Aussie helmet laws back in spotlight as A&E doctor backs compulsion

Readers need to be aware that the research by Chris Rissel and Alex Voukelatos referred to in this article was found to contain serious arithmetic and data errors, and was subsequently retracted by the scientific journal which published it - see http://goo.gl/m1biA

By comparison, the data used to prepare the report on motorcyclist injuries before and post laws on helmet wearing in the UK came from a rather wider source. Accidents statistics from right across the UK were used. And, as previously mentioned, the issue of helmet use amongst motorcyclists is entirely different from that of cyclists. Basically, motorcycles move faster so the risk of head injury is greater in the event of a spill while motorcycle helmets are also more substantial and offer far greater protection than any flimsy cycle helmet.

"As a public protest, Chris Rissel, an associate professor in Sydney University's school of public health, has stopped wearing his cycling helmet. Last month Rissel co-wrote a paper published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety that looked at the number of cycling-related injuries admitted to NSW hospitals between 1989 - a year before helmets were made mandatory in this state - and in 2008. It found an initial small drop in the number of cycling head injuries, with figures flat ever since."

Neurosurgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld "who steers the National Trauma Research Institute's neurotrauma evidence translation committee at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne" and is "former head of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' Victorian Road Trauma Committee" said the following in an article in the SMH:

"Rissel's paper on the NSW figures is "fairly flimsy", with inconsistent injury data, no observational figures on helmet wearing before and after legislation, and including only cyclists admitted to hospital, which leaves out patients who died before getting to hospital, were treated as outpatients, or were so protected they did not need to go to a hospital. The Rissel paper also relied on the ratio of head to arm injuries, but that ratio can be altered by changes to either category. "It's a limited paper which didn't go to a very notable journal," McDermott says. "I think if it went to any reputable journal they would have sent it back and said, 'Rewrite it.'"

"The issue of helmet compulsion is an emotive one in Australia, dividing even cycling lobbyists into pro and anti camps. Dr Rissel’s suggestion of a trial assessment, for example, received the backing of Stephen Hodge of the Cycling Promotion Fund, which promotes safe cycling in Australia, but was rejected by the chief executive of the cycling lobby group, Bike NSW, Omar Khalifa."

Umm, no - it's an emotive issue in the UK. It's just not an issue in Australia.

I'd never heard of the Cycling Promotion Fund - turns out that it's a bicycle industry group, not a cyclists group - and nowhere on its website does it advocate the repeal of the helmet laws. In fact it has lots of photos of people wearing them and lists them in a beginners article as an accessory you will need. Mr Hodge appears to be quite good at giving sound bites for the media but knowing some of the CPF members I'd be surprised if they agreed with him on this or if his comments represented the CPF's official view.

6 unhelmeted cyclists had serious head injuries. This is not a big enough sample to draw any real conclusions from. HE also does not take account of other factors, like how many cyclists wear helmets, their cycling style etc. It reminds me of the 85% figure so readily banded around.
Also as an Asthma specialist, I would have thought Dr Dinh would want to encourage people out of their cars, and to exercise.

The article's conclusion is based on only 26 unhelmeted riders over three years. Maybe the results can be attributed to their age group, behaviour or state of alcohol consumption. We do not know and the Doctor doesn't appear to know either.

Wish those Aussies would put a lid on this fuss

In a society where helmet use is compulsory, is it any surprise that the folks that are breaking the law are the more reckless ones? this is just a classic case of cause and effect getting mixed up.

Wrong one, it was Rik Mayall...

Hmm, it's not hard to prove that helmets protect heads but it is another matter entirely to prove that they are an effective road safety aid.

As is highlighted in the piece, studies that differentiate head injuries from general injuries monitor the effectiveness of helmets *far* better than just looking at head injuries in isolation. In such a case the complete picure is missed. Doctors are not necessarily experts in statistical analysis or road safety!

And then there is the question of who was responsible for causing the head injury in the first place. Would a doctor advocate the complusory wearing of bullet-proof vests to reduce gunshot wounds?