Cycling the single biggest sporting activity for referrals to brain unit in Beaumont

[Leo]

Comparing all cycling injuries (commuting and sport related) to other sports is flawed and smacks of someone looking to portray cycling as something that is dangerous and to be discouraged.

Car crashes cause far more head injuries, so if mandatory helmet wearing while cycling is being considered, then it should follow that helmet wearing while in cars would be too, as that would prevent more injuries.

I'd be strongly against compulsory helmet wearing as it's proven to reduce cycling, particularly in children, when we need to encourage the opposite from both traffic congestion and health perspectives. With the move towards 30km/h speed limits in most urban areas, these should be safe environments to cycle in without the need for a helmet.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

smacks of someone looking to portray cycling as something that is dangerous and to be discouraged.

I really don't think that the authors have any ulterior motive.

They did an analysis of their admissions over the last 30 months and produced the results.

They are definitely not discouraging cycling nor horse riding for that matter.

Brendan

 

[_OkGo_]

I'm honestly flabbergasted by the general attitude towards helmets and cycling on AAM. Why do so many believe helmets are a bad thing?

The study refers to Beaumont only and for TBI (traumatic brain injuries). These aren't bumps on the head or concussions. These are life threatening or potentially life changing brain injuries. If anything in the study shows the benefit of helmets it is the comparison of hurling and football (8 vs 30). Two almost identical sports in terms of contact, physicality and risk of injury. Granted participation in football is higher but accounting for that, football still has at least twice the TBI's as hurling.

The RSA Report report clearly highlights urban areas account for 86.7% of cyclist injuries (and Dublin suburbs in particular have a disproportionately high percentage if injuries). These are not all head injuries obviously and unfortunately the RSA's data only comes from reported traffic incidences from An Garda. It's a pity that data and incidences such as @Cervelo are not reported or compiled by the RSA. Many cyclists will get up and brush themselves off but that does not mean that they don't later present to a GP or to an A&E.

But it was this year when I actually saw and realised the benefit of wearing a helmet after having four crashes
one was hitting a pedestrian on Vico road, two were hitting kerb stones that I should have seen but didn't and the fourth was a front tyre blow out
Those were the first accidents that I've had in at least a decade but in each of them my head or at least my helmet hit the ground

It is an instinctive reflex to protect the head, despite the views of so many on AAM, the human body knows that it is much safer to break a wrist, arm, shoulder, collarbone than to risk a head injury. It beggars belief that a cyclist would not wear a helmet to protect against the likelihood that you can't reflexively protect yourself as Cervelo found out the hard way.

And before it descends into a cyclist vs motorist debate (of which I'm in both camps), all of the solutions are not mutually exclusive. Yes road infrastructure should be improved, motorists should be more careful. But cyclist also need to take a little personal responsibility for their own safety and wear a helmet.

 

[losttheplot]

Are we missing the number that weren't referred to Beaumont because the helmet prevented an injury?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Are we missing the number that weren't referred to Beaumont because the helmet prevented an injury?

A very good point.

 

[Leo]

I'm honestly flabbergasted by the general attitude towards helmets and cycling on AAM. Why do so many believe helmets are a bad thing?

Do you wear a helmet while driving?

The data says that overall helmets make little or no difference to injury numbers or outcomes. Look at the studies referenced in the Beaumont paper and look at the results where helmet use was made mandatory. You'll see little change in cycling injuries but a significant increase in morbidity due to the health implications of fewer people cycling. A neurologist will always tell you everyone should wear helmets all the time and if they did, X% of injuries would be mitigated, but they are the wrong people to assess the overall societal impact of mandating helmet use.

Also, focusing on a narrative that cyclists who fail to armour themselves as being irresponsible moves the focus away from the actual cause of the injuries. We don't tell stab victims that they should be wearing stab vests.

 

[Leper]

Forty years ago and for about twenty years I cycled 3 miles to and from work every day. I'm using 1980 as the base year and cycling was relatively safe then with less motorised traffic. Almost on a monthly basis after 1980 motorised traffic increased and the feeling of the cyclist was that the cars are getting nearer and nearer. I was pretty fit back then but used to use the rules of the road. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. Cyclists were fewer in 1980 too and even Cork was a relatively safe place for the cyclist. 1990 Cork was becoming a nightmare for the average cyclist. The cars were faster, the driving lines were narrowing and little space was left for the cyclist. The cyclist fought back, jumping every traffic light, cycling on footpaths, failing to give hand signals, refusing to use lights after dark and generally forming the Cork Kamikaze Cycle Club. There were no helmet cameras then. The cyclist had nothing going for him except cost free cycling against buying petrol for vehicles use.

Nowadays, the cars have got nearer to the cyclist still. The respect for the cyclist has died; much of it self earned. Still I cycle but not on any public road. I put our bikes up on the car bike-rack and drive to wherever and use the bikes in greenways and the like.

Hospitals come up with statistics and guess what work tool causes most admittances to A+E etc (Answer:- Screwdriver). The statistics and occurrences of cycle situations change all the time. There is a solution but we as a people are not open to it and probably never will be.

Watch the hospital stats for the electric scooters though - Sin Scéal Eile!

 

[Cervelo]

I could be wrong here but IIRC there was a study done 10 years after Australia made it a legal requirement to wear helmets while cycling
and as far as I remember they looked at head injuries in the previous 10 years and compare it to the next 10 years,
the data as Leo says showed "little or no difference to injury or outcome"

Foe me there is no right or wrong answer here, all you can do is assess what level of risk you are prepared to take with your brain
and act accordingly but remember (while you can) that you might not be the only author of the situation that unfolds

 

[Leo]

Are we missing the number that weren't referred to Beaumont because the helmet prevented an injury?

It's also missing the non-helmet wearers who weren't hit or didn't take one risk too many as helmet wearing is associated with significantly increased risk tolerance and also greater risk of being hit by drivers (multiple studies confirm that drivers perceive non-helmet wearing cyclists as a risk and give them more space when over-taking).

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It's also missing the non-cyclists who die early because of lack of exercise.

Brendan

 

[Leo]

howed "little or no difference to injury or outcome"

Read about Australia's "Helmet Law Disaster" [broken link removed].

 

[_OkGo_]

Also, focusing on a narrative that cyclists who fail to armour themselves as being irresponsible moves the focus away from the actual cause of the injuries. We don't tell stab victims that they should be wearing stab vests.

It's not changing the focus, its a valid part of the solution. Preventing incidences by improving infrastructure and motorist behavior is one part. Protecting yourself if/when those incidences occur is the other. I find your use of 'victim' interesting, it certainly plays towards the perceived victimization of cyclists. And as for stab vests, I'm pretty sure armed response units, security, bouncers etc wear them because of the increased risk associated with the activity. I don't see much risk of getting stabbed on a bike but if I did I'd probably still be wearing a helmet

It's easy to find reports and published literature both for and against pretty much any topic but in the case of cycling, it is very hard to get information on self inflicted injuries from cycling because the reported incidences are mostly reported traffic incidences. There is no record or stats for accidental falls or cyclists crashing into pedestrians. Why is it so hard to see that a helmet could be the difference between a headache/concussion or stitches/bruising.

Do you wear a helmet while driving?

Now that is changing the focus

It all boils down to your perception of health & safety. Every activity has an acceptable level of safety, you can be a competent swimmer and still wear a life vest while in a boat, you can be a competent DIY'er and still wear goggles and gloves when wearing power tools and you can be a competent cyclist and still wear a helmet on the off chance that you either fall or get knocked off your bike.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

There is no record or stats for accidental falls or cyclists crashing into pedestrians.

There are thousands of falls every day and they rarely do much damage.

Pedestrians crash into cyclists a fair bit as well, but they rarely injure themselves or the cyclist seriously.

Likewise, we don't collect stats on children falling when they are learning to walk.

Brendan

 

[Leo]

Why is it so hard to see that a helmet could be the difference between a headache/concussion or stitches/bruising.

Perhaps it's because I've read the reports that show mandating helmet use is a bad idea overall, the data doesn't back up your assertion.

Now that is changing the focus

It isn't really. If you want to lower the number of head injuries, mandating the wearing of helmets in cars would yield far greater results than mandating them for cyclists.

 

[PGF2016]

It's not changing the focus, its a valid part of the solution. Preventing incidences by improving infrastructure and motorist behavior is one part. Protecting yourself if/when those incidences occur is the other. I find your use of 'victim' interesting, it certainly plays towards the perceived victimization of cyclists. And as for stab vests, I'm pretty sure armed response units, security, bouncers etc wear them because of the increased risk associated with the activity. I don't see much risk of getting stabbed on a bike but if I did I'd probably still be wearing a helmet

It's easy to find reports and published literature both for and against pretty much any topic but in the case of cycling, it is very hard to get information on self inflicted injuries from cycling because the reported incidences are mostly reported traffic incidences. There is no record or stats for accidental falls or cyclists crashing into pedestrians. Why is it so hard to see that a helmet could be the difference between a headache/concussion or stitches/bruising.



Now that is changing the focus

It all boils down to your perception of health & safety. Every activity has an acceptable level of safety, you can be a competent swimmer and still wear a life vest while in a boat, you can be a competent DIY'er and still wear goggles and gloves when wearing power tools and you can be a competent cyclist and still wear a helmet on the off chance that you either fall or get knocked off your bike.

Why is the focus on helmets?

If you want safe and healthy cycling then put the infrastructure in place to segregate the traffic.

If you want mandate the use of helmets then prepare for a reduction in cycling (and presumably an increase in congestion, air pollution, less healthy population etc).

 

[Purple]

We already mandate the use of lights when it is dark but a sizable proportion of cyclists don't use them. Maybe apply that rule first.

 

[Purple]

Forty years ago and for about twenty years I cycled 3 miles to and from work every day. I'm using 1980 as the base year and cycling was relatively safe then with less motorised traffic. Almost on a monthly basis after 1980 motorised traffic increased and the feeling of the cyclist was that the cars are getting nearer and nearer. I was pretty fit back then but used to use the rules of the road. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. Cyclists were fewer in 1980 too and even Cork was a relatively safe place for the cyclist. 1990 Cork was becoming a nightmare for the average cyclist. The cars were faster, the driving lines were narrowing and little space was left for the cyclist. The cyclist fought back, jumping every traffic light, cycling on footpaths, failing to give hand signals, refusing to use lights after dark and generally forming the Cork Kamikaze Cycle Club. There were no helmet cameras then. The cyclist had nothing going for him except cost free cycling against buying petrol for vehicles use.

Nowadays, the cars have got nearer to the cyclist still. The respect for the cyclist has died; much of it self earned. Still I cycle but not on any public road. I put our bikes up on the car bike-rack and drive to wherever and use the bikes in greenways and the like.

Hospitals come up with statistics and guess what work tool causes most admittances to A+E etc (Answer:- Screwdriver). The statistics and occurrences of cycle situations change all the time. There is a solution but we as a people are not open to it and probably never will be.

Watch the hospital stats for the electric scooters though - Sin Scéal Eile!

I cycled everywhere in the late 80's and early 90's. I stopped for about 20 years but having started to cycle through Dublin city center again in the last few years I find it much safer than the 90's. Motorists are far more considerate and the infrastructure is much better. The big change it the behavior of the motorists though; I used to get clipped by wing mirrors a couple of times a week. It never happens now.

 

[_OkGo_]

There are thousands of falls every day and they rarely do much damage.

Pedestrians crash into cyclists a fair bit as well, but they rarely injure themselves or the cyclist seriously.

Likewise, we don't collect stats on children falling when they are learning to walk.

They rarely do until they do...the nature of accidents.

Cyclist/Pedestrian, pedestrian/cyclist, cyclist/cyclist, solo cyclist - I just mean incidences that are not reported by as road traffic incidences, I'm not pointing fingers at cyclists. Someone who falls because of ice or slippery conditions can easily present with injuries to a GP or A&E but it is never captured as part of the bigger picture of cycling injuries. All of the statistics, in Ireland at least, come from road traffic incidences so it is always the 'cyclist vs motorist' debate which isn't helpful to anyone

There's a pretty big difference between a child falling and an adult cyclist falling so I don't see how it is relevant

Perhaps it's because I've read the reports that show mandating helmet use is a bad idea overall, the data doesn't back up your assertion.

I'm not disagreeing with the overall idea and long term health benefits, rather pointing out that I can find and read published reports that are both for and against mandatory helmet use.

I'm happy to have a difference of opinion but I still don't see why someone would be so against wearing a simple piece of protective gear but each to their own I suppose.

 

[Leo]

I'm not disagreeing with the overall idea and long term health benefits, rather pointing out that I can find and read published reports that are both for and against mandatory helmet use.

Can you point to a report on the impact of mandatory helmet use that suggests they have an overall positive impact?

I'm happy to have a difference of opinion but I still don't see why someone would be so against wearing a simple piece of protective gear but each to their own I suppose.

The data says it's a bad idea and the negatives outweigh the positives. It's as simple as that for me.

 

[PGF2016]

I'm happy to have a difference of opinion but I still don't see why someone would be so against wearing a simple piece of protective gear but each to their own I suppose.

Who is against helmets? Are they not against mandatory helmets?

Edit: Looks like Leo might be.