Giro helmets - huge appreciation

[lukesdad]

I will apologise as you are indeed correct.

Apology accepted.

My main point on your canadian line of enquiry and a lot of similar surveys and reports is that you can never have a balanced debate. On the one hand you have reported injuries that involve the use or not as the case may be of helmets. This can of course be examined and dissected. What you dont have is the other side of the story. Which is unreported accidents where a helmet may have saved injuries. This you cannot examine or dissect because there is a complete lack of information.

It makes it a very one sided arguement. Or cant you see that ?

 

[Red Light]

Apology accepted.

My main point on your canadian line of enquiry and a lot of similar surveys and reports is that you can never have a balanced debate. On the one hand you have reported injuries that involve the use or not as the case may be of helmets. This can of course be examined and dissected. What you dont have is the other side of the story. Which is unreported accidents where a helmet may have saved injuries. This you cannot examine or dissect because there is a complete lack of information.

It makes it a very one sided arguement. Or cant you see that ?

But the logic doesn't follow. The only logical consequence of what you are suggesting is that accidents have gone up.

Lets say before hand there are H head injury accidents out of A reported accidents. The %HI is H/A with H<A. Now assume that the total number of reported accidents is reduced by X and that is because they have moved from being reported head injury accidents to unreported non-head injury accidents as a result of a head injury no longer occurring consequent on a helmet having been worn. So the number of reported accidents has decreased by X and the number of head injuries has also decreased by X.

So the new %HI is (H-X)/(A-X). Now because A>H, for all positive values of X (H-X)/(A-X) < H/A i.e. the %HI will have fallen. You can work it through for other combinations such as head injury reported accidents being converted to non-head injury reported accidents and come to the same conclusion. The only way you can convert head injuries to non-head injuries (what is claimed for the helmet) and not decrease %HI is if the total number of accidents has risen but the percentage which result in head injuries drops to give no net change.

 

[tigger]

As I've said to you many times before on here, it doesn't concern me one iota what you choose to wear on your head and I suspect it doesn't concern most others here either. But if you want to come here with a mixture of personal beliefs, anecdotes and hand waving and claim it is evidence that people should wear helmets then expect to be challenged. I have yet to see you put up one piece of hard evidence forward to support your claims.

OK this is a strawpoll / case study in isolation. It doesn't involve numbers at all.

I had a relatively high speed accident. An animal ran out and hit my front wheel. This resulted in the bike tipping out from underneath me. I hit the ground hard at speed, first my shoulder, then the side of my head, elbow, thigh, hip, knee and ankle. I slid along the road on my left side until I came to a stop. I was wearing a helmet, long sleeve jersey, bib shorts, socks and cycling shoes.

The resulting damage was a broken collar bone on the left side, severe and deep wounds to my left elbow and knee, bad road rash and bruising to my left hip, and more mild grazing to my left ankle. There was no other damage.

Given all the above, in this instance, do you consider the helmet was a benefit?

 

[Red Light]

Wrong continent I believe and wrong survey but there you go thats the problem with so many surveys and so many survey interpreters

Here is the data you wanted:

• school students riding to/from NSW schools: total counts 3107 in 1991 to 1648 in 1993, a drop of 47%
• for female students the figures were 654 in 1991 down to 222 in 1993, a drop of 64%
• for secondary female students the reduction in cycling was greater: 455 in 1991 to 106 in 1993, a drop of 77%
• for secondary children cycling to school in Sydney the reduction was from 904 to 294, a drop of 67%.
• the largest reduction in cycling was among secondary female students in Sydney: 214 in 1991 down to 20 in 1993, a drop of 90.6%

From An observational survey of law compliance and helmet wearing by bicyclists in New South Wales - 1993

HTH

 

[david k]

As I've said to you many times before on here, it doesn't concern me one iota what you choose to wear on your head and I suspect it doesn't concern most others here either. But if you want to come here with a mixture of personal beliefs, anecdotes and hand waving and claim it is evidence that people should wear helmets then expect to be challenged. I have yet to see you put up one piece of hard evidence forward to support your claims.

correct

 

[david k]

OK this is a strawpoll / case study in isolation. It doesn't involve numbers at all.

I had a relatively high speed accident. An animal ran out and hit my front wheel. This resulted in the bike tipping out from underneath me. I hit the ground hard at speed, first my shoulder, then the side of my head, elbow, thigh, hip, knee and ankle. I slid along the road on my left side until I came to a stop. I was wearing a helmet, long sleeve jersey, bib shorts, socks and cycling shoes.

The resulting damage was a broken collar bone on the left side, severe and deep wounds to my left elbow and knee, bad road rash and bruising to my left hip, and more mild grazing to my left ankle. There was no other damage.

Given all the above, in this instance, do you consider the helmet was a benefit?

from what you say it does appear so

 

[Red Light]

OK this is a strawpoll / case study in isolation. It doesn't involve numbers at all.

I had a relatively high speed accident. An animal ran out and hit my front wheel. This resulted in the bike tipping out from underneath me. I hit the ground hard at speed, first my shoulder, then the side of my head, elbow, thigh, hip, knee and ankle. I slid along the road on my left side until I came to a stop. I was wearing a helmet, long sleeve jersey, bib shorts, socks and cycling shoes.

The resulting damage was a broken collar bone on the left side, severe and deep wounds to my left elbow and knee, bad road rash and bruising to my left hip, and more mild grazing to my left ankle. There was no other damage.

Given all the above, in this instance, do you consider the helmet was a benefit?

Its purely speculation without photos and the helmet to look at but my guess would be that you did a typical cyclist high speed fall in which you rolled and slid on your body and arms and kept your head clear of the ground. Your helmet from your description is cracked. If it had done anything to mitigate an impact you would have seen a circular area of heavily compressed polystyrene. The fact that you didn't (or at least you haven't reported it despite being given the opportunity to) and it was visibly not the case in gaz's helmet photos means your heads probably never hit the inside of the helmet with a force even equivalent to a 12.5mph impact (that being the speed at which you should get bottomed out compression of the foam). You see the helmet is designed to work by decelerating you head slowly over the distance of the foam thickness as it compresses rather than abruptly as the bare head hits the object. That compression is non-reversible so its not that its sprung back, its designed to stay compressed. So no compression means no force had been applied to the outside of the helmet big enough to push it against the head and crush the foam. If the force is that low it is very unlikely to have caused injury if applied directly to the head. Fracture often occurs because a vent of something catches on the way and snaps the polystyrene in two which is very easy to do, unlike compressing it.

Just my speculative $0.02 since you asked for it.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Wrong, they're folded over on each other as the OS has been saying for years

Bloody OS what do they know!!!!!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No its called Civil Service inertia. Its why the MoD has warehouses full of WW1 donkey harnesses all being carefully stored and looked after. As Tony Blair put it after the election last year:

"The civil service tended to inertia. They are not for you or against you. It can be a plot to maintain the status quo."

Sorry Tony Blair is not someone I would trust to give me the right change from a £1 coin.

 

[david k]

As I've said to you many times before on here, it doesn't concern me one iota what you choose to wear on your head and I suspect it doesn't concern most others here either. But if you want to come here with a mixture of personal beliefs, anecdotes and hand waving and claim it is evidence that people should wear helmets then expect to be challenged. I have yet to see you put up one piece of hard evidence forward to support your claims.

if you want to come here with a mixture of personal beliefs, yes i have personal beliefs
anecdotes - yes ive used my own sons example, used examples of banging my head against a wall with and without helmet
hand waving - no, not done that one, not possible on a forum like this
claim it is evidence - not really claimed it as evidence but i suppose it could be seen that way. However, what ever i do claim its up to the person reading whether they believe it or not, some evidence is stronger than others. Just because it is my own and therefore difficult to prove does not mean it should be discounted completely, however if you wish to ignore it then fine, cherry pick what suits you
I have yet to see you put up one piece of hard evidence forward to support your claims - What claims? That i prefer to wear a helmet, why do i need to prove it with HARD evidence ?
Maybe you chose not to wear a helmet or believe anything before wearing a helmet, that is your choice.
If you need hard evidence before deciding to wear a helmet or not how do you get through daily life? You my not have any confidence to form or trust your own judgement but I can decide for myself if i want to wear a helmet, i wont ask for HARD evidence first


Ive used this quote before and still like it
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The bible according to Red Light ?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Apology accepted.

My main point on your canadian line of enquiry and a lot of similar surveys and reports is that you can never have a balanced debate. On the one hand you have reported injuries that involve the use or not as the case may be of helmets. This can of course be examined and dissected. What you dont have is the other side of the story. Which is unreported accidents where a helmet may have saved injuries. This you cannot examine or dissect because there is a complete lack of information.

It makes it a very one sided arguement. Or cant you see that ?

It's rather like the argument that the elderly are better drivers according to insurance companies. They base this on the fact the elderly make fewer accident claims. There is a large piece of the puzzle missing however and that is the elderly are far more likely to settle without going through their insurance company. Thus the insurance data is skewed.

 

[david k]

It's rather like the argument that the elderly are better drivers according to insurance companies. They base this on the fact the elderly make fewer accident claims. There is a large piece of the puzzle missing however and that is the elderly are far more likely to settle without going through their insurance company. Thus the insurance data is skewed.

ad make less journeys, cover less miles etc etc

 

[Angelfishsolo]

ad make less journeys, cover less miles etc etc

you got it.

 

[david k]

i havnt used a stat to attempt to prove my own beliefs, those who are doing are being selective, then get frustrated when their 'evidence' isnt accepted without being challenged, pot and kettle spring to mind