Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Fab Foodie]

Think of the children, Dear God Won't somebody please think of the children
Over 318,575 baby & toddler head injuries are recorded each year!
http://www.thudguard.com/

TMN to Cunobelin I think ....

 

[theclaud]

Care to answer the question, or are you going to deflect and prevaricate

 

[Linford]

No, I am reminding you of a question that you didn't address from a few pages back. It is, as far as I am concerned, fundamental to the issue. As a society we have a mindset, that cycling is dangerous and needs a helmet, whilst walking or travelling by car are safe and the idea of suggesting helmets is laughable. The two questions are, what are the relative levels of risk and how much riskier does something have to be to justify the protective apparatus.

Cycling at walking pace...no more risk than walking, get up to average cycling speed and the risks rise. Walking down the stairs and falling could and occasionally does result in fatal head injuries... would a lid help....very possibly.

How many of the pedestrian deaths occur on the roads where they are struck by other vehicles, and how many people die from tripping over a kerbstone or uneven pavements ? (IE no others involved in the accident)

The fundamental difference is that the very vast majority of people will not walk on the road when there is a pavement to walk on along side it.

Now can you answer my question please ?

 

[ufkacbln]

TMN to Cunobelin I think ....

Cheers!

 

[ufkacbln]

The pedestrian (and Thudguard) debate raises an interesting point and that is why it should be included.

A helmet can only work when there is an impact

Lets assume that helmets are effective

Then look at the fact that pedestrian head injuries are in the area of impact energy where helmets are more effective.

Then look at the figures for hospital admissions and compare pedestrian and cyclist figures.

Unequivocally pedestrian helmets would prevent far more of these admissions and would be a far greater and more effective public health intervention than cycle helmets

All we need to do is "educate" the medical staff so that next time you fall over they ask "were you wearing a helmet?"

 

[Linford]

The pedestrian (and Thudguard) debate raises an interesting point and that is why it should be included.

A helmet can only work when there is an impact

Lets assume that helmets are effective

Then look at the fact that pedestrian head injuries are in the area of impact energy where helmets are more effective.

Then look at the figures for hospital admissions and compare pedestrian and cyclist figures.

Unequivocally pedestrian helmets would prevent far more of these admissions and would be a far greater and more effective public health intervention than cycle helmets

All we need to do is "educate" the medical staff so that next time you fall over they ask "were you wearing a helmet?"

As I recall, you work(ed) in radiography....I take it that you asked these questions of the people you dealt with ?

 

[Linford]

Figures for any of that, or are we still with the wisdom of Alf Garnet?

Well you came forth with the comparison between both so I am asking now, and you are answering ?

 

[PpPete]

The pedestrian (and Thudguard) debate raises an interesting point and that is why it should be included.
A helmet can only work when there is an impact
Lets assume that helmets are effective

Then look at the fact that pedestrian head injuries are in the area of impact energy where helmets are more effective.

Then look at the figures for hospital admissions and compare pedestrian and cyclist figures.
Unequivocally pedestrian helmets would prevent far more of these admissions and would be a far greater and more effective public health intervention than cycle helmets
All we need to do is "educate" the medical staff so that next time you fall over they ask "were you wearing a helmet?"

You need to qualify this .... cycle helmets or "walking helmets" are more effective ?

 

[benb]

Regardless of the relative risk difference between walking and cycling, it's clear that pedestrian helmets would save many more lives than cycling helmets, so why is only one promoted?

 

[ufkacbln]

You need to qualify this .... cycle helmets or "walking helmets" are more effective ?

At the moment the only option is the cycle helmet, tested and proven in lower impact energy incidents - that would do as a starting point

 

[Wobblers]

Cycling at walking pace...no more risk than walking, get up to average cycling speed and the risks rise. Walking down the stairs and falling could and occasionally does result in fatal head injuries... would a lid help....very possibly.

How many of the pedestrian deaths occur on the roads where they are struck by other vehicles, and how many people die from tripping over a kerbstone or uneven pavements ? (IE no others involved in the accident)

The fundamental difference is that the very vast majority of people will not walk on the road when there is a pavement to walk on along side it.

Now can you answer my question please ?

From the DfT document @srw referenced, walking has a mortality of ~45/billion km while cycling is a little below 40/billion km. As @User has pointed out before, these statistics are derived from police reports - that is, accidents involving vehicles that the police attend. They do not include fatalities from trips or falls. In other words, the reported fatality figures for pedestrians is very much the minimum figure, the true numbers are not recorded, but will be higher. Quite possibly substantially higher.

Blethering on about pavements is besides the point (and more pedestrians die after being struck by vehicles on the pavement than all cyclist fatalities) - as pedestrians, believe it or not, frequently have to cross roads...

 

[Linford]

What's you taking this got to do with anything being discussed here then Linford? More diversionary blather from you as usual.

It is relevant given what he is asking other healthcare providers to do ...would you not agree ?

 

[PpPete]

At the moment the only option is the cycle helmet, tested and proven in lower impact energy incidents - that would do as a starting point

So ... the conclusion is that cycle helmets will protect you from low energy (=walking or low-speed cycling) impacts.
The converse is also true, they are neither designed for, nor tested in high-energy impacts.
well duh(!) - reading the testing standards could have told you that ! (at which point I refer my honourable friend to my previous posts)

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I was on a ship in the channel yesterday morning in a gale. Twice they had to send a helicopter out because of falls. At least one of these was due to head injuries. I'm fairly sure that had they been wearing helmets the injuries would have been treatable on the ship without the hazardous rescue journeys, not to mention the expense. And yet....classic conditions for issuing helmets but not even a murmur about people not wearing helmets.

 

[ufkacbln]

So ... the conclusion is that cycle helmets will protect you from low energy (=walking or low-speed cycling) impacts.
The converse is also true, they are neither designed for, nor tested in high-energy impacts.
well duh(!) - reading the testing standards could have told you that ! (at which point I refer my honourable friend to my previous posts)

The previous posts where you claimed all the tests were the same (or not) and that Snell B95 helmets were impossible to obtain?