Helimeds.

[Mike Sales]

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files. ... metsv6.jpg

Here is the effect of the law in New Zealand

[Syd]

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

Here is the effect of the law in New Zealand

What changed in 1992 as that is when the rise started, and then continued, after enforcement of helmet wearing?

How did traffic volumes, road infrastructure, police numbers etc change if that period? All factors that impact road safety and driving.

[Mike Sales]

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

Here is the effect of the law in New Zealand

What changed in 1992 as that is when the rise started, and then continued, after enforcement of helmet wearing?

How did traffic volumes, road infrastructure, police numbers etc change if that period? All factors that impact road safety and driving.

I would think that the law did not arrive unheralded. Cyclists would have been subjected to a publicity campaign about the coming change.
The striking coincidence in cycling reduction, injury rate increase and law introduction needs more explanation than a bit of handwaving, "other things must have changed at the same time."

I think it a pity that so much stress is laid on helmets, which, as Spiegelhalter and Goldacre concluded, cannot be shown to have any benefit, at the expense of other measures which have worked in other north European countries. Their suggestions about the reasons for this ring true.

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.

I cannot help feeling that helmet campaigns' main function is as a distraction and diversion from these other measures, or strategies. Boardman rates helmets as perhaps the tenth measure in importance when trying to improve cycling safety.

[RickH]

... Boardman rates helmets as perhaps the tenth measure in importance when trying to improve cycling safety.

My recollection was that he said it was not even in the top ten measures.

[Mike Sales]

... Boardman rates helmets as perhaps the tenth measure in importance when trying to improve cycling safety.

My recollection was that he said it was not even in the top ten measures.

I expect you are correct. I wrote from memory.

[Syd]

A good study should only have one single variable so that the results of changes to said variable can be measured and attributable to it.

Unfortunately in the real world that isn’t possible and a root cause or causes becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

[Mike Sales]

A good study should only have one single variable so that the results of changes to said variable can be measured and attributable to it.

Unfortunately in the real world that isn’t possible and a root cause or causes becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

Indeed. But we have to deal with the real world. In the real world helmet laws have never produced the desired effect. I cannot now find the New York Times article which found that large increases in cycle helmet wearing in the USA had been accompanied by increases in cyclist injuries.
There is also a striking correlation by country. States with large cycling populations have low wearing rates and low casualty rates. Those with high wearing rates have small cycling populations with high injury rates. I imagine you can guess which countries fall into which groups.
It seems to me that before making helmets compulsory, or even pushing them as the solution to road danger for cyclists, better evidence is needed. The burden of proof lies with the helmeteers.

[The utility cyclist]

The risks are totally different. Stop comparing apples with dishcloths. Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling, anyone who thinks differently really needs to think about it a bit harder

All the global evidence including that from sports such as boxing, gridiron, cricket, pro cycling, Ice Hockey absolutely say you are wrong.
Go bother yourself to look at the facts, it's fairly easy for a computer literate person to find them.
Boxing https://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing-de ... -lvGEQxAuG
Ice Hockey, significant increases in head injuries, two massive NA research papers which took data from the late 60s through to the late 80s, gridiron sees massive CTE problems because the helmets despite being far better than those in cycling are still unable to stop concussions/TBI, what has had an immediate effect in reductions has been changing of the rules recently with targeting the head in play.
I can do this all day long.

Go ask Headway, an org who are massively pro cycle helmet, how many head injuries are reported within the UK to medical professionals from the general population, ask them how many people are hospitalised due to such, then ask them how many of those are from people on bikes.

Firstly the numbers will show you that the general population require, IF helmets do indeed offer the efficacy you suggest, to be worn at all times and should be made compulsary as it's costing tax payers/NHS billions of pounds a year. It tells us that cycle head injuries are a tiny, tiny fraction of the number, it'll tell you that a significant, if not major factor is the actions of a criminal motorist that caused it, that large swathes of those are from those wearing helmets. If you dig deeper, deaths solely by head trauma in children are greater whilst motor vehicle occupants, than deaths of children who were on a cycle by any injury type in UK (2016 data) .
Dig further again and head traumas and indeed trauma of all body parts as well as deaths have INCREASED significantly in pro/amateur racing since helmet mandation, that's despite better on course protocols regarding safety, more barriers, more marshals, more warnings of acute turns, despite better tyres, better brakes, better handling bikes.

You like many present no hard facts and make statements that are ultimately proven to be false.

[The utility cyclist]

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

Here is the effect of the law in New Zealand

What changed in 1992 as that is when the rise started, and then continued, after enforcement of helmet wearing?

How did traffic volumes, road infrastructure, police numbers etc change if that period? All factors that impact road safety and driving.

I would think that the law did not arrive unheralded. Cyclists would have been subjected to a publicity campaign about the coming change.
The striking coincidence in cycling reduction, injury rate increase and law introduction needs more explanation than a bit of handwaving, "other things must have changed at the same time."

I think it a pity that so much stress is laid on helmets, which, as Spiegelhalter and Goldacre concluded, cannot be shown to have any benefit, at the expense of other measures which have worked in other north European countries. Their suggestions about the reasons for this ring true.

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.

I cannot help feeling that helmet campaigns' main function is as a distraction and diversion from these other measures, or strategies. Boardman rates helmets as perhaps the tenth measure in importance when trying to improve cycling safety.

The EUs Road Safety Plan clearly outlined cycle helmet promotion as a strategy to increasing cyclist safety, they even made it clear that countries such as Denmark and Netherlands had poor records for cycle deaths and compared the to UK stating that UK had high levels of helmet wearing ergo helmets were beneficial as the deaths per population head were higher in NL and DK. That it utterly ignored the actual numbers cycling, journeys made and modal share and the major factor involved in cyclist KSIs including head trauma is die to motorists, is a disgrace of epic proportions. The EU continually promote helmets and hi-vis across the member states and do so with some gusto, this is their 'solution' to cycle safety, the recent changes in speed assistance and braking tech for new cars in 2021 is a massive load of pony, it will, as have their other road safety measures fail to meet the targets massively. it will fail to understand that these are not sufficient to prevent vulnerable road user deaths, the EU shamsters will ignore that global data proves that helmets are a massive failure, if they were worried about road safety as much as they make out they would promote helmets for all pedestrians and motorvehicle occupants with absolute haste, except they won't because they are heinous as the rest of the victim blaming tools! Paushing cycle helmets is an easy solution for the EU dictators, there's a huge push in Denmark and indeed Netherlands to wear helmets, it's creeping up steadily with more and more insisting of helmets to be worn both for adults and children.

The problem goes deep and has such wide ranging effects that most people can't really grasp the problems that helmet compulsion/promotion causes, both for individuals and whole populations.

[Mick F]

The risks are totally different. Stop comparing apples with dishcloths. Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling, anyone who thinks differently really needs to think about it a bit harder

Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries full stop.

I was in the loft the other day and hurt my head. Perhaps I should have been wearing a helmet.
I trapped my finger in the car door a few weeks ago. Perhaps I should have been wearing protective gloves.

We should all wear suits of amour?

[Marcus Aurelius]

The risks are totally different. Stop comparing apples with dishcloths. Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling, anyone who thinks differently really needs to think about it a bit harder

Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries full stop.

I was in the loft the other day and hurt my head. Perhaps I should have been wearing a helmet.
I trapped my finger in the car door a few weeks ago. Perhaps I should have been wearing protective gloves.

We should all wear suits of amour?

It’s risk vs benefit, and risk needs to be categorised, with consequence factored in. It’s personal choice, as to whether one feels the risks need to be mitigated or not.

[Marcus Aurelius]

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

Here is the effect of the law in New Zealand

Yep, another chart that includes all injuries. Helmets only mitigate head injuries. If you fall off your bike and get hit by a truck, you’re probably not just dealing with head injuries, but these ‘studies’ still include the other injuries. Anybody would think they were deliberately trying to invent numbers, in order to win an un winnable argument.

[tim-b]

Hi
Within the limits of current standards (and probably a bit beyond to allow for manufacturing tolerances) a cycling helmet will reduce the severity of a head injury, and that may save a life. Fact
If a 40 tonne truck drives over you then a cycle helmet probably won't improve the outcome
My view then, and now...https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=132247&p=1393301&hilit=government#p1393301
Regards
tim-b

[Mike Sales]

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

Here is the effect of the law in New Zealand

Yep, another chart that includes all injuries. Helmets only mitigate head injuries. If you fall off your bike and get hit by a truck, you’re probably not just dealing with head injuries, but these ‘studies’ still include the other injuries. Anybody would think they were deliberately trying to invent numbers, in order to win an un winnable argument.

The government injury figures used to draw the graph are not disaggregated into injury type. They are not invented. More dangerous roads are a consequence of road policy focused on helmets to the exclusion of better strategies. The figures are consistent with the risk homeostasis hypothesis.
The fact is that the law to force cyclists into helmets did not make cyclists safer.

[Mike Sales]

Hi
Within the limits of current standards (and probably a bit beyond to allow for manufacturing tolerances) a cycling helmet will reduce the severity of a head injury, and that may save a life. Fact
If a 40 tonne truck drives over you then a cycle helmet probably won't improve the outcome
My view then, and now...https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=132247&p=1393301&hilit=government#p1393301
Regards
tim-b

But all those cyclists donning a helmet as a safety precaution when they take to the saddle may be wasting their time, a leading neurosurgeon has said.

Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said he has treated a number of patients involved in bike accidents whose helmets were “too flimsy” to provide any real protection, The Telegraph reported.



Speaking at the Hay Festival alongside Ian McEwan, whose novel Saturday pivots on the life of a neurosurgeon, Dr Marsh went on to say that wearing a helmet could actually pose greater risks to cyclists than not wearing one at all.

Dr Marsh said: “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet. In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.

“I see lots of people in bike accidents and these flimsy little helmets don’t help.”
He added: “I have been cycling for 40 years and have only been knocked off once. I wear a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. I look completely mad.“

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-helmets-dont-provide-protection-says-neurosurgeon-9465257.html

I recommend Henry Marsh's books about his work, Do No Harm and Admissions. He writes often, "I cycled" to x hospital" where another writer might say "I drove..."