Helmet Safety Poll

[Robbie Stewart]

without a doubt in Massa's case if he was not wearing a helmet he would of been dead. No one can dispute that and no one will.

 

Agreed. My point is highlighting the fact that attempting any sport involving wheels without a helmet is just plain stupid.You will get those who choose to forgo the logic of this recommendation in the spirit of "free choice and human rights".

 

I just call it natural selection of candidates deserving of a Darwin award.

[Robbie Stewart]

The poll is worded badly - the second question won't lead to credible data. Nobody will ever know if wearing a helmet made them feel safer which conclusively led to an accident.

 

I do believe helmets make you braver and increase the risk of crashing. Gloves too - I certainly have ridden with a much bigger safety margin the few times I've forgotten my gloves.

 

One things is not disputable:

Helmets physically make you safer.

 

Mentally is debatable of course.

 

Try this olde chestnut on for size. If we put a HUGE steel spike on the steering wheel pointed straight at the drivers heart would accidents increase, decrease or stay the same.... Or decrease for a while then head back to the same? Hmmmm.

 

car manufactures did this already...

 

They call it an airbag.

 

I don't see how this makes people safer drivers, as the guys with the most airbags in their cars usually drive the worst. (disclaimer - I am talking of normal drivers here, not taxis and busses and and and)

 

BUT, in saying this, would I want to drive a car without one?

 

NO

[Mongooser]

my helmet broke my collarbone once

otherwise ive cracked 3 fullfaces and walked away

[IceCreamMan]

car manufactures did this already...

 

They call it an airbag.

 

I don't see how this makes people safer drivers, as the guys with the most airbags in their cars usually drive the worst. (disclaimer - I am talking of normal drivers here, not taxis and busses and and and)

 

BUT, in saying this, would I want to drive a car without one?

 

NO

I think you have admirably proved the point. Yr witness m'lud

[Patchelicious]

I do believe helmets make you braver and increase the risk of crashing. Gloves too - I certainly have ridden with a much bigger safety margin the few times I've forgotten my gloves.

 

One things is not disputable:

Helmets physically make you safer.

So by how much does the accident rate increase because of the increased perception of safety?

 

Compare this to:

 

By much does wearing a helmet reduce your risk of injury in the event of an accident?

 

When you have those two numbers, you can start doing some calculations.

 

But nobody seems to post numbers or make explicit statements, instead everybody rather resorts to finding fault with other's statements without then offering their own alternative.

[Patchelicious]

A) 1 + 1 = 2

 

B) No it doesn't!

 

A) Yes it does!

 

B) No it doesn't!!!

 

A) Ok so then what does 1 + 1 equal?

 

B) Well not 2!!

[IceCreamMan]

So by how much does the accident rate increase because of the increased perception of safety?

 

Compare this to:

 

By much does wearing a helmet reduce your risk of injury in the event of an accident?

 

When you have those two numbers, you can start doing some calculations.

 

But nobody seems to post numbers or make explicit statements, instead everybody rather resorts to finding fault with other's statements without then offering their own alternative.

At this point the answer is that no one actually has the answers. It's a grey area. What we do know is that in some cases helmet can be of benefit. We also know that when oz introduced mandatory laws head injuries did not decrease ( or fatalities) but it appears from the research posted in the other thread that injuries to other parts of the body increased. John Adams performed extensive analysis following mandatory motorcycle helmet laws an found an increase in deaths an injuries in some states. Also found a decrease in head related injuries but massive increase in neck related injuries. When mixing in other factors a number of govts decided not to implement helmet laws an some have repealed them in some areas. In a few cases helmets have directly been the cause of death with kids asphixyating by being "hung" by their helmets but this is not common. I recently started looking into American football an much analysis is needed there too but since helmets were introduced the way players are tackled has changed as players now feel safer. 1 in 3 pro players will suffer from a brain injury in some form in their lives.

 

We don't know enough about all the variables for an absolute call to be made. Risk homeostatis exists, this has been proved, but no definite answers exist. We also don't really know enough about the brain an the best way to protect it using a helmet. A lot of brain injuries are secondary injuries not the primary injury which complicates it further.

 

At this point no definitive numbers can be committed to. Even manufacturers of helmets use terminology like may, could an potentially.

 

What is crystal clear however is that we should not be placing much, if any, faith in helmets.

[Patchelicious]

At this point the answer is that no one actually has the answers. It's a grey area. What we do know is that in some cases helmet can be of benefit. We also know that when oz introduced mandatory laws head injuries did not decrease ( or fatalities) but it appears from the research posted in the other thread that injuries to other parts of the body increased. John Adams performed extensive analysis following mandatory motorcycle helmet laws an found an increase in deaths an injuries in some states. Also found a decrease in head related injuries but massive increase in neck related injuries. When mixing in other factors a number of govts decided not to implement helmet laws an some have repealed them in some areas. In a few cases helmets have directly been the cause of death with kids asphixyating by being "hung" by their helmets but this is not common. I recently started looking into American football an much analysis is needed there too but since helmets were introduced the way players are tackled has changed as players now feel safer. 1 in 3 pro players will suffer from a brain injury in some form in their lives.

 

We don't know enough about all the variables for an absolute call to be made. Risk homeostatis exists, this has been proved, but no definite answers exist. We also don't really know enough about the brain an the best way to protect it using a helmet. A lot of brain injuries are secondary injuries not the primary injury which complicates it further.

 

At this point no definitive numbers can be committed to. Even manufacturers of helmets use terminology like may, could an potentially.

 

What is crystal clear however is that we should not be placing much, if any, faith in helmets.

Your entire post says that "we don't know" yet you go on to say: "What is crystal clear however is that we should not be placing much, if any, faith in helmets"

 

How can you say that if by your own admission you have no scientific basis or backing for that statement?

[IceCreamMan]

Your entire post says that "we don't know" yet you go on to say: "What is crystal clear however is that we should not be placing much, if any, faith in helmets"

 

How can you say that if by your own admission you have no scientific basis or backing for that statement?

There is data an scientific backing absolutely but not an absolute figure like " you are 19!percent less likely to have a brain injury wearing a helmet " or " the overall risk of having an accident increases by 27% if you wear a helmet with a concomitant death risk increase of 7 percent"

 

Unfortunately these absolutes do not exist an even if they did they would be meaningless to massa whose life was saved by a helmet. A helmet could conceivably save my life tomorrow but my view on them would not change. There is currently to much research disputing their efficacy for whole populations.

[Eldron]

By much does wearing a helmet reduce your risk of injury in the event of an accident?

 

When you have those two numbers, you can start doing some calculations.

 

But nobody seems to post numbers or make explicit statements, instead everybody rather resorts to finding fault with other's statements without then offering their own alternative.

 

You're asking for the impossible - you will never be able to put numbers to risk - too many variables.

 

I wasn't finding fault - just pointing out that you're data gathering technique is flawed - any conclusions made from that data are null and void.

 

Ultimately debate is about learning not winning and with that in mind here is my summation:

 

Riding with a helmet on is safer than off.

People tend to take more risk the more safety equipment they have.

I think the safety afforded by the helmet outdoes the increase in risk due to wearing it.

 

That said I still cruise the hood from time to time "sans helmet". I dig it and think the fun gained by riding helmetless is worth the extra risk of not wearing it.

 

Has this debate made me change my helmet wearing regimine? No.

 

Riding in Copenhagen is an interesting enigma wrapped up in a conundrum:

When I train or race I wear my helmet - when I ride on my commuter bike I don't wear my helmet. That is just how things are done there. More and more commuters seem to be donning lids but the vast majority still ride lidless.

 

Odd innit?

 

Thaaat said - I do find the trend that motorist pass closer to helmet wearing riders is interesting. The investigation into making helmets mandatory actually reducing total numer of cyclists is reaonable - people don't want nanny states.

[Patchelicious]

You're asking for the impossible - you will never be able to put numbers to risk - too many variables.

 

I wasn't finding fault - just pointing out that you're data gathering technique is flawed - any conclusions made from that data are null and void.

 

Ultimately debate is about learning not winning and with that in mind here is my summation:

 

Riding with a helmet on is safer than off.

People tend to take more risk the more safety equipment they have.

I think the safety afforded by the helmet outdoes the increase in risk due to wearing it.

 

That said I still cruise the hood from time to time "sans helmet". I dig it and think the fun gained by riding helmetless is worth the extra risk of not wearing it.

 

Has this debate made me change my helmet wearing regimine? No.

 

Riding in Copenhagen is an interesting enigma wrapped up in a conundrum:

When I train or race I wear my helmet - when I ride on my commuter bike I don't wear my helmet. That is just how things are done there. More and more commuters seem to be donning lids but the vast majority still ride lidless.

 

Odd innit?

 

Thaaat said - I do find the trend that motorist pass closer to helmet wearing riders is interesting. The investigation into making helmets mandatory actually reducing total numer of cyclists is reaonable - people don't want nanny states.

I know that EXACT figure will be difficult to provide. I was trying to prove a point about absolutes. But we can get an idea/indication of the effectiveness.

 

Based on the info you must have at hand, At least you are willing to make a statement:

 

"I think the safety afforded by the helmet outdoes the increase in risk due to wearing it"

 

Based on what do you make this statement? (It's one that I agree with, just interested to know) gut feel, personal experience, info etc?

 

Ps: Data gathering is never flawed, it might not end up supporting the original intention, but conclusions can always be drawn. Even if it is only about people's perceptions. There is alway value if you look for it.

[Patchelicious]

There is data an scientific backing absolutely but not an absolute figure like " you are 19!percent less likely to have a brain injury wearing a helmet " or " the overall risk of having an accident increases by 27% if you wear a helmet with a concomitant death risk increase of 7 percent"

 

Unfortunately these absolutes do not exist an even if they did they would be meaningless to massa whose life was saved by a helmet. A helmet could conceivably save my life tomorrow but my view on them would not change. There is currently to much research disputing their efficacy for whole populations.

I asked you a simple question:

 

Based on what data do you make the very absolute statement of: "What is crystal clear however is that we should not be placing much, if any, faith in helmets"

[Danger Dassie]

Can't say objectively wether or not wearing a helmet creates more risky behavioural changes, I mean does wearing a seatbelt have the same effect? 
Both have been around long enough that it's almost secondary nature to wear.

What is an absolute fact is that the head is a vulnerable space, you only need one impact for death or serious injury. It's not like scraping a knee or even like a broken bone even, except in some rare/freak accidents maybe. 

Can only speak for myself and know for a fact that out of three serious instances over the years my helmet has saved my life at least once, literally. This sentiment was echoed by EMS and trauma unit staff.

I was t-boned by a 4x4 and ended up going through the cab, ending up inside the bin and canopy area. Result was an airvac after flatlining (to Joburg Gen) where I rerouted to Garden City and spent a delightful two week nap and then a further three months of recovery with physio for nearly a year. 
Other instances were a concussion at an XCO provincial and an otb flip at Shova, which resulted in the helmet fracturing right by the temple area. Sure it may be arguable that it 'saved my life' but best case scenario is that it saved me from hospitalisation. 

If it's all the same, there are logical common sense reasons to wearing a helmet. Over and above any studies.
That said personally don't believe it should be an enforcement issue, these studies are a good source of info and it should be a personal choice.
 

[IceCreamMan]

I asked you a simple question:

 

Based on what data do you make the very absolute statement of: "What is crystal clear however is that we should not be placing much, if any, faith in helmets"

A number of studies including:

 

1. Injury rates recorded before an after mandatory laws were implemented in oz. there was no decrease in injuries sustained or deaths. In fact if one considers all stats there was an increase.

2. The extensive work done by Dr John Adams following the Hurt report.

3. Research which show an increase in injuries other than head injuries in oz compared to Netherlands. Simplistic yes, but an avenue which needs to be further understood.

4. Risk homeostatis. I posted a link previously which proves this exists. The extent of which is far larger than yr straw poll indicates. Been rehashed in this thread enough so won't delve into it.

5. A number of cycling injuries are face related an to other parts of the body. The helmet is useless in these but probably increases the risk an severity of these due to our risk perception.

6. In car cyclist accidents helmets are of little use.

7. Our current understanding of how the brain is injured is limited. Much more work needed an in helmet design too.

8. As humans we have a basic misunderstanding of physics. The amount of kinetic energy the body has at relatively low speeds is astounding. When we go down valverde hill at 70 kays plus an hour the physics become frightening. We don't fully understand that.

 

Sure, I will wear a helmet when out training but am well aware of their shortfalls. Hopefully this reduces my risk of an accident.

 

Interesting discussion. We won't convince each other. If you want to put faith in yr helmet then so so. I choose to take all info at hand an have a different view.

[coppi]

this helmet issue has been discussed and analysed to death  

[Fat Boab]

I'm on my way out for the day, so I'll make this quick!

 

Some thoughts on recent comments:

 

1. Quantification of risk and comparison of it's increase and/or decrease is possible. It's commonly done in, at least, 2 ways by comparing 'risky behaviour' eg the speed at which people will ride with/without a helmet,  as an example, where an increase of speed, would be considered an increase in risky behaviour. Likewise the distance that a car will pass you if with/without a helmet. The second means of quantification is determining the consequence of behaviour eg accident rates, fatalities etc.

 

2. Further to 1, various meta-studies (a complex statistical approach) churn out risk factors which inform practioners in the field. See this link for an example of the approach - I'm not pushing the conclusion incidentally. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488

 

3. This type of field is complex and for most of us, including myself, abstract. The search for, and/or the rebuttal of existence, of understandable and plausible data is akin to a search for the Grail. Scientific consensus, which embraces studies supporting or refuting postulates, would probably better inform and it may exist. Why not ask several specialists in the field?

 

4. If risk homeostatis is applicable with regard to bicycle helmets and aspects of safety, then a simplified approach would suggest that you will be exposed to the same risk factor whether you are helmeted or not. Sure, how is risk factor determined, does it account for unreported accidents which didn't lead to hospitalised injuries etc etc, but doesn't that inform the overall consequence of helmets vs no-helmets?