Return to talk of the helmet. A study published in October said that not is clear the effect protective of the helmet facing bleeding cranial, and that makes missing more research on this topic.
The study seems to ratify what we have already commented here once: that bicycle helmet has a problem with approval. The authors indicate that the helmet offered significant protection against the external lacerations, fractures of the skull or the facial. However, discarded significant helmet effectiveness cervical fractures and intracranial hemorrhages.
Table 2 of the article: comparison of the percentage of cyclists with and without helmet that suffered various types of wounds. Differences in bold – p – value are statistically significant.
What means all this?
Take things calmly. The authors indicate that town, in the 709 rough riders of Arizona which includes this website, and with the approval and the characteristics of use and traffic there, had no significant influence against intracranial hemorrhage. Now well, the population of the study is low, so them authors not say categorically that not serve, but makes missing more research on the subject.
It protected lacerations and fractures, so it seems that the town still has some effectiveness. So we keep saying the same thing: it is good idea to town, both to prejudice, in principle, is not going to cause, although it cannot expect wonders and is still good idea to take precautionary measures to avoid the accident, as that have counted it some time. The helmet does not protect both as some seem to believe.
What can we do?
He problem, although them authors not it broken down, surely is the of always: the helmet, designed for accidents in which the cyclists are alone, not can protect facing accidents with intervention of vehicles to motor, that are which cause injured more serious in reason to them speeds that reach.
Them actions facing this type of accidents not can limit is to put helmets: there is that avoid that is produce, and that is achieved by multiple pathways:
- Trained to motorists respect riders when track, to be shared when you opt for this type of infrastructure
- Promoting the use of bicycle, since more bicycles on the streets bring safety in numbers, more and better “bicycle culture” and reduction of the speed of traffic in cities
- Forming the riders so that they are visible and predictable and avoid risky behaviors (as not to carry lights, across pedestrian crossings, make eses, etc)
- Drivers and cyclists in higher speed roads, to segregate or where the speed difference between the two is going to be very large – as in areas with steep slopes –
- Reducing the speed of the drivers in the way shared
There are no magic recipes and the town it is not.
Another possibility is reinforce them helmets, imposing an approval more strict, but them manufacturers of helmets indicate that a helmet effective facing this type of accidents would be similar to a helmet of motorcycle, what would be more uncomfortable by ventilation and weight, could subtract visibility side-by its different design- and could result in lower adoption of the helmet. Wow, that could be counterproductive.
The article summary (abstract)
If you want to read in Castilian, I it translate.
The trauma brain injury is the main cause of disability among cyclists. Proposed preventive measures such as mandatory helmet laws; However, its protection capacity has always been a source of debate. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of the bicycle helmets in the prevention of intracranial hemorrhage. Our original hypothesis was that bicycle helmets were protection and avoided the appearance of intracranial hemorrhage.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of cohort for 4 years (2009-2012) of all patients presenting with trauma related to bike to our level i. trauma center compared the riders carrying and carrying no town opposite differences in patterns of damage, need for admission to intensive care and mortality.
We evaluated a total of 864 patients, of whom 709 (300 helmeted, 409 UN-hulled) were included in the analysis. Cyclists without helmets were more likely (p < 0.001) young, male (p = 0.01). Not there was difference on the ISS (injury severity score) medium between both groups (p = 0.3). Cyclists without helmets were more likely to skull fracture (p = 0.01) and lacerations on the scalp (p = 0.01) compared with those who wore a helmet. Not there was differences in hemorrhage intracranial between the two groups (p = 0.1). Wear helmet nor presented Association independent (p = 0.1) with the development of hemorrhage intracranial.
Them helmets of bike can have effect protective facing injured external in the head, but their paper protective front hemorrhage intracranial is questionable. They are more studies needed to identify the protective role of helmets against intracranial hemorrhage.