Has your helmet saved your life poll

[lay]

What are you saying, you can dish it out but you can't take it?

What am i 'dishing' Dan - to wear a helmet - no jibes against anyone personally !

 

[ufkacbln]

@lay

I would like this clearly in the public domain......There is no "personal vibe" as you have asked in the PM

You are making a series of ridiculous, ill informed, impolite and insulting posts on a public forum, I am politely answering those posts and simply pointing out why your claims are equally relevant to pedesrian and child safety.

 

[theclaud]

Unsafe pedestrian behavior is a major factor in pedestrian injuries and fatalities. In a recent study of 7,000 pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Florida, researchers discovered that pedestrians were at fault in 80 percent of these incidents.8 Similarly, in a U.K. study, pedestrian behavior accounted for 90 percent of crashes where vehicle struck a pedestrian.9

Sorry, but I think this is utter cobblers.

 

[ufkacbln]

Dog walkers can be as smart as they want but if family and friends hear of an accident involving them and they say; 'Were they wearing a helmet?' and the dog walker's family member says; 'No, it was their choice':
Whats the reaction? - if it was me it'd be; 'aahhh thats a shame you're better with a helmet when walking a dog than without: its TOTALLY PATHETICALLY STUPID !

Again - absolute proof that wearing a helmet while walking your dog is essential!


As for the car occupants who suffer between 6 and 8 times the number of head injuries that cyclists do:

CAr drivers can be as smart as they want but if family and friends hear of an accident involving them and they say; 'Were they wearing a helmet?' and the car driver's family member says; 'No, it was their choice':
Whats the reaction? - if it was me it'd be; 'aahhh thats a shame you're better with a helmet when driving than without: its TOTALLY PATHETICALLY STUPID !

Absolute proof for car helmets?

 

[Big Nick]

If you believe as you have now stated on two occasions that pedestrians are only killed whilst crossing the road and not whilst using the pavement or verge, and you believe that your quote is evidence of this, I suggest you need to hone your Google skills a little.

I said pretty much which doesn't mean all, oh I don't know perhaps, let's say..... 90% of cases then
Google skills? Now that's a concept perhaps it could be an Olympic sport

 

[Big Nick]

Can I point out the bol1ocks in that paper? It's all about 'jaywalking'...

Guess what doesn't exist in most countries in the world?

Did you miss the line relating to the UK?

 

[theclaud]

I've designed an experiment that should settle the matter. The subject will wear the approved safety equipment:

@Big Nick will drop a rock on his head. Repeatedly.

Dunno what it's supposed to prove, but I reckon I could sell tickets...

 

[glenn forger]

saying people will die if they don't wear a helmet is pretty jibey, as well as totally stupid.

Is your concern the cost to the NHS of treating head injuries or lives lost to head injuries? In either case, helmets for motor vehicle occupants would save an awful lot more lives (and money).

 

[Profpointy]

[QUOTE 3019315, member: 9609"]There is a similarity, just as ex-smokers are the worst for berating people who still smoke, helmet wearers behave similarly towards non helmet wearers. It's like some sort of Eureka moment - I've just discovered smoking is bad for your health, I've just discovered helmets protect the head - AND I NEED TO TELL EVERYONE I MEET. all very odd.[/QUOTE]


yebbutt ... I used to wear a helmet (cycling) long before they were, dare I say fashionable, and shared some of the evangelical views above, but having read a bit more about it, it does not seem that there's actually any real benefit overall. I don't doubt that they help in some circumstances, but they presumably must make things worse in other circumstances - else there'd surely be some overall benefit. Reasons: who knows? Perhaps neck injuries, perhaps more risk taking - including closer passes by cars, but unarguably you'll hit your head more as it's bigger. And then there's the strangulations of tree climbing small children to consider (this is real incidents by the way)

For what it's worth on my spill my head missed the ground by very little - but if I'd been wearing a lid I'm pretty sure I'd have walloped my head, perhaps injuring my neck - and likely been equally sure lid had "saved my life" . This proves nothing if course, but should make people consider at least.

So I've converted to the sceptic camp, based on evidence . Sorry if that's being stupid.

To adopt a safety measure, there really should be some evidence of benefit. At the risk of being personal, Lay asserting "FACT" and insulting people isn't in itself all that convincing.

Then is the risk greater than other similar things like being pedestrian or car passenger -.not sure.- perhaps, but if so not by much it seems - although it isn't a reason for not wearing a "pedestrian" helmet - silly though it might sound. There's probably actually a very good argument for promoting "going out drinking" helmets, but this isn't said because it would sound silly - but it probably isn't silly at all given how many head injuries are drink related.

Then there's cost benefit - both in terms of "can I be bothered" versus low risk and in terms of actual cash. Let's say 10million helmets @ £50 each to cover the uk - that's half a billion quid - is this the best safety benefit we could get as a nation for such a sum?


This is a genuinely worthwhile question, but seems I am stupid and or smart-arse in trying to consider pros and cons. Oh well

 

[Archie_tect]

Everybody has a choice and it's none of anyone else's business... as long as it doesn't become law to have to wear one, which simply limits choice and introduces the need for ever more rules and exceptions which then are required to be tested in law to set boundaries and introduces the need for subjective interpretation which serves no benefit and totally messes everyone up except lawyers.

 

[mrandmrspoves]

Reading this with interest. Lay, you have an opinion, that is all that it is. Your opinion may be right, it may be partly right, or it may be completely wrong. What you don't seem to have however, is any respect for people who have a different opinion than yours. Those people may be right, partly right or completely wrong - but most of those people respect the fact that others have different views to their own. I cannot see where Cunobelin has been rude to you - until you had completely failed to engage in any exchange of logical and coherent debate. Different members have pointed out evidence that at least should make you examine whether your faith in your helmet is well founded or not, but no, as you disagree with them they are all stupid.
My personal preference is to wear a helmet, I believe that it has more advantages than disadvantages (it hides my bald patch for one!) but I have bothered to read the evidence that suggests that my helmet wearing may not actually make me safer. You see the whole idea of a forum is to post views, share views, consider other views than your own, and maybe even to be educated and learn from others.
If you don't agree with anything I have written above (or in any other post I have ever made) your disagreement proves that you're stupid because I am always right!

 

[ufkacbln]

Cuno - you are a highly offensive individual...

Whats the use of a pedestrian wearing a helmet - that's pathetic.

When you're on a wheeled vehicle - its a different matter.

They way things are going mate, you need a helmet to come on here as you appear to be a danger to yourself never ind anyone else ?

Yours in a coherent manner - you cheeky [insert.swear.word.of.your.choice]

Again i'll make my point;

You're better wearing a helmet than not !

F A C T

I can only thank you for this post


Now please explain the hypocrisy....

A cyclist falls off their bike and preventing the head injury is worthwhile

A pedestrian falls over and preventing the same injury is pathetic!

 

[ufkacbln]

Ok, lets say a law comes in stating that Peds. should should wear a helmet - I don't think it'd last, as this is also pathetic.

These subjects are pulled up because they, those that DONT WANT TO WEAR HELMET - and dont we know it ! just can't accept the fact a helmet makes sense, saves your head - from severe injury, is an intelligent move / decision to withold yourself from injury to your head.

Once again, I cannot thank you enough for this post!

Lets for a minute accept your "argument" for helmets

Why is suggesting extending their use to the groups that suffer most head injuries "pathetic"?

You also need to explain why you claim that this extension of their use and asking MORE people to wear helmets is "pathetic" and an argument against helmet use!

Please explain how you have come to such a bizarre conclusion......



You have failed on a number of occasions to explain your own statements such as why in a pedestrian fall that we:

should not accept the fact a helmet makes sense, saves your head - from severe injury, is an intelligent move / decision to withhold yourself from injury to your head.

 

[ufkacbln]

Everybody has a choice and it's none of anyone else's business... as long as it doesn't become law to have to wear one, which simply limits choice and introduces the need for ever more rules and exceptions which then are required to be tested in law to set boundaries and introduces the need for subjective interpretation which serves no benefit and totally messes everyone up except lawyers.

It is even more complex than that.... and the point you are making is one that i can only agree with.

At the moment the requirement for the sale of a helmet in the UK is EN1078. This is a very pitiful standard

In the US EN1078 helmets are not allowed in sporting events as they offer too little protection, and even in the UK some of the organisations that insist on helmet use do not consider this standard adequate

UK Cycling events and Wiggle clearly state that:

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

So in theory an EN1078 helmet without further validation would see you turned away from these events

If we are serious abot helmets, the first thing we need to do is have a good look at the helmet standards and come up with on that offers protection, rather than one that panders to the manafacturers

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 3019528, member: 9609"]Im sure I read once that 68% of all head injuries are related to alcohol, either falling over drunk or being bashed by someone drunk - so yes, anyone seriously wishing to reduce head injuries within the population should promote helmet wearing for drinkers, whether it be a night out with the boys or a bottle of red over dinner - get your helmet on.

FWIW I think a helmet would be useful in a fall and I choose to wear a lid if I am going into the town centre as I think there is a reasonable chance of being knocked off, but most of my cycling is on quiet country roads where I see little chance of a fall resulting in bashing my noggin so don't bother with the helmet.


Lay has made it abundantly clear he is not even remotely interested in anyone else's opinions so not much point in responding to his rubbish.[/QUOTE]


Sharon Thornhill in Gasgow, published figures that approximate yours


Refreshingly she and her team simply took ALL admissions to Casualty with a head injury and then looked at the history...

The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury