Study claims cyclists wearing helmets less likely to die from injuries

stomec wrote:

Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect?  If  not, why not?

I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror

hawkinspeter wrote:

I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror

That study said,
 

"I Danmark har det flere gange været foreslået at gøre hjelmene lovpligtige, ligesom i Australien.

Resultatet af den australske lov er dog ifølge Rune Elvik langt fra entydige:

»Man skulle tro, at den øgede brug af hjelme som følge af lovgivning ville medføre et mindre antal hovedskader, men de studier, der er lavet, viser ingen klar tendens. I et af studierne finder man endda, at hovedskader blandt fodgængere er gået lige så meget ned i perioden, som for cyklister. Så der ligger en stor opgave i at gennemgå de studier og prøve at lave en generel konklusion.«

Den australske lovgivning har været meget kontroversiel, og Rune Elviks analyse har da også vakt interesse i Australien:

»Jeg er blevet kontaktet af folk fra Australien, hvor der nærmest hersker en krig om spørgsmålet. Det bliver selvfølgelig også diskuteret lidt i Europa; særligt i Danmark og Holland, hvor der er organisationer, der modsætter sig lovgivning om hjelme. De læser nok mit arbejde som et indlæg mod hjelme, og det kan man muligvis også godt gøre, men min hovedinteresse har først og fremmest været spørgsmålene om metoden."

So that's that settled, then!

hawkinspeter wrote:

stomec wrote:

Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect?  If  not, why not?

I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror

Or there is the Australian and New Zealand whole population data over a period of twenty five years, so rather more conclusive than a clearly biased study.

burtthebike wrote:

Or there is the Australian and New Zealand whole population data over a period of twenty five years, so rather more conclusive than a clearly biased study.

Yep, demographic changes in both cases - we can perhaps conclude that, somewhat unsurprisingly, those may lead to differences in injury rates, severities, survivabilities and so on. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

stomec wrote:

Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect?  If  not, why not?

I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror

Thanks. From what I can see clicking through to the paper linked in mthe article, this is an amended re-analysis of an older meta analysis trying to account for a lot of different potential bias. 

They concluded that wearing a helmet resulted in a 33% reduction in head injury.

Not sure this goes against the original paper cited here?

stomec wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

stomec wrote:

Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect?  If  not, why not?

I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror

 

Thanks. From what I can see clicking through to the paper linked in mthe article, this is an amended re-analysis of an older meta analysis trying to account for a lot of different potential bias. 

They concluded that wearing a helmet resulted in a 33% reduction in head injury.

Not sure this goes against the original paper cited here?

I was thinking of this section (translated):

Quote:

Fewer head injuries, but more neck injuries with a helmet

However, according to Rune Elvik, if you take a closer look at the individual injuries, there are indications that the helmets protect better against the more serious injuries than against the less serious injuries:

“Compared to head injuries, there is still a clear reduction in injuries when wearing a helmet. But if you look at neck and neck injuries, for example, all studies suggest an increased risk of injury when riding a helmet. "

Wear the helmet and look away! There is some indication that the bicycle helmet causes us to take more chances in the street. This could possibly explain that increased use of a helmet has not automatically caused fewer injuries to cyclists. (Photo: Colourbox)

"But it should be said here that the neck injuries are probably not as serious as the head injuries, but rather are minor injuries in the style of whipping," says Rune Elvik.

Australian researcher and bicycle activist William Curnow in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention  has repeatedly pointed out that helmets may increase the risk of a particular type of brain injury where the brain rotates inside the skull, but according to Rune Elvik, there is far no agreement as to whether is the case.

It's also interesting how the protective effect of helmets appears to have diminished over time which the article supposes is to do with risk compensation.

hawkinspeter wrote:

stomec wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

stomec wrote:

Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect?  If  not, why not?

I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror

 

Thanks. From what I can see clicking through to the paper linked in mthe article, this is an amended re-analysis of an older meta analysis trying to account for a lot of different potential bias. 

They concluded that wearing a helmet resulted in a 33% reduction in head injury.

Not sure this goes against the original paper cited here?

I was thinking of this section (translated):

Quote:

Fewer head injuries, but more neck injuries with a helmet

However, according to Rune Elvik, if you take a closer look at the individual injuries, there are indications that the helmets protect better against the more serious injuries than against the less serious injuries:

“Compared to head injuries, there is still a clear reduction in injuries when wearing a helmet. But if you look at neck and neck injuries, for example, all studies suggest an increased risk of injury when riding a helmet. "

Wear the helmet and look away! There is some indication that the bicycle helmet causes us to take more chances in the street. This could possibly explain that increased use of a helmet has not automatically caused fewer injuries to cyclists. (Photo: Colourbox)

"But it should be said here that the neck injuries are probably not as serious as the head injuries, but rather are minor injuries in the style of whipping," says Rune Elvik.

Australian researcher and bicycle activist William Curnow in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention  has repeatedly pointed out that helmets may increase the risk of a particular type of brain injury where the brain rotates inside the skull, but according to Rune Elvik, there is far no agreement as to whether is the case.

It's also interesting how the protective effect of helmets appears to have diminished over time which the article supposes is to do with risk compensation.

I think this proves why Google translate versions of wan pages analysing scientific papers are generally not regarded as reliable sources of data!

Nice squirrel pictures though...

stomec wrote:

Quote:

How about a counter-proposal.

I'll tie you to the same chair, but rather than dropping a kerbstone, I'll be swinging it around a bit. However, if you're wearing a helmet then I'll be aiming to go closer to your head than if you're not. Would you rather trust my judgement of distance or the protective effect of the helmet?

Crikey, the helmet use debate really is as toxic as vaccines and climate change now.  It seems that people see themselves as "pro" or "anti" and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary - look at the example on this thread where someone has refused to read the rest of the paper because it included a reference they object to in the introduction.

To further the analogy where we are tying people in chairs, the best thing to do is not to sit around and imagine in our heads whether swinging people around or dropping kerbs results in more injuries, but to look at ooh, lets say 70,000 cases where people have been injured whilst strapped in chairs and see what factors were independently associated with fewer/less severe injuries.

We all know about risk compensation and yes it is a real effect, but it is still entirely possible that wearing a helmet results in less severe inuries overall.  

As a general plea, is it possible to limit discussion on this thread to ACTUAL CRITICISM OF THE PAPER?

As a starter for 10, of course this is a retrospective observational study so at best all it can demostrate is correlation, not causation.  It is entrely possible that those choosing to wear helmets in this study were naturally better/more cautious/less frequent riders than those not wearing helmets.  The problem is that unless you were to prospectively randomise people to enforced helmet (or not) use, this bias is impossible to eradicate, so we are left with having to perform this type of study.  Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect?  If  not, why not?

Or we could look at head injury rates in countries where helmet use is not the norm (like Netherlands and head injury rates where helmet use is mandatory and conclude that helmets are harmful, or more correctly the influence of helmets is just noise compared to the real issues that are not being debated.

Or we could look at all head injuries reporting in hospital and identify what activity was being undertaken, and then perhaps we can push for mandatory helmets in cars, on the stairs and Iin the shower.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

[

Something to consider, I've tied you to a chair and I'm going to drop a lump of kerbstone on your head (I don't know why, just a psychopath I guess) that weighs about ten lbs from a height of eight feet.  That roughly simulates the effect of falling off your bike at a standstill (maybe you forgot to clip out or something).  

Eight feet!? Are you simulating penny-farthing riders?