HardyWeinberg

People take more risks when wearing helmets, potentially negating safety benefits | Science/AAAS | News

I-Like-To-Bike

The silly report referenced another study about Football Helmets to come up with the 20% reduction claim. Zero relevance to the alleged safety benefits of bicycle helmets.
This "report" should be sent to Helmet Sticky Land.

mconlonx

Do you even clickthrough? Photo depicting the experiment clearly shows a bike helmet being used. So next time I am blowing up balloons while riding my bicycle, I will be careful to avoid the temptation to pop a wheelie.

Yes, should be relegated to helmet thread ghetto.

I believe there was actually a study posted in the previous helmet thread which legitimately found that helmets provided effective injury mitigation even in some cases of severe head injury, which might include TBI.

TheLibrarian

For the average mup rider or roadie how are they taking increased risk? As a mtb rider I do feel naked without a helmet but i dont think it gives me too much a sense of confidence.

mconlonx

In a previous study of this nature, risk was equated with speed and it was found that those who usually ride with helmets rode slower when they rode without a helmet, but those who usually ride without a helmet didn't ride any faster with a helmet. I.e. it was generally inconclusive and far from comprehensive.

I-Like-To-Bike

The statistics quoted in the OP and that I specifically referenced are from a study of Football Helmets. Perhaps you should read the words, and not just look at the pictures.
"How Much Protection Do Football Helmets Offer?

Not much, at least against blows to the side of the head, according to a study that will be presented at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Scientists testing how 10 popular football helmets fared against 19.3-kilometer-per-hour impacts found that they reduce the risk of traumatic brain injury by an average of 20% compared with not wearing one."

mconlonx

I was more distracted by the danger of overinflating balloons...

corrado33

This is an odd study. For those of you too lazy to click the link, they measured how much people blew up balloons while wearing helmets vs. baseball caps. The people who wore bike helmets inflated the balloons more. Considering the proximity of the balloons to people's faces, I can see why they got the results they did. I'd like to see the same study done with the balloon blow up via a tube near their waist.

Empirically, I'd say this is true, but not for the reasons of protection. I'd bike (mountain) a heck of a lot more slowly if I forgot my helmet that day. Wearing a helmet doesn't make me go faster than I normally would, it just makes me bike normally. So yes, I agree with the study, but not with the same reasoning. I bike more SAFELY when I don't wear a helmet. I bike NORMALLY when I wear a helmet.

350htrr

That's the same feeling I have, riding normal with a helmet on and riding slower without a helmet...

johnny99

Perhaps some people wouldn't even try mountain biking or long distance road biking if they couldn't wear a helmet?

mr_bill

In BART (Balloon Analogue Risk Task) - you *pretend* to blow up *pretend* balloons. (Think video game.)


In this paper, you *pretend* while wearing a baseball cap *or* a bicycle helmet while the researchers *pretended* to track the subject's eyes with a disabled eye tracker.


Frankly, "brilliant" work. I've come to expect this quality of work from Walker, (the clown suit study was also "brilliant"), and this paper does not disappoint.




Meanwhile, back at the everlasting gobstopper thread....


-mr. bill

corrado33

Oh God... how did I miss that the whole thing was virtual. WTF. Why not just do it in real life? This study is next to useless.

Looigi

I definitely take more risks wearing a parachute. For example, I've never jumped out of an airplane in flight without one but have done so many time with one.

rydabent

As with most "studies" it is amazing how the results "prove" what the preconceived out come would be. Almost all studies should be taken with a grain of salt. Among other things you have to know what the agenda of the people doing the "study" is.

I always wear a helmet, and the idea that I dont have to ride as safe NEVER enters my mind. The fact is once I buckle my helmet on, it is pretty much totally out of mind.

McBTC

A new study shows a high correlation between increased helmet use and global warming.

wphamilton

It has the same problem (among the new ones) as that old study. Let them become accustomed to the respective hats for 20 or 30 minutes and then test. You will find that both groups score equivalently in the game.

skye

Citation needed or your statement is just hot air.

wphamilton

Citation needed to point out an obvious flaw? Or the prediction?

*Oh wait, we're in the Helmet Thread now. That explains "citation needed" and "hot air".

Well OK then. The experiment is seeking to demonstrate a situational effect on risk perception, with respect to wearing helmets. I'll point you to Risk perception and risky choice: Situational, informational and dispositional effects, pretty much a random Googled selection which illustrates a portion of where my criticism is coming from. Look at the section beginning with "Reflection effects versus framing effects". The Reflection effect is the observed tendency to be more risk averse for choice options reflecting gains and more risk tolerant for choice options reflecting losses. This is the usual state. "Framing" is when the effects are reversed by re-framing the question in terms where the loss and gain are semantically reversed.

All of that to emphasize that any effect measured is secondary and a result of "framing" the question. The study I cite shows that it is a real effect, which is observed and extensively studied. There is no physical risk, no potential gains or losses, other than something derived from the feeling while wearing a helmet or cap. (ie, the question is "framed" by introduction of the head-gear) It should be obvious that after the participants become accustomed to the particular headgear (ie, no longer framed thereby) there will be no effect observed, because there will be no perceived loss or gain.

njkayaker

It appears the article was disappeared. Hmm.

njkayaker

You might also ride slower naked.

HardyWeinberg

Weird. The paper the blurb was based on is up though: Wearing a Bicycle Helmet Can Increase Risk Taking and Sensation Seeking in Adults I thought it was in Science (like the blurb I quoted) but it isn't. I was impressed by a study in Science, but that's not what it is. Also, sorry for posting it in the wrong thread.

rydabent

Not only that but helmets have been connected with baldness and erectile disfunction. Oh and dandruff and hang nails.

atbman

Accidental falls account for about 40% of all Traumatic Brain Injuries requiring hospital visits in the USA and ar ethe leading cause in people 65 and over. Please wear a helmet at all times or you will die. Falls also account for 9.6 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with 10.7/ditto from vehicle accidents which further reinforce this message.

Yes, whether falling downstairs, slipping in the bath or shower or tripping over your children's toys, wear a helmet for your family's sake

skye

I love the way the authors so carefully constructed their abstract to avoid the conclusions presented by their data which are:

1. There was no difference in injury severity between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists
2. The helmeted cyclists were more likely to die from their injuries.

Conclusions like that are not the way to keep the grants coming. At least they were semi-honest to their data.

Comparative Outcomes of Traumatic Brain Injury from Biking Accidents With or Without Helmet Use. - PubMed - NCBI

wphamilton

I didn't see anything wrong with their results, nor with the data. "There was no significant association between the severity of the TBI, ISS scores, GOS-E or death and helmet wearing. " but there were longer stays in the hospital, and more serious brain injuries shown by ct scans in the un-helmeted cyclists.

I think that their results were supported by their data, and none of the above is surprising to long-time readers of the thread.

In the strengths and limitations portion the authors list a number of potentially confounding factors, and it looked to me like a pretty comprehensive list of the objections we commonly raise here.