Article: Nagging doubts raised over helmet safety

[ozbob]

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Nagging doubts raised over helmet safety

Nagging doubts raised over helmet safety
Deborah Gough
April 3, 2011

FRESH doubts have been cast about how useful helmets are in preventing head injuries to cyclists.

An analysis by Norwegian researchers of existing studies has suggested previous scrutiny was biased towards helmets and relied too heavily on research into 1980s ''stack-hat'' style hard-shell helmets. They argued that today's ''soft-shell'' helmets were less effective at reducing brain injuries.

The paper, to be published in next month's edition of the international journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, found helmets reduced head injuries by 55 per cent when statistics included all helmet styles and data from previously omitted studies. Studies with both helmet styles, but without the omitted results, showed they reduced head injuries by 60 to 75 per cent. Hard-shell helmets have been found to reduce head injuries by as much as 88 per cent.

The paper, by Norway's Institute of Transport Economics, found that hard-shell helmets protected against neck injuries but that the modern soft-shell helmets preferred by most riders today may cause neck injuries.

The findings are certain to fire further debate about Australia's compulsory helmet laws, which are already being questioned in the cycling and research communities and overseas.

The findings were welcomed by Cyclists' Rights Action Group, which believes helmet laws should not be compulsory.

The group argues that there is evidence to suggest helmets may cause the brain to rotate in an accident.

Spokesman Dr Chris Rissel - a Sydney University professor in its school of public health - said the Norwegian paper was significant because it exposed biases in earlier research. He said cyclists haven't enjoyed the same reductions in deaths and injuries as other road users. ''The effectiveness of mandatory helmet legislation has been questioned since it was introduced in Australia, but now there is doubt about whether modern soft-shell helmets protect heads at all,'' Dr Rissel said.

''Compulsion to wear helmets discourages casual and spontaneous cycle trips, particularly among non-regular users.''

The Metropolitan Transport Forum, which represents 20 local councils, has called for the state budget to fund an analysis of helmet research. Mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Victoria in 1990.

Forum spokeswoman Jackie Fristacky said helmet safety and laws needed to be re-evaluated. ''The assumption is that they make it safer - and I feel safer when I wear one - but is it a valid belief.''

Professor Max Cameron, a former ministerial advisor whose transport research helped develop the helmet laws, said the laws could discourage people from cycling.

He said research was needed to see whether cycling had recovered from the initial dip in riding numbers that he had found with the introduction of compulsory helmets.

''No one knows whether that is still true two decades later and I wish we could do the research,'' Professor Cameron said.

He believed the compulsory helmet laws should stand.

[ButFli]

I don't understand? This research doesn't raise "nagging doubts... over helmet safety". All it does is say some helmets provide better protection than others. It provides no reason to make repeal compulsory-helmet laws. In fact it probably means that these stack-hat style helmets (whatever they are) should be compulsory.

I'm against compulsory-helmet laws. Not because I don't think there is a small safety benefit from wearing a helmet but because I think the dangers of encouraging a sendentary society are far worse.

[Stillwater]

There is a BIG safety benefit from wearing a helmet, and better safety if it is a hard 'stack hat'.

[Stillwater]

If you are opposed to compulsory helmet-wearing, then society should require you to waive, or sign away on behalf of your children, any claim on public liability insurance should you or your children come off a bike and spill brains.  Faced with the option of a $30 helmet versus the cost of a lifetime of medical care as a vegetable for a 16-year-old who comes off his or her bike, I know which I would choose.  Arguing against compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets?  You may as well argue that it be optional as to which side of the road to drive on.  This science proves that bicycle helmets work very effectively.

[#Metro]

Personally I don't care either way. I wear a helmet, it has served me well and also fend off those magpies.

I'm tired of hearing about the helmet debate.

[ButFli]

If you are opposed to compulsory helmet-wearing, then society should require you to waive, or sign away on behalf of your children, any claim on public liability insurance should you or your children come off a bike and spill brains.  Faced with the option of a $30 helmet versus the cost of a lifetime of medical care as a vegetable for a 16-year-old who comes off his or her bike, I know which I would choose.  Arguing against compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets?  You may as well argue that it be optional as to which side of the road to drive on.  This science proves that bicycle helmets work very effectively.

I'm just going to put out there that before helmets were made compulsory there were no more or less of these "vegetables" vegetating than there are now. The science may prove that helmets work effectively but the statistics show that emotionally charged arguements such as yours are flawed. The "science" (if you can call it that) certainly doesn't explain why there are fewer injuries from cycling where helmets are optional than where they are compulsory.

[Stillwater]

The science is in the statistics: "Helmets reduce head injuries by 55 per cent when statistics included all helmet styles and data from previously omitted studies. Studies with both helmet styles (hard and soft), but without the omitted results, showed they reduced head injuries by 60 to 75 per cent."

[somebody]

Helmets would also reduce car based road trauma significantly.  And what is the bigger strain on the public purse?  I don't know, I find the argument that it is needed on a bike but not in a car intelluctually bankrupt.  There may be a signifcantly higher risk on a bike vs lower use, but is this bourne out by the statistics?  Usually push bike riders are traveling significantly slower than car drivers and this decreases the risk to the riders.  I can't imagine a bike accident that would result in a head injury other than down a hill, over a bonnet and into something or being run over on the head. Doubtless there are accidents I am not thinking of, but is there any evidence that these are a risk?  Most bike accidents do not result in head injuries.  I certainly never even approximated it in my youth which didn't require helmets.

[Fares_Fair]

FOR THE RECORD.

I cycle to my local railway station every day, a short trip of just 1.2km (approx 4 min.).
I have been doing this for over 10 years.
I wear a yellow vest with relective stripes, and have an orange reflective banded vest over my backpack as well.
Front and Rear lights and reflectors on the bicycle also.

In that time I have twice been hit by cars, one head on at an intersection.
One from the right hand side as a car pulled into a carpark bay at my local station.

Fortunately, neither time required the impact protection of my helmet.
Do I advise wearing them- absolutely YES !

Regards,
Fares_fair.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Oh no! helmet hair!!!!!!

Personally, if you want to be the poor person that gets head injuries if you noggin has a little contact than its your own fault. Simple as that. It doesn't matter how fast your going or where you are if your head hits the ground its going to do some damage. If riding bikes/motorbikes my whole life has taught me, it is that accidents are unexpected and they don't happen the same way everytime.

In the past 3 years I've clipped/been involved in about 6-7 incidents with cars on a bmx during the day (the worst one was after the driver acknowledged me coming down the road and still turned out forcing me into the path of an oncoming car - end result was my left handlebar just striking a tree at roughly 20-30kph and crashing heavily), almost been hit by a car taking the racing line around a blind corner, had a crow fly into my helmet while doing 40-50kph downhill, crashed into a restaurants tables and chairs because someone poured water all over the smooth cement to clean it (They still refuse to put up slippery when wet signs when the ground is wet) and a couple other minor accidents not related to this topic. Out off all those the only time my head hit anything was the crow, right of way incident and twice when the chain on my bike came off.

The reason you don't have to wear a helmet in a car is because there is alot more to protect you. Seat belts, air bags, guard rails and the car itself. On a bike what do you have? nothing.

[somebody]

A lot of bike accidents will result in sliding along the ground for a short distance.  Enough to hurt from grazing, but not enough for head injuries.  I'd still want a scientific analysis which says this policy has a basis.

[HappyTrainGuy]

You can graze yourself all you want but it just takes that one time to hit your head on the ground or on something. You can compare it directly to the Queensland Government/Queensland Police 'One Punch Can Kill' campaign.

[johnnigh]

Oh dear, we've uncovered a bunch of anecdotal experts on road safety for cyclists... Riding a cycle at more than 15kph is also 'very' dangerous and should therefore be banned.

Ah well, can't expect much else I suppose. Public policy often falls at the fence of 'expert prejudice' as railway advocates know only too well. No need for me to go into the evidence, it counts for nothing.

When I see you all wearing your helmets while driving, or, more important, being driven, in a car I'll see that you take your own heads as seriously as you take cyclists' heads.

[somebody]

No need for me to go into the evidence, it counts for nothing.

Excuse me?  Didn't I call for research several posts above?