Cycle Helmet contraversey

[jbcow]

An article in today's herald, pointing to a study which suggest mandatory helmets might be counter-productive:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to- ... 12573.html

Having lived 6 years in the UK it took me a year back in Aus to start putting my helmet on like a good lad. But I'm still for boosting rider numbers (safety in numbers). If that means helmets are optional...

* the views expressed are the authors alone and all that

[rick.polito]

The article also mentions that the figures do not include the number of cyclists that didn't need to go to hospital because they were wearing a helmet. If you ask around, you'll find many cyclists have had an accident where they have landed on their head.

[Stuart]

I agree that helmets should be optional - I'd still wear one, but probably not to ride down to the corner shop.

[geoff m]

Ahhh. A study researched and written by Dr Chris Rissel - who has graced our presence a many a time to Waterfall and back over the past few years. Haven't seen him for a few months. Chris has always been one of the leading researchers into cycling health matters, and author of many varied and interesting commentaries.

This is my view only and not one officially or by the club. I think as cycling becomes more mainstream and more people use it (or want to) to go down the shops, or use city hire schemes (such as Paris, Melbourne, Brisbane, and in the near future Sydney), optional use of helmets should be considered. Other factors will be important to pre-exist such as more critical masses, more protected cycle lanes, and reduced city car speeds, to help contribute to a safer environment. I think in about 10 years time, the environment will be more condusive to allow this option to be considered.

I just can't see the Melbourne and Brisbane city hire schemes being successful with compulsory helmet laws, but I do wish them the best.

Having said that, I have no doubt that organisations such as Cycling Australia would make it mandatory for members participating in official club training and events to always wear helmets - as so they should .

[Eleri]

If you ask around, you'll find many cyclists have had an accident where they have landed on their head.

Yep - I'm one of those. Split my helmet, knocked myself out but just went home in a taxi and nowhere near a hospital. Only wish I had been wearing shoulder pads as well.

That said, I'd be much more likely to take the Townie to the shops if I didn't have to wear a helmet. The fact that you have to wear funny shoes on must of our bikes means the helmet is the least of the inconvenience problems. I rode a bike to the shops in Bali recently and didn't wear a helmet. Made me more careful on the road as I was very conscious of not wearing one.

[jimmy]

The advantages of wearing a helmet

http://www.jamescheetham.net/helmet/

However, I ride a unicycle without a helmet, and I don't have an issue with that.

James

[jbcow]

Totally agree; helmets should remain mandatory for races, club rides, training etc.

That's a good point too re managing 'funny' shoes.

[timyone]

i read about the helmet thing on http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?new ... oryid=5438 on the sydney uni site.
Ive seen what can happen when your wearing a crap helmet, so am too worried to find out about not wearing one. I dont think the value of having more bikes on the roads, equals even one extra person getting the brain damage etc thats possible. Im totally against getting rid of the helmet rule.

[mikesbytes]

I'm sure that there is reasons that Chris did his analysis the way he did.

In my case, as you know I had a bad accident at Tempe Velodrome puncturing a lung and breaking a bunch of ribs. In that accident my helmet was destroyed and the doctors stated that if I didn't have a helmet on, I would of suffered brain damage.

In that accident I didn't suffer any arm injury's, which is what Chris was comparing to head injury's.

[T-Bone]

I've never really suffered any arm injuries in my crashes, much more likely to get massive scrapes on my hip. I have however been knocked out in a crash and ended up in hospital.

My main problem with what i've read in this research is the assumptions made. Although there is a continually reducing number of head injuries, there is no mention of this possibly being attributed to improvements in helmet technology, especially considering the fact that it was the 90s when the old hard shell helmets were reducing in usage.

Probably need to read the whole research to see all their conclusions, but i'm going to stick with a helmet myself.

[yewenyi]

I have been knocked unconscious in a crash with a car, when I was wearing a helmet. But the two studies I have seen done in Victoria which look at the hospital statistics before and after the introduction of helmets by a cycling association and by Monash University show that there was no decrease in the rate of head injuries between the period before and after the introduction of helmets. There was a massive decrease in people cycling. So perhaps the helmet design standard is totally useless to provide protection. I think that the Monash one even found an increase in the admissions of head injuries though they thought that may have been a reporting issue problem.

But on the other side the health benefits of riding are very significant. So even if there were more head injuries, there would be less obesity and other health problems.

Personally I am happy to stick with wearing a helmet.

[Karzie]

even if there were more head injuries, there would be less obesity and other health problems.

Does that mean not wearing a helmet will make you less fat?...



I was wondering why I couldn't get that last kilo off!

[orphic]

I agree that helmets should be optional - I'd still wear one, but probably not to ride down to the corner shop.

I agree with that. I think a lot more people would be using bikes as basic transport for things like shopping, going out to dinner/pub/whatever if helmets were not compulsory.

I would still wear one for commuting, training and racing.

[timyone]

one of the nurses brought up the study yesterday at uni, and she reckons the actual study was really crap that sydney uni people did, wondering how they can face calling it a study. She reckons it studied one thing, claimed some thing slightly different, and left out 11 important controls.

[mikesbytes]

Authors admit errors in study on bike helmets and head injuries

[weiyun]

This is my view only and not one officially or by the club...

It is my view that as more riders come out riding without helmets (choice or ignorant disregard of the law), we will see more head injured patients in hospitals, neurosurgical and rehab wards, and the statistics will rise in coming years. Organ retrieval teams might get busier though.

[weiyun]

But on the other side the health benefits of riding are very significant. So even if there were more head injuries, there would be less obesity and other health problems.

Studies based on potential bias in collected data, populations from different time frames, different social/economic/technology to present, so it's wise to reference it with a grain of salt. However, helmets absorb impact energy and the direct relationship b/n energy of impact and severity of brain injury are hard scientific/medical facts.

Otherwise, cycling isn't the only form of exercise available to the population and it's easy to over project in a hypothetical.

[timyone]

In his original study, Dr Rissel analysed the ratio of head injuries to arm injuries among cyclists admitted to hospital between 1988 and 2008. He assumed the ratio would not change unless helmet use reduced head injury rates compared with arm injury rates.

[timyone]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09 ... urgeon.php