CUK dropping the ball with MTB advice

[pjclinch]

Survey after survey in the UK has fear as a leading cause of not cycling.

Very few cyclists and potential cyclists care about the helmet debate. Wear one if you want to, don't if you don't

It's not that simple. Whatever the merits of the "debate", if you have a lot of people saying riding a bike without a helmet means you're Doomed then that will feed in to the perception that cycling is a dangerous way to get around.

And whether people "want to" is informed in large part by the culture they find themselves in. People tend to do what people around them do, so if people tend to wear helmets that generates a perceived need (and thus degree of want) for a helmet. But if one isn't easy with the idea of needing a rather fragile lid to think about riding somewhere that sets up a conflict that is most easily resolved by not riding at all.

The suggestion that helmets are a non-issue is, I'm afraid, wishful thinking. If so few people care about it why is so much venom directed at me for simply suggesting they're not a no-brainer? Earlier this year on Facebook I commented on a major sponsored ride in Scotland by saying they might want to reconsider their helmet requirement and I was variously labelled an idiot, numpty, irresponsible, and likened to flat earthers and anti-vaxxers. Just for saying (backed up with links to the CUK helmet policy, which was labelled a joke by the same crowd) that helmets needn't be necessary for such an event.

Pete.

[Steady rider]

I think there is need to better inform the public about the research finding helmets may not provide the overall safety benefits some reports claimed.
The 85% protection claim for example.
The increased accident rate - NZ data from falls, AU data, Can data
The increased risk of high rotational levels for larger sized helmets - StClair and Chinn
The increase in concussions compared to cycling levels - USA data
Even UK data referring to accidents increasing more than cycling levels as helmet use increased.

Until the public and cyclists gain a better understanding, there will likely be a proportion shouting their advice to wear one.

[Steady rider]

Some data on accident rates

DH about 45,000 per million hrs, (from page 3, 45 est per 1000 hrs)
XC about 5,000 per million hrs
Road cycling about 240 per million hrs – cyclist data reporting NZ info
Hospital discharge rate about 70 per million hrs from NZ data

Assuming the above are roughly correct, it looks like MTB and down hill increases the risk compared to road cycling by about 180 times.

If helmet use contributes is open to speculation, I expect without helmets it may be half the rate, perhaps.

[mattheus]

Very few cyclists and potential cyclists care about the helmet debate. Wear one if you want to, don't if you don't

It doesn't take very many to put rules into place.

You may have read my previous gripes about cycling clubs bringing in helmet rules. You are certainly aware of one such club, as you contributed to the thread: viewtopic.php?p=1730498#p1730498

If all the helmet wearers had a laissez faire attitude like yours, there wouldn't be a problem

[pjclinch]

I think there is need to better inform the public about the research finding helmets may not provide the overall safety benefits some reports claimed.
The 85% protection claim for example.
The increased accident rate - NZ data from falls, AU data, Can data
The increased risk of high rotational levels for larger sized helmets - StClair and Chinn
The increase in concussions compared to cycling levels - USA data
Even UK data referring to accidents increasing more than cycling levels as helmet use increased.

Until the public and cyclists gain a better understanding, there will likely be a proportion shouting their advice to wear one.

Yes, but...

On the one hand it's all very well debunking 85% (i.e., Thompson, Rivara & Thompson '89), but if you do that then on the other if you quote e.g. "StClair and Chinn" as if it's some sort of proof then you'll just get debunked straight back: this is all part of the cherry picking problem. Never mind that the debunking may hold little merit, you'll just end up in another flame war when merit falls by the wayside.

So while I agree there is need to better inform the public about helmets quite possibly not providing the overall safety benefits often claimed I think this should be done with simple track record of rather than picking particular papers suggesting things are not all rosy. That we have cherry picked papers supporting a position is part of why we're in this mess to start with.

This should be done by removing "you should wear..." from Highway Code Rule 59 and explain, from ministerial level, that it has been removed as there is a lack of clear evidence that it has made cycling any safer, and while there is no clear evidence that anyone should stop wearing a helmet if they want to, that it is entirely reasonable to do without. Quoting individual papers doesn't help, as there's always something saying the opposite to quote back in riposte.

Pete.

[Jdsk]

...
That we have cherry picked papers supporting a position is part of why we're in this mess to start with.
...

Totally agree.

And we should stop doing it now, including in this forum. Both cherrypicking papers and cherrypicking from within papers.

Jonathan

PS: Another change that would help is being clear which of the many different questions a post is addressing.

[pjclinch]

Some data on accident rates

DH about 45,000 per million hrs, (from page 3, 45 est per 1000 hrs)
XC about 5,000 per million hrs
Road cycling about 240 per million hrs – cyclist data reporting NZ info
Hospital discharge rate about 70 per million hrs from NZ data

Assuming the above are roughly correct, it looks like MTB and down hill increases the risk compared to road cycling by about 180 times.

If helmet use contributes is open to speculation, I expect without helmets it may be half the rate, perhaps.

No it wouldn't because if you remove the protection you change the game. If you tell people who like DH MTB that they have to do it with no body protection they'll make the courses less extreme, which may well be safer but wouldn't be what they signed up for.

You can't just remove helmets and expect nothing else to change (this is, of course, why most of the case-control work on helmets is mince, the case control underlying assumption being that the only thing that changes is the intervention).

Pete.

[mattheus]

...
That we have cherry picked papers supporting a position is part of why we're in this mess to start with.
...

Totally agree.

And we should stop doing it now, including in this forum. Both cherrypicking papers and cherrypicking from within papers.

Jonathan

PS: Another change that would help is being clear which of the many different questions a post is addressing.

Here's a question that rarely gets asked:

Is there actually any signal - amongst all the noise - for us to find? Just how hard should we keep digging?

[Jdsk]

...
That we have cherry picked papers supporting a position is part of why we're in this mess to start with.
...

Totally agree.

And we should stop doing it now, including in this forum. Both cherrypicking papers and cherrypicking from within papers.

Jonathan

PS: Another change that would help is being clear which of the many different questions a post is addressing.

Here's a question that rarely gets asked:

Is there actually any signal - amongst all the noise - for us to find? Just how hard should we keep digging?

For some of the questions I think that there is some signal. But always accompanied by cautious comments about the limits of knowledge and the level of evidence.

I've tried to explore that several times in this forum but have concluded that it isn't possible. It does take a bit of agreement on acceptable styles of discussion and on methodology in advance to have any chance of success. (I don't expect that I'll try again.)

Jonathan

[mattheus]

<snippage>

Here's a question that rarely gets asked:

Is there actually any signal - amongst all the noise - for us to find? Just how hard should we keep digging?

For some of the questions I think that there is some signal. But always accompanied by cautious comments about the limits of knowledge and the level of evidence.

I've tried to explore that several times in this forum but have concluded that it isn't possible. It does take a bit of agreement on acceptable styles of discussion and on methodology in advance to have any chance of success. (I don't expect that I'll try again.)

Jonathan

Can we - the members of this forum - do anything of that nature without carrying out new studies?

You probably have good, numerically sound intentions, but what can we actually achieve, apart from debating the studies that already exist (and throwing our own anecdata around)?

[Jdsk]

<snippage>

Here's a question that rarely gets asked:

Is there actually any signal - amongst all the noise - for us to find? Just how hard should we keep digging?

For some of the questions I think that there is some signal. But always accompanied by cautious comments about the limits of knowledge and the level of evidence.

I've tried to explore that several times in this forum but have concluded that it isn't possible. It does take a bit of agreement on acceptable styles of discussion and on methodology in advance to have any chance of success. (I don't expect that I'll try again.)

Can we - the members of this forum - do anything of that nature without carrying out new studies?

You probably have good, numerically sound intentions, but what can we actually achieve, apart from debating the studies that already exist (and throwing our own anecdata around)?

Good question. But I have no idea, and I was only thinking of knowledge rather than changing or influencing anything.

Jonathan

[Stevek76]

So while I agree there is need to better inform the public about helmets quite possibly not providing the overall safety benefits often claimed I think this should be done with simple track record of rather than picking particular papers suggesting things are not all rosy. That we have cherry picked papers supporting a position is part of why we're in this mess to start with.

Track record plus relative risk with other modes, you talk about this issue occasionally with children in playgrounds and 'I had a bump' stickers' but it's much the same with transport as well.

The casualty data simply doesn't back up recommending helmets for cyclists but not e.g. pedestrians. Under some metrics pedestrians are actually a little more likely to die of a fatal head injury.

Even motorists aren't exactly far behind; within 1 order of magnitude, and for rates by time well under that.

[tim-b]

You may have read my previous gripes about cycling clubs bringing in helmet rules. You are certainly aware of one such club, as you contributed to the thread

I've worn a helmet because I wanted to ride track events in the 70s/80s under the British Cycling Federation (I didn't realise until 10 minutes ago that British Cycling is still officially the British Cycling Federation, but I digress ). Contemporaneously, I could take part in Time Trials without wearing a helmet, so I didn't wear one.

If all the helmet wearers had a laissez faire attitude like yours, there wouldn't be a problem

And this is a problem, because if someone said I needed to wear a helmet to TT, then I would if I wanted to TT and I wouldn't protest too much.
In the run up to the Dec 2019 General Election one member of this sub-forum in relation to helmet wearing legislation predicted,"On the contrary, it seems like exactly the kind of thing that a populist government might do in an effort to secure additional votes from motorists in the run up to a general election."
It was never going to happen then and it won't happen now because there's too much important stuff happening in the world.

I do think that the helmet discussion at a CUK/BCF/CTT-level is important because that does feed into "the perception that cycling is a dangerous way to get around" (thanks to PJC for that insight). I disagree that helmet use (or not) is a major "we're all doomed" contributor though. When a couple of tonnes is whizzing past my right elbow the last thing that I think is, "I'm so glad that I'm wearing a helmet (or not)"

[De Sisti]

CUK are generally pretty good on lids, but they have a "How to" for MTB at https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/how-g ... ad-cycling that contains...

Invest in a good helmet. Mountain biking is a challenging and sometimes dangerous sport, and you want to make sure your head is protected. Knee pads can also reduce the likelihood of injury.

Shane advises: “A helmet is vital! Don’t even think about riding off road without a helmet. Even the smallest of crashes can cause significant head injuries, so before anything, get yourself a decent helmet.”

Why do they have to define mountain biking as a sport?

[Steady rider]

sport https://www.google.com/search?q=define+ ... e&ie=UTF-8
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.

an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

they could also include money