7 May 2013

You really should wear a helmet on your bicycle

| johnboy
Join the conversation
53

Bike helmets: an emergency doctor’s perspective

By Michael Dinh

For those working on the frontline of trauma care, the findings of a report into the protective effects of helmets in cyclists and motorcyclists published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week come as no surprise.

When an ambulance arrives at an emergency department with a cyclist injured on the road, a clinician needs to first know a few important details. How old is the patient? What are the vital signs? And finally … were they wearing a helmet?

That’s because ambulance officers, doctors and nurses have known for a long time that if a helmet is not being worn at the time a head strikes the road, pavement or cycleway, the chances of severe head injury are much higher.

Now this been shown in a one-year study I conducted, with two colleagues, of injured cyclists and motorcyclists presenting to seven major trauma centres in Sydney.

The risks of severe head injury were more than five times higher in cyclists not wearing a helmet compared to helmeted ones, and more than three times higher in motorcyclists not wearing a helmet at the time of injury.

Severe head injuries were defined as any with significant brain haemorrhage, complex skull fracture or brain swelling.

Some 70% of such patients end up on a ventilator in intensive care units; many patients with severe head injuries are left with permanent brain damage.

It’s estimated that each new case of severe brain injury costs Australia A$4.5 million.

But it’s the things that can’t be calculated that are perhaps more crippling – the long-term personality changes, the seizures, the post-traumatic adjustment, and the interminable stress on family and carers.

helmets

judy_and_ed

Conflicting studies

Australia is one of the few countries in the world with mandatory helmet laws protecting both motorcyclists and pedal cyclists.

While helmet use in motorbike riders is generally accepted, compulsory helmet laws have been resisted by many experts.

Many argue that helmet use simply deters people from dusting off their two wheelers and pedalling their way to better health.

Using a telephone survey, Professor Chris Rissel from the University of Sydney concluded that cycling rates could increase dramatically if mandatory helmet laws in Sydney were repealed.

In contrast, a recent National Heart Foundation survey showed that overall road safety, road speed and the presence of dedicated bike paths were the main obstacles limiting bicycle use.

Only 17% of respondents identified helmet use as a potential factor.

Turning the tables on rotational injury

Publicised court cases testing Australian helmet laws have even invoked limited autopsy reports hypothesising the effect of helmets imparting “rotational forces” on the brain, causing diffuse axonal injury.

Diffuse axonal injury is widespread (rather than focused) damage to the brain, and is one of the major causes of unconsciousness and persistent vegetative state following head trauma.

The argument here is helmets apparently exacerbate head injury severity by causing the head to twist quickly on impact, thus creating rotational forces on the brain.

There have been no controlled studies in the clinical setting into the association between helmet use and diffuse axonal injury – until now.

We found no reports of diffuse axonal injury in pedal cyclists, helmeted or non-helmeted, and only a marginal increase in such diagnoses in non-helmeted motorcyclists.

Definitely worth helmet hair

This Sydney-based study was the first to place motorcyclists and pedal cyclists side by side and demonstrated that the protective role of helmets in both groups are important – and even better in pedal cyclists.

Helmet hair is a small price to pay for protection. mrlerone

These results are within the range reported by a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review on the subject as well as a study of more than 13,000 pedal cyclists in France published in 2012.

Some experts against this type of observational research cite small sample sizes, and flaws inherent in case control studies, such as not being able to take into account factors such as speed and intoxication.

But it is also true that the very same type of observational study designs was the basis on which the association between smoking and lung cancer was first described.

Once you get enough studies pointing in the one direction, the signal becomes harder to refute.

If mandatory helmets are good enough for motorcyclists, they’re certainly good enough for pedal cyclists.

And as more and more people use bicycles to go to work, work up a sweat or just spend time with the kids, they can rest assured that the helmet resting comfortably on their head is doing something much more than simply disrupting their hairdo.

Michael Dinh does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Join the conversation

53
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
keithjanderson2:26 pm 16 May 13

Some other studies into wearing helmets (easy to find with Google) are here:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferRiders/BikeRiders/WearingABicycleHelmet.htm, and a 2012 paper here from Uni of NSW:
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla/file/Uni%20NSW%20-%20Helmets.pdf

Risk Management discipline has concepts of Likelihood and Consequence. Wearing a helmet is about reducing consequence – reducing damage to brain and head.

neanderthalsis said :

” I look daft in a helmet” is an incredibly lame excuse for not riding.

Only if you have those god-awful zip ties poking out of the top.

beedlebum said :

we get the silly kids that ride around with their helmet hanging off their handlebars

That’s wearing the helmet on their bicycle (see the subject!). I think if you are going to wear a helmet, you really should wear it on your head.

Keep the laws compulsory.

If we (the adults) are all wearing helmets, then we’re all being good role models for kids who need to wear helmets while they’re learning to ride safely and they’re all wobbly. If we instead show them that helmets are ‘optional’, then we get the silly kids that ride around with their helmet hanging off their handlebars or unbuckled. They then get seriously injured (due to youthful silliness and inexperience).

Won’t someone please think of the children??!

Mathman said :

howeph said :

My point is that the likelihood is so small (about the same as walking in this case) that there is no need for the marginal mitigation effect that a helmet offers. Certainly no where near enough to make it unlawful and to fine poor old Granny.

Your argument is so full of holes.

Firstly, as the study shows, wearing a helmet has a significant mitigation effect of reducing head trauma should you have an accident resulting in a trip to the hospital. The risk might be small but the outcome can be vastly different.

Hi Mathman. Thanks for joining the debate. Unfortunately I think that it is your argument that is full of holes, not mine.

Firstly, I don’t disagree with anything in your opening argument. The key point however, that I don’t think you’ve grasped, is the “should you have an accident resulting in a trip to the [major trauma centre]” bit.

As I said in my earlier post: “Public health policy should not be based on studies conducted on very select populations – in this case only seriously ill patients arriving at major trauma centres.”

This study suffers from extreme selection bias. When you consider the millions? of individual trips (don’t forget all those kids riding in the park) people make by bike every year, in the vast number of those cases, wearing a helmet had precisely zero effect on reducing head trauma. They didn’t fall off. They weren’t hit by a car.

The fact is that riding a bike, in most cases, is a very safe activity. I understand that many people disagree with this statement, but whilst they are entitled to their own opinions they aren’t entitled to their own facts. The following sports all result in more hospitalistions per the same number of participants: Motor Sports, Roller Sports, Australian Rules Football, Horse Riding, Rugby League, Netball and Cricket. [source: http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/reports/2006/injcat79.php%5D

Mathman said :

Secondly, you are falling for the ecological fallacy – assuming that your individual characteristic can be inferred from the population’s characteristic. For example, if the rate of serious head trauma accidents in the population is, say, 1 in every 10,000 bicycle trips, then it is a mistake to conclude that an individual therefore has a 1 in 10,000 chance of having a serious head trauma accident on any particular trip.

Thanks, I hadn’t heard of the “Ecological fallacy” and so I had to look it up. But I don’t see that I have fallen for it, quite the opposite in fact. I am not arguing that if the trauma accidents rate is 1 in 10,000 that any particular trip has a 1 in 10,000 chance. But I am saying that the average chance of all trips is very low (1 in 10,000 if we use your numbers). I freely admit that each trip is different. Take the example you quoted above of Granny going to the shops on her bike – extremely low risk, lower than the already low average risk. Hence a blanket law is pointless.

Mathman said :

Likewise, it is also a mistake to say that the risk of an individual having a serious head trauma accident is so low as to be insignificant therefore the incidence in the population must also be insignificant.

I agree. Please show where I have made that claim.

Mathman said :

The policy makers who develop these policies really don’t care about the individual – its a (relatively) free country and you can smack your head into the bitumen if you so desire. What they are concerned about is the population as a whole, and particularly the cost to the population of individual actions. In this case, it is the $4.5 million cost of each serious head trauma injury. For the cases included in the sample, if they had all been wearing a helmet then 15 head injuries may have been prevented, potentially saving the population $67 million. That buys a lot of $20 helmets.

Well obviously in this context I strongly disagree that we are a “free country”. But I do agree that policy makers should be looking at the population as a whole. That’s why I said “”Public health policy should not be based on studies conducted on very select populations”.

In this case mandatory helmet laws are bad policy.

1) They provide a very marginal benefit to public safety and health costs. Given your figure of $67 million compared to the NSW health budget for 2012-13 of 18.3 billion that represents just 0.003% of the health budget.

2) They do however create a very significant costs to society. – namely the reduction in the participation rate and the flow on health benefits of exercise (treatment of heart disease is I think the biggest health cost?), reduced pollution and carbon emissions.

Canberroid said :

pink little birdie said :

Considering the helmet laws have been in the entire life of gen y there isn’t really any excuse for them not wearing helmets.

Gen Yers have the exact same excuses as everyone else (plus the excuse that you old farts didn’t have to wear helmets when you were young so why should we).

Plenty of posts here have assumed that people don’t like helmets because of appearance. I don’t wear a helmet for short trips around my neighbourhood because it’s so much more comfortable and pleasant without it. If I’m riding down northbourne I’ll put it on. It should be my choice though.

I completely agree with you. I haven’t been able to find a helmet that fits my head since I became a teenager, which is why I never wore one on the rare occasions where I would ride a bike (usually a mate’s). I’m a total gumby when it comes to co-ordination though so I never used to ride on the road or at any great speed.

Once we move somewhere that’s a bit nearer to anywhere I might get myself a bike. does anyone have helmet advice for big-heads like me?

pink little birdie said :

Considering the helmet laws have been in the entire life of gen y there isn’t really any excuse for them not wearing helmets.

Gen Yers have the exact same excuses as everyone else (plus the excuse that you old farts didn’t have to wear helmets when you were young so why should we).

Plenty of posts here have assumed that people don’t like helmets because of appearance. I don’t wear a helmet for short trips around my neighbourhood because it’s so much more comfortable and pleasant without it. If I’m riding down northbourne I’ll put it on. It should be my choice though.

howeph said :

My point is that the likelihood is so small (about the same as walking in this case) that there is no need for the marginal mitigation effect that a helmet offers. Certainly no where near enough to make it unlawful and to fine poor old Granny.

Your argument is so full of holes.

Firstly, as the study shows, wearing a helmet has a significant mitigation effect of reducing head trauma should you have an accident resulting in a trip to the hospital. The risk might be small but the outcome can be vastly different.

Secondly, you are falling for the ecological fallacy – assuming that your individual characteristic can be inferred from the population’s characteristic. For example, if the rate of serious head trauma accidents in the population is, say, 1 in every 10,000 bicycle trips, then it is a mistake to conclude that an individual therefore has a 1 in 10,000 chance of having a serious head trauma accident on any particular trip. Likewise, it is also a mistake to say that the risk of an individual having a serious head trauma accident is so low as to be insignificant therefore the incidence in the population must also be insignificant.

The policy makers who develop these policies really don’t care about the individual – its a (relatively) free country and you can smack your head into the bitumen if you so desire. What they are concerned about is the population as a whole, and particularly the cost to the population of individual actions. In this case, it is the $4.5 million cost of each serious head trauma injury. For the cases included in the sample, if they had all been wearing a helmet then 15 head injuries may have been prevented, potentially saving the population $67 million. That buys a lot of $20 helmets.

pink little birdie10:52 pm 07 May 13

Considering the helmet laws have been in the entire life of gen y there isn’t really any excuse for them not wearing helmets. and really if people ride to work and put the effort into changing at work taking a hair brush to work is natural (also women I know keep hair brushes at their desk even if they don’t ride).
I have a pink helmet and wouldn’t ride without it.

neanderthalsis9:25 pm 07 May 13

” I look daft in a helmet” is an incredibly lame excuse for not riding and I would question the credibility of any research that cited that as a legitimate reason for non-participation. It’s like “I’d take the bus more but I don’t like the bus loonies” or “I’d go for a jog but it is cold and dark”. Lame excuses given by people looking for a reason not to do something.

I think I have read fairly solid evidence that helmet laws decreased participation rates. So the safety benefits of helmets have to be offset by the health effects of fewer people riding bicycles (and more driving cars). I’m not sure what that equation adds up to – overall positive effect or overall negative effect. Obviously the outcomes are quite different – dramatic head injuries compared with widespread diffuse increases in illnesses related to poor fitness and greater emissions from cars.

Certainly I’d be happier being able to legally potter down to the shop on a bicycle without a helmet, because the risk is low (due to the short exposure time), whereas it’s probably wise to wear a helmet when riding longer distances.

I don’t have hair, so the helmet also protects me from sunburn.

IP

Felix the Cat8:37 pm 07 May 13

Masquara said :

It’s all very well to say helmet hair doesn’t matter – but in the workplace I’m afraid it does, at least for women.

Doesn’t the wind mess up your hair when riding sans-helmet? Don’t you own or know how to use a brush or comb?

Another non-reason for not wanting to wear a helmet.

It’s all very well to say helmet hair doesn’t matter – but in the workplace I’m afraid it does, at least for women.

troll-sniffer said :

Well, for the open-minded adults here (a minority I fear) the following link might be of some interest:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-and-dutch-cyclist.html

Despite years of pestering the self-righteous amongst us, I have yet to meet a single soul who can provide a reasonable explanation of what makes Dutch riders able to ride carefree and quite accident free while the average Aussie is earmarked as a danger to himself and society.

Cycling infrastructure. Cars and bikes are kept apart.

troll-sniffer5:45 pm 07 May 13

Well, for the open-minded adults here (a minority I fear) the following link might be of some interest:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-and-dutch-cyclist.html

Despite years of pestering the self-righteous amongst us, I have yet to meet a single soul who can provide a reasonable explanation of what makes Dutch riders able to ride carefree and quite accident free while the average Aussie is earmarked as a danger to himself and society.

The fact is cyclists are an easy target for a bunch of statistically focussed nanny state apologists and governments and the like find it politically expedient to slavishly follow their perceived wisdom, wisdom which falls so short in so many ways.

beejay76 said :

howeph said :

As stated above, I can’t read the study because you have to pay for it; but a key problem with the study may be selection bias [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias].

etc

I have just read the paper and they acknowledge the potential bias in using hospital data as it will inevitably lead to the inclusion only of those with severe injuries. They also acknowledge some other shortcomings, like the inability to control for other incident factors. However, *in this sample* the difference between the helmeted and non-helmeted participants was pretty convincing.

Out of 70 cyclists with a helmet, 27 had head injuries. Of the 40 without a helmet, 30 had head injuries (p<.001 for those that are interested). Also, the overall level of injuries between the two groups was similar, as was ICU admission, so it's not just that the non-helmeted people were unlucky and had worse accidents.

Thanks beejay76 for the extra info.

So the study does suffer from section bias, which allows B.S. claims like the following on the ABC:

“Bicycle riders without a helmet are almost six times more likely to suffer a severe head injury than a helmeted rider, a new Australian study shows.”[http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/05/06/3751304.htm?site=sydney]

You would think that to be a science journalist, or editor, you would be able to understand basic statistics and logic.

beejay76 said :

If you have a crystal ball and know for sure you're not going to be badly injured, it would be great to be able to leave your helmet at home. I don't think ruling that serious injury can only occur on 80kph roads is sensible. Roughly 30% of these injuries were in inner Sydney, and there's no way on earth you'd be doing 80 in there.

Personally, my whole family wears a helmet before getting on a bike. Every time. If you've seen the effects of a few head injuries, you don't want to mess with that shit.

I’m not saying that serious injury can *only* occur on 80km/h roads. It’s a compromise proposition that I think would be acceptable to all parties. It would allow proponents of the law to “save face” whilst increasing participation in cycling.

Laws can never cater for all cases and circumstances. The posted speed limit on the Highway might be 110, but in the dark, with thick fog and a snowstorm it might be unsafe to do 40. Same with the inner city. If I had to ride through the inner-city of Sydney… well I wouldn’t, not with the current infrastructure and driver attitudes to cyclists. But that’s the point, it’s my choice, as an adult, to assess the personal risk, not some wowsers who think we should all be wrapped up in cotton wool. Adults are capable of making the risk assessment for themselves and their children as to when to ware a helmet. I commute to work once or twice a week by bike and I go out of my way to avoid some sections of road which I think are too dangerous for cyclists – with or without a helmet.

Have had my prang, against a rock wall that smashed my helmet and a few other parts of my body.

It’s a non issue for me.

Been knocked out once by a low hanging branch that penetrated the helmet, but not the skull fortunately. Hitting low hanging branches was a regular event that generally did no damage and made you glad you were wearing a helmet. Hasn’t happened lately, government must have been out and about knocking them off.

rosscoact said :

Jethro said :

rosscoact said :

You pay more for insurance if you are a smoker or a druggie or a drunk or a parachutist so why not if you engage in other risky activity such as cycling without a helmet?

Not true. Private health insurance premiums are in no way risk based. Everyone pays the same, whether they are a 55 year old pack-a-day smoker who drinks themselves into a coma every night, never exercises and subsists on a diet of maccas and pizza hut, or a 22 year old non smoker with an excellent diet and exercise regimen.

Quote from the Dept of Health: “In Australia, private health insurance is not ‘risk-rated’ like most forms of insurance. Private health insurers cannot refuse to insure any person, and must charge everyone the same premium for the same level of cover, despite their risk profile and likelihood of using health services.”

This is why they need to bully young or healthy people into signing up for health insurance through lifetime heath loadings and the medicare levy surcharge ; so they can subsidise the private health of older or unhealthier people.

But you do pay more for other forms of insurance eg travel, motor vehicle, life, income protection and there will have to be trade-offs to live in the utopian world where you assume responsibility rather than government legislating behaviour.

Oh, I don’t actually have a problem with helmet laws, just the laws that try to coerce me into purchasing private health insurance I don’t need or want so that I can subsidise the private healthcare costs of people who make poor health and lifestyle choices.

Deref said :

Tinfoil hats probably don’t work quite as well, but I can sell you a nice one.

So you have a tinfoil hat.

Ado said :

howeph said :

But seriously I don’t agree that “Granny tootling off to the shops” sticking to footpaths and urban streets is anywhere near as likely to have a serious accident “as does the MAMIL”. Granny’s chance is about the same as walking to the shops and she doesn’t wear a helmet for that.

I do think that mandatory helmet laws significantly reduce the participation rate in cycling and that this represents a real cost to society.

A helmet is a treatment on the consequence, not likelihood of this particular risk.

Agreed.

My point is that the likelihood is so small (about the same as walking in this case) that there is no need for the marginal mitigation effect that a helmet offers. Certainly no where near enough to make it unlawful and to fine poor old Granny.

Ado said :

I’m not sure what you are getting at with the reduction in participation rates. Are you suggesting that the price locks people out, or the fashion? A quick scan of various online shops has helmets at a very small fraction of the overall cost of cycling.

What data there is (and it is limited) shows that mandatory helmet laws dramatically decreased the level of bicycle riding in Australia [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pubmed#__sec3title]. Roughly the number of trips by cyclists decreased by around one third. It was much higher in some demographics, particularly school aged females.

Why does mandatory helmet laws decrease participation?

Well for some it is fashion. I’d guess this is the primary driver for the above mentioned young ladies.

For many it is the inconvenience – particularly for those ad-hoc trips like just ducking down to the shops. It provide an excuse to avoid getting some exercise, and lets face it we all look for those excuses at times.

A major reason, I think, is that making it illegal to ride your bike without a helmet changes societies risk perception with respect to the activity. The subconscious reasoning goes something like: “If they made it a law, they must have had good reasons, and therefore it must be dangerous.” When the truth is riding a bike, away for busy vehicle traffic, is very, very safe.

well, astro would be ex-astro were it not for a helmet when hit from behind and knocked off his bicycle a few years ago, so i rather endorse the mandatory wearing of a helmet. a little like mandatory voting, and much like mandatory seatbelts, i don’t mind the imposition and really wonder what so deters others by it..

Reminds me I must buy a new helmet. Living in the inner north, where helmet wearing seems optional, I constantly have to remind the kids that wearing helmets is not only the law but protects your head if you fall off.

Jethro said :

rosscoact said :

You pay more for insurance if you are a smoker or a druggie or a drunk or a parachutist so why not if you engage in other risky activity such as cycling without a helmet?

Not true. Private health insurance premiums are in no way risk based. Everyone pays the same, whether they are a 55 year old pack-a-day smoker who drinks themselves into a coma every night, never exercises and subsists on a diet of maccas and pizza hut, or a 22 year old non smoker with an excellent diet and exercise regimen.

Quote from the Dept of Health: “In Australia, private health insurance is not ‘risk-rated’ like most forms of insurance. Private health insurers cannot refuse to insure any person, and must charge everyone the same premium for the same level of cover, despite their risk profile and likelihood of using health services.”

This is why they need to bully young or healthy people into signing up for health insurance through lifetime heath loadings and the medicare levy surcharge ; so they can subsidise the private health of older or unhealthier people.

But you do pay more for other forms of insurance eg travel, motor vehicle, life, income protection and there will have to be trade-offs to live in the utopian world where you assume responsibility rather than government legislating behaviour.

Canberracanuck said :

You can push the statistics around all you want, Mr Dinh, but the fact is that, unlike Australia,most of the world “gets it”, that using a bike to get from A to B is a normal activity and doesn’t require specialised equipment. Helmets may work, but they are the product of a culture that sells fear and constantly brands the use of bicycles as a “sporting” or “leisure” activity.

Tinfoil hats probably don’t work quite as well, but I can sell you a nice one.

Here_and_Now said :

What do people have against helmets, anyway, compulsory or otherwise? It can’t seriously be ‘I’d rather risk nasty head trauma than look a bit silly’, can it?

I can ride sedately without a helmet and get the same buzz as riding much faster with a helmet.

howeph said :

But seriously I don’t agree that “Granny tootling off to the shops” sticking to footpaths and urban streets is anywhere near as likely to have a serious accident “as does the MAMIL”. Granny’s chance is about the same as walking to the shops and she doesn’t wear a helmet for that.

I do think that mandatory helmet laws significantly reduce the participation rate in cycling and that this represents a real cost to society.

A helmet is a treatment on the consequence, not likelihood of this particular risk.

I’m not sure what you are getting at with the reduction in participation rates. Are you suggesting that the price locks people out, or the fashion? A quick scan of various online shops has helmets at a very small fraction of the overall cost of cycling.

howeph said :

As stated above, I can’t read the study because you have to pay for it; but a key problem with the study may be selection bias [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias].

etc

I have just read the paper and they acknowledge the potential bias in using hospital data as it will inevitably lead to the inclusion only of those with severe injuries. They also acknowledge some other shortcomings, like the inability to control for other incident factors. However, *in this sample* the difference between the helmeted and non-helmeted participants was pretty convincing.

Out of 70 cyclists with a helmet, 27 had head injuries. Of the 40 without a helmet, 30 had head injuries (p<.001 for those that are interested). Also, the overall level of injuries between the two groups was similar, as was ICU admission, so it's not just that the non-helmeted people were unlucky and had worse accidents.

If you have a crystal ball and know for sure you're not going to be badly injured, it would be great to be able to leave your helmet at home. I don't think ruling that serious injury can only occur on 80kph roads is sensible. Roughly 30% of these injuries were in inner Sydney, and there's no way on earth you'd be doing 80 in there.

Personally, my whole family wears a helmet before getting on a bike. Every time. If you've seen the effects of a few head injuries, you don't want to mess with that shit.

rosscoact said :

You pay more for insurance if you are a smoker or a druggie or a drunk or a parachutist so why not if you engage in other risky activity such as cycling without a helmet?

Not true. Private health insurance premiums are in no way risk based. Everyone pays the same, whether they are a 55 year old pack-a-day smoker who drinks themselves into a coma every night, never exercises and subsists on a diet of maccas and pizza hut, or a 22 year old non smoker with an excellent diet and exercise regimen.

Quote from the Dept of Health: “In Australia, private health insurance is not ‘risk-rated’ like most forms of insurance. Private health insurers cannot refuse to insure any person, and must charge everyone the same premium for the same level of cover, despite their risk profile and likelihood of using health services.”

This is why they need to bully young or healthy people into signing up for health insurance through lifetime heath loadings and the medicare levy surcharge ; so they can subsidise the private health of older or unhealthier people.

Here_and_Now2:19 pm 07 May 13

What do people have against helmets, anyway, compulsory or otherwise? It can’t seriously be ‘I’d rather risk nasty head trauma than look a bit silly’, can it?

Here_and_Now2:16 pm 07 May 13

Canberracanuck said :

You can push the statistics around all you want, Mr Dinh, but the fact is that, unlike Australia,most of the world “gets it”, that using a bike to get from A to B is a normal activity and doesn’t require specialised equipment. Helmets may work, but they are the product of a culture that sells fear and constantly brands the use of bicycles as a “sporting” or “leisure” activity. People need to be aware that the “convenience” of the automobile is a lie, that it marginalizes the old and the young, it has a horrific impact on the health and psychology of our society. Frightening people off their bicycles by painting vivid pictures of brain damage and insisting on armor to venture outside is not presenting a balanced argument. Shall we discuss the myriad of injuries and death associated with automobiles? The reduction of brain trauma that would be caused by insisting on car drivers wearing helmets? No? Your article merely encourages the status quo …that Austalians will continue to use their cars despite the carnage on the roads and bicycles will always be a fringe activity… unsafe and only for the physically adventurous. A little more vision is required. The use of the bicycle has to be accepted as normal, by the average citizen, by our legislators, and by our city planners,as it was before the rise in popularity of the autombile. Instead of blaming the victim, you should be berating the powers-that-be for not doing more to encourage people away from automobiles and toward public and active transport.

Do you think you’re making the case for not wearing a helmet on a bike? Because I think instead you made one for wearing a helmet in a car.

(Also…’myriad of’? Really?)

neanderthalsis said :

I am yet to see an accident where you are offered a set of outcomes and you get a choice as to how serious you want to go. This is why they’re called accidents. Granny tootling off to the shops on her 1946 Malvern Star has every chance of coming a cropper and whacking her head on the gutter as does the MAMIL (Middle Aged Man in Lycra) flying down a mountainside on a Sunday morning. Granny (or a 10yo kid) tootling to the shops could be hit by a car doing 50/60 or even 10-20km/h, be knocked down and suffer from serious head trauma. This is why we wear helmets.

They might make you look like a gumby, but I prefer the pink gooey stuff to remain inside my skull.

Yes accidents do happen. Nothing that we do – not even doing nothing – is risk free. People fall off ladders and kill them selves all the time. Hell, I’ve heard that on average 13 people die each year from vending machines falling on them. Maybe they should all wear helmets too?

But seriously I don’t agree that “Granny tootling off to the shops” sticking to footpaths and urban streets is anywhere near as likely to have a serious accident “as does the MAMIL”. Granny’s chance is about the same as walking to the shops and she doesn’t wear a helmet for that.

I do think that mandatory helmet laws significantly reduce the participation rate in cycling and that this represents a real cost to society.

neanderthalsis said :

Granny (or a 10yo kid) tootling to the shops could be hit by a car doing 50/60 or even 10-20km/h, be knocked down and suffer from serious head trauma. This is why we wear helmets.

Could even happen if they were walking. So pedestrians should have to wear helmets too. NOT.

howeph said :

If you had many, lets say four or more…

Actually I want to change this to “more than one” you are very, very unlucky,

PoQ said :

Having crashed my car any number of times and been saved by the safety belt – buckling up is simple self preservation.

Having come off my bike any number of times, wearing a helmet is self-preservation.

How many times is “any number of times”? How many were just minor fender benders and scrapped knees; and how many were ones where your seat belt or helmet prevented serious injury or saved your life? If you had many, lets say four or more, of the later then you are very, very unlucky and a statistical anomaly.

As my old GP used to say, “if you need motivation to quit smoking, go visit the emphysema ward at Westmead”. Perhaps we could make tours of the trauma wards available.

Yes, lets. Lets see the “carnage” that we are dealing with. I suspect that you’ll be hard pressed to find wards full of bicycle accident victims. You’ll find plenty suffering from Heart disease though – not caused by smoking but from obesity.

The arguments against bike helmets are the same ones used against anti-smoking and for those of you who can vaguely recollect the late 1960s, anti-compulsory seat belts.

Really? Please explain.

Canberracanuck said :

@DrKoresh

@Rollersk8r

Seat belts don’t protect your head…that’s why race car drivers wear a helmet. If your 75 year old gran wants to ride a bike to the shops (which is perfectly normal in other countries) she shouldn’t have to dress like she is riding in the Tour de France

That’s arguable – but cars mostly have supplementary systems to limit the risk of an accident in the first place (ABS, EBD, stability control) and to limit the severity of injury (airbags, break away pedals, safety glass). The instant you fall off a bike or motorbike it’s just you and gravity, which is why I have absolutely no problems with helmet laws for both.

Besides, helmets were optional for decades in the Tour de France. But then they had a problem with competitors getting killed a fair bit…

Within the small network of people I know through cycling I’ve heard more than enough stories of bad accidents. Wearing a helmet is as automatic for me as putting on a seatbelt, or wearing a hat while gardening, or putting on sunscreen at the beach. It’s a non issue. People who say helmets are stopping them from using a bike are kidding themselves.

User pays I reckon.

Anyone should be at liberty to do whatever they damn well please to themselves (as opposed to other people) as long as they are willing to pick up the tab. This can either be through self insuring or paying higher premiums for medical insurance.

You pay more for insurance if you are a smoker or a druggie or a drunk or a parachutist so why not if you engage in other risky activity such as cycling without a helmet?

You don’t even have to be insured. Simply self-insure and if nothing ever happens to you you are way out in front. If it does, you just sign over all your assets to the hospital.

Everyone’s a winner

Felix the Cat12:36 pm 07 May 13

Canberracanuck said :

@Rollersk8r

Seat belts don’t protect your head…that’s why race car drivers wear a helmet. If your 75 year old gran wants to ride a bike to the shops (which is perfectly normal in other countries) she shouldn’t have to dress like she is riding in the Tour de France

Puting a helmet on is hardly dressing for the TdF.

neanderthalsis12:35 pm 07 May 13

howeph said :

Almost by definition, if you have had an accident serious enough to send you to a major trauma centre, then there is a good chance that head trauma is involved and that you would have been better off if you had been wearing a helmet when you had the accident. Hence the study shows a significant benefit, in these select circumstances (i.e. a serious accident), of wearing a helmet.

However if the study was done over the the total bike riding population (including those who have no or only minor accidents) then I suspect that the result would show that wearing a helmet has only a very small (possibly unmeasurable) effect. And it is this, possibly tiny benefit, that needs to be compared with the costs of reduced participation in cycling caused by mandatory helmet laws….

The same applies to car accidents, very few accidents a serious enough to have required the airbags/seat belts, crumple zones etc to save your life. Backing your Urban Terror Vehicle into a pylon at the local Westfield isn’t a life threatening accident. But when your airbags inflated after hitting a tree and rolling you would be thankful for it.

I am yet to see an accident where you are offered a set of outcomes and you get a choice as to how serious you want to go. This is why they’re called accidents. Granny tootling off to the shops on her 1946 Malvern Star has every chance of coming a cropper and whacking her head on the gutter as does the MAMIL (Middle Aged Man in Lycra) flying down a mountainside on a Sunday morning. Granny (or a 10yo kid) tootling to the shops could be hit by a car doing 50/60 or even 10-20km/h, be knocked down and suffer from serious head trauma. This is why we wear helmets.

They might make you look like a gumby, but I prefer the pink gooey stuff to remain inside my skull.

A bike helmet saved my brother’s face and possibly prevented some pretty serious head injuries as a kid, so for me it’s a non-issue.

I do wonder if the total lack of enforcement by Canberra policing means that a challenge along the same lines as to the Tasmanian gay laws would be successful.

@CylcingCanuckian
I’m happy to argue against the legislation of wearing helmets, but arguing that helmets don’t serve to greatly reduce serious injury in the event of a bad crash is demonstrably wrong. I don’t even understand how someone could possibly think otherwise. To say Dr Dinh is a tool of the automotive industry sounds borderline psychotic in its paranoia, especially considering how often people on bicycles have accidents that are entirely unrelated to other people’s use of cars. The recent incident where some community-spirited individual decided to spread rice on the bike path for example had nothing to do with cars or lacking bicycle infrastructure but does have a lot to do with why it’s a good idea to wear a helmet when you’re riding a bike.

I get that you’re gay for bicycles and are butt-hurt about cars, it’s a position that isn’t entirely without merit, but your reasoning in this thread is completely baffling. Blaming a doctor for promoting a public safety initiative is attacking entirely the wrong person for completely wrong reasons and only serves to demonstrate just how deluded and dogmatic you’ve become in pursuit of your agenda.

Having crashed my car any number of times and been saved by the safety belt – buckling up is simple self preservation.

Having come off my bike any number of times, wearing a helmet is self-preservation.

As my old GP used to say, “if you need motivation to quit smoking, go visit the emphysema ward at Westmead”. Perhaps we could make tours of the trauma wards available.

The arguments against bike helmets are the same ones used against anti-smoking and for those of you who can vaguely recollect the late 1960s, anti-compulsory seat belts.

Besides, its not a question of how well or otherwise you ride your bike: it hurts the same when you fall off it when you’re in the right as it does when you’re in the wrong. And its the bloke who “oh sorry mate, I didn’t see you” who’s going to knock you off your bike and onto the ground at speed.

I have to say the handy sunshade on my helmet makes it a no brainer for me as a hat that won’t come off at speed!

DrKoresh said :

howeph said :

Well I’d like to check the evidence presented but I can’t because you have to be a paid subscriber to the Medical Journal of Australia to read it.

Was this research publicly funded? If so why do I have to pay for it… again.

Because you’re paying to access the journal, not the study.

I don’t wan’t to access the journal, just the study.

Canberracanuck11:44 am 07 May 13

@DrKoresh

Ha ha, what a clever little joke about my being Canadian. /sarcasm

As long as Dinh sides with the fear-mongers, yes, I blame him for the continued Australian addiction to cars.

@Rollersk8r

Seat belts don’t protect your head…that’s why race car drivers wear a helmet. If your 75 year old gran wants to ride a bike to the shops (which is perfectly normal in other countries) she shouldn’t have to dress like she is riding in the Tour de France

As stated above, I can’t read the study because you have to pay for it; but a key problem with the study may be selection bias [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias].

From the article “… one-year study … of injured cyclists and motorcyclists presenting to seven major trauma centres in Sydney”

Public health policy should not be based on studies conducted on very select populations – in this case only seriously ill patients arriving at major trauma centres.

Almost by definition, if you have had an accident serious enough to send you to a major trauma centre, then there is a good chance that head trauma is involved and that you would have been better off if you had been wearing a helmet when you had the accident. Hence the study shows a significant benefit, in these select circumstances (i.e. a serious accident), of wearing a helmet.

However if the study was done over the the total bike riding population (including those who have no or only minor accidents) then I suspect that the result would show that wearing a helmet has only a very small (possibly unmeasurable) effect. And it is this, possibly tiny benefit, that needs to be compared with the costs of reduced participation in cycling caused by mandatory helmet laws.

My opinion is that most forms of cycling are not the highly risky activity that Australian society seams to think it is.

A compromise should be made. I propose a change in the law for the ACT (given the ACT’ good roads and shared footpaths):

“A helmet is only mandatory if you are riding on a road with a speed limit greater or equal to 80km/h”

This law would be practical to police and would enable a simple trip to the local shops, or with the family around the lake can be done helmet free. Even my current route to commute, from Kambah to Fyshwick, would not require a helmet if I choose.

Timing. I forgot my helmet this morning and didn’t notice until I went to take it off at work due to the winter beanie. Will take more care riding home.

Canberracanuck said :

Shall we discuss the myriad of injuries and death associated with automobiles? The reduction of brain trauma that would be caused by insisting on car drivers wearing helmets? No?

Um, there is already a mandatory safety device in all cars that almost nobody argues against – it’s called a seatbelt.

Canberracanuck said :

You can push the statistics around all you want, Mr Dinh, but the fact is that, unlike Australia,most of the world “gets it”, that using a bike to get from A to B is a normal activity and doesn’t require specialised equipment. Helmets may work, but they are the product of a culture that sells fear and constantly brands the use of bicycles as a “sporting” or “leisure” activity. People need to be aware that the “convenience” of the automobile is a lie, that it marginalizes the old and the young, it has a horrific impact on the health and psychology of our society. Frightening people off their bicycles by painting vivid pictures of brain damage and insisting on armor to venture outside is not presenting a balanced argument. Shall we discuss the myriad of injuries and death associated with automobiles? The reduction of brain trauma that would be caused by insisting on car drivers wearing helmets? No? Your article merely encourages the status quo …that Austalians will continue to use their cars despite the carnage on the roads and bicycles will always be a fringe activity… unsafe and only for the physically adventurous. A little more vision is required. The use of the bicycle has to be accepted as normal, by the average citizen, by our legislators, and by our city planners,as it was before the rise in popularity of the autombile. Instead of blaming the victim, you should be berating the powers-that-be for not doing more to encourage people away from automobiles and toward public and active transport.

That’s a long bow you’re drawing there, eh? I don’t think it’s fair to blame Dr. Dinh aboot Australia’s car-culture, eh?

Holden Caulfield10:49 am 07 May 13

Won’t somebody please think of the bells!

howeph said :

Well I’d like to check the evidence presented but I can’t because you have to be a paid subscriber to the Medical Journal of Australia to read it.

Was this research publicly funded? If so why do I have to pay for it… again.

Because you’re paying to access the journal, not the study.

Canberracanuck10:42 am 07 May 13

You can push the statistics around all you want, Mr Dinh, but the fact is that, unlike Australia,most of the world “gets it”, that using a bike to get from A to B is a normal activity and doesn’t require specialised equipment. Helmets may work, but they are the product of a culture that sells fear and constantly brands the use of bicycles as a “sporting” or “leisure” activity. People need to be aware that the “convenience” of the automobile is a lie, that it marginalizes the old and the young, it has a horrific impact on the health and psychology of our society. Frightening people off their bicycles by painting vivid pictures of brain damage and insisting on armor to venture outside is not presenting a balanced argument. Shall we discuss the myriad of injuries and death associated with automobiles? The reduction of brain trauma that would be caused by insisting on car drivers wearing helmets? No? Your article merely encourages the status quo …that Austalians will continue to use their cars despite the carnage on the roads and bicycles will always be a fringe activity… unsafe and only for the physically adventurous. A little more vision is required. The use of the bicycle has to be accepted as normal, by the average citizen, by our legislators, and by our city planners,as it was before the rise in popularity of the autombile. Instead of blaming the victim, you should be berating the powers-that-be for not doing more to encourage people away from automobiles and toward public and active transport.

Well I’d like to check the evidence presented but I can’t because you have to be a paid subscriber to the Medical Journal of Australia to read it.

Was this research publicly funded? If so why do I have to pay for it… again.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.