helmets from Why wear black?

[Bsteel]

I am curious as why once someone chooses to wear a helmet to prevent some level of injury their risk assessment doesn't drive them to wearing some form of full face helmet like those for enduro or downhill riding ?

[Mike Sales]

The binary logic on display in this thread is that because they won't stop you from being squshed, they are utterly useless.

Bonkers.

I cannot recall any helmet sceptic saying anything like that. However, if all helmets do is avert the odd scratch, this is rather at odds with the believers' propaganda about living as a brain damaged vegetable as a result of neglecting to wear a foam hat.

I think that the authors of the BMJ editorial came to the conclusion of "benefit too modest to capture" because reported injuries did not show detectable decrease with helmet wearing. They do comment that other safety interventions have clear benefits. I fear that a road safety establishment like ours neglects these interventions, i.e. the ones which can be shown to work, in favour of helmets, which cannot be shown to work.
This is a distraction and an alibi, and helmet promotion abets this.

[Mike Sales]

This is in relation to medical statistics which only see the peak of the injuries sustained. Somebody falling off a bike and damaging their helmet and not the head won't appear on these statistics and never do. Those that do appear in hospitals usually do so after a very serious accident which no amount of protect would have helped.

Fairly obvious imho.

In my experience anyone involved in an accident with any significant head impact gets careful medical attention.
If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?

[BlueRider]

The binary logic on display in this thread is that because they won't stop you from being squshed, they are utterly useless.

Bonkers.

I cannot recall any helmet sceptic saying anything like that. However, if all helmets do is avert the odd scratch, this is rather at odds with the believers' propaganda about living as a brain damaged vegetable as a result of neglecting to wear a foam hat.

I think that the authors of the BMJ editorial came to the conclusion of "benefit too modest to capture" because reported injuries did not show detectable decrease with helmet wearing. They do comment that other safety interventions have clear benefits. I fear that a road safety establishment like ours neglects these interventions, i.e. the ones which can be shown to work, in favour of helmets, which cannot be shown to work.
This is a distraction and an alibi, and helmet promotion abets this.

Yet here you are stating helemts don't do anything. Clearly, both nothing and everything is incorrect and the truth lies inbetween.
Protection from compression injuries, lacerations, cuts, bruises, punctures, mild concussions, fractures, etc are reason enough for me to wear one. I don't expext it to stop my brain become soup should the #192 have its way so let not pretend that either extreme are justifiable.

And as per the cause and effect disconnection with regards to helmet use and driver behaviour, secondary effects of wearing PPE are an irellevence to this discussion.

[BlueRider]

This is in relation to medical statistics which only see the peak of the injuries sustained. Somebody falling off a bike and damaging their helmet and not the head won't appear on these statistics and never do. Those that do appear in hospitals usually do so after a very serious accident which no amount of protect would have helped.

Fairly obvious imho.

In my experience anyone involved in an accident with any significant head impact gets careful medical attention.
If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

[mjr]

If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:

[BlueRider]

If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:

Can you give some context to this graph?

[mjr]

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:

Can you give some context to this graph?

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.

[pjclinch]

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

So why don't the serious injury or fatality rates go down with increasing helmet use?

[BlueRider]

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:

Can you give some context to this graph?

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.

Can you provide a link to the article. Without context, the data is meaningless as we have proved with the out of context quotes from the previous papers.

[BlueRider]

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

So why don't the serious injury or fatality rates go down with increasing helmet use?

Because helmets don't protect against serious injury or death as has been discussed to death in the last dozen or so pages....

[Mike Sales]

Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

I cannot imagine that this gross misreading is deliberate. I can only suggest closer attention to what I actually wrote.

This whole thread is full of misleading and misreading.

I read what was written and responded accordingly. Try it yourself...

I am still puzzled. Would you be so good as to quote me saying anything resembling this?
I have said the contrary several times.
I have repeated only too often that the assessment of two professionals in the field s of risk and assessment of medical interventions is that the benefits of helmet wearing are "too modest to capture". This is scientist speak for no evidence of benefits.
I have pointed out that in no country where legal compulsion has produced sudden, large changes in wearing rate has there been any reduction in cyclist injury rates.
Between countries is a strong correlation between helmet wearing, high cycling casualties and low numbers cycling. The countries where helmets are rarely worn have high cycling rates and low cyclist casualty rates.
I believe that it is easy to see what sort of cycling we should encourage.
Enough?

[mjr]

Can you give some context to this graph?

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.

Can you provide a link to the article. Without context, the data is meaningless as we have proved with the out of context quotes from the previous papers.

There is no article. I simply plotted the cycle helmet usage rates for various years from the European Traffic Safety Council (ETSC) Public Information Note against cyclist injury rates from the Reported Road Casualties of Great Britain (RRCGB) data for the same years. I'm sure the contexts of these datasets are familiar to someone who has assessed the risk reduction from helmet usage, or lack thereof. They are both imperfect and the strongest we currently have.

[BlueRider]

I cannot imagine that this gross misreading is deliberate. I can only suggest closer attention to what I actually wrote.

This whole thread is full of misleading and misreading.

I read what was written and responded accordingly. Try it yourself...

I am still puzzled. Would you be so good as to quote me saying anything resembling this?
I have said the contrary several times.
I have repeated only too often that the assessment of two professionals in the field s of risk and assessment of medical interventions is that the benefits of helmet wearing are "too modest to capture". This is scientist speak for no evidence of benefits.
I have pointed out that in no country where legal compulsion has produced sudden, large changes in wearing rate has there been any reduction in cyclist injury rates.
Between countries is a strong correlation between helmet wearing, high cycling casualties and low numbers cycling. The countries where helmets are rarely worn have high cycling rates and low cyclist casualty rates.
I believe that it is easy to see what sort of cycling we should encourage.
Enough?

You keep picking statistics to suit your agenda, yes, agreed.

Simple question: in a cycling accident involving the head, would you personally rather be wearing a helmet or not?

[BlueRider]

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.

Can you provide a link to the article. Without context, the data is meaningless as we have proved with the out of context quotes from the previous papers.

There is no article. I simply plotted the cycle helmet usage rates for various years from the European Traffic Safety Council (ETSC) Public Information Note against cyclist injury rates from the Reported Road Casualties of Great Britain (RRCGB) data for the same years. I'm sure the contexts of these datasets are familiar to someone who has assessed the risk reduction from helmet usage, or lack thereof. They are both imperfect and the strongest we currently have.

"I made it up"