From the Metro:
Helmets 'useless' in major bike accidents, says new study... That is the message coming out of a new study which suggests protective headgear is useless in the event of a serious accident.
"Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them," said Dr Carwyn Hooper, from St George’s University of London. His team pointed to evidence in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were wearing helmets.
"People die from smoking all the time but no one is banning cigarettes. Heroin is very dangerous and yes, should be banned. There is more important stuff to worry about," said Dr Hooper, who conducted the research in response to legislation making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory in Northern Ireland.
I do like his happy go lucky attitude, he still appears to think that governments look at actual evidence before deciding policy.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Academic study of the week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I thought Australia had made cycle helmets compulsory, so it may well be the case that over 80% of cyclists were wearing them anyway.
It's just possible, of course, that he's slightly missing the point. It's not the serious accident that's going to kill you that a good lid is designed to help with. It's the effects of the less serious and more common accident that it's there to protect against.
Similarly, the armoured and waterproof jacket and trousers I spent a fortune on aren't there to stop me breaking a leg or ribs in an accident; they're they to stop my skin getting flayed off if I the bike and I part company at speed.
Oh, and it all keeps me warm and dry, too :-) . I doubt yer average Ocker needs to worry much about windchill.
FT, I don't think we're talking about crash helmets here, but cycle helmets. However, I'm still not sure to what extent risk compensation defeats this, like all other safety measures.
Quite what the substance of his study was, and how he controlled it for extra-risk taking due to false feeling of security, we do not know, the bit I liked best was "no one is banning cigarettes", what planet does he live on?
In another study it has been found that even wearing a space shuttle during launch and re-entry is useless against a serious accident.
Surprise. Bullshit award of the week goes to the prof.
Whoops. Bayard, you're clearly right. I saw "bike" and "helmets" and having zero interest in the peddly variety but keen interest in the large powered sort I leapt to the wrong conclusion. Teach me to skim read stuff while I'm supposed to be working...........
I don't wear a helmet on mine as it constricts hearing and vision and creates discomfort. I need all my wits about me on the road.
Yeah, that was one thing I disliked about wearing a crash helmet - loss of hearing. Mind you, my motorbike was so bloody noisy, it wasn't much loss.
Right, so the Ulster police turn a blind eye to "former" terrorists walking the streets, but nick them for not wearing useless crash helmets. Reality is brought to you today by.....bark! bark! woof! woof!
TFD, but enjoyable bullshit.
IH, it doesn't surprise me. Northern Ireland has "Tobacco Control Officers", i.e. people who get paid to walk round rapping off licensees over the knuckles, handing out fines to smokers who drop cigarette butts or smoke in no-smoking zones etc.
"Excuse me sir, would you mind putting out that cigarette while you're planting a bomb in this pub?"
Don't forget, the wage slaves give you more room when you are *not* wearing a helmet. But that gap is reducing the more their wages fall toward zero and the more work they need to do in the same time.
I don't wear a helmet in the city because it is more trendy. I have gone down hard twice but my head did not touch the concrete.
Off road MTB racing I have busted 2 helmets in half, the second time I was knocked out but the helmet saved me from death.
These studies come out every couple of years. They never say clearly the net effect is helmets are better than no helmets if you want to live longer. But worse if you want to be free.
Its a choice. Maybe it should stay that way.
For the pro-helmet lobby the only argument is that "helmets protect heads". This is trivial to demonstrate but the real question is "are helmets an appropriate safety measure" given the risks in a certain case. The evidence shows that before you make all cyclists wear helmets you would get better safety outcomes by making all pedestrians, all DIYers and all over 70's wear them permanently. Free choice based on a educated assessment of risk is all I ask for.
Post a Comment