Review of neck injuries and cycle helmet use

[geocycle]

This is a preprint not a peer reviewed paper. ResearchGate is a sort of portal or broker not a publisher.

[Nearholmer]

Steady rider of hobbyhorses is that Mr Clarke. Still, at least he’s got one loyal supporter.

[Steady rider]

It looks like two issue stem from this discussion, Colin Clarke affiliation with Cycling UK and Campaigns, this goes back many years, for example, http://www.ta.org.br/site2/Banco/7manua ... Helmet.pdf when he was Hon Sec Cyclists' Touring Club,
Yorkshire and Humber Region, UK and had already campaigned for some years on cycling issues and projects.
The picture provided refers to Colin Clarke's affiliation to Cycling UK, that is correct.

The second aspect is how best not to raise any confusions between individuals research and Cycling UK policy documents. If a study refers to Cycling UK in the headings, then a disclaimer could be included, the views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessary of Cycling UK. If a study does not specifically refers to Cycling UK in the headings and the authors attributes the work to them, and make no claim of it stemming from Cycing UK, there would be no need to include a disclaimer.

In both cases the neck injury paper complies.

[Nearholmer]

The second aspect is how best not to raise any confusions between individuals

Very important point that, always easier to avoid if people are overt about their names.

Kevin Payne

[Psamathe]

It looks like two issue stem from this discussion, Colin Clarke affiliation with Cycling UK and Campaigns, this goes back many years, for example, http://www.ta.org.br/site2/Banco/7manua ... Helmet.pdf when he was Hon Sec Cyclists' Touring Club,
Yorkshire and Humber Region, UK and had already campaigned for some years on cycling issues and projects.
The picture provided refers to Colin Clarke's affiliation to Cycling UK, that is correct.

The second aspect is how best not to raise any confusions between individuals research and Cycling UK policy documents. If a study refers to Cycling UK in the headings, then a disclaimer could be included, the views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessary of Cycling UK. If a study does not specifically refers to Cycling UK in the headings and the authors attributes the work to them, and make no claim of it stemming from Cycing UK, there would be no need to include a disclaimer.

In both cases the neck injury paper complies.

(My bold and colour)

Paper might but the download page doesn't.

Ian

[531colin]

.................
I don't know the research, nor the actors and that's precisely the impression that .........

My colour

...........that gave me a smile, on a dull day........

As somebody already posted, it seems to be an important topic, such a shame to muddy the waters with all this nonsense.

[Steady rider]

http://www.ta.org.br/site2/Banco/7manua ... Helmet.pdf
Diagram A and the table of forces could be helpful.

The combined maximum come from impacts at 70 degrees for helmeted, v 65 degrees for no helmet. Scaling the distance to the XX and YY provides comparisons. The YY distance is roughly equal and the XX distance is about 26% larger for the helmeted profile.

Using the force estimates x distance, an indication of the relative bending forces on the neck can be calculated based on this simple two dimensional approach. The info suggests helmeted may incur about an extra 26% loading.

Is there any research providing estimates of bending moments about the neck for helmeted v no helmet?

[Cowsham]

I used to have to do work involving low i beams in plenums in poor lighting conditions. Many times I've hit the top of my head and one of the most annoying problems was the neck injuries. I'm a Baldy man so I wouldn't detect the i beam arriving like I would've when I was younger with hair. When you've hair you feel the object a moment before you clatter into it so you'll instinctively recoil. You may still hit the object but the impact will usually be much less along with the fact your muscles have a split second to brace for impact helps too. ( helps the neck for sure ).

I started to use my old cycle helmet for the plenum work cos it fits much better than any hard hat and doesn't fall off when I need to lower my head or work inverted. I still clattered into the beams but the neck injuries were nearly a thing of the past. No big scars on my bald head either.

[Steady rider]

Yes I think you have a good point. The old hair net designs were lighter in weight and I think the risk of a neck injury would be lower.
I have not seen any studies comparing the newer designs with the old hair net type. The coefficient of friction for leather varies.from about 0.2 to 0.6. Impacts tests on helmets often have above 0.5 according to some research. Leather can also tear

frictionhttps://www.engineersedge.com/coeffients_of_friction.htm

My guess would be leather hair net style would have lower protection and a lower risk of impact and lower neck injuries and easier to store.

[Cowsham]

Yes I think you have a good point. The old hair net designs were lighter in weight and I think the risk of a neck injury would be lower.
I have not seen any studies comparing the newer designs with the old hair net type. The coefficient of friction for leather varies.from about 0.2 to 0.6. Impacts tests on helmets often have above 0.5 according to some research. Leather can also tear

frictionhttps://www.engineersedge.com/coeffients_of_friction.htm

My guess would be leather hair net style would have lower protection and a lower risk of impact and lower neck injuries and easier to store.

I think there's a confusement somewhere. "Hard Hat" means

The old cycle helmet means

[Mike Sales]

This thread is yet another example of how helmets divert us from the real question.
As I have posted so many times before, when we look around the world we can see that the countries which have sought to I prove cyclists' safety with helmets have failed, and those which have looked to improving road conditions have succeeded, in making us safer and increasing cycle miles. By diverting our, and our society's, attention away from what works, the helmet discussions are turning energy and reason away from what would really make a difference.
Countries which put their effort into helmet promotion are the least safe for cycling, and have least cycling. Those which build safe roads for cyclists have more cyclists who have fewer casualties. Helmets are a false solution and a dead end.
Let's stop bickering about the theory of whether they work or not in hypothetical accidents. The country scale experience is clear.

[Psamathe]

... when we look around the world we can see that the countries which have sought to I prove cyclists' safety with helmets have failed, and those which have looked to improving road conditions have succeeded, in making us safer and increasing cycle miles....

For personal reasons, do you have links to any research indicating that? Reason for asking is NOT because I disagree but my non-cycling brother is a staunch "helmets save ..." supporter though has no real justification beyond an assuming that something that protects your head must reduce injuries. So I'd love to be able to point him to something to convince him otherwise. (Plus he's Australian and seems convinced that Aus helmet laws have worked well, but I can't easily dispute what he might have read when he lived in Aus).

Thanks
Ian

[Mike Sales]

... when we look around the world we can see that the countries which have sought to I prove cyclists' safety with helmets have failed, and those which have looked to improving road conditions have succeeded, in making us safer and increasing cycle miles....

For personal reasons, do you have links to any research indicating that? Reason for asking is NOT because I disagree but my non-cycling brother is a staunch "helmets save ..." supporter though has no real justification beyond an assuming that something that protects your head must reduce injuries. So I'd love to be able to point him to something to convince him otherwise. (Plus he's Australian and seems convinced that Aus helmet laws have worked well, but I can't easily dispute what he might have read when he lived in Aus).

Thanks
Ian

Not to hand. Cyclehelmets dot org has many papers to search.

[Jdsk]

cycle helmets.org is not maintained.

It doesn't adhere to evidence-based principles and I wouldn't recommend it as a scientific resource.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

cycle helmets.org is not maintained.

It doesn't adhere to evidence-based principles and I wouldn't recommend it as a scientific resource.

While on the one hand these are valid points, on the other that doesn't make it useless and because "the science" is hundreds of papers with highly inconsistent results then anywhere else you look is also hard to recommend.

What cycle helmets.org does do is makes the suggestion that the sacred cows of significant life saving helmet efficacy don't look so sacred after all and it does that by picking some quite reasonable holes in oft-cited "proofs". This a very much lower bar to clear than proving the cows aren't holy, or lower again than proving them to be satanic.

There are no smoking guns available is part of the problem. Some of the suspect smells are if these things are effective as a general public health intervention... where are the demonstrable casualty savings over the 30+ years they've been pushed? If it's easy to show they make us safer, where is the agreed reproducible methodology showing consistent results? If it's obvious they make us safer why do companies making and selling them not want to go any further in promotion than saying they conform to a (low) standard? Why do the likes of Cycling UK, Active Travel England and Cycling Scotland maintain a neutral stance on their use after decades of closely monitoring the arguments for and against?
These are the sorts of questions that don't have easy answers in the Real World, but should have if it's easy to demonstrate that wider uptake of helmets would save many lives.

And the usual disclaimer: none of the above says that individuals can't benefit from helmets, shouldn't use them if that's what they want or that there are no contexts in which they would seem to make very good sense.

Pete.