
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Phil Fouracre » 27 Sep 2016, 1:07pm

Mattyfez wrote: The logic behind the helmet lobby is quite odd.


Well there you have it, perfectly summed up!! Now can we call it a day :-) pleaseeeeeeee!!
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Mike Sales
Posts: 4425
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Mike Sales » 27 Sep 2016, 1:38pm

Phil Fouracre wrote:Well there you have it, perfectly summed up!! Now can we call it a day :-) pleaseeeeeeee!!


Why? If you don't want to take part in this discussion it is quite easy to avoid. It has been moved to quarantine to make it even easier.
If some did not want to take part it would have died many pages ago.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby pjclinch » 27 Sep 2016, 1:40pm

Mattyfez wrote:There does seem to be a lot of 'cyclist got a broken colar bone, thank god they were wearing a helmet' going on.

I wear a helmet if I'm doing risky mountain bike trails, but its not going to save me from a broken jaw/neck/back/arm/leg/rib

The logic behind the helmet lobby is quite odd.


As Robert Heinlein notes, "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal."

Once we've made a choice, for whatever reason, it's entirely normal human behaviour to edit the world around us to confirm that choice as a good one.

So the collar bone one works out to something like, "Damn that hurts... but it could have been my head, lucky I had a helmet on!", while of course the reason they have a broken collar bone is they instinctively tried to break their fall with an arm to protect their head, and the apposite response would have been "shame I never learned to roll properly".

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 817
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Phil Fouracre » 27 Sep 2016, 5:58pm

Mike Sales wrote:
Phil Fouracre wrote:Well there you have it, perfectly summed up!! Now can we call it a day :-) pleaseeeeeeee!!


Why? If you don't want to take part in this discussion it is quite easy to avoid. It has been moved to quarantine to make it even easier.
If some did not want to take part it would have died many pages ago.


Completely agree, did add a smiley, to indicate I wasn't really serious :-) :-) I do find that it does go round and round though, and, it would be nice to feel that something concrete could be achieved at some point
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Mike Sales
Posts: 4425
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Mike Sales » 27 Sep 2016, 6:05pm

Phil Fouracre wrote: I do find that it does go round and round though, and, it would be nice to feel that something concrete could be achieved at some point


I do have hopes that DaveW has learned something.
If only that some people can give good reasons why they don't quite agree with him.
Last edited by Mike Sales on 27 Sep 2016, 6:27pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4425
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Mike Sales » 27 Sep 2016, 6:26pm

I don't know whether this has had much circulation?

https://meltdblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/helmets-arent-saving-lives-but-they-might-save-yours/

Helmets aren’t saving lives but they might save yours
September 23, 2016Path, RoadCycling

The helmet debate cropped up again in mainstream media with a glowing endorsement in their headlines such as:

Sydney Morning Herald:

Bike helmet review throws cold water on sceptics: they’ll likely save your life

Special Broadcasting Service:

Report proves bike helmets the difference between life and death

ABC Melbourne:

Do cycling helmets save lives? Researchers reject doubters and say fatal injuries greatly reduced

All from a meta-analysis study evaluating the efficacy of helmets in reducing fatalities, from medical literature. Its time for a response from a sceptic and we can start with the famously reproduced time series of Australian cycling fatalities around the introduction of Laws requiring mandatory use of bicycle helmets (lighter line).

wahoofish
Posts: 91
Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:41am

New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby wahoofish » 27 Sep 2016, 10:53pm

pjclinch wrote:
Mattyfez wrote:There does seem to be a lot of 'cyclist got a broken colar bone, thank god they were wearing a helmet' going on.

I wear a helmet if I'm doing risky mountain bike trails, but its not going to save me from a broken jaw/neck/back/arm/leg/rib

The logic behind the helmet lobby is quite odd.


As Robert Heinlein notes, "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal."

Once we've made a choice, for whatever reason, it's entirely normal human behaviour to edit the world around us to confirm that choice as a good one.

So the collar bone one works out to something like, "Damn that hurts... but it could have been my head, lucky I had a helmet on!", while of course the reason they have a broken collar bone is they instinctively tried to break their fall with an arm to protect their head, and the apposite response would have been "shame I never learned to roll properly".

Pete.


Never learned to roll properly??? Did you read that on the back of a cornflakes box?

That is the single most arrogant statement of this whole thread. Would love to see you roll at 40mph when somebody 6 inches in front of you crashes and your whole group goes down almost instantly, or when you are pushing the limits on a technical Mtb section and something goes wrong.

It's hard enough most of the time getting a hand out in time, let alone rolling. That is real armchair expert nonsense


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my stupid phone.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby pjclinch » 28 Sep 2016, 8:10am

wahoofish wrote:
Never learned to roll properly??? Did you read that on the back of a cornflakes box?


No, I took it from my pal who's an instructor for all sorts of outdoor pursuits and a pretty useful martial artist too. But hey, what would he know?

wahoofish wrote:That is the single most arrogant statement of this whole thread. Would love to see you roll at 40mph when somebody 6 inches in front of you crashes and your whole group goes down almost instantly, or when you are pushing the limits on a technical Mtb section and something goes wrong.


There are a few misconceptions in there. I didn't say I was any good at it: I've never learned and would have no confidence in my ability to roll well even if I keeled over having run out of balance at sub-walking speed on my own. But I don't ride in those contexts so it's not really an issue for me, and when I have fallen sideways in a comedy SPuD related topple the fact I'm closer to the ground on a recumbent has meant I just get a sore wrist rather than a broken collar bone.
It's also the case that entirely innocuous falls can take out a collarbone because of the instinct to take the fall on the arm, which is why broken collar bones are so common, and not just in cycling. In sports where there's a lot of falling over by design (i.e., Judo) avoiding that is an integral part of the training. Falling over learning to skate better, I tended to get a sore wrist where my (judoka) daughter didn't... probably not coincidence, That sport cyclists feel it's "arrogant" to suggest they might benefit too is their problem for not trying, rather than mine for suggesting it.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

wahoofish
Posts: 91
Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:41am

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby wahoofish » 28 Sep 2016, 8:56am

pjclinch wrote:
wahoofish wrote:
Never learned to roll properly??? Did you read that on the back of a cornflakes box?


No, I took it from my pal who's an instructor for all sorts of outdoor pursuits and a pretty useful martial artist too. But hey, what would he know?

wahoofish wrote:That is the single most arrogant statement of this whole thread. Would love to see you roll at 40mph when somebody 6 inches in front of you crashes and your whole group goes down almost instantly, or when you are pushing the limits on a technical Mtb section and something goes wrong.


There are a few misconceptions in there. I didn't say I was any good at it: I've never learned and would have no confidence in my ability to roll well even if I keeled over having run out of balance at sub-walking speed on my own. But I don't ride in those contexts so it's not really an issue for me, and when I have fallen sideways in a comedy SPuD related topple the fact I'm closer to the ground on a recumbent has meant I just get a sore wrist rather than a broken collar bone.
It's also the case that entirely innocuous falls can take out a collarbone because of the instinct to take the fall on the arm, which is why broken collar bones are so common, and not just in cycling. In sports where there's a lot of falling over by design (i.e., Judo) avoiding that is an integral part of the training. Falling over learning to skate better, I tended to get a sore wrist where my (judoka) daughter didn't... probably not coincidence, That sport cyclists feel it's "arrogant" to suggest they might benefit too is their problem for not trying, rather than mine for suggesting it.

Pete.


Absolutely in the context of many sports, but the statement certainly came across as arrogant (to me anyway). Apologies though for the rather blunt expression of my feelings. Re reading perhaps I was a bit dumb


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my stupid phone.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14993
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby mjr » 28 Sep 2016, 10:41am

wahoofish wrote:Never learned to roll properly??? Did you read that on the back of a cornflakes box?

That is the single most arrogant statement of this whole thread. Would love to see you roll at 40mph when somebody 6 inches in front of you crashes and your whole group goes down almost instantly, or when you are pushing the limits on a technical Mtb section and something goes wrong.

It's hard enough most of the time getting a hand out in time, let alone rolling. That is real armchair expert nonsense

I think you just topped it with an even more arrogant statement! Most people aren't riding at in a large group at 40mph with no stopping distance in front of them or pushing the limits on a tricky MTB course and, bluntly, don't care what risks are taken in private between consenting adults. It's very arrogant to suggest whatever measures are attempted to mitigate such extreme risk-taking are appropriate for general-purpose cycling!

As for the armchair expert nonsense, there might be something in it. I studied judo when younger and a long time is taken in the early lessons in learning to fall, roll and break-fall well (I also suspect Sensei liked sending us youngsters flying through the air for a few months to weed out those who were just there to learn to inflict injuries on others.) Maybe that's why I do dumb stuff like splatting onto a rough concrete path after failing to hurdle a bin while carrying a large suitcase (not my smartest decision) and escape with bruising rather than broken bones.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby pjclinch » 28 Sep 2016, 11:38am

And in the context I raised rolling... last time I stuck a hand out I in a fall (ice skating) I did hurt my wrist, and my thoughts at the time were... "wish I'd learned to roll properly, maybe I should, maybe going to break something one of these days". I don't see that I'd think differently if I came off my bike and took it on my wrist/arm/collar bone rather than from a pair of skates. A hurt wrist is a hurt wrist, irrespective of what you fell off to get it.

What I didn't think in my skating fall was any amazement that my head was intact, what with not having a crash helmet on.

And ice skating is another good case in point about normalisation of "dangerousness" for cycling. In a skating rink you'll have lots of people, many very, very wobbly, moving round an inherently very slippy and rather hard surface. It's typically quite crowded, with considerable variation in speed and a fair bit in direction. Falls are quite common, I think even more common that Dave W and his friends can manage from bikes, if you can imagine such a thing. And helmet use is very limited at the sessions I've been to, almost always on young children or relatively elderly skaters but even the exception rather than the rule in those sub-groups. Nobody will lecture you for not wearing one, there isn't any particular vibe of them being recommended.
This is exactly the sort of activity for which the arguments raised to justify helmet use cycling ought to hold valid for... but they don't. And they don't because they're rationalisations more than copper-bottomed reasons.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: New study on helmet effectiveness

Postby Steady rider » 28 Sep 2016, 12:47pm

I am thinking about the feet in clips and if this would affect the option to roll?