Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

[Steady rider]

Yes 'pleas' does not fit.

If wearing a cycle helmet ensure that it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests helmet may reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances, however, some studies find no effect or even a negative effect.

this would reflect the research in part but does not advise that helmets are not tested for rotational accelerations or may result in strangulation for young children. The DfT and cycling groups need to review the advice, with a view to removing 'should wear' and providing some indication about the evidence being mixed.

[Jdsk]

If wearing a cycle helmet ensure that it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests helmet may reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances, however, some studies find no effect or even a negative effect.

It's there to tell you stuff, not make polite requests or give you equivocal exposition.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

The DfT and cycling groups need to review the advice, with a view to removing 'should wear' and providing some indication about the evidence being mixed.

The reasons for coming to the conclusion should be held in a separate public place with the evidence and an accompanying explanation in accessible language. As done for NICE guidance and in the Cochrane library.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

The reasons for coming to the conclusion should be held in a separate public place with the evidence and an accompanying explanation in accessible language. As done for NICE guidance and in the Cochrane library.

Jonathan

And likewise for the evidence that helmets should not be recommended for pedestrians and car occupants, who do not have very different head injury rates.

[Steady rider]

If wearing a cycle helmet ensure that it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests helmet may reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances, however, some studies find no effect or even a negative effect.

It tells readers the evidence is mixed, they may protect or have no effect or have a negative effect, this is reflecting the published research. Most drugs list their side effects, so they may have a positive effect but also can also have no side effects or negative side effects. Drugs can have leaflets covering a few pages detailing their possible side effects. Helmet advice could provide a few statements.

[Jdsk]

If wearing a cycle helmet ensure that it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests helmet may reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances, however, some studies find no effect or even a negative effect.

It tells readers the evidence is mixed, they may protect or have no effect or have a negative effect, this is reflecting the published research. Most drugs list their side effects, so they may have a positive effect but also can also have no side effects or negative side effects. Drugs can have leaflets covering a few pages detailing their possible side effects. Helmet advice could provide a few statements.

Do you think that the evidence for and against every recommendation in the Highway Code should be included in the Highway Code?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

I think the Code only refers to 'evidence' regrading cycle helmets, so the Code has introduced the issue of evidence. The assessment prior to publishing the revised Code, mentions

This conclusion is also supported by the more recent primary studies included in
this rapid evidence assessment. Thus overall, while there are studies that find helmet
legislation can be effective in reducing cycle injuries, some studies find no effect or even
a negative effect (as in Clarke 2012).

The Code has selected a one sided statement to highlight the potential benefits without mentioning 'some studies find no effect or even
a negative effect (as in Clarke 2012).'

[Jdsk]

I think the Code only refers to 'evidence' regrading cycle helmets, so the Code has introduced the issue of evidence. The assessment prior to publishing the revised Code, mentions

This conclusion is also supported by the more recent primary studies included in
this rapid evidence assessment. Thus overall, while there are studies that find helmet
legislation can be effective in reducing cycle injuries, some studies find no effect or even
a negative effect (as in Clarke 2012).

The Code has selected a one sided statement to highlight the potential benefits without mentioning 'some studies find no effect or even
a negative effect (as in Clarke 2012).'

It should include the conclusions of whoever produces it as with all other sections.

Including anything about evidence is inappropriate. That should be elsewhere.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

I would suggest if you want to direct folk for more depth then Annex 1 You and your bicycle (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... ur-bicycle is a more appropriate place than the text of Rule 59.

Since Annex 1 talks about considering training it shouldn't be a big stretch to suggest consider reading Cyclecraft which is published by TSO and is the source book for much of that training and includes a bigger, more considered and generally better discussion on helmets.

Pete.