Ok, I’m venturing into helmets once more.

Posted on October 23, 2009 by Dave Feucht

I just saw this via Richmond News in Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

There is one study that is typically used to show how much bicycle helmets decrease injury and increase rider safety. This study states that bicycle helmets can prevent 85% of head injuries, and 88% of brain injuries.

Apparently, the people who ran the study have said, the study to show reduction of head injuries did not involve a single collision with an automobile, or a single adult. Besides that, only the age 1-4 group showed an 85% reduction in head injuries, the 5-9 year range showed a reduction of 43%, and the 10-14 year range showed a reduction of 23%.

Better yet – the group has also admitted that when counting the head injuries of people not wearing helmets, they counted injuries to all parts of the body, whereas for people wearing helmets, they only counted head injuries – which means that the injury ratio between helmeted and non-helmeted people is completely skewed.

Besides the obvious validity problems with the study, the fact that most major injuries (and especially head injuries) and nearly every single death on a bicycle is a result of a collision with an automobile makes the study basically irrelevant, except that it suggests that your kids may benefit from a helmet by getting fewer scratches on the top of their head while riding a bike alone away from traffic.

The article makes a great point at the very end – it’s collisions with automobiles that kill cyclists, not the lack of helmets. Eventually, there will be no need to say this, it will be a given. Right now, however, most people in the U.S. are still more concerned with padding the fragile china in the shop than doing anything about the bull that’s breaking it all.

This entry was posted in portland and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dave Reid

    My guess it is generally people who don't ride who are pushing for people to wear helmets.

  • Anonymous

    WHAT!!! A helmet safety study that the results are skewed. Tell me it isn't true.

    Mike

  • bentguy

    Of course they were lying. The study (which is the only one ever quoted by people who want you to wear a helmet) was beyond flawed. The kicker is that anyone who uses that 85% stat either knows that it's a lie or hasn't bothered to do the very minimum amount of reseach in defense of their position. Here in British Columbia we have had a mandatory helmet law for the past 13 years and this stupid joke of a study is the only piece of evidence used to foist this upon us. It's very frustrating because politician won't touch this debate with a ten foot tandem. Fortunately our new Vancouver civic government is very cycle friendly (our mayor is often sighted on his bike) and they are determined (after the Olympics) to bring a Bixi bike share program in and they are fully aware that our mandatory helmet law is a big road block. Personally I can't wait for the fecal matter to hit the bladed spinny thing. And I can't wait for some ill informed anti-cyclist to spout those numbers so we can make them eat them.

  • Anonymous

    Why are you so anti-helmet? Okay, riding around at 8 mph may not be the place for it, otherwise I'd wear one while running, but there is good reason for it. I understand that your argument is against mandatory use of a helmet (and I agree), but it's stupid to believe it can't save your life or at least a couple IQ points. I split a helmet into three pieces when I hit the ground at 30 mph and had only a scrape on my chin to show for it. I think carrying just more than 1/2 lb and some helmet hair is a small price to pay for my brain. Just wear a helmet. Your hair doesn't look that good anyway.

  • portlandize.com

    @Anonymous: why are you so pro-everyone-wearing-a-helmet? I never said you absolutely shouldn't wear a helmet. I never said it was bad for you. I never said I'm against people wearing helmets.

    What I have said, is that I am against people creating irrational fears about dangers that are much less than they are made out to be, about mandating safety measures that do nothing to solve the real problem, complicate the issue, and divert attention from where it should be.

    If you feel the risk is worth it to you based on how and where you ride, you're more than welcome to wear a helmet. Please give me the same freedom of choice. Thanks.

  • J. Sampson

    I agree with Anonymous…you do seem to be anti-helmet. I dont think this has anything to do with fear but instead has to do with fact. Like a parent who know what is best for a child. You always like to argue against the fact that wearing a helmet while riding a bike in America (car centered society) is a good idea.

    BTW you would get laughed at if you tried to drop this around anyone who does mountain biking.

  • portlandize.com

    @J. Sampson: I have specifically stated before that I think wearing a helmet is quite reasonable for sporting activities, and I do think it's reasonable. Probably even advisable. That's largely what they're made for.

    Again, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't wear a helmet, I'm arguing that it's not necessarily a given that you should wear a helmet – as most people like to make it out to be.

    You can think whatever you want about what I think, but I'm not anti-helmet. I'm absolutely 100% against helmet regulation.

    I don't understand why so many people think if I'm not all ra-ra about helmets that it means I'm utterly opposed to them. It is possible to hold a moderate position on an issue, believe it or not.

  • Zweiradler

    A helmet that breaks into pieces has failed, by the way.
    I’m with you on the china shop matter, portlandize. And I too prefer to use common sense to assess risk rather than letting others tell me when and where to use a helmet.

  • portlandize.com

    @Zweiradler: vielen dank! :)

    One of my biggest problems with the entire helmet issue, whatever side you take, is that it distracts so much attention from the real source of the trouble, and that is car/bicycle interaction.

    As the above linked article commented, "It's collisions with automobiles that kill cyclists, not lack of helmets."

    Cycling as sport is a whole different issue. I don't participate in any cycling sports, so I can't speak to that, but intuitively, it makes more sense to me to wear a helmet when mountain-biking or racing, as those kinds of applications are more what helmets were made for, and that type of cycling is much higher-risk for crashes.

    Anyway, I think I'm about done with this subject for good. Have a nice day :)

  • Filigree

    "…the group has also admitted that when counting the head injuries of people not wearing helmets, they counted injuries to all parts of the body, whereas for people wearing helmets, they only counted head injuries "

    You've got to be kidding. What kind of scientific study was this? My research team would be fired if they did something like this and I would be fired if I allowed them to publish it. The helmet misinformation machine really gets me riled up.

  • portlandize.com

    @Filigree: it was a scientific study funded and supported by a lot of people who had interest in promoting helmet use, such as the Snell Memorial Foundation, and Bell helmet company.

    I suppose that's probably not surprising :)

  • Steve

    Ever the skeptic, but what I found interesting was that they quote a study but don't actually reference it or its authors. The writer of this article could be making up this study and its data just to incite all of you people. I want proof, not some quotes from a nameless study, before I make any judgements on helmet use.

  • portlandize.com

    @Steve: they don't reference the study or its authors in this article, but this study, which claims that helmets cause an 85% reduction in head injuries is famous. It is as follows:

    Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989 v320 n21 p1361-7.

    However, regardless of the efficacy of helmets, I think we can agree that the overwhelming majority, in fact nearly every single case, of a cyclist dying in a crash, involves a collision with a car. That to me indicates that there's a much more consistent factor here than whether or not the helmet protected the person.

    All of this talk of wearing helmets to protect yourself and the emphasis and assumption that a helmet brings adequate safety just divisively shifts the subject from what we should really be talking about – how to keep people in cars and people on bicycles or on foot from colliding with each other.

  • Dottie

    A helmet study funded by Bell is as trustworthy as a cigarette study funded by Phillip Morris.

    I wonder why so many people have a hard time differentiating between normal transportation cycling and sport cycling. On my bike path work commute, I never go 30 mph or down mountains.

  • http://twitter.com/fixedgod Michael Wise

    I like this part best: padding the fragile china in the shop than doing anything about the bull that’s breaking it all

  • http://twitter.com/fixedgod Michael Wise

    I like this part best: padding the fragile china in the shop than doing anything about the bull that’s breaking it all