How safe is your helmet? New study rates them, Bontrager Ballista MIPS comes out on top

burtthebike wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Because there is much more reliable evidence which shows the opposite.

That may or may not be true. It doesn't change the fact that your original statement is demonstrably false. You know this yet you keep reposting it. If the evidence you've got is so good why post lies?

Because it isn't a lie?  All the long term, large scale, scientific, reliable studies show at best no benefit from mass helmet wearing, and the biggest ever study found an increase in risk with helmet wearing.  I'll be waiting for the apology for calling me a liar.

Have you heard the phrase 'dammed lies and statistics'?

Hitting your head on something hard fucking hurts so it doesn't make sense to argue against even the poorest helmet.

burtthebike wrote:

An interesting test, but it does not reflect realistic circumstances in a real life collision e.g. no forward motion.  There have been similar laboratory tests for thirty years all of which show that helmets protect to some degree, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant.   These tests might be demonstrating the possibility that the helmet makes you safer, but they have not demonstrated that they do actually make you safer.

If laboratory tests show one thing, but the real life results are completely different, which one is right?

"but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant. "....

And there goes your logical fallacy. As you've stated multiple times, helmets are not designed, and are no use in really high impact (approaching fatal) collisions. Their value is in reducing concussion injury likelihood, and reducing minor injuries. No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects, and that's what these tests show: That the helmets protect heads and brains from some of the effects of moderate impacts. There is little debate that this individual protection is gained at the expense of the health of the wider cycling community, and the wider general population when helmet wearing is heavily promoted or mandated. That doesn't mean that helmets offer no protection when used in the appropriate manner, nor does it mean that helmets are bad for cyclists. As seen across multiple platforms (including dietary advice of the 70's to 90's) poorly concieved legislation and guidelines can have massive population health costs when what is good for the individual is applied across whole populations. These are 2 very basic points that you have failed to be able to grasp and differentiate from your base argument.

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

davel wrote:

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

Which is exactly the reason I did my dissertation "Do cyclists have an exaggerated view of the risks of cycling and the efficacy of cycle helmets [and are those views related]?  As you say, most people think cycling is extremely dangerous, but that a helmet will make them safe, neither of which is true, but an excellent demonstration of the effects of thirty years of helmet propaganda.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&...

burtthebike wrote:

davel wrote:

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

Which is exactly the reason I did my dissertation "Do cyclists have an exaggerated view of the risks of cycling and the efficacy of cycle helmets [and are those views related]?  As you say, most people think cycling is extremely dangerous, but that a helmet will make them safe, neither of which is true, but an excellent demonstration of the effects of thirty years of helmet propaganda.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&...

So the outstanding thesis for me, is 'do non-cyclists have an exaggerated view of the risks of cycling, and how do we put the Daily Mail out of business?'  

davel wrote:

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

I agree with this.  My wife (my personal equivalent to that fabled gent on the Clapham omnibus) is of the opinion that I'm mad to go out on the roads without a bike helmet.  However, she said she's happy for me to pootle around the village or on shared-use infra without one.   So, she thinks that when I'm cycling at low speeds or in scarse traffic, I don't need one, but in busy traffic-filled environments I should wear one.  I've tried to explain that actually it should be the other way around: a bike helmet might protect me from low speed falling off whereas it will not protect me from a bus.

brooksby wrote:

davel wrote:

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

I agree with this.  My wife (my personal equivalent to that fabled gent on the Clapham omnibus) is of the opinion that I'm mad to go out on the roads without a bike helmet.  However, she said she's happy for me to pootle around the village or on shared-use infra without one.   So, she thinks that when I'm cycling at low speeds or in scarse traffic, I don't need one, but in busy traffic-filled environments I should wear one.  I've tried to explain that actually it should be the other way around: a bike helmet might protect me from low speed falling off whereas it will not protect me from a bus.

Mrs M is of the same opinion and I am beginning to suspect she has an ulterior motive in hiding it. Which again is odd, because whenever I suggest playing "hide the helmet" she has something else she'd rather be doing.

Mungecrundle wrote:

brooksby wrote:

davel wrote:

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

I agree with this.  My wife (my personal equivalent to that fabled gent on the Clapham omnibus) is of the opinion that I'm mad to go out on the roads without a bike helmet.  However, she said she's happy for me to pootle around the village or on shared-use infra without one.   So, she thinks that when I'm cycling at low speeds or in scarse traffic, I don't need one, but in busy traffic-filled environments I should wear one.  I've tried to explain that actually it should be the other way around: a bike helmet might protect me from low speed falling off whereas it will not protect me from a bus.

Mrs M is of the same opinion and I am beginning to suspect she has an ulterior motive in hiding it. Which again is odd, because whenever I suggest playing "hide the helmet" she has something else she'd rather be doing.

It's peak barbecue season... Try hide the sausage. 

brooksby wrote:

I agree with this.  My wife (my personal equivalent to that fabled gent on the Clapham omnibus) is of the opinion that I'm mad to go out on the roads without a bike helmet.  However, she said she's happy for me to pootle around the village or on shared-use infra without one.   

My only two genuine brushes with KSI (one only yesterday evening) have come while riding on a shared use pathway. In yesterday's case, a car pulled straight across the path in front of me and stopped, as the gate was closed, less than 10 feet ahead, leaving me to (a) run straight into the side of her car at whatever speed I could slow to from the 15 mph I was doing and risk going through the side window or (b) keep my speed and swerve behind her car, down the kerb into oncoming traffic going at 40mph. 

I picked (b) and was glad that I haven't been kidding myself for the last seven years about how good my bike handling skills are. 

If either scenario had resulted in a crash, I am not convinced my helmet would have helped very much. 

And sorry if that is slightly off-topic. Just needed to get it off my chest ...

davel wrote:

madcarew wrote:

No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed. However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects. 

I think this is a really key point, and, respectfully, I think you're wrong. 

WE might expect this of a helmet. But WE are a fraction of a miserably low modal share.

Do a straw poll... Colleagues, rellies, friends, people in the pub/street. THEY think cycling is dangerous, THEY expect silver-bullet properties of a helmet, THEY are the ones we need to encourage cycling if it's to reach its potential, and THEY are legion. WE are few.

I agree with you 100% which is why I disagree with mandating helmet wearing. I would support the advertising for wearing of helmets if the advertisers could be relied upon to objectively market them........

madcarew wrote:

"but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant. "....

And there goes your logical fallacy. As you've stated multiple times, helmets are not designed, and are no use in really high impact (approaching fatal) collisions. Their value is in reducing concussion injury likelihood, and reducing minor injuries. No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed.

You're wrong, and most people think exactly that.  My own research for my MSc dissertation showed clearly that most people have an exaggerated view of the protection offered by cycle helmets.  A logical fallacy supported by the evidence?  It's hardly surprising that most people have this view, as the media has been telling them exactly this for the past thirty years, with endlessly repeated "cycle helmet saved my life" stories about a cyclist being struck by a motor vehicle.

 

However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects, and that's what these tests show: That the helmets protect heads and brains from some of the effects of moderate impacts.

But all the people promoting helmets concentrate solely on the supposed "fact" that one will save your life, not that it will protect you from minor bumps and scratches.  Perhaps if they were honest we wouldn't need to keep repeating this conversation.

 

There is little debate that this individual protection is gained at the expense of the health of the wider cycling community, and the wider general population when helmet wearing is heavily promoted or mandated. That doesn't mean that helmets offer no protection when used in the appropriate manner, nor does it mean that helmets are bad for cyclists.

I have said many times that helmets do offer some protection, so I find your inference absurd.  The question is, what level of protection?  All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death, but that is the main, nay the sole, attribute that they are promoted on.  Not by the manufacturers, who very sensibly have an exclusion clause in every helmet box, that it won't protect you in foreseeable collisions, but by the helmet zealots, who tell you that it will save your life.  Helmets probably are bad for cyclists, with the implication that cycling is very dangerous, much more dangerous than it actually is, with the same risk per mile travelled as walking, but as my own research again showed, most people think it is much riskier than it actually is.  The eternal focus on cycling being dangerous can only deter some people from cycling, which damages cycling.  It also serves as  a distraction from the real problem; dangerous drivers, who literally get away with murder, while a cyclist who isn't wearing a helmet is villified.  So yes, helmets are bad for cyclists.

 

As seen across multiple platforms (including dietary advice of the 70's to 90's) poorly concieved legislation and guidelines can have massive population health costs when what is good for the individual is applied across whole populations. These are 2 very basic points that you have failed to be able to grasp and differentiate from your base argument.

I'm not quite sure which two "very basic points" that you so patronisingly accuse me of having failed to grasp.  You imply that wearing a helmet is good for the individual, but there is no evidence that this is true, and indeed, if the whole population figures over extended periods show no benefit, it is highly unlikely that there is any individual benefit, or if there is such a benefit, it must be equally likely that the outcome will be harmful, otherwise the figures wouldn't stack up.  So the chances of benefit/harm appear to be equal, which is hardly a logical approach to safety

 

 

burtthebike wrote:

All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death

Burt - quick question please. You mention this in the context of the helmet as PPE, do you have any non-demographically varying evidence  that shows this ? e.g. hypothetically that increased rotational injuries out-weigh a reduction in concussive deceleration.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death

Burt - quick question please. You mention this in the context of the helmet as PPE, do you have any non-demographically varying evidence  that shows this ? e.g. hypothetically that increased rotational injuries out-weigh a reduction in concussive deceleration.

Quick answer; yes.

You do know that the H&S Executive have excluded cycle helmets from the designation PPE?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death

Burt - quick question please. You mention this in the context of the helmet as PPE, do you have any non-demographically varying evidence  that shows this ? e.g. hypothetically that increased rotational injuries out-weigh a reduction in concussive deceleration.

Quick answer; yes.

Umm.. any chance of a link or copy ? Cheers

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death

Burt - quick question please. You mention this in the context of the helmet as PPE, do you have any non-demographically varying evidence  that shows this ? e.g. hypothetically that increased rotational injuries out-weigh a reduction in concussive deceleration.

Quick answer; yes.

Umm.. any chance of a link or copy ? Cheers

Sorry, too hot, don't care enough, beer in the fridge with my name on it.  Might get around to it tomorrow if I start caring enough.  What exactly do you mean by "non-demographic"?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death

Burt - quick question please. You mention this in the context of the helmet as PPE, do you have any non-demographically varying evidence  that shows this ? e.g. hypothetically that increased rotational injuries out-weigh a reduction in concussive deceleration.

Quick answer; yes.

Umm.. any chance of a link or copy ? Cheers

Sorry, too hot, don't care enough, beer in the fridge with my name on it.  Might get around to it tomorrow if I start caring enough.  What exactly do you mean by "non-demographic"?

OK, I thought you might have something to hand from your thesis or other research - let us know if you have something, appreciate that. Sorry for confusion about "non-demographically varying" - not phrased well perhaps, maybe 'demographically invariant' or the same/equivalent societal study group, e.g. the Australian mandatory helmet legislation statistics told us a lot about how toxic it was for cycling in general but basically nothing about helmets as safety equipment. Any study with an equivalent, or comparable, demographic and varying (non-mandated) helmet wear might be a good start. Cheers, going to my fridge now.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death

Burt - quick question please. You mention this in the context of the helmet as PPE, do you have any non-demographically varying evidence  that shows this ? e.g. hypothetically that increased rotational injuries out-weigh a reduction in concussive deceleration.

Quick answer; yes.

Umm.. any chance of a link or copy ? Cheers

Sorry, too hot, don't care enough, beer in the fridge with my name on it.  Might get around to it tomorrow if I start caring enough.  What exactly do you mean by "non-demographic"?

OK, I thought you might have something to hand from your thesis or other research - let us know if you have something, appreciate that. Sorry for confusion about "non-demographically varying" - not phrased well perhaps, maybe 'demographically invariant' or the same/equivalent societal study group, e.g. the Australian mandatory helmet legislation statistics told us a lot about how toxic it was for cycling in general but basically nothing about helmets as safety equipment. Any study with an equivalent, or comparable, demographic and varying (non-mandated) helmet wear might be a good start. Cheers, going to my fridge now.

Hey Burt - any luck on a link ? If not, would you have a photocopy or similar of your dissertation cititations and I can try and pick it out from there. Tah.

burtthebike wrote:

madcarew wrote:

"but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant. "....

And there goes your logical fallacy. As you've stated multiple times, helmets are not designed, and are no use in really high impact (approaching fatal) collisions. Their value is in reducing concussion injury likelihood, and reducing minor injuries. No-one ever expected your helmet to protect you from the multiple injuries of being run into by a car at speed.

You're wrong, and most people think exactly that.  My own research for my MSc dissertation showed clearly that most people have an exaggerated view of the protection offered by cycle helmets.  A logical fallacy supported by the evidence?  It's hardly surprising that most people have this view, as the media has been telling them exactly this for the past thirty years, with endlessly repeated "cycle helmet saved my life" stories about a cyclist being struck by a motor vehicle.

 

However they can, and will, protect you from some of the head injuries possible  when falling off  your bike, or running into other objects, and that's what these tests show: That the helmets protect heads and brains from some of the effects of moderate impacts.

But all the people promoting helmets concentrate solely on the supposed "fact" that one will save your life, not that it will protect you from minor bumps and scratches.  Perhaps if they were honest we wouldn't need to keep repeating this conversation.

 

There is little debate that this individual protection is gained at the expense of the health of the wider cycling community, and the wider general population when helmet wearing is heavily promoted or mandated. That doesn't mean that helmets offer no protection when used in the appropriate manner, nor does it mean that helmets are bad for cyclists.

I have said many times that helmets do offer some protection, so I find your inference absurd.  The question is, what level of protection?  All the reliable evidence shows that they do not reduce risk of death, but that is the main, nay the sole, attribute that they are promoted on.  Not by the manufacturers, who very sensibly have an exclusion clause in every helmet box, that it won't protect you in foreseeable collisions, but by the helmet zealots, who tell you that it will save your life.  Helmets probably are bad for cyclists, with the implication that cycling is very dangerous, much more dangerous than it actually is, with the same risk per mile travelled as walking, but as my own research again showed, most people think it is much riskier than it actually is.  The eternal focus on cycling being dangerous can only deter some people from cycling, which damages cycling.  It also serves as  a distraction from the real problem; dangerous drivers, who literally get away with murder, while a cyclist who isn't wearing a helmet is villified.  So yes, helmets are bad for cyclists.

 

As seen across multiple platforms (including dietary advice of the 70's to 90's) poorly concieved legislation and guidelines can have massive population health costs when what is good for the individual is applied across whole populations. These are 2 very basic points that you have failed to be able to grasp and differentiate from your base argument.

I'm not quite sure which two "very basic points" that you so patronisingly accuse me of having failed to grasp.  You imply that wearing a helmet is good for the individual, but there is no evidence that this is true, and indeed, if the whole population figures over extended periods show no benefit, it is highly unlikely that there is any individual benefit, or if there is such a benefit, it must be equally likely that the outcome will be harmful, otherwise the figures wouldn't stack up.  So the chances of benefit/harm appear to be equal, which is hardly a logical approach to safety

 

Burt, my apologies, I was initially mixing BTB up with BTBS, and you were doing so well until your last paragraph:

"I have said many times that helmets do offer some protection,"

"You imply that wearing a helmet is good for the individual, but there is no evidence that this is true,"

If a helmet prevents stitches, broken skulls, concussion, (which is surely the benefit you have many times suggested that helmets offer) then that is good for the individual. However, the epidemiological effects of insisting on it may provide no net advantage to the individual, and a massive net detriment to the population due to behaviour modification. Having read your dissertation, I'm sure that you can see this most obvious of truths.

For completeness:

The tests do not pretend to measure the prevention of cycist deaths, nor the efficacy of helmets in preventing that, therefore the logical fallacy is to compare the test outcomes to the death rate. There are no linking factors.

Can you show me any promotion from any responsible source that shows that death prevention is  likely, or even the sole expectation from helmet protection as you assert?

You repeated my 2 points and then claimed you couldn't see them. I don't believe it's patronising in those circumstances to suggest that you refuse to acknowledge them.

Cyclists are individuals, Wearing a helmet confers some benefit (as you've stated multiple times) to a cyclist.

Helmet laws, and indeed the promotion of helmet wearing is bad for the cycling community, and the larger population, which we both agree on. 

That's the 2 points, which you seem unable or unwilling to separate.

madcarew wrote:

Burt, my apologies, I was initially mixing BTB up with BTBS, and you were doing so well until your last paragraph:

"I have said many times that helmets do offer some protection,"

"You imply that wearing a helmet is good for the individual, but there is no evidence that this is true,"

If a helmet prevents stitches, broken skulls, concussion, (which is surely the benefit you have many times suggested that helmets offer) then that is good for the individual. However, the epidemiological effects of insisting on it may provide no net advantage to the individual, and a massive net detriment to the population due to behaviour modification. Having read your dissertation, I'm sure that you can see this most obvious of truths.

Of course you are right, and there is some benefit to the individual in a collision, by preventing minor injuries, but what if the very act of wearing a helmet makes collisions more likely?

For completeness:

The tests do not pretend to measure the prevention of cycist deaths, nor the efficacy of helmets in preventing that, therefore the logical fallacy is to compare the test outcomes to the death rate. There are no linking factors.

Can you show me any promotion from any responsible source that shows that death prevention is  likely, or even the sole expectation from helmet protection as you assert?

An embarras de richesses if ever there was one.  How about the BBC's thirty year campaign blatantly promoting helmets against every rule in their Editorial Guidelines?  How about James Cracknell, pushing his own misfortune as a reason why every cyclist should be made to wear one to save their life?  How about BHIT's tireless campaigning all saying that a cycle helmet will save your life?  How about the DfT's Think! campaign with its graphic illustrations?  They all either overtly said that a helmet woud save your life or heavily implied it.

You repeated my 2 points and then claimed you couldn't see them. I don't believe it's patronising in those circumstances to suggest that you refuse to acknowledge them.

Covered above.

Cyclists are individuals, Wearing a helmet confers some benefit (as you've stated multiple times) to a cyclist.

Not necessarily, as above.

Helmet laws, and indeed the promotion of helmet wearing is bad for the cycling community, and the larger population, which we both agree on. 

That's the 2 points, which you seem unable or unwilling to separate.

Always happy to indulge in some friendly discussion.

 

 

 

burtthebike wrote:

An interesting test, but it does not reflect realistic circumstances in a real life collision e.g. no forward motion.  There have been similar laboratory tests for thirty years all of which show that helmets protect to some degree, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant.   These tests might be demonstrating the possibility that the helmet makes you safer, but they have not demonstrated that they do actually make you safer.

If laboratory tests show one thing, but the real life results are completely different, which one is right?

You drank the koolaid that some drunken scientist in Austrialia came up with so he could sell books to buy more booze with!

Instead of reading some drunken study why not go yourself down to any emergency room in your city and ask the emergency doctor on duty if helmets on cyclists help to save their lives and than I dare you speak negative about helmets effectiveness after that.  But I can tell from your ignorance to know about such things you won't go and talk to EMT doctors, so maybe you might read the rest of this and the sites I gave, but I would be surprised if you actually did because most people want to bathe in their ignorance.

While you're visiting those EMT doctors read this:  https://bicycleuniverse.info/stats-behind-bicycle-helmet/

Of course wearing a helmet won't guarantee that you'll live, nor does it equate to one willing to take more risks while riding; this isn't any different than wearing a seatbelt in a car loaded with airbags and crush zones, all the seatbelts and airbags along with crumple zones still doesn't guarantee that you'll survive a car crash, nor does it make everyone drive like they are on a NASCAR track.  Helmets don't prevent crashes, but they offer a last line of defense when things go wrong, the same is true with wearing seatbelts and having airbags in your car.  People who say such things are...well I'll skip saying what I'm thinking.

More reading:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-bicycles-helmets/helmets-preve...

Remember too is that bicycle helmet is made really too light in weight to be effective in a high speed crash with a car, we can't ride a bike while wearing a motorcycle helmet it would be far to hot and we wouldn't be able to hold our heads up for very long, so they are made very light and this limits their effectiveness, however wearing a helmet is better then having no protection whatsoever, and even wearing a motorcycle helmet won't guarantee you'll survive.

The reason that cyclists injuries have gone up over the years is two fold, one is that there are many more cyclists are on the road these days because the sport is becoming more popular, also more gray hair people are riding bikes, and older people don't fair as well in head accidents as younger people do, even what could be a minor laugh it off with a headache crash to a 20 something person could potentially kill a 70 something plus person; in fact it is the 60 to 79 year old population that is LEADING the cycling purchase boom!  And it's those people, including myself, that have a hugely increased danger, or risk, from a head trauma should our heads impact something; and in addition to that, the older population does not have the balance they once had in their youth, nor the reaction time they once had in their youth so accidents have increased involving the older people, and along with those increase accidents has been increased injury and deaths.  So statistics showing that injuries and deaths have increased with helmet use are not isolating the age of the riders, the increase is coming from the increased older population riding. 

Here is more to read:  https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-bike-helmet-paradox

froze wrote:

But I can tell from your ignorance to know about such things you won't go and talk to EMT doctors, so maybe you might read the rest of this and the sites I gave, but I would be surprised if you actually did because most people want to bathe in their ignorance.

My MSc dissertation was on cycle helmets, and it listed, from memory, about a hundred references.  I have a google alert for new material, and I've read everything publicly available about cycle helmets that I can find.  Your definition of ignorance doesn't appear to be in any dictionary.

The fallacies in your post were too many to list, but all of it was questionable and it was the usual helmet zealot stuff of accusing anyone with a different view of being ignorant.

When you've spent thirty years studying cycle helmets, road safety and cyclists' safety, you can call someone else ignorant.  Until then STFU.

burtthebike wrote:

froze wrote:

But I can tell from your ignorance to know about such things you won't go and talk to EMT doctors, so maybe you might read the rest of this and the sites I gave, but I would be surprised if you actually did because most people want to bathe in their ignorance.

My MSc dissertation was on cycle helmets, and it listed, from memory, about a hundred references.  I have a google alert for new material, and I've read everything publicly available about cycle helmets that I can find.  Your definition of ignorance doesn't appear to be in any dictionary.

The fallacies in your post were too many to list, but all of it was questionable and it was the usual helmet zealot stuff of accusing anyone with a different view of being ignorant.

When you've spent thirty years studying cycle helmets, road safety and cyclists' safety, you can call someone else ignorant.  Until then STFU.

Please post your MSc dissertation online so we can all read it. 

bikeman01 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

froze wrote:

But I can tell from your ignorance to know about such things you won't go and talk to EMT doctors, so maybe you might read the rest of this and the sites I gave, but I would be surprised if you actually did because most people want to bathe in their ignorance.

My MSc dissertation was on cycle helmets, and it listed, from memory, about a hundred references.  I have a google alert for new material, and I've read everything publicly available about cycle helmets that I can find.  Your definition of ignorance doesn't appear to be in any dictionary.

The fallacies in your post were too many to list, but all of it was questionable and it was the usual helmet zealot stuff of accusing anyone with a different view of being ignorant.

When you've spent thirty years studying cycle helmets, road safety and cyclists' safety, you can call someone else ignorant.  Until then STFU.

 

Please post your MSc dissertation online so we can all read it. 

He's posted a link to it in this thread.

You know, I'm starting to like the cut of your jib. I appreciate people who keep me on my toes, and in your case I can't quite tell if you're a troll cunt or just a thick cunt. 

davel wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

 

Please post your MSc dissertation online so we can all read it. 

He's posted a link to it in this thread.

I'd missed it earlier too, here's the link posted

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&...

Edit : my mistake, that's a link to a brief of the dissertation - bottom of that has a link to an email address to contact to get a copy.

froze wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

An interesting test, but it does not reflect realistic circumstances in a real life collision e.g. no forward motion.  There have been similar laboratory tests for thirty years all of which show that helmets protect to some degree, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant.   These tests might be demonstrating the possibility that the helmet makes you safer, but they have not demonstrated that they do actually make you safer.

If laboratory tests show one thing, but the real life results are completely different, which one is right?

 

You drank the koolaid that some drunken scientist in Austrialia came up with so he could sell books to buy more booze with!

Instead of reading some drunken study why not go yourself down to any emergency room in your city and ask the emergency doctor on duty if helmets on cyclists help to save their lives and than I dare you speak negative about helmets effectiveness after that.  But I can tell from your ignorance to know about such things you won't go and talk to EMT doctors, so maybe you might read the rest of this and the sites I gave, but I would be surprised if you actually did because most people want to bathe in their ignorance.

While you're visiting those EMT doctors read this:  https://bicycleuniverse.info/stats-behind-bicycle-helmet/

Of course wearing a helmet won't guarantee that you'll live, nor does it equate to one willing to take more risks while riding; this isn't any different than wearing a seatbelt in a car loaded with airbags and crush zones, all the seatbelts and airbags along with crumple zones still doesn't guarantee that you'll survive a car crash, nor does it make everyone drive like they are on a NASCAR track.  Helmets don't prevent crashes, but they offer a last line of defense when things go wrong, the same is true with wearing seatbelts and having airbags in your car.  People who say such things are...well I'll skip saying what I'm thinking.

More reading:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-bicycles-helmets/helmets-preve...

Remember too is that bicycle helmet is made really too light in weight to be effective in a high speed crash with a car, we can't ride a bike while wearing a motorcycle helmet it would be far to hot and we wouldn't be able to hold our heads up for very long, so they are made very light and this limits their effectiveness, however wearing a helmet is better then having no protection whatsoever, and even wearing a motorcycle helmet won't guarantee you'll survive.

The reason that cyclists injuries have gone up over the years is two fold, one is that there are many more cyclists are on the road these days because the sport is becoming more popular, also more gray hair people are riding bikes, and older people don't fair as well in head accidents as younger people do, even what could be a minor laugh it off with a headache crash to a 20 something person could potentially kill a 70 something plus person; in fact it is the 60 to 79 year old population that is LEADING the cycling purchase boom!  And it's those people, including myself, that have a hugely increased danger, or risk, from a head trauma should our heads impact something; and in addition to that, the older population does not have the balance they once had in their youth, nor the reaction time they once had in their youth so accidents have increased involving the older people, and along with those increase accidents has been increased injury and deaths.  So statistics showing that injuries and deaths have increased with helmet use are not isolating the age of the riders, the increase is coming from the increased older population riding. 

Here is more to read:  https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-bike-helmet-paradox

Froze. Unfortunately you don't seem to realise that the plural of anecdote is anecdata, not evidence.

The first paragraph of your bicycle universe link is fundamentally wrong, and then their statistics are analysed with the usual journalistic enthusiasm, and are fundamentally unsound.

Your second link is a journailst's article and doesn't state the study, so it is difficult to check her conclusions, though her quotes suggest that what she presents is not directly in line with the study

Simon Oxenham's article is simply an opinion piece and adds weight to the idea that helmets prevent direct injury, but concedes that mandating helmet wearing for cyclists may not be fair handed, or even good for the population.

I have spoken to ED doctors, in fact a few of them are my friends and we ride on the same team, in the same club, and in the same races. They universally agree that wearing helmets prevents some injuries, and on that basis they always wear one; and they are split in the same way as the general community on the effectiveness of helmet laws and the benefit to the commjnity. The cardiac surgeon believes that helmet laws are a really bad thing, especially for children; the neurosurgeon believes that helmet laws are a blunt instrument but better than not. These are real doctors, and their real opinions.

The_Vermonter wrote:

It is great to see this happening and I hope the industry funds more studies and learns from this. For nearly everyone buying a helmet, it is not about weight or aerodynamics, it is about when something happens, having the best available equipment to protect you. Also, if you can afford it, GET A HELMET WITH MIPS!!!

I am not sure about that. There are many factors I will consider on my next helmet purchase and safety/crash protection is just one of them.

Other factors include (not in any order):

• Aerodynamics
• Ventilation
• Weight
• Look/Shape
• Colour
• Midge net
• Company Ethics

If it scores the highest on safety but low on other key factors then I would not buy and chose something that balances out. It is different from person to person how much weighting they put on each factor, but if safety was the only consideration then wouldn't we see more full face helmets on road cyclists then any other types?