Giro helmets - huge appreciation

[david k]

That was the opinion of the medical professionals who treated me. I happen to agree, having been there at the time.

Sam

the medical profession have been dismissed in the past in terms of having the required knowledge to judge cycle helmets. Are we now saying their opinion is valid?

 

[david k]

I'd prefer to be taught by someone who has practical experience as well as theoretical knowledge.

Sam

and teaching skills


A teacher for example?

 

[tigger]

That was the opinion of the medical professionals who treated me. I happen to agree, having been there at the time.

Sam

Yeah same here. When you've experienced the crash you know exactly what happened, often in slow motion. It was that pause before the side of my head smashed against the road followed by all the noise that remains clear to me.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The opinions of Medical professionals seems to only be accepted when it fits with some peoples personal believe structure. I have seen many posted where it is quoted an A&E Dr told me the helmet saved my life only to have it shot down in flames.

 

[Ravenbait]

the medical profession have been dismissed in the past in terms of having the required knowledge to judge cycle helmets. Are we now saying their opinion is valid?

I will consider continuing the discussion with you when you can tell the difference between reference to a single instance of personal experience, and discussion of trends on a population level. Oh, and when you stop using "arguments" that mean I can fill in an entire card of derailment bingo on a single page of posts.

Sam

 

[Ravenbait]

The opinions of Medical professionals seems to only be accepted when it fits with some peoples personal believe structure. I have seen many posted where it is quoted an A&E Dr told me the helmet saved my life only to have it shot down in flames.

Like I said: I happen to agree, having been there at the time. If they'd told me it had saved my life I doubt I would have been so agreeable, for the same reason of having been there at the time, not because of any over-arching belief structure. If you'd spent a couple of minutes thinking about it you might have realised that prior to this incident I was pro-helmet and wore one whenever I was riding. After the incident I stopped wearing one except when required to by race regulations.

Why can't we just agree that we have different opinions fed by different experiences, and compulsion would remove yet more freedom of choice from the population, as well as exposing a significant percentage of the cycling population to risks that currently they choose to avoid?

Sam

 

[Dan B]

OK. I kind of get your experiences have shown you that with or without helmets you haven't lost your life. But if I understand correctly, both times with a helmet = no head injury, both times without a helmet = some head injury. See to me, I think it shows the helmet had some safety benefit so I'd want to carry on using them. I suppose we're all different

One of the times with a helmet actually I had to withdraw from the race (dizziness, nausea) so I wouldn't say it was that clear-cut. But - without wishing to detract from your opinion - the safety benefit to me of having worn a helmet in those experiences, even if we assume that there are no other situations where it might make an accident worse - was not great enough to make me say "damn, I wish I'd had a lid on those other times". OK, so maybe I got bits of clotted blood in my hair, but in terms of suffering or inconvenience it was nothing compared to the inability to put t-shirts on or tie my own shoelaces for a week, so shouldn't I really be seeking to protect against that in preference?

 

[Red Light]

So in my example you don't think it may have saved my head from injury?

No I don't other than perhaps the odd cut or bruise. The helmet shows none of the tell tale signs that it mitigated an impact that would have been troublesome to an unhelmeted head.

Out of interest, is there any evidence that motorbike, ski, paraglider helmets etc save lives or prevent injuries? Is it helmets per se or just cycling helmets that are unproven?

Motorcycle helmets are as controversial as cycle helmets but with mandatory laws already in place in many countries. Ski helmets have been shown to have the same zero effect as cycle helmets and helmeted skiers ski faster andhave just as many head injuries as non-helmeted skiers.

One Japanese city did an experiment with 90,000 school children with one third given walking helmets and then monitored head injuries in the two groups over 5 years. None were allowed to bus or cycle to school. There was no significant difference in the head injury rate in the two groups.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Like I said: I happen to agree, having been there at the time. If they'd told me it had saved my life I doubt I would have been so agreeable, for the same reason of having been there at the time, not because of any over-arching belief structure. If you'd spent a couple of minutes thinking about it you might have realised that prior to this incident I was pro-helmet and wore one whenever I was riding. After the incident I stopped wearing one except when required to by race regulations.

Why can't we just agree that we have different opinions fed by different experiences, and compulsion would remove yet more freedom of choice from the population, as well as exposing a significant percentage of the cycling population to risks that currently they choose to avoid?

Sam

Sam I am not pro compulsion for adults.

My comment was a simple observation that medical opinion seems to be weight be scales of personal belief. I have respect for your opinion not to use a helmet and an glad that you do not avoid racing because you are made to wear them for it.

Dave

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No I don't other than perhaps the odd cut or bruise. The helmet shows none of the tell tale signs that it mitigated an impact that would have been troublesome to an unhelmeted head.



Motorcycle helmets are as controversial as cycle helmets but with mandatory laws already in place in many countries. Ski helmets have been shown to have the same zero effect as cycle helmets and helmeted skiers ski faster andhave just as many head injuries as non-helmeted skiers.

One Japanese city did an experiment with 90,000 school children with one third given walking helmets and then monitored head injuries in the two groups over 5 years. None were allowed to bus or cycle to school. There was no significant difference in the head injury rate in the two groups.

So to paraphrase - The conclusion is that helmets are pointless.

 

[tigger]

No I don't other than perhaps the odd cut or bruise. The helmet shows none of the tell tale signs that it mitigated an impact that would have been troublesome to an unhelmeted head.

Have a look at my post a few pages back now - there's no such thing as a tell tale sign

 

[mickle]

So is there any point in any kind of helmet at all?

Putting risk compensation aside for a moment. My personal view is that the widespread adoption of bicycle helmets suggests to the general (cycling and non-cycling) public that cycling is a 'dangerous' activity. Well it must be dangerous, why else would they all wear helmets? By wearing a helmet we propagate that myth. Anything which puts people off cycling is a Bad Thing. Every bicycle helmet is an attack on cycling.

Cycling - as we all know from analysing the statistics - is not a dangerous activity in itself. As we know: the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by a factor of twenty to one. Any danger posed to cyclists is delivered by other road users. If we want to remove that danger it seems to me perverse and wholly unfair that the victims of the danger be obliged to 'protect' themselves. It would be like suggesting that people must wear bullet-proof vests because someone is shooting off an AK-47 nearby.

And they are a false sense of security - you only have to look at what is involved in the official test procedures to see that.

I would much rather ride my bicycle in a way which minimises my exposure to danger than wear a lump of foam on my head in the delusion that it will do me any good when I fall.

And as Cunobelin so lucidly illustrates - by any measure, cyclists are way down the list of people who should be wearing head protection.

So, they don't work, they don't deal with the actual danger which would be a better target for our efforts, and even if they did we'd save more injury and deaths by making drunks wear them.

There is a massive industry behind cycle helmets - don't believe the hype.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Putting risk compensation aside for a moment. My personal view is that the widespread adoption of bicycle helmets suggests to the general (cycling and non-cycling) public that cycling is a 'dangerous' activity. Well it must be dangerous, why else would they all wear helmets? By wearing a helmet we propagate that myth. Anything which puts people off cycling is a Bad Thing. Every bicycle helmet is an attack on cycling.

Cycling - as we all know from analysing the statistics - is not a dangerous activity in itself. As we know: the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by a factor of twenty to one. Any danger posed to cyclists is delivered by other road users. If we want to remove that danger it seems to me perverse and wholly unfair that the victims of the danger be obliged to 'protect' themselves. It would be like suggesting that people must wear bullet-proof vests because someone is shooting off an AK-47 nearby.

And they are a false sense of security - you only have to look at what is involved in the official test procedures to see that.

I would much rather ride my bicycle in a way which minimises my exposure to danger than wear a lump of foam on my head in the delusion that it will do me any good when I fall.

And as Cunobelin so lucidly illustrates - by any measure, cyclists are way down the list of people who should be wearing head protection.

So, they don't work, they don't deal with the actual danger which would be a better target for our efforts, and even if they did we'd save more injury and deaths by making drunks wear them.

There is a massive industry behind cycle helmets - don't believe the hype.

Thank you. A very well constructed and rational argument. I will still continue to wear mine but I respect adults who choose not to as I have said.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

There is a massive industry behind cycle helmets - don't believe the hype.

Cotton cap time in 16 minutes and counting.

 

[Dan B]

I guess that when they [Doctors] say "your helmet edge caught on a drain cover and whipped your neck around", it is fairly obvious that without the helmet there would have been no edge to catch, or if you were to be told "your helmet stopped the bullet" where it is fairly obvious that without the helmet the bullet would have hit the skull, you can pretty much take that on trust as a fact. If they say "your helmet saved your life" or "your helmet killed you" without reference to how it did this, it's probably not unreasonable to want to inquire further.