• abhibeckert@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I slammed my head into the concrete really hard. Hard enough to destroy the helmet. Hard enough I could have died even wearing a helmet.

    It was a totally unexpected freak accident, did something I’d done a thousand times before, only this time I fell over. You just can’t predict some accidents.

    I’ve probably crashed a bicycle or motorbike 50 times in my life. The only people who haven’t crashed are people who don’t ride often.

    I get what you’re saying, people take more risks when they are wearing a helmet. But at the same time, not all crashes are the rider’s fault. Sometimes it’s another vehicle. Sometimes it’s an unexpectedly slippery surface. Sometimes it’s a mechanical failure (have you ever had a tyre rapidly defalte suddenly at speed and then come off the wheel rim before you could stop? I have. Twice. It’s not fun). Sometimes you just get hit in the face by a rock or a large bird.

    Cycling is inherently dangerous. Protection is appropriate.

    … also … if the statistics say wearing a helmet may protect you… then fuck, I’ll take those odds. Imperfect protection is better than no protection at all. If you cycle regularly, you will crash. There’s no uncertainty in that - everyone who has cycled regularly for any period of time has crashed more than once. And head injuries are the most common cycling injury according to Australian hospital statistics (among serious injuries anyway - hospitals obviously don’t collect data on minor bruises).

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually think you’ve misinterpreted what I’m saying, unfortunately. The data consistently shows that head injuries are the most common form of injury for all forms of individual transport, that present in hospital. That includes modes where helmets are common like cycling and motorcycling, and modes where they are not common such as walking and driving.

      The data further show that out of all modes of individual transport, cycling results in the least hospital visits per unit distance traveled.

      Further, various studies suggest but can not conclude, that various policies which increase helmet use also contribute to higher rates of hospitalization for cyclists. The data also shows an inverse correlation with unknown cause in populations with lower habitual helmet use and bicycle hospitalization.

      The actual point I would like to make is that the study of bicycle injury and helmet effectiveness is young, and the data are inconclusive at best.

      I certainly don’t want you to not wear a helmet while cycling, but when we talk about public policy, that might be another question entirely. Unfortunately, the received wisdom based on emergency ward studies on the early 80s was itself not comprehensive, and has only become less clear over time.

      • supercheesecake@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The data further show that out of all modes of individual transport, cycling results in the least hospital visits per unit distance traveled.

        If we put aside the requirement that, to be meaningfully compared, the different modes of transport would need to be normalised to the number of people participating in each mode of transport, wouldn’t this support the statement that helmets prevent hospitalisation?

        • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, it shows that either all places in the data set have universal helmet use (they don’t) or that helmet use is not the dominating factor. Further, informing policy, is suggests that it would be better to mandate helmet use for the more dangerous modes such as walking and driving, and focus enforcement there

            • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The article linked at the beginning of this thread lays out a good overview of the available research. This includes causes of head injury hospital visits, over half of which were from driving.

              • supercheesecake@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So if activity X has a 1 in 50 chance of injury, and activity Y has a 1 in 500 chance, which would you say is more dangerous?

                • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think I see what you are getting at… We need to look at the rate of injury per use. In traveling, we may want to look at travel times. From the article I mentioned:

                  Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

                  Cyclist - 0.41
                  
                  Pedestrian - 0.80
                  
                  Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
                  
                  Motorcyclist - 7.66
                  

                  Which would you say is more dangerous? Those are probably the ones that should have mandatory helmets laws, no?

                  • supercheesecake@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Do you know what “per million hours traveled” means and how it was calculated? Is it per person, cumulative across the population, something else…?

                    Using my example above, let’s say cycling had a 1:50 chance of injury and driving a 1:500. You’d naturally say cycling is more dangerous. Let’s also imagine on a given day in your city there are 1000 people cycling and 20000 driving (pulling numbers out of my butt, but probably not unreasonable).

                    With the above, the hospital ER would see 20 bike injuries and 40 car injuries per day. I.e. twice as many injuries from cars, even though the chance of being injured is an order of magnitude smaller.

                    That’s mostly the point I was trying to make. And why the details matter.

                    Also another thought on the article: to draw a fair conclusion (apples-to-apples comparison) you actually need to know the bike numbers without helmet. It could be, take the helmets off the cyclists and their injury rate skyrockets towards the motorcyclists.

                    It would certainly be reasonable to expect the head injury rate to go up without helmets on cyclists heads.