POC ramps up helmet safety with SPIN rotational impact technology

Rich_cb][quote=davel wrote:

No. Is it possible to obtain absolute irrefutable proof? No. It is evidence though. The quality of evidence in the helmet debate is generally poor. Most studies are small and riddled with errors. This evidence is, therefore, as good or better than pretty much anything else in the debate. The hypothesis is that the large increase in cycle helmet use contributed, in part, to the relatively steep in decline in cyclist KSIs compared to other road users. There is some evidence to support that hypothesis. If you have evidence of other cyclist specific factors that changed during that period feel free to post them. Jokey suggestions about Big Mig aside...

Well, the helmet wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand jumped significantly when the helmet laws were introduced, and the absolute number of cyclist deaths fell, but the number of cyclists fell by more, so the relative risk actually rose.  That's long term, whole population data and is just about as good as it's possible to get, and the results are similar in all long term, large scale, reliable studies.  It is almost impossible to have absolute irrefutable proof about anything, but when all the reliable evidence says one thing, it's pretty conclusive.

The research showing massive benefits from helmet wearing is rated the lowest on international scales of reliability of research, and is usually done by blatantly biased researchers, and it always gets headlines, but the reliable studies which show no benefit are ignored.  The public are misled and believe that cycle helmets are fantastically effective and therefore take more risks when they wear one, risk compensation.  The actual protection given by a helmet is low, and the extra risk taking overwhelms it.

The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.

burtthebike wrote:

Well, the helmet wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand jumped significantly when the helmet laws were introduced, and the absolute number of cyclist deaths fell, but the number of cyclists fell by more, so the relative risk actually rose.  That's long term, whole population data and is just about as good as it's possible to get, and the results are similar in all long term, large scale, reliable studies.  It is almost impossible to have absolute irrefutable proof about anything, but when all the reliable evidence says one thing, it's pretty conclusive.

The research showing massive benefits from helmet wearing is rated the lowest on international scales of reliability of research, and is usually done by blatantly biased researchers, and it always gets headlines, but the reliable studies which show no benefit are ignored.  The public are misled and believe that cycle helmets are fantastically effective and therefore take more risks when they wear one, risk compensation.  The actual protection given by a helmet is low, and the extra risk taking overwhelms it.

The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.

The problem with studying mandatory helmet laws is that the cyclist population is changed by such laws.

The number of cyclists decrease but not uniformly. Casual cyclists are far more likely to be deterred than those who cycle for sport.

Road racing or mountain bike racing is obviously more dangerous than a quick spin to the corner shop so the risk statistics become skewed as a larger proportion of cyclists are engaging in higher risk activities.

If you look at the graphs I've posted on this thread you can actually disprove the argument that cycle helmets increase accident rates.

From 1995 onwards the helmet wearing rate in the UK increased dramatically.

Over the same period of time the number of accidents stayed virtually static.

Interestingly the proportion of those injuries that were serious or fatal fell substantially.

In the UK there is therefore no evidence that increased use of helmets leads to an increase in the accident rate. There is some evidence that the increased use of helmets leads to a decrease in the KSI rate.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.

The problem with studying mandatory helmet laws is that the cyclist population is changed by such laws. The number of cyclists decrease but not uniformly. Casual cyclists are far more likely to be deterred than those who cycle for sport. Road racing or mountain bike racing is obviously more dangerous than a quick spin to the corner shop so the risk statistics become skewed as a larger proportion of cyclists are engaging in higher risk activities. If you look at the graphs I've posted on this thread you can actually disprove the argument that cycle helmets increase accident rates. From 1995 onwards the helmet wearing rate in the UK increased dramatically. Over the same period of time the number of accidents stayed virtually static. Interestingly the proportion of those injuries that were serious or fatal fell substantially. In the UK there is therefore no evidence that increased use of helmets leads to an increase in the accident rate. There is some evidence that the increased use of helmets leads to a decrease in the KSI rate.

The largest ever study (Rodgers, 1988) had nothing to do with a helmet law, but it found that wearing a helmet increased risk.

The evidence showing no benefit or an increase in risk from wearing a helmet is considerably more reliable than that showing a benefit, including your inference from UK data, which may or may not be due to helmet wearing.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html#96

burtthebike wrote:

The largest ever study (Rodgers, 1988) had nothing to do with a helmet law, but it found that wearing a helmet increased risk.

The evidence showing no benefit or an increase in risk from wearing a helmet is considerably more reliable than that showing a benefit, including your inference from UK data, which may or may not be due to helmet wearing.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html#96

The data I've linked to in this thread strongly suggest that helmet use does not increase the risk of injury.

Helmet use more than doubled between 1995 and 2005 yet the rate of cycling injuries stayed completely static. The rate of KSIs dropped dramatically.

If helmets do increase the risk of injury how do you explain that data?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Conclusion: it's completely disingenuous to link the cyclist KSI decrease with helmets, isn't it?

Nope. Cyclist KSIs fell at a faster rate than overall KSIs. That indicates there was a cyclist specific factor at play does it not? Now let's try and think of some cyclist specific factors. Any suggestions?

The most obvious factor would be the number of cyclists on the roads. Increased helmet use is often associated with fewer cyclists - compare the cycling culture in Australia vs Amsterdam. I would posit that the decrease in cycling KSIs can be attributed to a decrease in the number of cyclists and maybe the decrease in cycling can be attributed to the increased peer pressure to wear a helmet (e.g. "you've only got one head", "it saved my life" etc.).

hawkinspeter wrote:

The most obvious factor would be the number of cyclists on the roads. Increased helmet use is often associated with fewer cyclists - compare the cycling culture in Australia vs Amsterdam. I would posit that the decrease in cycling KSIs can be attributed to a decrease in the number of cyclists and maybe the decrease in cycling can be attributed to the increased peer pressure to wear a helmet (e.g. "you've only got one head", "it saved my life" etc.).

You can eliminate that factor by looking at the relative risk rate, for examples KSIs per 1m km or something similar.

The relative risks show a similar post 1995 decline to the absolute risks.

This disproves the theory that the decline was down to reduced rates of cycling.

Forester wrote:

Basic cheap helmets do not inspire confidence, so any improvements or trickle-down deveopments are worth encouraging surely.

Actually, the cheap helmets are probably more effective because they are optimised to pass the tests and nothing else, whereas the expensive ones are optimised for style and aerodynamics and all those vents weaken it.

burtthebike wrote:

But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading?  Unless they aren't and they don't.

Also, you might like to consider hiring a proof reader:

"SPIN is Swedish company's simplier take on MIPS helmet safety feature"

Or at the very least, run things through the spell checker.
 

Why can't those of us who are interested in helmets and their development be allowed to read about them without being lectured about why you believe they don't work? Could you just maybe leave us to make our minds up?

drosco wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading?  Unless they aren't and they don't.

Also, you might like to consider hiring a proof reader:

"SPIN is Swedish company's simplier take on MIPS helmet safety feature"

Or at the very least, run things through the spell checker.
 

Why can't those of us who are interested in helmets and their development be allowed to read about them without being lectured about why you believe they don't work? Could you just maybe leave us to make our minds up?

Sorry, but I really didn't think that was a lecture, and thought I was being incredibly restrained.  And I don't think I mentioned why I believe they don't work.

Of course you should make your own minds up, but perhaps that process might work better if you are acquainted with the facts rather than just the propaganda?

burtthebike wrote:

Of course you should make your own minds up, but perhaps that process might work better if you are acquainted with the facts rather than just the propaganda?

Everybody likes facts.

Did you know that prior to 1995 very few people wore helmets?

Very interesting fact.

burtthebike wrote:

Of course you should make your own minds up, but perhaps that process might work better if you are acquainted with the facts rather than just the propaganda?

Everybody likes facts.

Did you know that in the decade after 1995 the KSI rate for cyclists dropped dramatically?

Very interesting fact.

Rich_cb wrote:

Everybody likes facts. Did you know that prior to 1995 very few people wore helmets? Very interesting fact.

Rich_cb wrote:

Everybody likes facts. Did you know that in the decade after 1995 the KSI rate for cyclists dropped dramatically? Very interesting fact.

Oh, dear. You don't understand elementary statistics, do you?

ConcordeCX wrote:

Oh, dear. You don't understand elementary statistics, do you?

I actually understand statistics very well.

I've simply posted two facts.

Are the facts wrong?

Rich_cb wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Oh, dear. You don't understand elementary statistics, do you?

I actually understand statistics very well. I've simply posted two facts. Are the facts wrong?

Apologies if this has already been said (I've commented now rather than read to the end and scroll back up): but presenting  two sets of facts doesn't necessarily show a causal link, does it? For example: mobile  phones became much more available after 1995 so are they responsible for the drop in KSIs? (after all, people could call an ambulance more easily).  Street Hawk wasn't on tv anymore so maybe people started wearing helmets.  Actually, when did the Tour organisers start insisting that riders wore helmets?  I dunno, just stirring...  

brooksby wrote:

Apologies if this has already been said (I've commented now rather than read to the end and scroll back up): but presenting  two sets of facts doesn't necessarily show a causal link, does it? For example: mobile  phones became much more available after 1995 so are they responsible for the drop in KSIs? (after all, people could call an ambulance more easily).  Street Hawk wasn't on tv anymore so maybe people started wearing helmets.  Actually, when did the Tour organisers start insisting that riders wore helmets?  I dunno, just stirring...  

It's already been covered.

Correlation is not always causation but sometimes it is.

The increased use of helmets correlates strongly with the decrease in cycling KSIs.

The same rate of decrease is not seen in non cyclists.

So what is causing the cyclist specific decrease?

burtthebike wrote:

drosco wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading?  Unless they aren't and they don't.

Also, you might like to consider hiring a proof reader:

"SPIN is Swedish company's simplier take on MIPS helmet safety feature"

Or at the very least, run things through the spell checker.
 

Why can't those of us who are interested in helmets and their development be allowed to read about them without being lectured about why you believe they don't work? Could you just maybe leave us to make our minds up?

Sorry, but I really didn't think that was a lecture, and thought I was being incredibly restrained.  And I don't think I mentioned why I believe they don't work.

Of course you should make your own minds up, but perhaps that process might work better if you are acquainted with the facts rather than just the propaganda?

Seriously, this is a really interesting article, yet the first comment is yours attempting to debunk the whole thing. Honestly, it's been done to death.

burtthebike wrote:

But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading?  Unless they aren't and they don't.
 

But what if they are, yet POC believe they can be improved further. Ford's Model T was pretty effective in its day. Thankfully car designers felt they could push the envelope a little further.

simonmb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading?  Unless they aren't and they don't.
 

But what if they are, yet POC believe they can be improved further. Ford's Model T was pretty effective in its day. Thankfully car designers felt they could push the envelope a little further.

A perfectly valid point, but I think you rather missed mine, which is that they don't actually work in practice, despite all the "helmet saved my life" stories, the propaganda and the continual threat of helmet laws.  We are continually told that helmets are incredibly effective, but all the reliable data shows that they aren't, so perhaps we ought to be looking at what really works, instead of wasting time, effort and resources into improving something which has completely failed to imporove the safety of cyclists.

The Model T worked perfectly well, and was capable of improvement, but you can't say that about cycle helmets.

burtthebike wrote:

We are continually told that helmets are incredibly effective 

 

Simon says: No one who speaks with authority claims helmets are simply incredibly effective. There is evidence that helmets are incredibly effective in some circumstances. I wear mine in case I get involved in such a circumstance.

When you say helmets don't work in practice you're as wrong as those who say they're incredibly effective. 

And anyone who says that anything isn't able to be improved upon has no understanding of product evolution. 

burtthebike wrote:

But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading?  Unless they aren't and they don't.

 

For the same reason that although the last model groupset that you ran was increadible effective you still decided to upgrade it. Just because something is effective does not mean that it should not or could not be improved upon. I think you are confusing the work "effective" with the word "perfect".