Originally Posted by
achoo
There's no logical argument against wearing a helmet.
To wit:
A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets
RS Thompson, FP Rivara, and DC Thompson
Abstract
Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States, about 1300 deaths per year, mainly from head injuries. Safety helmets are widely recommended for cyclists, but convincing evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals. One control group consisted of 433 persons who received emergency care at the same hospitals for bicycling injuries not involving the head. A second control group consisted of 558 members of a large health maintenance organization who had had bicycling accidents during the previous year. Seven percent of the case patients were wearing helmets at the time of their head injuries, as compared with 24 percent of the emergency room controls and 23 percent of the second control group. Of the 99 cyclists with serious brain injury only 4 percent wore helmets. In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40). We conclude that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents.
If you fall for this "study" you're not up on the debate.
The authors themselves have discounted these findings and significantly reduced the reduction figures in their update in 1996. They admitted they made a mistake in calculations as they admitted (in the original report) that the helmeted groups were more cautious and had less severe falls than the unhelmeted group.
Few realize these injuries were all from simple falls from bicycles. That the 85% figure was only applicable to children less than 4 years old (the 10 to 14 year old group had a 23% reduction) and that the helmeted group had better access to health care so the unhelmeted group only went for health care if their injuries were severe.
Fewer realize that the author of this study was selected to design the study because he had previously been known as a helmet promoter and I was shocked to find out when I emailed the foundation that paid for the study, that they did so because they wanted to show that helmets were effective. Not to find if they were effective, they had their conclusion in mind before the study was designed. They were actually paid for their certifications, so the more helmets that were sold, the more money they made.
This wasn't such a surprise when I found an engineer who worked with Bell helmets who said Bell supplied half the funding for the foundation who funded the study. That helmet promotion groups who use this study in it's promotions are sponsored by Bell helmets is no surprise either.
It's all a marketing ploy. Modern helmets were around long before this study came along and they weren't much different. The attitude towards them changed after this bit of promotion campaign started.