Cycle helmets dramatically reduce the chances of suffering severe brain trauma according to new study

If you are expecting to get shot, I think some kind of protective jacket might be of more value. I'm not suggesting that it should be mandatory mind you....

Someone confused correlation with causation. Shark attack numbers go up with ice cream sale numbers, ice cream has very little to do with shark attacks though.
What the study doesn't say is that most of those involved in accidents not wearing a helmet were under the influence. Seen this before, it's not really news.

[[[[[ I banged me noggin 3 times, on the beams in the attic, so thereafter donned me Cinelli banana hat whenever I went "aloft". (see wot I did there?). However, I never did bang the bonce again. There you are---helmets do work. Case statistically solved, squire!

Looking forward to their upcoming study supporting safety advantages of better cycling infrastructure.

More research by people who are already convinced that cycle helmets are effective and set out to prove it. Move over Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, there are new kids on the block.

Such a shame that all the reliable evidence from over twenty years of helmet laws and mass helmet wearing in Australia and New Zealand has shown that helmet wearing is not associated with reduced risk, and if anything the opposite is true.

cyclehelmets.org

Logically then, helmet use should be compulsory for everyone 24 hours a day

Isn't the usual corollary of reduced head injuries increased neck injuries? Did they find that? Also there's suspicion that helmet users crash more: did they find that or were they only interested in what happens after someone crashes?

The most conclusive evidence in favour of helmet-usage is a quick perusal of the dizzyingly stupid guff people who don't like helmets post on these discussions.

Extravagantly stupid, all of you. Brain trauma would probably lead you to make more sense.

Conclusion from DoT focus on pedal cyclists report 2013.

'Pedal cyclists have a higher rate of being killed in comparison to car occupants, however it is still far less risky than being a motorcyclist. The rate also appears to be the same for a pedestrian as it is for a cyclist.'

Hmmm. Road.cc has not covered itself in glory with its report of this story.

For a start the summary from the ACS actually says " 58 percent reduced odds of severe traumatic brain injury and a 59 percent reduced odds of death", not the likelihood as reported by road.cc. This is relevant because odds ratios are one of several ways to measure likelihoods and come with their own set of peculiarites depending on whether the correlated effect is large or small. They are notoriously difficult to intuit. It would probably be a mistake to take this story at face value and road.cc should solicit input from a statistician.

Following on from that, and related to it, is the fact that it what is reported is a relative reduction in the odds, without a mention of what the actual odds were a the start. Were they 1/100,000,000 reducing to 1/200,000,000?

And that leads to the fact that the link supplied by road.cc is to a summary/report not to the actual research, which would be more informative than a press release.

All that said, I think that anyone not wearing a helmet in the shower is foolish. I always wear mine when bungie jumping, but not when I'm watching TV. Unlike some posters in this thread I believe in personal choice and am not advocating mandatory helmet use at all times, so please don't shoot me down for my opinion. Thank you.

I nearly forgot (re natural selection), but helmet wearers have been observed to have a reduced likelihood of reproduction due to selection against their secondary sexual characteristics. I tested this hypothesis in a population of 10, by glueing Kask Protons to a randomly selected population captured on Cycling Superhighway 2 and then measuring their number of offspring produced in the next year.

If these helmets are so affective at reducing injury, why aren't they promoted for use in motor vehicles? The risk of head injury is far greater per Km travel when travelling in a motor vehicle than when cycling, but there are never big advertising campaigns for motoring helmets, why not?

Instead of taking note of another over hyped study from the USA, why not learn from the Dutch who have the lowest levels of pedestrian and cyclist head injury (and very low level of helmet wearing).

It is also worth remembering that there is a history of overestimation of the effectiveness of the bicycle helmet by the use of odds ratios. One should never take these studies at face value.

There is no suggestion in this report that wearing cycling helmets should be made compulsory. So what's all the fuss about !

The image you want to post must be hosted on the web somewhere, flickr or Picasa or just in google images.

So find the image, click on it to display it on your screen, then copy the address;

http://www.biathlon-online.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/hitzer_head.jpg

then enclose the address in image tags;

But don't leave any space between the tag and the address;

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates that someone with tech fu should post a ' how to add a picture with your comment' comment.

Thanks in advance.

Applying traditional epidemiological analysis to road crash casualty data is always dubious. The method doesn't take any account of behavioural adaptation/risk compensation by (in this case) people using helmets.

Such analysis does not allow for changes in the behaviour (of a very small kind) by people due to their wearing helmets, although even such small changes in risk taking can cancel out the benefits of wearing a helmet because crashes involving head impact don't happen every day.

I doubt that this was considered.

Then there's the "Why don't you wear one in a car on long journeys ?" question...

it is obviously a matter of choice. the research should help people make the right one

This figure is consistent with other studies.

Remember though, head injuries are rare. A big reduction in a rare injury needn't make much difference to the overall injury and death rate.

Also, note that collisions resulting in serious head injury are likely to cause other serious injuries too - vehicle collisions particularly. A modicum of reduction in risk to the head need not make much difference if most cyclists are dying are of traumatic injury to other parts of the body.

The real-world evidence is that the benefit of helmets to head injuries doesn't do much to make cycling in less-safe environments safe. Further relying on and culturally pushing helmets may also have *negative* effects on risk taking by cyclists and motorists, and on participation by the wider population.

The real-world evidence is that safety strategies that focus on making the environment are *MUCH* more successful at reducing *ALL* injuries to cyclists, AND can increase participation.

In short, the Netherlands is the safest for cycling, because they do NOT focus on helmets.

There isn't any mention of whether the types of impacts between the helmet wearers or non helmet wearers were taken into account. Also little mention that the study only considered those who has suffered a traumatic brain injury that completely ignores any possibility of helmet wearing influencing behaviour of either the wearer or other and it doesn't mention the type of cycling being undertaken when the injuries were sustained. Those could all be highly relevant.

Finally I am flummoxed by the statement that wearing helmets "Reduced the odds of a facial fracture by 26%" - impressive for a piece of polystyrene on the top of the head isn't it - or were they considering full face helmets?

Maybe the study was more scientific than the report makes it look, but if not it isn't exactly reliable its it?

Everybody has a right to freedom of choice to wear a helmet or not
but surely commonsense prevails.

We almost had this level of antagonism over in the cycling news clinic forums whenever Armstrong was mentioned a few years back!

Mac/PC/Linux... Jesus/Allah/YHWH/Krishna/Eris... Helmets/caps/cool-haircuts...

SO FAREWELL THEN, REASONED DEBATE.

LARGE HELMETS,
BIG FLANGES,
CARRY ON CYCLING.

E.J. Thribb, age 17½

Hey Scott, do you swim in it as well?