Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use...
Posted: 20 Sep 2019, 12:42pm
Discussion boards hosted by <strong><a href="http://www.cyclinguk.org" target="_blank" style="color: #ffffff">Cycling UK</a></strong>
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/
There was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison to the un-helmeted group (all p<0.001), though in a subsequent analysis of these anatomical injury patterns, those cyclists wearing helmets were still found to have lower rates of TBI.
Although previous studies have suggested variations in car driver behaviour towards helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists that may influence the biomechanics of any subsequent collision. it seems unlikely that cycle helmet wearing fundamentally alters the mechanics and injury burden of distant body regions. A plausible explanation
for this significant difference between the helmet and non helmet wearing groups lies in the threshold to inclusion in the TARN Database.
Consequently, an intervention’s success in eliminating one isolated body region injury from the database will result in a relative overrepresentation of all other injury types in that intervention group when compared a control group.
RickH wrote:Are the subjects all road incidents or does it include mountain bikers piling into solid objects - trees, rocks, etc?
Marcus Aurelius wrote:As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending. Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.
Mike Sales wrote:Marcus Aurelius wrote:As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending. Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.
Why then do population level studies show no benefits?
Your certainty in the face of the evidence is not shared by better qualified analysts. Get over that.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:As I said, it’s selective viewing and reporting. They rarely look at the whole chain of events, therefore the important first event, is often overlooked / missed, because the bit that causes the biggest problem ( getting hit and killed / seriously injured by a large vehicle, for example ) couldn’t be helped by a lid, but the initial reason for the event chain could / almost certainly would have been helped by doing so.
The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending.
tatanab wrote:Marcus Aurelius wrote:As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending.
Alternatively - a helmeted rider faints due to the heat stress of riding with insulating material on their head. Loses control etc ------ nobody looks at the cause.
Yes, I've see (and experienced) heat stress when using a helmet - even a modern one.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending. Same happens if a helmet less rider falls off, and their head hits the deck, they spin much further into the road, than they would have done, if they’d remained relatively responsive, wearing a lid, they get hit by a vehicle, that wouldn’t have hit them if they’d not gone so far into the road, again the death is put down to multiple injuries, which a helmet wouldn’t have helped with, without looking at the start of the event chain. Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.