Has your helmet saved your life poll

[snorri]

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

What were you hoping for? Perhaps I can clarify my reponse.

 

[screenman]

I was hoping for details of the accident, how it happened, how you can be sure that the helmet contributed to the injury, what would have happened had you not had the helmet on. Details that is all I was after.

 

[screenman]

Have you asked for it?

 

[snorri]

I was hoping for details of the accident, how it happened, how you can be sure that the helmet contributed to the injury, what would have happened had you not had the helmet on. Details that is all I was after.

OK. I had passed through this area on numerous occasions without incident and without helmet, my senses are such that I was able to avoid contact with anything. On the one occasion I entered with a helmet, with the benefit of hindsight I can say that I failed to allow sufficient clearance for the helmet which crashed against a low beam resulting in a jarred neck. If I had not been wearing the helmet there was no reason to think I would have collided with anything, I had never collided with anything before.
The point being, IME wearing a helmet increases the risk of contact with adjacent surfaces, which is more likely to result in neck injury rather than head injury. The report pasted by pedro upthread related only to the effect of helmet wearing on head injury but ignored neck and spine injury which IMO provided a rather selective view.

 

[ufkacbln]

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?

No misunderstanding at all, simply a refusal on Pedro's part to read, or believe any evidence that helmets have limitations.



That is why it was so funny when he started contradicting his own statements

 

[Canrider]

I have shown evidence does exist. In fact there is a lot more out there.

I'm afraid all your cut-and-paste shows is that certain claims have been made. 'Showing evidence' would require you to demonstrate some understanding of how those claims came to be made.
For example, the dataset which was used to suggest helmets prevented 85% of head injuries *also* suggests that helmets somehow prevented 72% of injuries to the rest of the body. It further suggests that helmeted cyclists are about 6x more likely to have accidents than those without.

 

[screenman]

I have no doubt at all that helmets have limitations. Although I still choose to wear one and feel on more than one occasion that it may have saved my head from major abrasions.

I also have no doubt that the collision Snorri had whilst wearing a helmet whilst walking shows that is not such a good idea as many of you suggest.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

No misunderstanding at all, simply a refusal on Pedro's part to read, or believe any evidence that helmets have limitations.

I have not seen backtracking like this!!! Classic.
At least you are now admitting that cycle helmets only have limitations. The first step, Cunobelin, is to admitting you were wrong.

That is why it was so funny when he started contradicting his own statements

A typical answer from someone who lost some time ago.............

Damn it!!! I said i wouldn't post again!! Bad influence the lot of you. Next i'll be riding everywhere with a bandana instead of my, proven to work at some level, road cycle helmet.

Edit: To others claiming the stats like the 85% claims are selective or inaccurate, i suggest you take another look at them all. Not just the ones you can selectively refute.

Adios.

 

[mickle]

Bye again.

 

[srw]

You mean like this?

Pedro - here's something for you to do.

i suggest you take another look at them all.

 

[dellzeqq]

Adios.

close the door!

 

[theclaud]

Bye again.

I'd have called Smeggers in sooner, but I know a Quadruple-Stage Dummy-Enflouncement with Backward Loop Idiot Flourish when I see one.

 

[StuartG]

Stand to attention losers. Here is one Pedro's dad did earlier:

 

[User6179]

It might be necessary to let him have the last word.

I think his chances of that are very slim!

 

[ufkacbln]

I have not seen backtracking like this!!! Classic.
At least you are now admitting that cycle helmets only have limitations. The first step, Cunobelin, is to admitting you were wrong.


A typical answer from someone who lost some time agoDamn it!!! I said i wouldn't post again!! Bad influence the lot of you. Next i'll be riding everywhere with a bandana instead of my, proven to work at some level, road cycle helmet.

Edit: To others claiming the stats like the 85% claims are selective or inaccurate, i suggest you take another look at them all. Not just the ones you can selectively refute.

Adios.

Is there any chance of answering the issue posed by this other small confusion on your part:

• "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