Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Pedrosanchezo]

Congratulations Pedro. You have very effectively cherry-picked your data. Fortunately you've done it in such a way that it is very obvious. The number of times you typed 85% might have been a clue. Most of those reports seem to be based on a single study - one that's criticised in the second of your snippets. Further, if you read either Franklin or the other ink you originally provided you'll see that your selection is partial and misleading. Your evidence is not irrelevant (and no-one ever said it was.) It's partial.

I never typed, merely copied and pasted. You will actually find it is mostly from differing studies. I find the more recent SWOV fact sheet to be very informative. As will many with an open mind.

"Your evidence is not irrelevant (and no-one ever said it was.)"

No one ever said it was?? Many on this thread have claimed that no significant evidence exists. Many times. I have shown evidence does exist. In fact there is a lot more out there.

Regarding "partial and misleading". Are you kidding??

I have merely thrown you a life jacket. It's up to you to let go of the denial weighing you down and grabbing hold of it. Wouldn't want you to drown in the sea of ignorance. You recently concerned yourself with a similar demise for myself. Seems fair to extend the same courtesy.

 

[Norm]

Your evidence is not irrelevant (and no-one ever said it was.) It's partial.

That's not strictly true, srw, as I have pointed out that the 'evidence' which he posted here was irrelevant as it puts pedestrians in with car occupants (in the highest category) and it puts motorbikes and cyclists together. The irony that he was trying to use it to show that walking is safer than cycling has been forever lost on him.

 

[srw]

I find the more recent SWOV fact sheet to be very informative.

So what conclusions do you draw from that fact sheet?

 

[srw]

That's not strictly true, srw, as I have pointed out that the 'evidence' which he posted here was irrelevant as it puts pedestrians in with car occupants (in the highest category) and it puts motorbikes and cyclists together. The irony that he was trying to use it to show that walking is safer than cycling has been forever lost on him.

True. I was referring specifically to the first two papers he cited. Which are a partial survey of the evidence.

 

[Poacher]

Pedro, you can save yourself some time by accessing http://www.helmets.org/index.htm. Many of their favourite links also refer to 85% or 88% reduction in risk, so you can cut and paste to your heart's content. Others on this forum may prefer http://www.cyclehelmets.org/.
I'll happily confess that I prefer the latter, but let's see if we can crack the magic 100 pages before we all tire of this topic.

 

[ufkacbln]

I'd rather a debate based on individual opinion but if you want stats.................^^^^^^^

I look forward to finding out how EVERY one of them is "irrelevant".

This is very funny.....

It merely illustrates hat you have (again) missed the point entirely.

..and it still avoids the simple question you have been asked numerous times.

Lets try again..... You have dismissed "Snag points" yet now quoted the same organisation that you claimed was talking rubbish!

Now you are accepting international standards and research, lets ask once again why you are accepting an inferior standard of protection when you could be increasing that protection by wearing a "rounder, smoother, safer" helmet with Snell B95 certificaion

 

[ufkacbln]

Pedro, you can save yourself some time by accessing http://www.helmets.org/index.htm. Many of their favourite links also refer to 85% or 88% reduction in risk, so you can cut and paste to your heart's content. Others on this forum may prefer http://www.cyclehelmets.org/.
I'll happily confess that I prefer the latter, but let's see if we can crack the magic 100 pages before we all tire of this topic.

It is very funny that he is now quoting BHSI

This is the pro-helmet site that states:

If all else were equal, more vents would be a Good Thing, but as usual, all else is not equal. Unfortunately opening up new vents usually requires harder, more dense foam and squaring off the edges of the remaining foam ribs to squeeze out the most impact protection possible from the narrower pieces still there. Since we believe that rounder shells and less dense foam are virtues in a crash, we don't recommend hyper-vented helmets unless you can't live without the added ventilation.
Although it may not be self-evident, the normal vents in the good helmets since the mid-1990's have proven adequate for almost all riding by almost all riders in almost all conditions. To provide impact protection with less foam the manufacturers normally have to harden the remaining foam, so that the force of a blow is transmitted to the rider's head with more pressure on one particular spot.

Backing up the issues of modern materials offering less protection

Then there is the (dismissed) Snag points

This is not an optimal design for crashing. We believe that the ideal surface for striking a road resembles a bowling ball: hard, smooth and round. Round shells reduce to a minimum any tendency for a helmet to "stick" to the surface when you hit, with the possibility of increasing impact intensity, contributing to rotational brain injury or jerking the rider's neck. They also eliminate the aero tail that can snag, or in a backward impact can shove the helmet aside as you hit, exposing your bare head. This is such a problem with some models that lab technicians have to use copious amounts of duct tape to keep some helmets on the headform in their test drops, even after they have pulled the straps extra-tight.

To reduce potential snagging points to a minimum we would prefer helmets with vents and ribs well faired and rounded. Although the swing to "compact" designs has been an improvement, some current models still have a "shelf" effect in the rear that adds to helmet length but also adds a prominent snag point, a feature we would avoid. We would note that none of the world's bicycle helmet standards includes a test for this, despite the studies cited above that have shown with lab tests that helmets that do not slide well can cause higher neck forces, higher chin strap forces and increased g's to the brain from the impact.

When choosing a helmet:

You want a smoothly rounded outer shell, with no sharp ribs or snag points. Excessive vents mean less foam contacting your head, which could concentrate force on one point. Helmet standards do not address these problems--it's up to you!

The other nugget is that the (dicredited ) Rivara article is again offered up. However lets accept the article for the moment as Rivara carried on to do further research in children and concluded that helmets can double the chance of injury!

Individuals whose helmets were reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold increased risk of head injury compared with those whose helmets fit well. Children with head injuries had helmets which were significantly wider than their heads compared with children without head injuries. Helmet fit was poorer among males and among younger children.
Conclusions—Poor fit of helmets may be associated with an increased risk of head injury in children, especially in males. Helmets may not be designed to provide optimal protection.

 

[snorri]

Snorri, please explain more, as the damage helmets can do is a subject I would like to gather information on.

I think it is generally accepted that a helmettted head gets more bumps than a bare head, and while the helmet protects the head from minor injury it also transfers the impact down to the neck or spine making helmet wearers more susceptible to neck and spine injuries.

 

[srw]

But, as with everything else here, the numbers of incidents themselves are so small as to be almost trivial.

Which reminds me. When Pedro has offered an opinion I'll tell you the main thing I took away from his fact sheet.

 

[srw]

Actually, it occurs to me that if someone had some time on their hands and wanted to do something worthwhile they could do worse than transcribe all the anecdote in the couple of million articles in this database into a corpus of data. I suspect that might demonstrate quite how safe riding a bike actually is.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Well i showed clear evidence. A cycle helmet can help protect your head! Those who wish to ignore it and selectively choose their own evidence, by all means do so.

I've made my choices. I'll live with them. Don't worry, you don't have to.

Maybe if you hadn't claimed there was zero to little "significant" evidence, to support the use of cycle helmets, then you would not be left wondering how you lost this debate............

Pedro out.

Best wishes folks.

 

[screenman]

Snorri, that is not what I was hoping for, but it was certainly the reply I expected. In other words a load of nothing.

 

[ufkacbln]

Well i showed clear evidence. A cycle helmet can help protect your head! Those who wish to ignore it and selectively choose their own evidence, by all means do so.

I've made my choices. I'll live with them. Don't worry, you don't have to.

Maybe if you hadn't claimed there was zero to little "significant" evidence, to support the use of cycle helmets, then you would not be left wondering how you lost this debate............

Pedro out.

Best wishes folks.

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth

 

[ufkacbln]

• "Helmets decreased the risk of head injury by 69 percent, brain injury by 65 percent, and severe brain injury by 74 percent. These results, using emergency room controls, are the same as the results obtained in our 1989 study. Had it been possible to use population controls in the current study, the overall protectiveness rate of 85 percent for head injury and 88 percent for brain injury reported in our prior work would in all likelihood have been obtained.
• Helmets work equally well in all age groups examined. There is no evidence supporting the need for a separate standard for young children.
• Helmets were equally effective in protecting cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles and those not involving motor vehicles.
• Helmets provide substantial protection against lacerations and fractures to the upper- and mid- face, but appear to offer little protection to the lower face.
• Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.
• Hard-shell, thin-shell and no-shell helmets had similar protective qualities. Hard-shell helmets, however, may offer greater protection against severe brain injury.
• The major site of helmet damage was to the rim in the frontal region".

Source: http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report.html (Snell).f

Yet when Snell certification was discussed earlier, your opinion of the Snell Memorial Foundation's work was:

Funny how some don't want to talk about America or outside of the UK until it supports their argument. In kentucky it is also illegal to have an ice cream in your back pocket and you must not handle reptiles during church services. I think that is based on a similar series of tests carried out in America.

Ironic really that you have now presented as evidence an organisation that you yourself dismissed earlier.

Now which one will it be....

Is the Snell Foundation creditable and we should heed their advice as you have suggested, or irrelevant and we should ignore them as you have also suggested.

It is a little confusing when someone disproves their own claims

Can you enlighten us as to which you now want to accept

 

[User6179]

Seems to me thar Pedro is arguing the point that helmets save lives and the rest are not disagreeing but saying there are better helmets and that in some circumstances your typical helmet ( giro, bell, etc) because of design can actually cause injuries.

I think you have been misunderstanding each others opininion maybe?