Jumbo Visma, one of the dominant teams of the 2023 spring classics campaign, has teamed up with its Belgian helmet suppliers Lazer to produce and promote a special “brain-design” helmet, which will be worn by members of the Dutch squad at this weekend’s much anticipated Paris-Roubaix races, to encourage all cyclists to wear a “helmet”.
“This year’s Paris-Roubaix cycling classic is all about raising awareness to wear a helmet while cycling,” said the Dutch outfit, led by pre-Roubaix favourites Wout van Aert, Dylan van Baarle, and Marianne Vos. “The riders of Team Jumbo-Visma are drawing attention to this initiative.”
The team has been working with Lazer for several years to develop the best protective bicycle helmet, and said that it “supports this message and is happy to use its authority to raise awareness”.
Likewise, Lazer mentioned that the partnership with Jumbo Visma gives them the opportunity to draw attention to the importance of wearing a helmet during a major World Tour race not only for professional cyclists, but also for every cyclist worldwide, “whether you’re riding a kids bike or an e-bike”.
Sean van Waes, CEO of Lazer said: “We would rather see a lot more bicycle helmets being sold worldwide, even from other brands. After all, this is about protection for cyclists and their health.”
Jumbo Visma has seen a flurry of cobbled success this season with back-to-back victories at Opening Weekend in February, and last month at E3 Saxo Bank and Gent-Wevelgem — with their leader Wout van Aert winning the former in a dazzling sprint where he beat Tadej Pogačar and his long-time rival Mathieu van der Poel, while Christophe Laporte and Van Aert took a dominant (and somewhat controversial) one-two in a grisly day at Gent-Wevelgem.
Van Aert, however, missed out on the podium places in last week’s Tour of Flanders and will be hoping for a return to winning ways in his new lid at Sunday’s Hell of the North — although his Red Bull sponsorship may be plastered over the “healthy brains” on his helmet.
? Wout van Aert dokkert al een keer over de kletsnatte kasseien van Parijs-Roubaix. Mét een bijzondere helm voor zondag.https://t.co/Eb6CrQiMJi pic.twitter.com/nzOw0d1oqi
— Sporza ? (@sporza_koers) April 6, 2023
Last month, Endura designed four helmets featuring CAT scans of cyclists’ brain injuries to encourage helmet wearing. Coinciding with Brain Awareness Week, the Scottish-based manufacturer auctioned them for The Brain Charity, with the cyclewear brand hoping to “encourage the entire cycling community” to wear helmets.
One of the helmets featured the scan of Ian Charlesworth, 62, who was struck by the driver of an HGV in 2019, while another featured John Moroney’s, a cyclist injured in a collision with the driver of a 4×4 in Bristol.
Both men were cycling without head protection, Endura is quick to point out, and suffered skull fractures, brain injuries and neurological abnormalities such as haemorrhage and contusion, leading to cognitive impairment struggles including memory loss, fatigue and vertigo.
Use your head. Wear a helmet every time you cycle. ?
Together with our partner @lazersport, we are raising awareness of the importance of wearing a helmet with a goal to increase helmet use.#useyourhead #parisroubaix
— Team Jumbo-Visma cycling (@JumboVismaRoad) April 6, 2023
As our readers would know by now, helmet safety is a passionately contentious issue. Several researchers, including psychologist Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath, have found that motorists tend to give more space to cyclists not wearing helmets, therefore lowering the possibility of a collision.
In 2014, former Olympian and now active-travel advocate Chris Boardman had described the “helmet issue” as a “massive red herring” which is “not even in the top ten of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives”.
There are also calls for clearer helmet marketing and mention their limitations in offering protection during a collision. A recent study had found that only one in five competitive cyclists are aware that helmets do not protect from concussion, which researchers say may lead them to ignore the potential consequences of what cyclists may view as a ‘minor’ crash.
However, a 2017 review by statisticians at the University of New South Wales found that, based on 40 separate studies, helmet use significantly reduced the odds of head injury, and that the probability of suffering a fatal head injury was lower when cyclists wore a helmet (though, the authors noted, helmets cannot eliminate the risk of injury entirely).
Another study from the same year, this time from Norway’s Institute of Transport Economics, concluded – based on an overview of almost 30 years’ worth of analysis – that bike helmets reduced head injury by 48 per cent, serious head injury by 60 per cent, traumatic brain injury by 53 per cent, facial injury by 23 per cent, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34 per cent.
More recently, Channel 5 presenter Dan Walker said he was “glad to be alive” after being hit by a driver while cycling at a roundabout in Sheffield. Walker said his helmet “saved my life” and told his social media followers “if you’re on a bike — get one on your head”.
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
The 45-year-old claimed that a police officer and paramedics who attended the scene told him that he would not be here now if he was not wearing one, but in the inevitable debate that ensued others suggested prioritising helmets is an example of ‘car-brained’ victim-blaming culture, with safe infrastructure and action on dangerous and careless driving more important.
75 thoughts on “Jumbo-Visma to wear helmets with “healthy brains” at Paris-Roubaix to encourage helmet wearing”
Brace, brace!
Brace, brace!
Chocks away…
Chocks away…
Hold on to your hat!
Hold on to your hat!
a Dutch team, with a Dutch
a Dutch team, with a Dutch sponsor (Jumbo not Lazer obv), not sure I understand why theyve done this
Awavey wrote:
To sell helmets. As the old saying goes “When you don’t understand what’s going on, follow the money.”
well maybe I was taking the
well maybe I was taking the more philosophical angle 😉
I mean look Lazer make this Wout Van Aert limited edition which wont and hasnt received half as much attention https://www.lazersport.com/uk/stories/win-like-wout and is a much more subtle attempt to sell stuff, especially as he doesnt even wear it in races opting for the traditional Red Bull sponsor colours.
but even if you go over to the JumboVisma shop, whilst they sell all kinds of branded stuff you didnt know you needed, you cant buy this helmet.
and JumboVismas core market is Belgium/Holland right, its not us in the UK for sure. Well the Dutch arent going to take any notice of this, and Im not I sure I know what the Belgians think of cycling helmets, but lets presume it splits like normal and the flemish will side more with the Dutch and the Walloons with the French and the Brusselians dont have an opinion on it.
so sure its to sell helmets, but to whom ?
Awavey wrote:
My observation when riding in Flanders is that people in Lycra riding curly handlebarred bikes wear helmets and most ‘civilians’ don’t.
A big brain moment come to
A big brain moment come to life.
Without being able to read
Without being able to read the text of the Norwegian study, it’s impossible to tell whether it is valid or not, but after many years of studying meta-analyses of cycle helmet studies, I have become extremely suspicious of them, because they are so easy to manipulate. It all depends on which studies you select, and if you choose the ones that show that helmets protect and ignore the ones that don’t, you get the result you want. Putting lots of bad studies together doesn’t somehow transform them into one good study. If they showed the studies they used, then it might be possible to say whether it was robust, but they don’t.
As far as I know, all the long term, large scale, reliable methodology studies show at best no benefit from mass helmet wearing.
One thing is for sure though, proper cycling facilities do work, and helmets are just a distraction and victim blaming.
eburtthebike wrote:
Starts with “one thing is for sure”. Proceeds to make spurious claim. Good one.
You’ve got to read the rest
You’ve got to read the rest as well…
I’ve read the rest. It’s the
I’ve read the rest. It’s the same usual stuff. Eburt says that studies are too easy to manipulate with one’s own bias and brands ones that agree with his view as accurate and ones that don’t “the worst of bad science”.
I don’t think the level of self-awareness is quite there to see the irony of that.
And apparently the efficacy of cycling infrastructure is relevant to the efficacy of helmets. The causal link hasn’t been explained yet. Personally I’d rather have infrastructure that keeps me safer and a helmet that keeps me safer. In the absence of such infrastructure, eburt seems to think that you’re much better off without a helmet. I don’t quite follow that logic myself.
“I’d rather have
“I’d rather have infrastructure that keeps me safer and a helmet that keeps me safer.”
The first is 98% of safety, the second 2%.
So let’s start with the first to then find we don’t really need the second. Rather than as it is now push for the second to actually avoid ever doing the first.
marmotte27 wrote:
Just had a quick search for studies that estimate the injury reduction for cycle lanes and found this one: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/10/22/study-protected-bike-lanes-reduce-injury-risk-up-to-90-percent/
hawkinspeter wrote:
Haven’t really got the time to delve into this, but the articles summary of the study sounds as if they studied straights, not intersections. That would tend to minimise the risk, and the gains through proper continous cycling infrastructure. (Vehicular cycling is mainly about the risks at intersections through inept bike infrastructure.)
marmotte27 wrote:
Presumably that’s due to the lack of cycling infrastructure at junctions.
Yes. And so the gains from
Yes. And so the gains from Dutch style infrastructure should be higher.
marmotte27 wrote:
Taking your 98%/2% at face value for a moment (despite it being a number you plucked out of thin air), if cycling infrastructure is as woeful as it appears, doesn’t that make it even more important to wear a helmet? And therefore presumably you would applaud the efforts of a cycling team to encourage helmet use.
Or are you suggesting that cycling infrastructure is already excellent, therefore there is no need to worry about helmets?
“And therefore presumably you
“And therefore presumably you would applaud the efforts of a cycling team to encourage helmet use.”
I’d applaud the efforts of a cycling team that campaigned for road safety without associating themselves with a victim blaming campaign from one of their sponsors entitled “Use your head” that ridicules itself straight away by citing numbers from the worst ever cycle helmet study.
marmotte27 wrote:
If you consider the campaign to be ‘victim blaming’, that’s on you. It’s not ‘victim blaming’ to say that wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of a head injury in the event of an incident. It’s also not victim blaming to say that cyclists should wear helmets.
“Use your head” means that
“Use your head” means that someone who doesn’t wear a cycle helmet is an idiot. I call that victim blaming.
marmotte27 wrote:
Calling someone that understands that putting a protective device on your head provides benefits in the reduction of risk of head injury smarter than someone that does not is just calling a spade a spade.
We live in a very tolerant society nowadays though. Stupid people can do all sorts of things, which is great. They can become Prime Minister of the UK, or even President of the US. The world is their lobster.
“Calling someone that
“Calling someone that understands that putting a protective device on your head provides benefits in the reduction of risk of head injury smarter than someone that does not is just calling a spade a spade.”
I have a feeling we’ve been here with you before, many times. Please tell me, do you wear a helmet during activities that have a comparabale risk of head injury than cycling, such as getting in and out of a shower, climbing stairs, driving a car, walking in ste street, etc.? If not, why not?
It has actually nothing to do with being smart or not, as that would have to be based on fact, which is not possible. It has however everything to do with creating and entertaining (for whatever reason in each individual case) a scaremongering, victim-blaming culture around the totally normal, everyday activity of cycling that carries absolutely no increased risk.
Those who actually use their heads for thinking beyond the “it’s obvious, innit” state of mind come to very different conclusions about cycle helmets and road safety (as outlined above by several people).
Personally I will therefore continue to call a spade a spade and to call a victim-blamer a victim-blamer.
There is a difference between
There is a difference between absolute risk and relative risk.
Most people get in and out of the shower at least once a day.
Most people don’t cycle at all.
Rich_cb wrote:
In Britain. They do in other places. Show me there is an increased risk for head injury while cycling comparatively to other everyday activiteis in the Netherlands. You can’t.
I’m getting a bit tired of this… See you all under the next helmet discussion….
In the Netherlands cyclists
In the Netherlands cyclists account for 59% of moderate to severe head injuries in RTAs. Cycling’s modal share in the Netherlands is 27%.
Cycling has a high relative risk for head injury. When cycling numbers are low, as in the UK, the absolute risk is low allowing people to make ill judged comparisons to head injuries when driving, showering etc. When cycling numbers are high, as in the Netherlands, the relative and absolute risk of head injury from cycling are both high demonstrating the error in the aforementioned comparisons.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355124528_Incidence_causes_and_consequences_of_moderate_and_severe_traumatic_brain_injury_as_determined_by_Abbreviated_Injury_Score_in_the_Netherlands/fulltext/615eee945a481543a88fe97c/Incidence-causes-and-consequences-of-moderate-and-severe-traumatic-brain-injury-as-determined-by-Abbreviated-Injury-Score-in-the-Netherlands.pdf
marmotte27 wrote:
I do use a helmet in other activities where a helmet is likely to reduce the risk of head injury, yes. Especially where I am advised to, which, if you live in the UK you are advised to when cycling on the road iaw highway code.
For example when climbing, when playing cricket and on job sites.
And advising others to wear a helmet in those instances is not ‘victim blaming” either.
Neither me or Jumbo Visma have suggested that the lack of a helmet absolves a dangerous driver of responsibility. That would be victim blaming. What you are doing, honestly, is just mindless bleating about an absolute non-issue.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
In isolation, those statements aren’t strictly victim blaming, but in context of road danger, they most definitely are. As Saint Boardman puts it, “Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe”, so for people to focus purely on helmets and not any of the more useful measures, then you have to question why they do that.
It’s generally because other measures might cost some money or de-prioritise motorised traffic or even be seen as ‘favouring’ cyclists. The reason that the narrative is so often around bike helmets is because it’s an easy way to point fingers at cyclists and blame them if they don’t buy and wear a helmet. Unfortunately, that narrative ends up being used by police and courts to try to blame cyclists even when the fault for the collision is obviously with the other party (e.g. drivers hitting cyclists in bike lanes).
Consider if society just focussed on women’s clothing when there’s any discussion of sexual crime taking place in certain areas. Dowdy clothes may provide a lesser risk of being a victim, but there’s clearly better topics such as street lighting, police patrols and prosecution of the crimes. (Helmets are actually a poorer precaution as they do nothing to lessen the risk of collisions and there is even some evidence that they can increase the risk of collisions due to drivers passing closer and/or risk compensation).
hawkinspeter wrote:
In isolation, those statements aren’t strictly victim blaming, but in context of road danger, they most definitely are. As Saint Boardman puts it, “Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe”, so for people to focus purely on helmets and not any of the more useful measures, then you have to question why they do that.
It’s generally because other measures might cost some money or de-prioritise motorised traffic or even be seen as ‘favouring’ cyclists. The reason that the narrative is so often around bike helmets is because it’s an easy way to point fingers at cyclists and blame them if they don’t buy and wear a helmet. Unfortunately, that narrative ends up being used by police and courts to try to blame cyclists even when the fault for the collision is obviously with the other party (e.g. drivers hitting cyclists in bike lanes).
Consider if society just focussed on women’s clothing when there’s any discussion of sexual crime taking place in certain areas. Dowdy clothes may provide a lesser risk of being a victim, but there’s clearly better topics such as street lighting, police patrols and prosecution of the crimes. (Helmets are actually a poorer precaution as they do nothing to lessen the risk of collisions and there is even some evidence that they can increase the risk of collisions due to drivers passing closer and/or risk compensation).— ShutTheFrontDawes
Still not victim blaming. Saying ‘wear a helmet to reduce your risk of head injury’ is not a dog whistle for ‘drive into any cyclist you see not wearing a helmet – they deserve it’.
Take some responsibility for your own safety on the roads. Cars have NCAP safety ratings and seatbelts for exactly the same reason. No one calls that victim blaming.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
NCAP safety ratings and seatbelts are designed to protect against collision with motor vehicles at high speed, whereas that doesn’t apply to bike helmets. Also, the drivers are as likely to be the cause as the victim, whereas cyclists are mainly at risk from drivers, so you can see that you’re comparing different things entirely.
Taking responsibility for my own safety on the road is often impossible as there’s situations created by drivers that are not possible to predict or avoid and bike helmets do very little against high speed collisions, or at least they are not designed for that.
You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Lol. You don’t think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I’m the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done.
For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.
— ShutTheFrontDawes Lol. You don’t think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I’m the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done. For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.— hawkinspeter
As soon as the manufacturers can design a helmet that scores even 1 NCAP star in collision tests with a motor vehicle I’m sure everyone will rush out to buy it and all these arguments will be forgotten, but don’t hold your breath on that design being imminent.
Backladder wrote:
Hahaha. Yes, a piece of polystyrene performing as effectively as decades of mechanical and materials engineering with 2 tonnes of metal to play with. If that’s where you set the bar then you deserve the head injury.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You have now gone completely into victim blaming territory, so I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by trying to reason with you.
— ShutTheFrontDawes Lol. You don’t think comparing NCAP Safety Ratings and seatbelts to helmets is valid, so you dismiss the urgently logical argument. And I’m the one with whom reasoning is useless. Brilliant. Well done. For the record, the occupant protection categories of NCAP safety ratings are for protecting first parties, as are seatbelts, as are helmets. So yes, the comparison is very relevant.— Backladder
As soon as the manufacturers can design a helmet that scores even 1 NCAP star in collision tests with a motor vehicle I’m sure everyone will rush out to buy it and all these arguments will be forgotten, but don’t hold your breath on that design being imminent.
— ShutTheFrontDawes Hahaha. Yes, a piece of polystyrene performing as effectively as decades of mechanical and materials engineering with 2 tonnes of metal to play with. If that’s where you set the bar then you deserve the head injury.— hawkinspeter
You’re the one claiming they are comparable, if they are actually not really comparable due to “physics” then perhaps we should investigate other mitigations as suggested by many other posters on here?
Backladder wrote:
Hahaha. Yes, a piece of polystyrene performing as effectively as decades of mechanical and materials engineering with 2 tonnes of metal to play with. If that’s where you set the bar then you deserve the head injury.— ShutTheFrontDawes
You’re the one claiming they are comparable, if they are actually not really comparable due to “physics” then perhaps we should investigate other mitigations as suggested by many other posters on here?— hawkinspeter
Well for a start I shall compare the ways they are different. One is a piece of polystyrene and the other is 2 tonnes of metal designed in a way to provide an increased level of safety.
The ways they are similar include:
– they both provide some level of protection for first parties.
– they both protect against some, but not all risks. In a similar way as a helmet would not protect against a car being driven over your head, a crumple zone or seatbelt would not protect against a head-on collision with an articulated lorry. In both cases, they are better than or the same as nothing, however.
– they both require advertising campaigns to be employed by the general public. In much the same way that some cyclists eschew helmets, some people used to moan and bleat about being forced to use seatbelts. At least in that case, they were actually being forced (by law) though, so at least their complaining was understandable from a ‘government overreach’ perspective.
– The absence of either should not prevent the application of ’cause and effect’ or the apportionment of blame in the even of a collision. A third party causing a collision remains the cause of the collision whether a helmet is worn or not, and where the vehicle has a high safety rating or a low one, and whether seatbelts are worn or not.
So yes, some differences and some similarities.
I think a lot of the heat in
I think a lot of the heat in this discussion comes from mixing several different but linked issues. However I’m sure a holistic approach to the freedom and safety of vulnerable road users would bring the most benefit.
It would seem – from Dutch
It would seem – from Dutch experience (see here – in Dutch but worth the effort) – lots of incidents and subsequent injury sustained can be traced to essentially “falls”. So important factors are stability, the height of the head above ground, the position you fall in (eg sideways, forwards) and what you can do to recover from or mitigate a fall. (Possibly less if your limbs are tangled up in a bike).
I recall seeing a film a while back with the following engineering solution proposed. (Disclosure – I do own a recumbent).
eburtthebike wrote:
I do agree, the benefits from proper cycling facilities are too great to be overlooked. I am a slow cyclist now after a long break, and without the relatively good bicycle infrastructure for my work commute, I wouldn’t have started it again. And yet some people believe all safety issues will be solved with helmets..
But there is no crazy science behind helmets, it is better than nothing to have some kind of soft material between your head and the asphalt if you are about to hit it. I have had a few nasty falls at slow speeds caused by slippery tarmac, and while at none I had head contact, it was close, and if I made contact, I would like to have something soft at my head.
The point of meta-analyses is
The point of meta-analyses is to minimise scope for manipulation. So the search method and inclusion/exclusion criteria should be pre-set and objective, etc.
That helmets would reduce serious head injuries by 60% seems quite believable to me. In line with other meta-analyses I’ve read.
The thing is that that serious head injuries are _rare_ (least, without other life-threatening injuries). So a 60% reduction is a reduction from one small number to another slightly smaller number.
I remember discussing this with a doctor at a cycling org once, and he didn’t agree with my view. He looked up injuries in his data at his cycling org and found something like 2 serious head injuries out of (IIRC) ~620 injuries overall in accidents his organisation had recorded. With a 60% reduction due to helmets, that means that without helmets, there would have been 621 injuries in total, with 3 serious head injures. The helmets saved *1* serious head injury out of 621.
A large reduction in a tiny number is a /very slightly/ tinier number. Basic arithmetic.
Paul J wrote:
I think the larger problem is that the data is just taken from hospital admissions which is pre-selecting for people having bike injuries, so it could easily be skewed if people wearing helmets are wearing helmets due to more dangerous cycling (e.g. hitting a tree is quite common when mountain biking, whereas falling off is uncommon in road cycling/commuting). The classic example is in the Netherlands where head injuries are strongly correlated with wearing a helmet – this is due to the sports, racing cyclists being the group that are most likely to wear a helmet and also most likely to be involved in a crash. Conversely, it may be that amongst commuters, the most risk averse/cautious may be the most likely to wear a helmet and thus skew the data to show unreasonable effectiveness of helmets.
So, to remove the hospital admission self-selection problem, it makes sense to look at population wide counts of cycle injuries and helmet wearing. The problem here is that in countries that mandated cycle helmets (i.e. relatively easy to infer cycle helmet wearing rates), the rate of head injuries did not reduce by 60%, so there’s a big disconnect between meta-analyses and the real world. Note that the cycling population is likely to change a bit after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, but there’s still a huge discrepancy between the real world and meta-analyses.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8870773/
Hospital studies match the
Hospital studies match the cyclists with head injuries to those without.
Eg they’ll find all cyclists with two broken arms and then compare rates of head injuries between the helmeted and non helmeted.
The two populations being compared will therefore have experienced collisions with a similar energy.
This approach can actually underestimate the efficacy of helmets as those helmeted cyclists who avoid a significant head injury due to their helmet and have no other injuries requiring hospital treatment and therefore are missed from the studies.
If helmets did provide a 60% reduction in head injuries then you’d only see that big a reduction post mandatory helmets if the wearing rate pre law was 0%. If the wearing rate was 50% pre law then you’d see a 30% reduction. As the cycling population changes significantly post mandatory helmet laws there is no reliable data on helmet wearing rates pre law in those who continue to cycle post law.
Those who wore helmets pre law would be least likely to stop cycling post law. This means that the relevant pre law helmet wearing rate would be far higher than the overall pre law wearing rate and, as a consequence, the reduction in head injuries you’d expect to see would be far smaller than 60%.
To be clear I don’t support mandatory helmet laws and I’m using 60% as an arbitary example.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m only aware of one hospital study that did that, and all the rest I’ve seen did a straight comparison, with the only criterion being helmet wearing. If there are more which have used the method you describe, I’d love to see them if you could post some links please.
Those are case control
Those are case control studies Burt.
I’ve posted you the links to several before. One you refused to read because it referenced TR&T… in the introduction.
Another you dismissed because you refused to accept that case control studies were good quality evidence because TR&T once did a case control study.
Here is a TR&T free example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280891070_Bicycle_helmet_efficacy_first_case-control_study_in_France
Rich_cb wrote:
Thank you, that makes two at least. The study you reference is of course, hospital based, and as HP has already so kindly pointed out, therefore limited.
They’re not limited Burt.
They’re not limited Burt.
They’re the most useful studies of helmet efficacy and will actually underestimate the efficacy of helmets to prevent injury.
Paul J wrote:
Meta analyses do minimise scope for manipulation if, and only if, the criteria for inclusion is wide enough to include contrary research, not just research that supports the view of those doing it. The most egregious example of this not happening is the Cochrane Study done by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (the most zealous helmet promoters in the world) who excluded anything which didn’t support their views, used mostly their own research and surprisingly found that helmets were effective. They broke every rule of Cochrane Studies whilst doing so, but it didn’t seem to bother anyone. There are other examples of helmet meta-studies doing the same, hence my suspicion of them.
The study used to justify this campaign isn’t publicly available and it is impossible to see what their criteria for inclusion were or the studies they chose: therefore I am hesitant to take the findings at face value.
Most original research with robust methodology finds that there is no benefit from helmet wearing. Studies with less robust methodology find great benefits, and most meta-studies seem to select that type of research rather than the more robust. As I’ve said already, putting lots of bad science together doesn’t suddenly make it good.
eburtthebike wrote:
For context, Burt doesn’t believe in the hierarchy of research evidence so his definition of ‘robust methodology’ should be taken with enough salt to worry a Cochrane review on high blood pressure.
While population studies are usually considered low quality evidence, they can be useful if the population remains otherwise virtually unchanged during the study period.
With the large changes in the cycling population that we know occur after mandatory helmet laws they offer very little value at all.
Rich_cb wrote:
Most original research with robust methodology finds that there is no benefit from helmet wearing. Studies with less robust methodology find great benefits, and most meta-studies seem to select that type of research rather than the more robust. As I’ve said already, putting lots of bad science together doesn’t suddenly make it good.
— Rich_cb For context, Burt doesn’t believe in the hierarchy of research evidence……— eburtthebikeI am quite happy that long term, whole population studies are more valid than case control studies, but doubtless you differ. Strangely, almost all the hierarchies of research methodology seem to ignore long term, large scale, whole population studies, with most of them saying that meta-studies are the most valid. As I’ve already shown, that isn’t the case, and meta-studies can and have been manipulated, so you are right, I disagree with hierarchies. Properly conducted meta-studies with disinterested researchers are fine, it’s just that there are plenty of helmet studies where that isn’t the case.
They ignore “long term, large
They ignore “long term, large scale, whole population” studies because they are of very little value.
The most basic principle of medical research is that the two populations you are comparing have to be similar, as similar as possible.
As ‘whole populations’ vary considerably over time there is limited value in studying the ‘long term’ differences.
We know that the cycling populations pre and post mandatory helmet laws are very different which eliminates what little value population studies offer.
So to summarize, case control
So to summarize, case control helmet studies are crap, population helmet studies are crap.
Conclusion let’s stop blathering on about helmets and focus on the stuff that actually works, pushing back against individual motorisation, building good public transport and good cycling and walking infrastructure.
I’d disagree that case
I’d disagree that case control studies are ‘crap’. A well designed case control study will produce high quality evidence.
I agree that all those measures will be more effective systematically but on an individual level there aren’t many options available to a cyclist. The roads are unfortunately dangerous enough that PPE is a valid choice for most cyclists so discussing the efficacy of the most commonly used piece of cycling PPE is a valid exercise.
I thought that if you can see
I thought that if you can see the brain the helmet either hasn’t worked or made no difference…
Can’t see the problem with
Can’t see the problem with this.
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one. If you don’t, that’s fine as well, so don’t.
Just stop losing your mind when somebody/a group advises to wear one……
Velophaart_95 wrote:
The issue is when helmets are used to victim blame cyclists and then are used in place of effective safety measures (e.g. police checking that cyclists are wearing helmets rather than enforcing motorised speed limits).
And you thonk that’s really
And you thonk that’s really the case when someone says “Use your head”?
I’d be worried about zombies.
I’d be worried about zombies.
This the link to the website
This the link to the website of this campaign:
https://www.useyourhead.cc/
Not only is the slogan deeply offensive, they then go on to claim an “88% reduction in head and brain injuries”. 88%! We’re in plain Thompson, Rivara, Thompson territory here.
marmotte27 wrote:
Thanks for posting that. I’m offended by the awful advertising language, but even more by the use of figures that have been disproved for 25 years. Just how can people still keep using them? It shows that they are either totally incompetent or they just don’t care.
When did you ever hear an
When did you ever hear an Accident and Emergency doctor ever recommend not to wear a helmet? When did you ever hear somebody say not wearing a helmet saved me from injury? Never that’s when.
Spats Bellini wrote:
If cycle helmets were a genuinely effective intervention then there would be no shortage of evidence to prove it. But that is not the case, as these endless disagreements demonstrate.
An A&E medic is not qualified to say whether a cycle helmet has made a difference to the injuries the casualty is presenting with. They are also unlikely to be able to be objective. Lots of medical staff have biases, beliefs and have even been taught things that others would strongly disagree with or have subsequently been disproved.
Simon E wrote:
All true: a phenomenon known as “observation bias”.
Spats Bellini wrote:
The bigger argument is not whether an individual is better served by wearing a helmet, but whether the population is better served by making helmets compulsory. You might think that the former justifies the latter, but you’d be wrong. It terms of risk to life and health overall, enforcing helmet wearing has a net deleterious impact on the population, since it costs more in health improvement forgone than it yields in injury prevention.
Seems to me that the medical
Seems to me that the medical profession are very quiet about recommending helmets for many normal activities that, when a mishap occurs, result in head trauma.
Why cycling gets picked out as an activity that vehemently gets the “helmet will protect you from serious brain injury” treatment is a bit of a mystery, especially given the complete lack of compelling science led data to back that assertion up.
Whilst many of us do wear helmets, it’s mainly because we have given up having a rational debate about the issue. Not in the hope that they will make us less susceptible to serious injury.
Actually, the only time I
Actually, the only time I came close to hitting my head in a bike crash, I’m very glad I WASN’T wearing a helmet. I landed flat on my back, and the effort of keeping my head off the road gave me a mild whiplash. Had I been wearing a helmet – especially one of the ones with a sticking out bit at the back which were fashionable at the time – it’s quite likely that would have hit the tarmac and caused a head injury or worse neck injury. And no doubt I’d have heard all about how much worse it could gave been if I wasn’t wearing a helmet!
Don’t get me wrong, although I choose not to wear one myself (and made that decision long before I discovered all the discussions on the subject), I am aware that it might be useful in certain scenarios. But I don’t think it’s clear cut – and I certainly agree with Chris B that other things are more important.
Well, I’d be happy to share
Well, I’d be happy to share my anecdotal experience.
In my 30 years of riding, I’ve only ever hit my head once falling off when not wearing a helmet. However, I have never fallen off whilst wearing a helmet and not hit my head.
On two of those occasions I was treated to a mild concussion for my efforts.
Now, it could be that divine intervention has always had me helmet up on the days where I’m going to fall off and smash me head… Or, it could be that wearing a helmet significantly increases my chances of hitting my head and potentially picking up a mild concussion.
Now, the increased chance of hitting my head is unchallengeable. Bigger volume and larger mass will increase that chance.
So… Yeah, happy to say that not wearing a helmet has saved me from injury in the past. Touch wood, I’ve been fortunate that I’ve never hit my head enough hard enough to be truly thankful for wearing a helmet. Hoping that good fortune continues!
On the subject of helmets I
On the subject of helmets I’ve just received an e-mail from Trek claiming their new Ballista helmet will shave seconds off my rides and help me set personal records. Apparently it’s their fastest helmet ever. Wow.
perce wrote:
At one time I did have an aero helmet that claimed to save 75 seconds over 40km compared to a standard road helmet. It wasn’t very comfortable and extremely hot. I gave it away and now when I’m going for a 40km ride I just leave 75 seconds earlier.
I dont know the pros cope
I dont know the pros cope with those virtually enclosed aero helmets they wear thesedays, no wonder they ride in short sleeves/shorts when its still barely above 10degrees.
youd like to hope aero wasnt the prime thing a bike company were focussing on whilst selling this “safety equipment/ppe” 😉
Awavey wrote:
As long as it passes the relevant helmet standards, then companies are going to look for other ways of differentiating between their product and others.
maybe differentiate on colour
maybe differentiate on colour,styling or on price then, but dont try to sell me stuff that “protects my brain” by saying its primary selling feature is, it lets me ride faster
That’s what I’d do too. I’m
That’s what I’d do too. I’m in no hurry.
I thought you were so fast
I thought you were so fast you sometimes arrived before your helmet had left?
That was when I was using
That was when I was using wheels that haven’t been invented yet.
Apropos nothing, anybody got
Apropos nothing, anybody got any thoughts/opinions on whether disc brakes make much of a difference to helmet efficacy?
Discs and headgear are more
Discs and headgear are more dangerous when combined.