Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

[Steady rider]

Vorpal wrote

We don't know that helmet use in and of itself has a direct bearing. It is likely that risk compensation influences these figures, but we do not have any idea how much.

Apart from the research finding they do increase the accident rate, this may be due to several factors, as you point out. We may never be 100% sure how much each factor contributes. The best evidence probably comes from NZ where both distance and time cycling estimates have been published for before legislation to after.

Robinson's submission to the Au Senate included;

H) Increased risk of injury per cyclist since helmet laws were introduced
Several analyses have compared numbers of injuries with the numbers of cyclists. They all suggest that injuries per cyclist have increased from what would have been expected without helmet laws.
In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling. The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).

All this type of information takes some explaining, so a simple reply that helmets increase the accident rate by 14% is short but reflects serious doubt about the safety merits of helmets.

[mjr]

Of course you will not know if someone is willing to consider science unless you try and and discuss the issues. Not replying tends to make them believe they must be correct, otherwise someone would tell them.

in my experience very few advocates will even listen. Usually they just get angry and rude however carefully you put the skeptical case. Not always admittedly

This itself is useful because it can help undermine their credibility in the eyes of helmet users who profess to be pro-choice, so I feel it's worth doing. Especially if you can catch them out wishing harm on non-users of the "I hope you crash and are left a vegetable with a head injury" type.

[Steady rider]

Usually they just get angry and rude

You could wind them up,
The Holy Bible provides an early example of
allowing for personal choice with David choosing
not to wear either a helmet or armour when fighting
Goliath. In that case Goliath's helmet failed to
protect.

and add for good measure that helments increase the accident rate.

[Cunobelin]

This whole helmet debate seems to get repetitively mired in mis-information and huge amounts of MUDDLE

Is there any statistical evidence which can demonstrate, that in the UK (at least), occupants of motor vehicles outnumber by x% (or a simple x figure), those of cyclists who are hospitalised due to head injuries?

Whether or not the cyclists were wearing helmets.

I've read/heard and even been told on fora that this might be the case?

If so - shouldn't this repeatedly be brought to wider attention?

Is it not beyond possibility that cycling is actually safer than being in a motor vehicle? And it's nothing to do with helmets

The problem is that the information is there already, it is just that it is ignored or the question not asked

A classic example is the work of Thornhill et al who looked at head injuries and as part of this analysed the admissions to the casualty department

We identified 2995 young people and adults admitted to hospital with a head injury, of whom 2962 lived in Glasgow. Comparison with routine hospital data showed that we had identified more than 99% of relevant cases, but 20% of those we had identified were not contained in health service statistics.

The characteristics of the cohort agreed with previous surveys1: 1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

Note my emphasis

It is apparent that several areas stand out.

Cycling does not appear in cohort studies as a major factor, which raises a question

Cycling is certainly safer than having a pint!!!!




The major and important issue is that all the research is limited and biased to the agenda of the pro helmet campaigns

Any helmet research is immediately flawed as it ignores the groups that experience most head injuries in favour of a group that suffers relatively few


Imagine doing research on a new drink.....

You have 100 respondents who have taken part.... and ask 2 people their opinion because you only want to consider 4 year olds with red jumpers. Hardly good research practice, but happens all the time




Simplify the argument by all means but it will not be acceptable as it undermines the pro helmet agenda

[pjclinch]

Vorpal wrote

Some people, you just can't argue with. They will believe what they believe whatever I say. Reason has nothing to do with it, and I am not going to waste my time arguing with soemone who does not want to consider science.

Of course you will not know if someone is willing to consider science unless you try and and discuss the issues. Not replying tends to make them believe they must be correct, otherwise someone would tell them.

But in many cases you already do know, because they've already shown themselves to be completely closed down.

You have about as much chance of convincing Angela Lee that helmets might not be an all-around-win as you have as convincing Donald J Trump that he isn't wonderful. You'd be wasting your breath.

For those where we don't know yet, yes, one should try and engage them. But your 14% quip isn't something to engage them with, because it's not true in the sense that it will probably be taken (which is, I would suggest, "are you telling me if I wear this I'm a seventh more likely to end up in A&E than if I don't?").

My daughter was asking me if she should stop eating roast potatoes and toast yesterday. It's not that simple.

Pete.

[deliquium]

^ Thanks Cunobelin - and apologies again for being naive and frustrated at the force of the pro helmet lobby

But it's encouraging to read all the posts under this heading - without the usual inflammation

[Jon Lucas]

Note my emphasis

It is apparent that several areas stand out.

Cycling does not appear in cohort studies as a major factor, which raises a question

Cycling is certainly safer than having a pint!!!!

I'd love to see a cartoon based on that, showing a pub with a Helmets Must be Worn sign outside.

[Steady rider]

The 14% figure is a problem, people in general will be sceptical about any claim that helmets lead to more accidents. The figure came from research based on 5 reports from the 1988 to 1996 period, it states;

Potential effects of mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets. The effect on the number of
injuries amongst cyclists of mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets is determined by
three different partial effects, or mechanisms, which can pull in different directions.
The three partial effects are the helmet effect, the behavioural effect and the exposure
effect. The effect of mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets on the number of cyclists
injured can be modelled as the product of the three partial effects.

The more up to date research, Porter 2016 with an OR value 2.81 and Robinson's NZ details, were based on wearing rates somewhat higher I expect in the NZ case and for Porter about 50% wearing rates. More research would be needed to provide more certainty.

[Mick F]

Cycling is certainly safer than having a pint!!!!

25 hilly miles today completely helmet-less.
I called in at the pub on my way home, only half a mile from our front door.

Three pints.
Is that safer than wearing a helmet?

[[XAP]Bob]

Cycling is certainly safer than having a pint!!!!

25 hilly miles today completely helmet-less.
I called in at the pub on my way home, only half a mile from our front door.

Three pints.
Is that safer than wearing a helmet?

Depends what they were pints of ....

[pjclinch]

The 14% figure is a problem, people in general will be sceptical about any claim that helmets lead to more accidents. The figure came from research based on 5 reports from the 1988 to 1996 period, it states;

Potential effects of mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets. The effect on the number of
injuries amongst cyclists of mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets is determined by
three different partial effects, or mechanisms, which can pull in different directions.
The three partial effects are the helmet effect, the behavioural effect and the exposure
effect. The effect of mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets on the number of cyclists
injured can be modelled as the product of the three partial effects.

The more up to date research, Porter 2016 with an OR value 2.81 and Robinson's NZ details, were based on wearing rates somewhat higher I expect in the NZ case and for Porter about 50% wearing rates. More research would be needed to provide more certainty.

What someone typically wants to know is what the effect of them putting on a helmet is, for their chances of a trip to A&E. The figures you have don't show that. They show that in the wake of mandatory helmet laws the accident rate among the population of cyclists went up, though with the very considerable caveat that the population before and after the law is substantially different. You cannot say with certainty that wearing a helmet makes any given rider more accident prone. And that's why it's a bad thing to quip at people who are deciding whether they (or you) should wear a helmet: it needs a lot of further context and qualification.

Pete.

[Mick F]

Cycling is certainly safer than having a pint!!!!

25 hilly miles today completely helmet-less.
I called in at the pub on my way home, only half a mile from our front door.
Three pints.
Is that safer than wearing a helmet?

Depends what they were pints of ....

Reverend James Original.
£3.00 a pint.

[deliquium]

To continue further along the potential mis-preception/flawed statistics chain - do we just rely on the likes of the eminently sensible Mr Boardman and Cycling UK - to prevent the UK possibly adopting laws regarding helmet wear at some point in the unknown future?

That this nonsense is happening elsewhere should be an alarm call.

[mjr]

You cannot say with certainty that wearing a helmet makes any given rider more accident prone. And that's why it's a bad thing to quip at people who are deciding whether they (or you) should wear a helmet: it needs a lot of further context and qualification.

I can say with certainty that using a helmet made one given rider more crash-prone: me. I had more crashes in the few years when I used a helmet than the greater number of years before and since. And this is me, a graduate statistician who has learned about risk compensation since at least A-levels if not before, yet I still made many decisions which in hindsight were incorrect and sometimes bloody silly. I probably still do, but maybe not as many and maybe I feel more determined to keep the bike upright than I would if I was wearing more armour!

I know I seem to be in a minority of this forum because all my crashes have been my fault but I don't know if that's important.

[Steady rider]

Pete wrote

What someone typically wants to know is what the effect of them putting on a helmet is, for their chances of a trip to A&E. The figures you have don't show that. They show that in the wake of mandatory helmet laws the accident rate among the population of cyclists went up, though with the very considerable caveat that the population before and after the law is substantially different. You cannot say with certainty that wearing a helmet makes any given rider more accident prone. And that's why it's a bad thing to quip at people who are deciding whether they (or you) should wear a helmet: it needs a lot of further context and qualification.

If giving an opinion is it just that, not a research report.
Robinson 1996 detailed the incidence of hitting their head/helmet in a cycling accident was "significantly higher for helmet wearers (8/30vs 13/476, i.e. 20% vs 2.7%, p 0.00001)". So one opinion could be helmet wearers will on average incur a higher rate of impacting their helmets than non-wearers report hitting their head.

The actual risk of serious head injury when cycling is low and the risk of accident increases with
helmet use according to some research findings. Research has reported a 14% increased risk of accident.

It is up to the individual what advice they may give to people, provided such advice is reasonably well founded. People probably like advice to be concise and to the point. My advice would be that helmets increase their risk of accident involvement, based on many reports, practical experience and science. They may also offer some protection in some circumstances. Because of the serious doubts about them providing an overall safety benefit, I could not recommend them. If they wanted more information I would try to provide.