Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Author

Nagging doubts raised over helmet safety

rolsen1

3-Apr-2011
7:59:40 AM

From The Age:

"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."

and

"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."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nagging-doubts-raised-over-helmet-safety-20110402-1csgq.html


salty crag

3-Apr-2011
9:37:10 AM

Oh dear, do we really have to go through this again... some topics should left well alone.

patto

3-Apr-2011
7:50:20 PM

On 3/04/2011 salty crag wrote:
>Oh dear, do we really have to go through this again... some topics should
>left well alone.

So some we should stick with the status quo and never change?


sbm

3-Apr-2011
9:40:50 PM

On 3/04/2011 rolsen1 wrote:
>From The Age:
>
>http://www.theage.com.au/national/nagging-doubts-raised-over-helmet-safety-20110402-1csgq
>html

I know Fairfax website comments are usually not much better than Youtube comments, but I'm glad I had a read because some of them were pretty interesting:

> 'This would be the Dr Chris Rissel who recently had a paper retracted by a peer reviewed journal
>(The Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety) because of serious errors, including dodgy
> figures?
>
>http://www.acrs.org.au/srcfiles/ACRS-Journal-22No1WebLR2.pdf
>
>See 'Retraction of the Voukelatos and Rissel paper on bicycle helmet legislation and injury' on p. 39.'

It's just one (probably poor) study, and a single study doesn't mean a thing. Move along, nothing to see here.


Miguel75

3-Apr-2011
11:05:18 PM

This is just an anecdote but interesting, and maybe relevant for a change: Many moons ago I worked in the ski industry in the US, way before helmets were worn by anyone other than racers. After a few years helmets became more common and as a coach I wanted to set a good example to all the little people so started researching which helmet offered the best protection etc etc... Many of the reports I read back then, mainly documented by ski patrol and emergency room practitioners discussed a marked increase in both soft tissue injuries and broken bones, brought on by the 'helmeted warrior' (helmet = invincible) effect. Increased security led to increased speed, without a corresponding increase in skill, which led to more pain and work for all involved. I'm unable to find these older reports/anecdotal 'studies' given we're talking 15 years past...

Having been on the receiving end of a subdural haematoma, and it's associated side effects, I personally believe the brain to be an organ worth protecting. I don't expect miracles when taking a fall while wearing a helmet, (I haven't walked on water or mastered levitation just yet), though I believe them to be a positive. To each their own!!!


evanbb

4-Apr-2011
6:34:33 AM

Paraphrasing Miguel:

Like my old computers teacher used to argue with car safety; put a 30cm metal spike staight out of the steering wheel towards the drivers chest. Then we'll see who drives safely and who doesn't.

egosan

4-Apr-2011
7:36:48 AM

On 4/04/2011 evanbb wrote:
>Paraphrasing Miguel:
>
>Like my old computers teacher used to argue with car safety; put a 30cm
>metal spike staight out of the steering wheel towards the drivers chest.
>Then we'll see who drives safely and who doesn't.

If you want safer roads, take people out of the loop.


Miguel75

4-Apr-2011
8:33:51 AM

On 4/04/2011 evanbb wrote:
>Like my old computers teacher used to argue with car safety; put a 30cm
>metal spike staight out of the steering wheel towards the drivers chest.
>Then we'll see who drives safely and who doesn't.

That's too funny, and true. I could have used a big metal spike last night. Driving home with my family, the Taxi next to me thought he'd like to share my lane and proceeded to merge, without looking. Luckily I was able to avoid him though I would have loved to poke him in the eye with your spike...

I'm all for helmets and wear them in every sport I play except surfing and dungeons and dragons!!!

I would be interested in reading more current snowboard injury data as I believe it'd be very different to the information I read years ago. At the time I did my 'research' helmets were a novelty in that no-one wore them and those that did try them still rode with the devil may care mentality, which was; Go really fast downhill. If something gets in your way, jump over it or turn!

Nowadays helmets are the norm and with kids growing up wearing a helmet I feel you would see less of the "helmeted warrior" mentality because they wouldn't know any different.

And evanbb, isn't there a chocky rule that only climbers can post??:)

rolsen1

4-Apr-2011
9:46:32 AM

On 3/04/2011 sbm wrote:
>On 3/04/2011 rolsen1 wrote:
>>From The Age:
>>
>>http://www.theage.com.au/national/nagging-doubts-raised-over-helmet-safety-20110402-1csg
>
>>html
>
>I know Fairfax website comments are usually not much better than Youtube
>comments, but I'm glad I had a read because some of them were pretty interesting:
>
>> 'This would be the Dr Chris Rissel who recently had a paper retracted
>by a peer reviewed journal
>>(The Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety) because of serious
>errors, including dodgy
>> figures?
>>
>>http://www.acrs.org.au/srcfiles/ACRS-Journal-22No1WebLR2.pdf
>>
>>See 'Retraction of the Voukelatos and Rissel paper on bicycle helmet
>legislation and injury' on p. 39.'
>
>It's just one (probably poor) study, and a single study doesn't mean a
>thing. Move along, nothing to see here.

Did you look at page 39 on the pdf?

1. I don't think it was the same study
2. The reasons for retraction seemed more to do with data being incomplete / wrong format as opposed to dodgy figures?

rolsen1

4-Apr-2011
9:48:46 AM

On 4/04/2011 egosan wrote:
>On 4/04/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>Paraphrasing Miguel:
>>
>>Like my old computers teacher used to argue with car safety; put a 30cm
>>metal spike staight out of the steering wheel towards the drivers chest.
>>Then we'll see who drives safely and who doesn't.
>
>If you want safer roads, take people out of the loop.
>
>

There has been research that showed that people drive closer to helmeted riders than non-hemeted riders.


sbm

4-Apr-2011
11:11:36 AM

On 4/04/2011 rolsen1 wrote:
>On 3/04/2011 sbm wrote:
>>On 3/04/2011 rolsen1 wrote:
>>>From The Age:
>>>
>>>http://www.theage.com.au/national/nagging-doubts-raised-over-helmet-safety-20110402-1cs
>
>>
>>>html
>>
>>I know Fairfax website comments are usually not much better than Youtube
>>comments, but I'm glad I had a read because some of them were pretty
>interesting:
>>
>>> 'This would be the Dr Chris Rissel who recently had a paper retracted
>>by a peer reviewed journal
>>>(The Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety) because of
>serious
>>errors, including dodgy
>>> figures?
>>>
>>>http://www.acrs.org.au/srcfiles/ACRS-Journal-22No1WebLR2.pdf
>>>
>>>See 'Retraction of the Voukelatos and Rissel paper on bicycle helmet
>>legislation and injury' on p. 39.'
>>
>>It's just one (probably poor) study, and a single study doesn't mean
>a
>>thing. Move along, nothing to see here.
>
>Did you look at page 39 on the pdf?
>
>1. I don't think it was the same study
>2. The reasons for retraction seemed more to do with data being incomplete
>/ wrong format as opposed to dodgy figures?

I did actually. Yes it's a different paper, by the 'spokesperson' from Sydney Uni that the article interviews, and who seems to be the one pushing this study. Quote 'Dr Chris Rissel ... said the Norwegian paper was significant because it exposed biases in earlier research ... "now there is doubt about whether modern soft-shell helmets protect heads at all,'' Dr Rissel said.'

The fact that this guy had a paper retracted (incomplete data is pretty much dodgy data, and if it was just the wrong format, why couldn't it be resolved at all?) impacts his credibility.


Ben_E

4-Apr-2011
7:04:15 PM

On 4/04/2011 rolsen1 wrote:

>There has been research that showed that people drive closer to helmeted
>riders than non-hemeted riders.

And, from memory, drive further away from female riders. Perhaps those of us of the male persuasion should wear blond wigs and flowing dresses when riding?


Ben_E

4-Apr-2011
7:14:54 PM

More seriously, though, the one time I was hit by a car I was pretty glad that the helmet softened the blow when my head hit the road, I'm pretty sure it would have been the ER for me otherwise. Anecdotal evidence of course, but I can't say I begrudge wearing them now, on the bike or when climbing.

One Day Hero

4-Apr-2011
8:55:25 PM

Look, if you don't feel like climbing in a helmet, don't climb in a helmet.

Banging on about helmets being more dangerous makes you look like a retard.

If you hit your head on a rock, a helmet will make it less bad. Anyone who did a study that shows otherwise doesn't know how to design meaningful studies!


dougal

5-Apr-2011
9:44:35 AM

Re 'Helmeted Warrior' the same thing is found to happen with cars. Except for seatbelts all 'safety' improvements like ABS, crumple zones and bags did make a car safer but it was found that people shifted percieved risk down; drove faster and took more risks. In the end the stats on accidents never changed. Silly aren't we?

A few years back a barrister (in sydney I think) got off for dangerous driving. At the crux of the arguement was that his bently had the newest ABS and could stop faster than other vehicles. The magistrate agreed.

Of course he did.


JamesMc

5-Apr-2011
10:13:57 PM

In Victoria we had 1034 road fatalities in 1970. We had 290 in 2010 in spite of having (I'm guessing here) three times as many cars in the road. All the improvements in car safety, road safety, & driver behaviour hasn't counted for nothing.

Actually the purpose of ABS is not to stop a car faster; it's a steering aid. If you don't use your steering wheel, it's of no use. That's not the fault of the ABS, it's the fault of the nut behind the wheel.

JamesMc


bw

5-Apr-2011
10:40:56 PM

On 5/04/2011 dougal wrote:
>
>A few years back a barrister (in sydney I think) got off for dangerous
>driving. At the crux of the arguement was that his bently had the newest
>ABS and could stop faster than other vehicles. The magistrate agreed.
>
>Of course he did.
>
>

on the gold coast 15 (?) years ago some developer was busted 200+ on the goldy highway in his porsche, tried this defence - superior vehicle performance and skills yada yada... didn't work.


tnd

6-Apr-2011
9:17:47 AM

On 5/04/2011 dougal wrote:
>Re 'Helmeted Warrior' the same thing is found to happen with cars. Except
>for seatbelts all 'safety' improvements like ABS, crumple zones and bags
>did make a car safer but it was found that people shifted percieved risk
>down; drove faster and took more risks. In the end the stats on accidents
>never changed. Silly aren't we?

Sorry, this is bullsh1t. Injury rates rates have dropped worldwide due to passive safety devices like crumple zones and air bags. Active safety devices like ABS and especially steering stability control are estimated to have avoided numerous accidents.

And if you really think about it, who the hell gets into a car and thinks, beauty, crumple zone and air bags, I'll drive like a maniac?


tnd

6-Apr-2011
9:19:07 AM

On 5/04/2011 JamesMc wrote:
>>Actually the purpose of ABS is not to stop a car faster; it's a steering
>aid. If you don't use your steering wheel, it's of no use. That's not
>the fault of the ABS, it's the fault of the nut behind the wheel.

You're confusing ABS (braking aid which stops wheels locking under heavy braking) with stability control.


nmonteith

6-Apr-2011
9:27:26 AM

On 6/04/2011 tnd wrote:
>You're confusing ABS (braking aid which stops wheels locking under heavy
>braking) with stability control.

Since James has worked for Holden in automotive safety I doubt he is confused!

ABS stops wheels from locking up, so you can then steer (without sliding) around the problem. For example a kangaroo jumps in front of your car - without ABS you slam on the brakes and your wheels lock up and you slide towards the kangaroo - no matter how much wheel turning the car will go the same direction (like being on skis). ABS makes the brakes go on and off rapidly and stops the aquaplanning of the car - so you can actually steer around the object whilst braking.

Stability control brakes independent wheels to straighten a cars trajectory when it is spinning/sliding sideways (ie drifting).

There are 34 messages in this topic.