Helimeds.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I understand that is illegal for a car driver to wear a helmet unless in motor sport.

It is, there are seatbelts and airbags to mitigate the risks.

And yet, as detailed in posts above, car occupants still suffer many head injuries. Seems more mitigation is needed! That is, if helmets are the answer.

You can’t compare the risks involved in car driving, to bike riding, as I said, it’s apples with dishcloths.

[Mike Sales]

You can’t compare the risks involved in car driving, to bike riding, as I said, it’s apples with dishcloths.

You will have to explain why. It seems to me that they are very similar, in cause and in rate.
Sitting in a car, walking along the road are not greatly different in accident rate from cycling.
And head injuries to motorists dwarf in number head injuries to cyclists. See posts above.

[pjclinch]

As prominent epidemiologist Dr. Ben Goldacre (a prominent campaigner for high quality evidence to underpin health policy)

Who I, and I suspect most here have never heard of ( I can’t imagine why)

You're really not doing yourself any favours here.

Start off by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre, but really, seriously, read this and this

[horizon]

My one and only foray into this particular thread, just to wonder, with some trepidation: is this the ultimate argument, the one that cannot be won?

My one and only as well (so far ). But I do read these threads because they are important. I don't wear a helmet but I do give it consideration, thanks in part to those who post well-meaningly on here.

However what really gets me is the fact that something so convincingly and self-evidently useful like a cycle helmet can be shown (by some) at least half-convincingly not to be so. I struggle to come up with a comparison. The closest I get to is the bicycle itself: it is so obviously and clearly and self-evidently dangerous (I genuinely mean that) that those who decide not to ride one are the only sane people amongst us. But as I always say: if I should need to wear a helmet, I'm not going to be stupid enough to ride a bike.

[Mike Sales]

Lots of people exist, who’s thinking / logic falls way outside of what most people would deem sensible, sometimes they shout about their ‘qualifications’ as if to try and persuade people that their views are more valid. They clearly aren’t, the louder these people shout, the less credibility they have, in my eyes, and I suspect many others ( who don’t shout on the Internet ).

Goldacre is well enough thought of to have been appointed as a research fellow in epidemiology by the Wellcome Institute.
His collaborator in analysing the evidence for helmet efficacy is Winton Professor for the public understanding of risk. So, presumably not without recognition for competence by his peers.
I can see why you want to belittle their qualifications to assess the evidence. You force me to ask, what are your qualifications? Do you have any in a relevant field, beyond a dogged and unreasoning belief in polystyrene foam?

Henry Marsh (the neurosurgeon who wears a cowboy hat on his bike) has written two best selling books. I expect you dismiss him as a self publicising butcher.

[Marcus Aurelius]

As prominent epidemiologist Dr. Ben Goldacre (a prominent campaigner for high quality evidence to underpin health policy)

Who I, and I suspect most here have never heard of ( I can’t imagine why)

You're really not doing yourself any favours here.

Start off by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre, but really, seriously, read this and this

Self promotion really makes me switch right off. If you have to shout that loud to be heard, you’re not worth listening to. If he’s really the only person who’s views you’re trying to use, to shore up your ( very weak at best ) argument, then it says everything that needs to be said really.

[Mike Sales]

Self promotion really makes me switch right off. If you have to shout that loud to be heard, you’re not worth listening to. If he’s really the only person who’s views you’re trying to use, to shore up your ( very weak at best ) argument, then it says everything that needs to be said really.

Did Goldacre write his own Wikipedia entry?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Self promotion really makes me switch right off. If you have to shout that loud to be heard, you’re not worth listening to. If he’s really the only person who’s views you’re trying to use, to shore up your ( very weak at best ) argument, then it says everything that needs to be said really.

Did Goldacre write his own Wikipedia entry?

Possibly via proxy. It’s not unknown. Students will do a lot for beer money.

[Mike Sales]

Self promotion really makes me switch right off. If you have to shout that loud to be heard, you’re not worth listening to. If he’s really the only person who’s views you’re trying to use, to shore up your ( very weak at best ) argument, then it says everything that needs to be said really.

Did Goldacre write his own Wikipedia entry?

Possibly via proxy. It’s not unknown. Students will do a lot for beer money.

You have no grounds for suggesting that beyond the fact you don't like his conclusions.
Play the ball not the man.
What are your qualifications, beyond stubbornness?

[Cunobelin]

Another interesting subject is Football and Dementia / Alzheimers

Perhaps a difficult one to solve with a helmet.
I imagine a helmet which absorbed the impact of the ball would be useless for actually heading the ball, whereas if it did not absorb it would transfer the blow to the skull!
Is this still a problem? I have read that the older balls would get heavier as they absorbed water.

There is some evidence and some commentary as so whether heading should be allowed, especially for younger footballers.

THis article from the Telegraph is enlightening.

[Cunobelin]

There was some feeling from traffic officers regarding vision restriction,

Pete.

If that was a problem for drivers, would it not be equally a problem for motorcyclists?

You have more flexibility to move the body when on a motorcycle, so through body movement your field of vision is increased.

[Mike Sales]

If he’s really the only person who’s views you’re trying to use, to shore up your ( very weak at best ) argument, then it says everything that needs to be said really.

You obviously have not even paid enough attention to realise that the BMJ editorial was a collaboration with David Spiegelhalter.
I don't suppose there is any point in directing you to https://www.cyclehelmets.org/. You would not want to read anything which questions your convictions. You will find there much material, a lot by qualified scientists, assessing the evidence.

Here is the editorial board.

Avery Burdett
Accident Researcher; Past President, Ottawa Bicycle Club; Former Director, Citizens for Safe Cycling, Canada
Guy Chapman
Road Safety Activist, Reading, England
Bill Curnow
Retired scientist and policy adviser, Canberra, Australia
Shane Foran, MSc
Safety Analyst, Galway, Ireland
John Franklin
Cycling Skills & Safety Consultant, Cheltenham, England
Riley Geary
Director, Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis, Arlington, Virginia, USA
Chris Gillham
Journalist and Researcher, Perth, Australia
Dr Richard Keatinge,
MFPH MRCGP
GP, Anglesey, Wales
Charlie Lloyd
Transport Researcher, London Metropolitan University, England
Dr Nigel Perry
Senior Fellow, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Dr Dorothy L Robinson
Adjunct Associate Professor, University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Brian Walker
Director, Head Protection Evaluations, UK
Dr Peter Ward, MB.BS DCH DRCOG MRCGP
GP Principal, Gateshead, England
Malcolm Wardlaw, BSc, MBA
Consultant on Cycling, Health and Safety, Edinburgh, Scotland

[Cunobelin]

It is, there are seatbelts and airbags to mitigate the risks.

And yet, as detailed in posts above, car occupants still suffer many head injuries. Seems more mitigation is needed! That is, if helmets are the answer.

You can’t compare the risks involved in car driving, to bike riding, as I said, it’s apples with dishcloths.

That is not the case....

It is looking at the subject of head injuries and whether they can be mitigated by helmets.

A helmet may reduce the level of head injury in different ways and different environments. It is merely not being restricted to one group.

If there is a real interest in reducing head injury severity and morbidity then looking at footballers, drivers, pedestrians and other groups is essential. Excluding them is hypocritical and ridiculous.

It is a bit like taking your claim about the apple and the dishcloth and putting them outside in a rainstorm

Now put an umbrella over the apple and then extol the virtues of the umbrella and how it totally prevented the apple getting wet. Then absolutely ignore (and refusing to recognise) even the possibility that the umbrella would have also kept the dishcloth dry.

[Mick F]

Just read that about footballers, thanks.

Question though.
If footballers are more likely to suffer from early onset dementia, is that because of football and heading, or are the talented footballers going to suffer because that's the way their brains are wired in the first place.
I doubt very much that a talented footballer who NEVER headed a ball actually exists to prove the point.

The way I understand it, dementia isn't a "caught" disease, but one that is already there and pre-destined ........... and that nobody really knows where it comes from.

[pjclinch]

Self promotion really makes me switch right off. If you have to shout that loud to be heard, you’re not worth listening to. If he’s really the only person who’s views you’re trying to use, to shore up your ( very weak at best ) argument, then it says everything that needs to be said really.

Who's doing self promotion here?

My own views aren't being "shored up" by Goldacre, though they're in broad agreement based on about 2 decades of reading helmet research (I do science in the NHS as my Day Job and have a medical research library available to me) with enough Clue amassed that I was invited to peer review a paper on them for an international transport journal. You may deride that as "self promotion" even though it's just plain facts, but it's fair to say that as far as most people are concerned I'm just another Internet Random, so it's useful to be able to point to people like Goldacre who've earned their stripes very much in public and have a large degree of earned trust to go with that.
On which subject, you haven't amassed any at all.

Pete.