Article on helmets in the metro today...

spasypaddy

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892453-helm ... -new-study

Helmets 'useless' in major bike accidents, says new study
Experienced cyclists should be free to choose whether they ‘feel the wind in their hair’ rather than be forced to wear a helmet.

That is the message coming out of a new study which suggests protective headgear is useless in the event of a serious accident.

‘Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,’ said Dr Carwyn Hooper, from St George’s University of London.

His team pointed to evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.

‘People die from smoking all the time but no one is banning cigarettes.

Heroin is very dangerous and yes, should be banned. There is more important stuff to worry about,’ said Dr Hooper, who conducted the research in response to legislation making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory in Northern Ireland.

‘If competent adults wish to cycle with their hair (or their shiny plates) exposed to the wind, rain, and sky, then they ought to be able to do so without interference from the government or anyone else.’

However, he said children should be made to wear them because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they are more prone to.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents recommends that all cyclists wear a helmet ‘that meets a recognised safety standard’.

Discuss.

MonkeyMonster

pretty much sums up what the average of thoughts on here are tbh with outliers as always of extremes either way.

iPete

There is more important stuff to worry about

Lock thread.

notsoblue

The real headline here is that the Metro published a decent article.

Kieran_Burns

CiB - I dare you to send that article to the guys organising the bike challenge at work

DrLex

[...]
However, he said children should be made to wear them because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they are more prone to.
[...]
Discuss.

Dangling preposition? There's something up with which I will not put.

EKE_38BPM

Seems like a fair conclusion to come to.
I will point out that the article says

The Metro wrote:

If competent adults wish to cycle with their hair (or their shiny plates...

I'm sure they mean shiny pates./pedant

rjsterry

Saw a guy this morning at the top of Latchmere Road with a huge chunk missing from the back of his lid - regardless of your position on helmets, you've got to wonder at the thinking behind that.

TommyEss

Doesn't he lose credibility when he says "Heroin... should be banned"

rick_chasey

Is anyone here not 'pro-choice?'

mudcow007

aeon

metro wrote:

That is the message coming out of a new study which suggests protective headgear is useless in the event of a serious accident.

‘Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,’ said Dr Carwyn Hooper, from St George’s University of London.

His team pointed to evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.

what's the definition of 'serious accident'? if you get crushed by a bus then a helmet probably isn't going to help. but if you slip off at lights and bang your head on a kerb then maybe it will.

20% of those people killed weren't wearing a helmet. of those 20%, how many wouldn't have died or been seriously injured if they were? we don't know, and this article isn't about to tell us.

Heroin is very dangerous and yes, should be banned.

if we're going to get all science-y, then heroin is not very dangerous at all. in fact, if it's pure heroin administered properly then the worst it can do is make you a bit constipated. but i suppose science doesn't matter if you want to be free to feel the 'wind in your hair' or the 'smack in your veins' or some other emotive irrelevant headline-fodder...

‘If competent adults wish to cycle with their hair (or their shiny plates) exposed to the wind, rain, and sky, then they ought to be able to do so without interference from the government or anyone else.’

'interference from the government'? that sounds exactly like something a clinical study would say!

edit: looking at Dr Hooper's other publications it seems he's a medical ethics specialist; and although i haven't found this particular paper yet, i doubt it contains any new primary research. i'm not sure what type of 'major new study' this is, but i suspect it's a look at the ethics of helmet regulation rather than e.g. a meta-analysis of helmet safety.

veronese68

Wearing a helmet is unlikey to do you any harm. There is a chance it could save you from harm. But, most importantly for me, it helps my wife not to worry about me, that is the reason I choose to wear one.

Kieran_Burns

...and we're back on track...

SimonAH

I limit myself to one, and only one, post in this thread.

Statement 1; I do not usually wear a helmet, due to a personal choice and risk analysis.
Statement 2; THE ABSOLUTE IDIOCY OF THE MAIN ARGUMENT IN THAT ARTICLE STAGGERS ME. Using the statement that 80% of cyclists killed in accidents in Oz were wearing helmets to prove the point that helmets are no use as protection is so astonishingly stupid a preposition that I can only consider that it must be a misinterpretation owing to the usually high standard of Metro reporting. Any academic making that sort of argument would be laughed out of town.

Anyway, I'm off to make another cup of crocodile repellent tea. I've seen quite a few live crocodiles in my life, but never once when holding a cup of tea. Proves how well it works as a repellant. :-D

DonDaddyD

‘People die from smoking all the time but no one is banning cigarettes.

Heroin is very dangerous and yes, should be banned.

These for me are not direct comparisons to the risks around wearing/not wearing a helmet. I do not believe there is a chemical health risk or an addiction risk involved in wearing a helmet. Mind you I've been known to turn around and pick my helmet up if I've left home without it as it no longer feels right riding a bike without it.... :roll:

I wear my helmet because when I have fallen off at low speeds I have hit my head and the helmet has protected me from any further pain/injury. It's the same rationale the article uses for children. It works for adults too, well me.

aeon wrote:

if we're going to get all science-y, then heroin is not very dangerous at all. in fact, if it's pure heroin administered properly then the worst it can do is make you a bit constipated. but i suppose science doesn't matter if you want to be free to feel the 'wind in your hair' or the 'smack in your veins' or some other emotive irrelevant headline-fodder...

Talk to FRANK.

I side with advice that states that the it's addictive properties is what makes it dangerous.

I'm just posting the FRANK link for balance. Not argument.

TommyEss

Exactly - 80% of cyclists killed in a country with compulsory helmet laws implies that the actual number should be 100%...

greg66_tri_v2.0

However, he said children should be made to wear them because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they are more prone to.

So as you grow up, you have fewer minor tumbles. Your tumbles (presumably) are therefore principally major.

And against that background the advice is "helmets won't protect you in those circs, so don't bother with anything!"

Are we allowed to ask how many times the author has bumped his head?

bompington

Dr Carwyn Hooper wrote:

evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.

I am well aware of the statistical studies that show evidence that helmet use is not necessarily as good a thing as you might intuitively think, maybe worse.
I'm also well aware that the sound-bites that make it into the meeja often bear little relation to the actual content of the study.
But if this little factoid is the best that can be found, it really doesn't sound like this adds any useful knowledge to the whole debate. What proportion of cyclists wear helmets overall?

[bee in bonnet] IMHO the only thing which can add any clarity to this debate at all is a proper crash test dummy trial to see how much the injuries differ with & without helmet [/bee in bonnet]

rideslikeagirl

I certainly would have been concussed or worse in my last crash had i not been wearing my trusty urge dirt-o-matic... As it was i was just cut and bruised... But yeah, had a bus come along i would still have been squashed. Bit daft though as an argument, i've never really understood the 'yeah well, it won't stop you dying if you get hit by a truck' argument... And people wear leathers on mopeds which are pretty much bike speed...

I'm not much for coercive laws though, helmets seem to be the norm now anyway...

king_jeffers

Really disappointed with this article... its taken me a year to find a helmet that actually fits and doesn't make my cranium look like a giant mushroom , now it turns out I don't need one anymore... Still least I can now purchase heroin, best stock up before it get banned. :roll:

cooldad

I read on the internet that helmets actually cause more injuries than they prevent.

veronese68

I bought a new helmet and it's really irritating because the adjuster thingy on the back keeps knocking against the body of the lid.
So, how do I stop my helmet banging?

daviesee

cooldad wrote:

I read on the internet that helmets actually cause more injuries than they prevent.

Must be true then :roll:
I am not saying that it is not true but that is a meaningless statement without links/proof.

pangolin

daviesee wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I read on the internet that helmets actually cause more injuries than they prevent.

Must be true then :roll:
I am not saying that it is not true but that is a meaningless statement without links/proof.

I need no links. I believe him. I will never wear a helmet again.

I don't wear one at the moment, and haven't had a crash in aaaages. The one proper crash I had was WHILE WEARING A HELMET.

Proofs.

CiB

Ooh a helmet debate. Neat...

Kieran_Burns wrote:

CiB - I dare you to send that article to the guys organising the bike challenge at work

Just might do that, if I feel like stirring it up a bit.

cornerblock

King Jeffers wrote:

Really disappointed with this article... its taken me a year to find a helmet that actually fits and doesn't make my cranium look like a giant mushroom , now it turns out I don't need one anymore... Still least I can now purchase heroin, best stock up before it get banned. :roll:

Smack head or smacked head? I think both sound dangerous.

meanredspider

Fortunately the Ross-shire Journal doesn't cover anything quite so racey as this. We've a lot to learn about quality reporting up here....

cooldad

daviesee wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I read on the internet that helmets actually cause more injuries than they prevent.

Must be true then :roll:
I am not saying that it is not true but that is a meaningless statement without links/proof.

There you go. In black and white

dhope

His team pointed to evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.

Argh, this flawed logic infuriates me. Right, I'm doing my own research. Results are in

dhope wrote:

100% of skydivers killed or seriously injured were wearing parachutes. This leads me to believe that parachutes serve no purpose and should be optional for skydivers

Once I have a large enough sample size (6 or 7 should do) I intend to prove that parachutes cause accidents and should be outlawed.

DonDaddyD

cooldad wrote:

daviesee wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I read on the internet that helmets actually cause more injuries than they prevent.

Must be true then :roll:
I am not saying that it is not true but that is a meaningless statement without links/proof.

There you go. In black and white