Helmets Save Your Bonce

The one not mentioned, who checks the bike over and makes sure his kid is wearing a helmet.

"Meta-analyses

There are several meta-analyses and reviews which synthesize and evaluate the results of multiple case-control studies. A Cochrane review of case-control studies of bicycle helmets by Thompson et al. found that "helmets provide a 63 to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%.".[33]

A 2001 meta-analysis of sixteen studies by Attewell et al. found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.4 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.5 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 3.7 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[34][35]

A 2012 re-analysis of the 16 studies in the Attewell meta-analysis, by Elvik, found that, compared to helmeted cyclists, unhelmeted cyclists were 2.5 times more likely to sustain a brain injury; 2.3 times more likely to sustain a head injury; and 4.3 times more likely to sustain a fatal injury.[36][a] When 5 new head-injury studies were added to the model, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.9 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain a head injury. When head, face and neck injuries were combined, Elvik found that unhelmeted cyclists were 1.4 times more likely than helmeted cyclists to sustain an injury to the head, face or neck. The odds ratio for brain injuries reported by Elvik (95% CI 0.33-0.50) is consistent with the odds ratios using hospital controls reported in the Cochrane review (0.05-0.57 for brain injury and 0.14-0.48 for severe brain injury). In noting that the results of the meta-analysis were inconsistent with the results of the Cochrane review, Elvik may have been referring just to the head injury results (95% CI 0.26-0.37 in the Cochrane review; in Elvik's meta-analysis, 0.38-0.48 using the studies in the Attewell analysis, 0.49-0.59 when 8 new studies were included)."

Same old article!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_he ... ead_injury

highlandsflyer":1t8oq2w1 said:

"
Graham, massive respect as I have for your input on this site, it is not necessarily conclusive information we are dealing with here.

Click to expand...

No. were dealing with statistics, "damn lies" and all that.

Is the data discussing injuries per hour etc?
Or injuries per mile traveled?

Miles covered data does not give an comparable measure of the risk as cyclists cover more miles per hour/day/year than pedestrians. And that drivers cover more miles than do cyclists.

The topic of Helmet use is all about risk assessment and if necessary, risk reduction.
So what is the statistical risk of head injury?

"UK figures show that it takes at least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22,000 years for one death"

"Studies from China, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom show that regular cyclists live longer because the health effects far outweigh the risk of crashes."
However, in some countries, the introduction of compulsive helmet laws has coincided with a reduction in the number of people cycling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_he ... of_cycling

"By telling people that they need helmets for an activity that for a century has been regarded as “safe”—and in fact has a fine safety record—you inevitably engender the impression that cycling must have become more dangerous than driving and walking. That deters cycling. That reduces cyclists' presence on the roads. That increases the risk of death. And if wild claims about helmets saving lives are published in the media, helmet users are bound to feel overly secure, thus compromising their one vital safety feature—a sense of caution. In addition, over time most people— and especially parents—will come to believe that it is wearing a helmet that matters, not acquiring skilful technique. These effects have been noted in every country where helmets have come into general use, including the United Kingdom."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

"By telling people that they need helmets for an activity that for a century has been regarded as “safe”—and in fact has a fine safety record—you inevitably engender the impression that cycling must have become more dangerous than driving and walking. That deters cycling. That reduces cyclists' presence on the roads. That increases the risk of death. And if wild claims about helmets saving lives are published in the media, helmet users are bound to feel overly secure, thus compromising their one vital safety feature—a sense of caution. In addition, over time most people— and especially parents—will come to believe that it is wearing a helmet that matters, not acquiring skilful technique. These effects have been noted in every country where helmets have come into general use, including the United Kingdom."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

Click to expand...

An interesting point about seat belts. I remember watching a program about car safety some time ago, where on of the boffins suggested that placing explosives under the driver's seat linked to detonators on the bumpers would increase road safety far more than seat belts. A similar notion: http://io9.com/5751216/would-putting-a- ... -you-safer

Also, consider modern cars, inside it's so quiet and comfortable and it's easy to feel safe and disconnected from what's going on outside. Contrast modern cars with those from the 60s, 70s and 80s, which were much more basic, with lousy brakes, no electronic handling gizmos to get you out of trouble if you went into a corner too fast. They were pretty agricultural in comparison and in some ways there was a greater sense of speed and perhaps of vulnerability, doing 70 along the motorway in an old Mini or Mk1 Escort barely able to shout over the din coming from the engine feels considerably more risky than it does whooshing along in a modern car surrounded by air bags. Less air bags, door bars and crumple zones, more spikes I say.

Just wanted to say that it's nice to see that this thread has returned to some interesting discussion and getting away from just being insulting to people who have a different view.

I still go for my seatbelt when riding a bike...

:facepalm:

Remember those BMW C1 s, the motorbike with a roof and seatbelt? A lot of riders thought you didn't need a lid and I must've got through a pad of FPN s a week on C1 riders alone. Happy days.

Iwasgoodonce":2k0zwt9l said:

Thanks for the tea and caffeine info! I was actually referring to the ranting of a tea loving forum member.

Click to expand...

I'm Sorry, but compared to some comments in this "discussion", I wasn't of the opinion that anything I had said was a "rant".... in fact, in the past 3years of being a member of this forum, I dont consider anything I have said as being a rant.... indeed I always remain calm and measured.... well, apart from one little tiff about numberplates and Porsche Boxters with Neil, which I am sure he will agree was equally childish on both our parts, but that was conducted via PM and off forum (.... we never kissed and made up after that Neil.... big hugs?... ps, admirable responses on your part in this thread... bravo )


G

Chopper1192":2b5v3reb said:

Remember those BMW C1 s, the motorbike with a roof and seatbelt? A lot of riders thought you didn't need a lid and I must've got through a pad of FPN s a week on C1 riders alone. Happy days.

Click to expand...

The whole point of the C1 was to not require a helmet, hence the roll cage, side bars and seatbelt (and front crumple zone). In several countries you didn't need to wear a helmet to ride one. Here you did, but I think it's forgivable for buyers to believe that you didn't given BMW's stated design intent (and the situation in other countries).

That's got nothing to do with whether it was a good idea or not, of course

The point BMW missed is that the helmet laws for motorcycles do not have an exemption that says "except for C1's". It may have roof, seatbelt, shoulder protection, toaster etc, but the lid is still required to comply with the regs.

Every buyer knew this, having had to pass some type of test or basic training before being allowed on the road in one. Several challenged it in court, and one actually won, although his victory was almost immediately overturned as the Magistrate had made a faulty ruling on a point of law. Every rider to a man and woman knew the score before buying one.