Talk:Bicycle helmet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cycling Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Bicycle helmet was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 10 August 2006

Hi - I have removed a broken link in the 'Reduction in bicycle participation' section. I also re-worded the corresponding sentence, since it originally referred to 'evidence', but no evidence aside from said broken link was provided. If 'evidence' is supposed to mean a published study, shouldn't it be referenced in a non-temporary fashion (e.g. journal, volume, pages - as elsewhere in this artile - or a Pubmed ID) rather than a link to some webpage? Generally, although I found the information on this page informative, I agree with the discussion below (Neutral Point of View) that it seems biased. For reasons stated in this article, it may be difficult to assess the utility of mandatory bike helmet laws and apparently there is conflicting evidence in this field. Near the beginning of 'The helmet debate' section there are strong criticisms of the evidence in favour of helmet use; however, I did not notice a similar discussion of the limitations of the evidence against mandatory helmet laws. I grew up in a city which adopted mandatory helmet usage long ago (Vancouver, BC), which also has quite high participation and am now living in a city with no such law (Montreal) and relatively low participation and have been a cyclist for many years. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that helmet laws are not effective at preventing some types of serious injury, such as smashing your head on the pavement or another obstacle after getting 'doored', cut off, or simply wiping out. Helmet laws may eventually lead to a culture of helmet usage and possibly to increased awareness of other safe-biking behaviours. I would strongly advise against exaggerating the strength of evidence in support of hypotheses which may dissuade someone from wearing a helmet! --Doug

SF I thnk that while the material is intimately involved with the risk compensation debate, it is just one example of risk compensation. So the risk compensation article maybe wouldn't be the place to go into it in the same detail. Also if the issue of seatbelt laws are going to be discussed, and if NPOV is to be observed, then surely all sides of the debate must be represented in the same article? (This was clearly not the case with the original article.) Perhaps an alternative is to separate the seatbelt law section out into its own article? Separate from seatbelts? --Sf 15:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Re: Bicycle helmets Somebody has now added to the related section on risk compensation I have added to the section on seatbelts. Both pages give more information of relevance to the ongoing bike helmet controversy. Shane F.

Hey, I had a look at the seat-belt page. I see what you're saying about it. Personally I think that it might be better to move a lot of this stuff to just the Risk Compensation page. Also, if you register, it makes it a lot easier for people to track your related edits, and easier to sign them. (The edit summary box isn't really the best place to try to squeeze your e-mail address!) Thanks. PMcM 14:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have put in some neutral POV stuff on cycle helmet legislation. If anyone wants background I am happy to provide it --BozMo|talk 11:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow this is kind of exciting I put up a request for this page!! (ricjl 18:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Hey! I Wikified the very interesting controversy section, and took out the references, as they didn't refer to anything! If someone who knows about this (User:BozMo?) has the sources, then they could maybe put the full info in a References section, and re-instate the references in the article. As it was they didn't seem to be much use.

Also NPOV'd the final paragraph; 'would be most unwise' to 'may be unwise'; the rest of it was very well NPOV'd already given that it is (by definition) controversial! Thanks! PMcM 12:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

surely it is npov to say that it /is/ unwise to /assume/ since the assumption /may/ not be correct?

Fair point. Probably using both may and assume is unnecessary, but at the time I thought that it would be most unwise was unnecessarily strong. It was more the most unwise part I didn't like, and the is/may just got sucked into the editing while I was there. Feel free to change it about if you like. I explained it so I could get opinion on it, rather than meaning to sound like: "Don't do this again!" :) PMcM 12:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyone else think that the Safe cycling vs Helmet use and Controversy sections could be glued together? They seem to sort of cover the same ground. PMcM 12:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 History 2 References 3 Cycle helmets are not designed ... 4 Neutral Point of View - needs work 5 Changes 6 Removed passage Nov 1 2005 7 Other Ideas 8 Safety in numbers hasty generalisation 9 Self referencing 10 opening sentence- NPOV 11 Professional cyclists' helmets 12 Disputed: The Helmet debate 13 Failed GA nom 14 Lead 15 Another photo 16 Cycling is a factor in head injuries, ergo helmets are good 17 A personal comment from a cyclist 18 Risk compensation --motorists 19 What to do with busted helmets 20 WHO 21 Closing Speed 22 archiving? 23 Page split; separate page for The Controversy, short summary here? 24 Citation cleanup

[edit] History

Some comment about the skidlid helmet might be good. This helmet was put out of business with the introduction of the Snell standard. Gam3 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Add it to the History section by all means, if you can verify the dates and so on. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have full citations for the references, but no links as they are not on the web.

Thompson, R., Rivara, F. and Thompson, D. (1989), 'A Case-Control Study of the Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety Helmets', New England Journal of Medicine, 25 May, 320:21, 1361-67 (the grand-daddy of all helmet studies)

The abstract from the NEJM is online. Alas, the full text is not, at least not for layfolk. RossPatterson 03:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under voluntary helmet use, Scuffham, Langley. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29:1, 1997 - showed no benefit from lareg-scale increaes in helmet use.

Risk, John Adams, Routledge, 1995, ISBN 1857280687 - authoritative reference on risk compensation theory.

Excellent! That was exactly what I was looking for. I think I managed to put it all in in the right places, but if I messed up anything obviously feel free to move it around. Thanks again! PMcM 13:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cycle helmets are not designed ...

I do not understand the first sentence of the first section:

"Cycle helmets are not designed to provide adequate protection for a collision involving another moving vehicle (e.g. a car)."

Is the point that helmets are only designed for the impact of the cyclist's head against the ground and not for the impact against the car? Does it have something to do with linear versus rotational forces? What are helmets designed for? Thanks for any clarification. -- Jitse Niesen 13:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Helmets are essentially designed to withstand the force generated by an object equivalent to the weight of the rider’s head falling several feet to the ground.

Here’s a description of the tests from helmets.org:

…All of the standards discussed here require the helmet to pass a lab test where it is placed on an instrumented headform, turned upside down and dropped for a measured distance onto an anvil. The anvil can be flat, round (hemispheric) or another shape like a curbstone, a skate blade or a horse's hoof. Drop distances vary but are generally between one and two meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet). For the helmet to pass, the instruments inside the headform must register less than 300 g's during the impact, or in some cases less than 250 or even 200 g's. (We have a separate discussion on that.) The standard specifies the coverage required by calling out a test line above which the impacts can be aimed. There is always a strap and buckle strength requirement, and sometimes a "rolloff" test to see if the helmet will stay on the headform when yanked fore or aft. For more, see our quick chart or our detailed comparison.

And here’s a simplified version of the CPSC standard:

simplified version of the CPSC standard

Now, the force generated by a bicycle moving at a fairly typical velocity of say 20 to 30 kph. plus a car moving in the opposite direction at say 50 to 60 kph. is much, much greater than that. In fact, it’s greater than any practical helmet can resist

Why not set a higher standard? There’s no technology known to modern science that could do much better. Until we develop Star Trek type force fields, we just have to do the best we can.

Incidentally, I do wear a helmet Why?…Well aside from disguising the onset of male pattern baldness, I figure it’ll at least protect me in a minor impact

If someone who wasn’t a liberal arts major wants to weigh in, please be my guest.Dhodges 02:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I changed the article to reflect your answer. Personally, I usually wear a helmet when cycling in the United Kingdom, but not in the Netherlands. Pretty inconsistent, isn't it? And that for a mathematician ... By the way, I think it would be nice if something were added about the use of helmets in cycle races. -- Jitse Niesen 12:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RobAnybody 20:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Link changed:

This: How to Wear A Bicycle Helmet for this: How to Fit a Bicycle Helmet The first page provides only basic advice plus LOTS of unpleasant advertisements. The helmets.org page has much more detailed instructions, an easy to remember "fitting mantra" ("Eye-Ear-Mouth" -- useful when you teach kids how to maintain and check the fit of their helmets.) and additional resources on helmets.

[edit] Neutral Point of View - needs work

194.105.253.6 14:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is great and I agree with the POV that shines through, but we need some balancing here.

Editors of the article should have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a bit longish, but it is possible to skim to relevant sections. There I found a reference to an example of a hotly debated issue, namely abortion that is provided as an example of how a NPOV style and structure can be obtained.

Specifically, it is important to say who it is that presents a point of view instead of presenting it as fact, ( I guess ), and I think that the list of references and Further reading should contain sections specifically marked Pro and Contra. The BHRF site is quite clearly contra, but not as blatantly biased as most pro compulsion sites or atricles. Perhaps place BHRF/bicyclehelmets.org both in a category for Science and in a category for anti-compulsion.

194.105.253.6 19:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Could it be helpful to link to debate and controversy and even Benford's law of controversy ? An article about science based controversies, past and present would be nice. Might put in a request. The Global Warming article looks impressive. Anti-helmet arguments sometimes point to the Hormone replacement therapy as an example of Case control studies gone wrong. The wikipedia article on this does not do a good enough job of representing the controversy, unless I'm terribly mistaken.

One possible problem regarding Bicycle Helmets vis-a-vis Wikipedia policy is that very conceivably the apparent scientific majority - that helmets are exceptionally effective in saving lives - is wrong.

I agree that the article needs some organizational and NPOV work. It is fairly slanted against helmet use as it stands now. Feel free to add whatever links you feel are relevant... Peregrine981 07:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If it's slanted against helmet use, it's because so is the scientific evidence. If there are any credible studies in favour of helmet use (that e.g. don't have fatally flawed sample biases) then of course they could be used as support for helmet use, but as far as I know, they don't exist. NPOV isn't a synonym for 'he-said she-said' reporting. Varitek 17:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

maybe so. However, I get the distinct impression that no one who is in favour of helmet compulsion has contributed to this article, and I just get that feeling through reading it. Personally I'm against helmet compulsion, and have no problem with most of this article, except for slightly lax crediting and sources citing, but I suspect that a safety campaigner might well object to some of the wording. Peregrine981 05:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

If they can come up with any credible source to back up their desire for helmet compulsion, then they're free to add it. If they can't (and I don't believe they can, yet at least) then their POV has no place in the article. Being a "safety campaigner" carries no weight. If they object to the wording, then they'll have to justify their objection, and to the best of my knowledge, they can't do it with anything beyond POV folk wisdom. Varitek 09:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think editors should strive to balance the presentation here although it is hard. One thing being mentioned in the Wikipedia:NPOV articles is that it matters whether a view is a majority view or not, especially among experts. OK define expert  :-) Many of the people and even scientists campaiging for helmets do not know a lot about cycling and health, and they seem to think that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. Still I think links explicitly to pro-helmet sites are lacking. Many WHO documents talk positively about helmet promotion, and that should be mentioned. ( They do it on the same old mistaken ground of articles in vein with the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (1989) study, but do not always cite sources ). Perhaps a list of pro et contra arguments being used could be helpful. A report commisioned by the Bristish Department for Transport, Bicycle helmets: review of effectiveness (No.30), counted scientific articles pro et contra helmet compulsion/efficacy and found that: "Overall, 31 papers were in favour of helmet wearing of which 20 advocate legislation. 32 papers were against helmet wearing/legislation. The remaining papers took no position." You will also see, however, that 35 articles are grouped in "A proven case for head injury reduction from scientific studies", while 15 articles say "The scientific methods of many studies are defective" Having read a dozen such critiques, those pro arguments are virtually impossible to mention without informing abot the grave and convincing critique they have received in peer reviewed journals and elsewhere. But in mentioning the pro et con arguments we would at least be presenting both sides of the debate. Editors should also mention who holds those views, which is what NPOV guidelines encourages, I think. Mokgand 22:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

When you say WHO, do you mean WHO or the "WHO Helmet Initiative" which has no official backing from the WHO and is the work of Philip Graitcer, a helmet zealot who actively refuses to cite any research or organisation which is not 100% pro helmet? - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to give an overview of the limited, but still wide-ranging, controversy on whether helmet laws work. I hope it has NPOV and good-quality references with additional Web links where available. (Some items are available only in one form or the other.) I agree with others; NPOV is very difficult in this subject, where "common-sense" seems to point in the opposite direction to most of the science. Does anyone have a good form of words for a point of view that probably is a majority and is certainly widely asserted, but doesn't have the evidence? I find it difficult to come up with anything remotely neutral that doesn't came across as derogatory to some people. Even most of the doctors I've discussed this with have no idea that there is any doubt that helmet laws work. Some have taken even a mention of the evidence to be insulting, unprofessional, and "dangerous". Richard Keatinge 22nd June 2006

[edit] Changes

I've begun re-arranging the sections to put general information about helmets in the first part of the article, followed by a treatment of the controversies. A lot of pro or anti helmet material was placed in the early paragraphs back when this article was comparatively short. (I knew it back when it was a stub...). I think it's important in terms of NPOV to keep all the arguments together. --Dhodges 06:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to get rid of some redundant entries in external links. cyclehelmets.org seems to be listed three times. I'll check that I'm not missing some actual differences between entries first though. --Dhodges 06:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with above commenters regarding the lack of pro-helmet citations. IMHO, this is not a balanced article. Ronnotel 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed passage Nov 1 2005

There is a point in there, but also strong POV and tone. Not sure how to refactor it into something that can be included. --Christopherlin 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

One must wonder if there isn't better use for the energy and enthusiasm consumed by this debate. It certainly diverts energy and unity in the cycling community when it could be placed towards better law enforcement of cyclists' rights, safe cycling education, community outreach encouraging youth to take up cycling, etc.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

Groups working for cycling often consider helmet law campaigns a major problem, diverting attention and resources away from primary safety measures whose results are less equivocal. Few, if any, cyclists' groups campaign for helmet laws.

- Just zis Guy, you know? 09:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other Ideas

I agree it's POV and not to make it swing too far that way, but from somone against helmet compultion, I would like to ask a question to the editors: I would like to see (only if sources mention):

1) Why the sudden attention to helmets when bike riding has been around for far longer? For example, as far as I remember, measures have been taken to reduce child drownings since heavy pool use, because children have been dying from pools. 2) Comparing this to motorcycle helmet data. 3) The probability of reducing head injuries of wearing a helmet while driving a car. 4) Statistical studies of wearing elbow pads and knee pads in reducing 'minor accidents.'

[edit] Safety in numbers hasty generalisation

Due to technical reasons the 'z' in the caption header has been supplanted with 's'. First it is claimed in POV fashion that

Arguably, even helmet promotion or high levels of helmet use by utility cyclists will deter non-cyclists by reinforcing the misconception that road riding is a lot more dangerous than walking or driving, which it is not.

But then this is countermanded:

This reduction of cycle use directly imposes increased risk on cyclists that continue to ride, due to the now well established "safety in numbers" effect.

Sure, it is safe to ride in traffic if almost everyone is a bicyclist. But do you really claim it is safe to ride among holy sheetmetal cows when there's one bicycle for every hundred cars or so? Seems like one is generalising from a populous bicycle-rich area to everywhere. A lone bicyclist is quite vulnerable in a population where almost everyone drives a car.

The former is supported by at least one report from Transport Research Laboratory, number to follow, plus data from Failure Analysis Associates and from Road Casualties Great Britain and other sources. The latter is well documented, the BHRF website has a couple of reports in full text. The two are not inconsistent: one is about risk relative to toher activities, the other about changes in risk as participation changes. In London when the Congestion Charge was introduced levels of cycling were reported to have doubled and casualty numbers remained constant, so the causalty rate halved. And yes it is safe to ride among sheetmetal cows, I do it every day. Just zis Guy you know? 13:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

But you ride in the safety of numbers, right? Also, I don't particularly buy the conclusions of all these reports, as they seem to assume some mythical average bicyclist and so on, and do not take into account how different actions alter the people who use bicycles, and where.

Take the sidewalk issue, for example. (I ride on them, no matter what the authoritarian-human-law-fighting-laws-of-physics says, but not much faster than walking.) The research says that most accidents are when crossing sidewalks with a bicycle, not driving among cars. But that's because only experts ride among cars, not your casual bicyclists who most do not even know of the existence of laws equating 100kg bicyclists with 1000kg lumps of metal. If the less careful people that do not _stop_ to check for crossing traffic rode among cars, they'd be just as dead. (Assuming there weren't a considerable number of bicyclist so as to create safety in numbers.) The difference between bicycling on a sidewalk and on the road is that on the sidewalk you can be in control of the situation, on the road you can't. Some people just choose not to be in control. On the sidewalk you can cross the road in the safety of the numbers of the pedestriants if you choose to do so, on the road you can't.

Where I live, there are many _wide_ sidewalks with very little pedestrian traffic, and where bicycling is banned. And to make the situation even more inequitable between bicyclists and motorists, the streets are to uphill.

There is, to my knowledge, no significant informed dissent from the view that cycling gets safer per cyclist, the more people cycle. This has been shown by studies at the local level and by comparison of safety levels in different countries. Lots of people have said the same thing about living in towns where there are wide sidewalks and so on, but that is a misleading idea because not only do these towns also have wide roads (which are easy to share safely), the major point of danger is at junctions, and is increased by a factor of about five if you are riding on the sidewalk, because you are out of the area where motorists are actively scanning, because they are looking for other cars. And although it's been said that riding on the road is banned in many places, I have seen a number of such assertions successfully challenged by reference to the local vehicle code. Very often the police are also in ignorance of the actual law! Where I live riding on the sidewalk is actually illegal. Overall the USA (where I guess you are) has a pretty low level of cycling, so the safety in numbers effect is generally at a low level. British cities like London, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh show the safety in numbers effect pretty clearly despite narrow streets and very limited availablility of space for segregated facilities. Just zis Guy you know? 15:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossing roads from sidewalks is only unsafe if you do not exploit the safety of numbers of pedestrians. Or do you claim it is extremely unsafe for pedestrians to cross roads as well? Where I live, Finland (and in a small city where there can not be said to be safety in numbers of bicyclists), bicyclists are infact required by law to cross roads on the right side of the road, between the safe zebra crossing for pedestrians (and bicyclists if laws were sane!), and the car lane, and then return to the car lane after the crossing. What's even more insane, you're assumed to turn left by doing that two times (like pedestrians, but without entering the safety of sidewalks and zebra crossings), not by simply turning left like cars would.

Wide car lanes are not that much safer to share than slightly narrower ones as long as there's still space for the car to overtake the bicycle. They still rather leave 5cm between you and the car than 5cm between the car and the white line. Only separate lanes for bicycles that the cars have hard time entering will make them pass from farther away. Perhaps a narrow road, where there's no space to overtake a bicycle or to even drive more than about 10km/h, would be safe, but a wide road without segregated bike lane isn't. When it's wide enough, there'll just be two car lanes if the other half of it isn't such a bicycle lane, and the bicyclists are no better off.

You are confisuing the general with the specifi here, I think: you can make a specific crossing of a specific road by a specific person at a specific time pretty much totally safe, but in aggregate when pedestrians get injured it's most likely to be when crossing at or near a junction, because that is where you maximise the number of potential conflicts and also you maximise the chance that drivers are looking somewhere else. The same applies for sidewalk cycling: if you stop, look carefuly and wait until there are absolutely no cars before crossing you'll probably be safe enough, but that's not how it works in practice. According to the statistics riding on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic is one of the most dangerous things you can do on a bicycle. The evidence on segregated facilities is far fomr conclusive - although you'd imagine they make things safer, in the end the journey still has to get form A to B and the jurney will involve multiple interactions with roads (unless you're very lucky). So building huge numbers of bike paths in a city will not necessarily make any actual difference to the injury rate. There's some discussion of this at cycle lane. In the end what matters is having a full awareness of what the risks are in the particular cycling activity you are doing, and how to manage them. A graduate of an Effective Cycling program riding mainly on the road will likely be safer than an inexperienced cyclist riding mainly on the sidewalk, and the more experienced cyclists do tend to use the roads more because they involve much less stopping and starting, which is very inefficient. Chris Juden worked out that stopping and starting once requires the same effort as between 100 and 200 yards of riding. Just zis Guy you know? 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that (stopping and watching) very closely approximates what I do, riding in the city centre, where there's no hurry anywhere, and one might just want to stop in the middle of the block to enter a shop and so on. It is relatively safe, because I'm in control. On the road, I'm not in control, I'm just a bowling pin constantly being bombarded with the bowling balls, trying to not get hit. One could perhaps say the same of pedestrians vs. bicyclists, but the difference is in the numbers again. Most users of roads are motorists, and thus they're the king. Everyone else beware. Likewise, pedestrians are the kings of the sidewalks; other sidewalk users should try to behave almost like one. On the road this is not possible; a bicycle can't even remotely approximate a car. And, you know, we have ice and snow here much of the year. That makes things quite dangerous on the road. (Outside the city centre, where there's any traffic to speak of, there are multi-use paths where bicycles are supposed to be ridden on. They're not ideal because the pedestrians tend to occupy them like they were sidewalks as there are n

Regarding narrow lanes where being overtaken by a car is unsafe (but they try it anyway): My advice is to ride in the middle of the lane, so that overtaking is impossible, and ride quickly so as to minimise the annoyance to the cars behind. I'm not certain how legal this is where you live, and it takes some guts to do, but really you are only preventing the car drivers from doing something unsafe anyway. The exception is if you are on a stretch which is very busy or has a high speed limit, in which case you'd probably cause a large tailback and make the roads less safe!

Another tactic that works well at night is to wear your lights off-centre and to the right (in the UK, to the left in countries that drive on the right). This way you look nearer (from the perspective of the car driver) than you really are and they keep a little more distance WikianJim 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self referencing

Richard Keatinge has added some links. Among these, I removed a site (cyclehelmets.org) that is owned (according to whois) by Keatinge himself. Self-referencing to one's own webpage is evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.223.241 (talk • contribs).

• Richard is the registrar of the domain but has not been active in maintaining the content for at least a year; he was not the author of that page. I am on the editorial board of that site (I didn't write it either). Also, linking ones own site is not evil, although it is generally frowned on. Doing it multiple times, or where the same or better content is available elsewhere, is evil. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening sentence- NPOV

The opening sentence has been modified to where it is seriously POV. Now, I agree that a helmet cannot protect a rider from the full impact of hitting an object at full speed (see above). However, the argument put forward by helmet advocates is that even in a serious accident the rider’s head will seldom take the full impact of the speed at which he was travelling. Suggesting that helmets only provide protection in “simple falls" is misleading. -Dhodges 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence in question has been re-worked, thanks Bwileyr. -Dhodges 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The word collision is problematic. The standards describe falls - one version of the standards specifically excluded collisions in its preamble. Collisions are generally interpreted as involving motor vehicles, and no helmet is designed to withstand motor vehicle impact. So I have left it as falls without the word simple. Actually the tests primarily mimic a simple fall onto a flat surface, but we'll leave that for the body of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional cyclists' helmets

Why do professional cyclists wear those funny shaped (tapered) helmets (e.g. in the tour de france)? An example can be found here. Are they more aerodynamic? I swear I'm not being facetious, I really am curious, and think this should be addressed in the article. Alcuin 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. Yes, they're aerodynamic. Wouldn't hurt to put some mention of this in the article (it'd make a nice break from the pro and anti helmet sniping) Incidentally, the really freaky looking helments are intended for time trials -Dhodges 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed: The Helmet debate

I added the NPOV tag to this article. If there is a 'helmet debate' section then that section has to capture both sides of the debate in a neutral way. Currently the article advocates strongly which violates WP:NPOV To become more neutral the article should present some referenced arguments for both sides. Prospect77 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly your edits took it, in my view, much too far the other way. Just zis Guy you know? 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this debate is generally a physical question involving energy absorption, so the scientific consensus should be represented. If there are credable studies that show pro-helmet conclusions, their work should be added to counter the studies that came out against helmets. However, if there aren't any such studies we can't just fill the article up with politically funded psudoscience to make it more "balanced". Probably where there is less consensus is the social aspects. For example, does wearing a helmet encourage a feeling of safety which would encourage more people to cycle (thus making it safer)? AFAIK, no reasearch has really looked at these questions, but it would be interesting to read if they had. FWIW, I road cycle and always wear a helmet. WikianJim 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the subject of the debate is a physical question: it is a question of whether helmets are an effective response to the risks of cycling. Also, there is no scientific consensus. Doctors working in trauma medicine often (though by no means always) promote helemts; doctors working in public health are far more likely to be concerned about deterrent effect on a beneficial activity. There are a lot of case-control studies, but there were a lot of case-control studies showing that HRT prevents coronary heart disease and they were wrong. An analysis of highly cited observational studies showed that most of them are either greatly overoptimistic or flat wrong. In this case despite predictions of up to 85% reductions in head injuries, not one population has shown a measurable reduction in head injury rates consequent on increases in helmet use - I think this is telling. Overall, having spent a lot of time analysing this issue, it seems to me that cycling is not especially dangerous, that promoting helmets has as a pre-requisite building the perception of cycling as a dangeorus activity, and overall there is more benefit to be had from promoting cycling than promoting helmets. I know of several cycling organisations which regard the promotion of cycling and the promotion of helemts as mutually exclusive, and I suspect they are right. Just zis Guy you know? 14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently the article reads like a blog. It gives undue weight to a minority anti-helmet point of view. In fact that is the only POV represented in this article. The purpose of the helmet debate section is to capture accurately both sides of the debate, not evaluate the question of 'who is right'Prospect77 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The minority view is wearing helmets. Most cyclists worldwide do not. It is easy to forget this from our perspective as Western Anglophone contributors; the loudest voices all yell in English. The Dutch think the idea of wearing helmets for everyday cycling is absurd, the wearing rate there is around one in a thousand. If anything the move is away from uncritical acceptance of helmets, as there is increasing awareness that large scale increases in use have failed to deliver anythign like the claimed benefits. I used to be a helemt promoter myself, until I read the underlying research; the original TR&T paper appears to me to ba an example of working back from the desired conclusions and then increasing the figures when they don't seem good enough (hance 85% not the 75% which the data tables actually show). I'm somewhat disappointed that you state "nothing" was done to fix the problems; I spent some time referencing individual statements. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a section is title 'Helmet Debate' is a good start. That means there is a debate. But I don't really see the debate fairly captured here, see? I think the section needs to be fleshed out more, so that the medical establishment and governmental agencies that advocate helmet use are accurately and fairly represented. It isn't Wikipedia's job to resolve controversial subjects, only document them accurately.Prospect77 16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with the claim that 85% of cycling fatalities are due to head injury. It's discussed elsewhere. I don't know of a reliable source for that claim, although if it were true it would not be markedly different than for other sources of traumatic death. Do you have any evidence that cyclists are more likely to suffer injury and death epr mile than users of other modes? The last set of figures I saw showed that in the US there was a slightly higher per-mile risk for car occupants, and that car occupants were at greater risk of traumatic brain injury, especially DAI. It's funny how whatever question you ask a helmet advocate the answer is 85% :-)

While it might be Wikipedia's job to document the views of those who advocate helmets, it is undoubtedly not our job to help them out by repeating false claims (85% of injuries is the litmus test for bullshit here). Nor is "the medical establishment" a single cohesive whole; there is, as I said above, an apparent majority among trauma doctors but much more ambivalence among public health doctors and epidemiologists, because they recognise that promoting helmets menas promoting the danger of cycling, which is incompatible with promoting cycling itself.

This para is problematic: The United States Centers for Disease Control recommend the use of cycling helmets. A 1995 CDC injury control recommendation concluded that cycling helmets are effective at reducing head injury among bicycle riders. Based on 1984-1988 statistics, a 100% helmet use rate would have prevented 500 deaths and 151,000 head injuries, annually. The CDC recommend mandatory helmet laws as well as education campaigns. - the figure is arrived at by assuming that the predictions of the pro-helmet studies are right. They aren't, not by any verifiable test. When New Zealand and Australia went to 94% and 85% helmet use respectively, more or less doubling in a single year, there was no measurable change in injury rates. Any epidemiologist wil tell you that case-control studies are not predictive in this way. Apart form anythign else pretty close to 100% of all cyclist fatalities are due to impacts with motor vehicles, and there is no known cycle helemt which can provide adequate protection in these cases.

The "research evidence" section is not Research evidence (contra helmet) - it discusses pro and contra evidence. It points out weknesses in both types of evidence. Feel free to discuss the evidence in detail, but it may be wise to discuss it here first since several editors have worked on that section who, to my personal knowledge, have extensive libraries of helmet studies, probably more extensive than my helmet library which is less than a thousand documents. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

JzG, this article is still in gross violation of the mandatory NPOV policy due to its tone and selection of sources. See previous comments from other users including the recent failed Good Article Nomination. The problem is not that there are missing references. The problem with this article is that it:

1. presents the minority POV of that debate with undue weight. Anti helmet groups are the minority POV in this debate. (by the article's own references have failed to influence either governments or organizations like the CDC, etc.)

2. The article gives virtually no weight to the (legal and medical) majority POV in this debate. Where majority POV sources are cited they are immediately countered or disparaged.

"The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Minority POV? First, governments and the CDC don't necessarily reflect common or informed sentiment about this issue. Try conducting a small poll among bicyclists, for instance. Second, many jurisdictions have *not* passed helmet laws because of public resistance. Is this failure to influence government? Perhaps what is needed to "balance" this debate is to accurately document the disconnect between perception of the balance of the debate and the balance of the debate. :) -- Anonymous Campus Cyclist

How about you conduct a poll with anybody who has ever ridden a bike? Why are we restricting this to a very specific group of bicycle enthusiasts? Won't that already qualify their answer?--24.22.147.202 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nom

This article is promising, but has not yet reached the Good Article standard. My major issues with the article as of 8 Aug 2006:

• Lack of appropriate images. Diagrams of the parts of a helmet and proper helmet usage, pictures of several types of helmet, and shots of helmets in use (or not). The two images in "The helmet debate" do little to illustrate their subject.
• "The helmet debate" is rather long, and should probably be forked to a new article, with a summary of the key points in its place. It also suffers from statistics overload (for instance, the discussion of ISS without context) and clunky prose in parts.
• There is little hard data on helmet use by country, which seems a natural inclusion in discussion of helmet laws and injury rates.
• Despite the compendious references, the article has POV problems. I noticed suspicious claims ("according to research up to 96% of helmets have been found to be incorrectly fitted") and irrelevant, argumentative passages ("Overall, cycling is beneficial to health - the benefits outweigh the risks by up to 20:1.")

• Both those claims are actually correct and I can reference them. Just zis Guy you know? 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do Mathijs Romans 08:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

At present the lead includes this statement: Bicycle helmets are intended for use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved (ref)BS6863:1989, Pedal Cyclists' Helmets, British Standards Institution.

This is in there and referenced as-is for the following reasons:

• I believe it's important to clarify precisely what helmets are designed for, since there seems to be a widespread lack of knowledge on this.
• Although all the standards are broadly similar, the BSI one was the only one of which I'm aware to say explicitly what they are designed for.
• Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluations, Britain's leading helmet tester, supports this being the design criterion (at least one of his documents is cited later, there are others).
• The tests typically involve a 1.5m drop onto a flat surface with a lightweight headform, so the statement in the BSI intro is entirely plausible.

If it's absolutely necessary I will dig around and see what other sources support this statement, but as far as I'm aware it's not considered controversial, being a simple statement of the capabilites per the standards. Just zis Guy you know? 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the direct quote(s) from BS6863 that support that lead statement. -- de Facto (talk). 11:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This British Standard has been prepared under the direction
of the Personal Safety Equipment Standards Policy Committee.
It specifies requirements for helmets intended for
use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, particularly by
young riders in the 5 years to 14 years age group, but which
may also be suitable for use off the road. It is not intended
for high-speed or long-distance cycling, or for riders taking
part in competitive events. The level of protection offered
is less than that given by helmets for motor-cycle riders
and is intended to give protection in the kind of accident
in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles
being involved.

This edition introduces technical changes to bring the
standard up-to-date but it does not reflect a full review of
the standard, which will be undertaken in due course.
The protection given by a helmet depends on the circum-
stances of the accident, and wearing a helmet cannot always
prevent death or long-term disability.

A proportion of the energy of an impact is absorbed by the
helmet, thereby reducing the force of the blow sustained by
the head. The structure of the helmet may be damaged in
absorbing this energy and any helmet that sustains a severe
blow needs to be replaced even if damage is not apparent.
To achieve the performance of which it is capable, and to
ensure stability on the head, a helmet should be as closely
fitting as possible consistent with comfort; in use it is
essential that the helmet is securely fastened, with any chin
strap under tension at all times.

The Technical Committee responsible for this standard
recognized that ventilation is important to pedal cyclists
but were unable to devise a satisfactory performance test
without delaying the standard. It is intended to include
performance requirements for ventilation in a future
edition, and designers of helmets are advised to encourage
a flow of air over the wearer's head.

This edition of the standard differs from the previous
edition mainly by permitting a helmet to comply with the
requirement concerning restriction of hearing either by a
construction requirement or by a new performance test.

Any typos are due to OCR errors. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It confirms what I thought and raises a couple more questions.

1. This is from the, now withdrawn, BS 6863:1989 standard. Do you know if this, or similar, or contradictory, or no information is present about the use of helmets in the current British Standard (BS EN 1078:1997)?
2. It excludes use for high-speed, long-distance and competitive cycling. Are the bicycle helmets that they use not included in the scope of this article?

-- de Facto (talk). 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, this is the only standard I can think of offhand which spells it out in these terms. Applicability is backed by the test (1.75m drop, sorry, 1.5m is for a different test) and by authorities such as John Franklin and Brian Walker. Other standards do not go into this detail, EN.1078 removes the second half of para 1 and I think all of para 2 and 4. It restricts itself in the main to discussing the tests themselves, rather than how the standard relates to actual cycling. The tests, though, are fundamentally similar. Over the years the main difference has been to change details like the testing of retention systems and add shaped anvils (with lower drops).

Brian Walker says that the standards have become less rigorous over time which is certainly true of the Snell standards since the first Snell test would require something like one of those lightweight open-face motorcycle helmets that scooter and moped riders used to wear. Most helmets in the USA are now tested to CPSC, not Snell, and CPSC is self-certified. Brian says that he's had a lot more failures against the EN tests since that happened. Specialized are I think the only major US manufacturer still to use independently verified lot-traceable testing. They are also, according to Brian, the least likely to fail on test.

As to high-speed cycling, the helmets racers wear are not tested to any different standard. In fact, time trial shells used until comparatively recently to be simple fairings with no impact absorption at all. Given that a proportion fail on test in a 1.75m drop onto a flat surface, it always amuses me that some in the racing fraternity expect them to work in 50km/h downhill crashes. Someone (I think it might be Davis) has been compiling some stats on racing fatalities; the rate this decade is said to be somewhat over double the rate in any previous decade. But we don't have much data since racing fatalities are incredibly rare. As are all cycling fatalities, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

EN.1078:

The protection given by a helmet depends on the
circumstances of the accident and wearing a helmet
cannot always prevent death or long term disability.
A proportion of the energy of an impact is absorbed by
the helmet, thereby reducing the force of the blow
sustained by the head. The structure of the helmet may
be damaged in absorbing this energy and any helmet
that sustains a severe blow needs to be replaced even
if damage is not apparent.

The technical committee which has prepared this
standard realizes that it is of importance for the
wearer's comfort and psychrometric performance that
a helmet is ventilated. At the time the standard was
prepared no method for measuring the ventilating
capacity of a helmet was recognized. For that reason
no requirements concerning ventilation or heat
transmission have been introduced. Manufacturers of
helmets are urged to design their helmets to encourage
a flow of air over the wearer's head.

Pedal cyclists' helmets and helmets for users of
skateboards and roller skates are fitted with a
retention system to retain the helmet on the head.
However, there may be a foreseeable risk that helmets
of young children could become trapped and thereby
cause a risk of strangulation of the child. In such cases
an impact protection helmet for young children (see
EN 1080) should be used.

Actually most authorities I've seen recommend a hard-shell helmet and not one of the current brand of bicycle helmets (which have little or no protection to the occiputal region) for roller skating, stunts, unicycling and skateboarding. The new bred of adjustable head cradle was not realy established when EN.1078 was drawn up. I don't think I have a copy of EN.1080 to hand, but I know that following incidents in Sweden and the USA childrens helmet buckles are now designed to release if the helmet becomes trapped. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another photo

I'm going to try to take a photo of two helmets for comparision. There's my "many-vent" type helmet that I use for road riding, and a friend's "hard-lid" type that he uses for mountain bike stunts. Should be a good basis for a comparison of the various kinds.

[edit] Cycling is a factor in head injuries, ergo helmets are good

The following quote is from http: secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_30aug2006_e .

"Cycling as a factor in head injuries

Traumatic head injuries were sustained during sports and recreational activities in 28% of children and youth admitted to hospital for traumatic injury, and 8% of adults. Cycling is one of the leading causes of sports and recreation–related head injury. Of the 4,605 cycling injury hospitalizations in 2003–2004, 18% were due to head injuries. The highest proportion of hospitalizations due to cycling-related head injuries was seen in children and youth (60%).

The number of cycling-related head-injury admissions dropped between 1994–1995 and 2003–2004, particularly among children and youth (under age 20), who experienced a 55% decrease (from 1,085 to 494), with the largest decrease experienced by those aged 5 to 9 years (64%). Adults aged 20 years and older also saw a decrease in cycling-related head-injury hospital admissions, with a 24% decline (from 422 to 321 cases) during the same time period. "

If this is the study I was looking at recently there are at least four problems: first, attributing the change to helmet use is implausible given that a stated 2% of total injuries were due to bicycling and there is no evidence of helmet use in the higher-risk activities of walking and car use; second, the trends for adult and child cyclists are similar but there was no observed change in helmet use rates for adults; third, the severity actually increased, with average hospital stay for cycling head injury going up from 4.3 to 6.9 days whereas stay for general cycling injuries went down from 4.6 to 4.2 days; fourth, the decrease for cycling (55%) was lower than that for falls (58%). So any rational analysis of this data would indicate that helmets are at best irrelevant, both in addressing an insignificant cause, and in failing to differentially impact that cause to any significant extent. Guy 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A personal comment from a cyclist

A lot of contributors, pro and con, are clearly more interested in proving themselves right than in the actual issue (remember what it is? "Do bicycle helmets prevent injury?" in case you missed it). Put me down for the pro-helmet camp - I have an old helmet which has a large hole in it, and a head which doesn't. Cite all the studies you want, my helmet cost me GBP10 and as far as I am concerned has no other downside. "If you have a brain, get a helmet".

Ah, proof by assertion. So much for WP:NPOV. Guy 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risk compensation --motorists

(sigh) I guess I might as well bring this up before the anti-helmet brigade jumps on it. It seems a recent U.K. study suggests that motorists give helmet wearing cyclists less space when passing then non helmet wearers [1].

Actually I've always been sceptical of risk compensation theory. The idea that, as a cyclist, I'm literally going to risk my neck because I have something protecting my cranium doesn't appeal to me.

That said, it may make some sense that motorists see helmeted cyclists as more predictable.

The study also suggests that motorists give women more space. Apparently the researcher put on a long wig for this part of the study. I don't think they avoided him because they thought he was a woman; I think they thought he was a really ugly woman (nice whiskers). -Dhodges 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

...Helemt wearing cyclist inevitably claim they do not take any greater risks because of their helmet use. However, ask them what they'd do if their helmet was lost/stolen half way through a ride, and chances are they state how they'd change their routine: different route home, choose co-riders cerefully, be "extra careful", etc. Almost certainly such extra precautions, normally forgone because of the helmet use, result in significantly greater head-injury protection than the helmet would have, and infinitely greater protection to other types of injury (spinal cord etc). [SPW 10/10/2006]

[edit] What to do with busted helmets

The article states: "Bicycle helmets should always be discarded after any accident."

I have heard that helmet manufacturers would study busted helmets in order to make better ones. Are there currently any organizations that accept used-up helmets for research?

Trek has (or had) a policy by which you could return your damaged helmet to the manufacturer, along with a description of what happened, and they would send you a new one free. I don't know if this is for research purposes, though. GregorB 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHO

I think we should at least mention that the WHO is in favour of helmet compulsion, as they are a fairly important actor in the field. If there's evidence this is a one man crusade put that in to balance it. Peregrine981 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed The WHO is putting this material out. They must exercise some control over what goes out with their name on it. -Dhodges 16:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WHO Helmet Initiative is a one-man crusade by Philip Graitcer. He believes as Received Truth the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson 88% figures. There has been communication between CTC, BHRF and WHO, it is pretty plain that WHO have not investigated the situation at all and are just parrotting the usual claptrap. They are not even aware that there is a conflict between promoting "BIKE DANGER!!!!" WEAR A PLASTIC HAT OR YOU'LL DIE!!!!" and promoting cycling. The WHO's figures for injury reduction are the usual extrapolation from very small case-control studies, and as usual take absolutely no account whatsoever of the observed changes where helmet use has changed over time, which flatly contradict the conclusions of the report. Guy 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They do seem to use a Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson study, although I'm not sure if its the 1989 study, as they cite a report from 2005. Is this just the same old one but repackaged? I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying, but from the standpoint of NPOV, it would be very useful if you could find a credible reference for what you're saying so that we can include it to counter the WHO study. Peregrine981 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TR&T have reworked their data a number of times, but all their reworkings share the same fundamental flaw: they attribute all differences in injury rates between helmet and non-helmet populations to the helmets. This is easily exposed as false by comparing the non-head injury rates. TR&T use exclusively case-control methodologies, and these are simply not predictive. Any prediction of injury reductions based on any figures from case-control studies is wrong. We know it's wrong because there is no known population where an increase in helmet wearing has led to a provable reduction in head injury rates, even where the helmet wearing rate has doubled in a very short period. None of the papers making extravagant claims of injury savings based on extrapolation of case-control data has ever, to my knowledge, accounted for this: they all start from the assumption that the case-control data is accurately predictive, despite the mass of evidence that it isn't. Guy 10:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is good to know. Do you have a reference that we can include so that no pro-helmet zealots can reinsert the report? As it stands now we have a usually reputable source saying that helmets reduce injuries significantly, but not report refuting that claim. It seems like we're introducing our own POV/original research without proper sources. Peregrine981 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait, since my information is that WHO are now waiting for the Cochrane report on helmet legislation before forming a view. Of course this might, like the Cochrane review of helmet research, be a farce, but I hope not since at least some clueful people are involved and are talking to those who do not approach this as a religious issue. Guy 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing Speed

Having stewed over this for some time, I really think we need to look at the whole question of closing speed. That is, the speed the cyclist’s head is going at impact. This is when an injury is going to take place. A brief survey of the ‘Net reveals the combatants in the helmet debate do indeed bandy this term about often postulating closing speeds vastly in excess of what a helmet can absorb.

But, let’s consider the possibility that a person’s head is not going to be going at high speed at impact. Whatever high speed the head was going at prior to impact is irrelevant.

Personal example from when I was young and stupid:

• Little old lady comes out of a side street without seeing me.
• I manage to swerve and avoid her.
• Unfortunately, I plow into the back of a station wagon sitting in traffic.

Impact to head? None actually. The fork and frame of my lovely Motobecane Nomade are thoroughly bent out of shape but my head had decelerated to zero kph well short of the car. Yes, contrary to popular belief, Derek has never sustained a serious head injury .

Another factor I’ve encountered is terminal velocity, the velocity imparted to the head by gravity. I can just about imagine an accident in which the final impact is caused by gravity as gravity takes over from forward momentum. I’d probably have a better time imagining it if I had studied Physics instead of Shakespeare. at university.

I really think we need to get working on the P.O.V issues this article has , perhaps bringing in pro cycling organizations such as BHSI [2][3]. I’ve hesitated to get heavily involved in the physics of the issue since I have no physics past high school. -Dhodges 18:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

BHSI is not a "pro cycling organisation", it's Randy Swart's one man helmet crusade. CTC is a pro-cycling organisation, their stance on helmets is far more cautious. BHSI is absolutely not in any way neutral. The article is, in my view, only biased when viewed from the perspective that helmets are good (or indeed that they are evil). There is a lot of science in there.

The problem here is that there is a quasi-religious movement which believes in helemts, and a sceptical movement which is portrayed as the opposite extreme (often described by the likes of Barry Pless, editor of Injury Prveention, as "anti-helmet zealots"). This is the logocal fallacy of the false middle. I have met a very very small number of people who are actively opposed to helmets, almost exclusively in reaction to the damage caused by helmet promotion to the cause of cycling, helmet promotion and promotion of cycling as a safe mode of transport are generally recognised by all but the single-issue campaigners as being mutually exclusive. Scepticism is the default position ion the scientific method, and the major fault of the likes of Randy Swart is that they require the sceptics to prove the negative while accepting as an article of faith that helmets are unequivocally good. Robinson's recent paper in the BMJ reviewed the measured (as opposed to speculated) effects of increases in helmet use on cyclist head injury rates and found, as others have before and since, no measurable effect. The largest study ever, Rodgers, shows a small but significant increase in risk. So any site that starts from the base premise of benefit, and dismisses contradictory evidence on the basis that it conflicts with this premise, should be treated with caution. It would be a bit like citing Kent Hovind as an authority in an article on evolution :-)

The point about speed is that helmet promoters have in the past said that a helmet which will absorb a 12mph impact will reduce the force of a 30mph impact to 18mph. This is simply false. Energy = 1/2 mv^2 as any fule kno, which means that the effect on an impact significantly above 12mph will be negligible. This is probably one of the many reasons why no real population has ever shown a measurable effect on serious head injuries from increases in helmet use: the collisions which cause serious injury are far beyond the capabilities of helmets. Guy 10:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say pro helmet organization, Derek shoots himself in the foot again. -Dhodges 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] archiving?

BTW, Should we start archiving the discussions on this page? It's getting pretty long. -Dhodges 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Also, an anon added the "accuracy" tag to the lead, but I think we've established that it is accurate from good quality sources above. Guy 09:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page split; separate page for The Controversy, short summary here?

The main page is getting pretty long too. Any opinions on the idea of putting the uncontroversial facts on this page - should keep it very short :_), down as far as the end of section 1.4 I suggest. We would keep only a small summary of the Controversy here and put up another page for the Controversy? I'll check back on comments here, or feel free to email me, but unless I get strong disagreement I'll put up a trial Controversy page in a week or two, other commitments permitting. Richard Keatinge 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I still think it's better in one article. Guy 12:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- thanks Guy and also for those who emailed me; I'll drop the idea for the moment. Richard Keatinge 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation cleanup

The citations in this article need serious work. First off; citations go after the punctuation. Next, please use an appropriate citation template when adding a reference. I've done a bit of cleanup, but more needs to be done. Kellen ^T 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)