But you only get % of helmet users from the reported cases ?
Yes that means that if helmets protect from brain damage then more helmets being worn should mean less brain injury. However in countries where helmets are mandatory the incidence of cycling head injury has not declined as expected,
The dwindling numbers of non helmet users having accidents could have rapidly increased, why couldn't it ?
Well such an unprobable coincidence would indeed be very handy in supporting your point of view.
The roads are rapidly more dangerous than when I were a lad, which is when the stats seem to start.
Do not the stats show that cycling per mile is getting safer and has been doing so for decades?
The interesting stats would come if you banned the use of helmets.
Is that not why the pre helmet stats v post helmet stats are so revealing?
There is a correlation that increased helmet use shows a decrease in injury (graph goes up and graph goes down and see at the moment some couple of years later to level of). The population could be coincidental. For a start there are no errors ranges given for the graph and correlation factors
In fact they are quite horrible graphs to try to read.
There are three graphs I have posted and whilst there is indeed some short term volatility the general trend on all three in unaffected by the increased helmet take up. What error ranges are you expecting in graphs based on hospital head counts?
Also it only shows one specific aspect, not the lesser protection it is given, it is biasing the reason for having/not having a helmet. Severe Brain damage is not the be all and end all of what a helmet is protecting against.
I don't get this. If helmets can be designed to also reduce the risk of brain damage and concussion surely they should?
I'm not debating helmet designs, I'm debating the thread title.
The helmets are there to reduce the chances and severity of minor injuries all the way up to fatality. Not to Remove it.
There will always be better designs as technology and understanding advances the full range down and still be comfortable for the user.
That brain injury due to rotational acceleration is a problem that has been undertood by researchers and neurosurgeons since the 1950s but still no improved helmet standards to protect cyclists. If there are to be improvements to all new helmet designs, then who will drive it? And When?
I am fascinated by those resisting the notion of improved helmet design here:
Is this because people cannot see the clear evidence that there is a problem with simply strapping a block of polystyrene on your head?
Is this because of the complexity of the science and engineering involved?
Is it just simple conservatism, and people being comfortable with what they Know?
Or is it that in conceding that helmets are not as good as they should be, do some people that there arguments for using helmets are in some way undermined?In most areas of product design consumers welcome continuous development and improvement. Why not here?
9/16" Suntour BMX MP-1000 pedals / 56 tooth TA 6-bolt chainring.(I'm not bothered if the teeth are worn or damaged)