Helmets why doesn't everyone wear them?

[Davidc]

And I always thought that not having accidents meant you didn't get injured! Wrong again.

 

[ufkacbln]

Whenever I think about helmets I ask myself, "Would Jesus have worn one?"

I don't think he would...

You've nailed that one then?

 

[ufkacbln]

No they don't. Hospital staff know bugger all about the causes of accidents and the likelihood as to whether or not a cycle helmet would or wouldn't have made a difference. They cannot possibly say one way or the other - as they weren't there when the accident happened and they don't know the full circumstances. Any clinician who suggests that they can make that sort of definitive statement is talking out of their fundament.



I'm sorry but that is absolute tosh! A&E staff are not "trained to interpret how bonce potty impact points may relate to potential head injuries". Some may have an interest in it but to suggest that it is part of their formal training is complete nonsense!

I was at a study day on "Evidence Based Practice".
The Course leader had seen a young lad arrive and castigated him for not wearing a helmet.

When I asked her whether she was basing that on Rivara and Thompson, and was aware of the cohort studies of Thornhill she looked blank.

She could not name a single paper or article on the subject and eventually came up with the trite "because it makes sense, and you are stupid not to wear one"............. so a total failure to comply with her own promotion of basing practice on the evidence.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
"because it makes sense, and you are stupid not to wear one"
...

Like many advertising tag lines... this works as well as 'nine out of ten cats', 'the fourth emergency service' and 'vorsprung dork technic'.... nonsensical bull for senseless bullsh!tters

 

[benb]

You've nailed that one then?

It's a thorny issue, and frequently makes me cross.

 

[Michaelt]

When i got my bike i was adamant that i would get a helmet, "what the point i won't crash" i told my wife, she said she didn't care and i was made to get one anyway.

Well after 18months and not a single crash here is what happened yesterday

http://s383.photobucket.com/albums/oo277/Timmsy82/Bike crash/

The helmet most certainly prevented further, more serious injury from the impact with the road and other flying bikes. The speed when i crashed was about 40-45kph, and i do have a small bump on the head however any faster and im not sure how effective the helmet would have been.

needless to say i shall definitely buy another one, and stay a safe distance from the guy in front!!

 

[green1]

Polystrene is brittle and therefore cracks with a compartively low impact force. If your helmet showed sign of the foam being compressed and compacted I'd be impressed and say it did it's job. But to me it look like it didn't, it fractured and absorbed very little energy in the process. I doubt that the helmet prevented any injury, apart maybe a little roadrash.

 

[snorri]

The speed when i crashed was about 40-45kph,
, and stay a safe distance from the guy in front!!

Someone has to ask. If you had not been wearing a helmet would you have cycled at 40-45kph in close proximity to another cyclist?

 

[Red Light]

I was at a study day on "Evidence Based Practice".
The Course leader had seen a young lad arrive and castigated him for not wearing a helmet.

When I asked her whether she was basing that on Rivara and Thompson, and was aware of the cohort studies of Thornhill she looked blank.

She could not name a single paper or article on the subject and eventually came up with the trite "because it makes sense, and you are stupid not to wear one"............. so a total failure to comply with her own promotion of basing practice on the evidence.

Its what's known in the trade as Policy Based Evidence Making.

 

[Red Light]

Polystrene is brittle and therefore cracks with a compartively low impact force. If your helmet showed sign of the foam being compressed and compacted I'd be impressed and say it did it's job. But to me it look like it didn't, it fractured and absorbed very little energy in the process. I doubt that the helmet prevented any injury, apart maybe a little roadrash.

Yep, another helmet that failed rather than worked as intended. But not surprising as it was being used at 6-8 times its design maximum and that's what tends to happen when they are overloaded.

 

[benb]

Yep, another helmet that failed rather than worked as intended. But not surprising as it was being used at 6-8 times its design maximum and that's what tends to happen when they are overloaded.

If its design specification was significantly exceeded, I don't think it's fair to say the helmet didn't work as intended.

 

[Davidc]

Aren't anecdotes wonderful.

You can 'prove' anything without having to spend money on boring old research, and without having to follow any of those complicated mathematical and logical procedures.

e.g.

My Granny lived to 98 and used to eat clotted cream several times a week. Never had any heart problems in her life. - conclusion, all this stuff about eating fats causing heart problems is rubbish.

My uncle smoked 40 cigarettes a day and had a pipe for the evenings. He lived until he was 87 and got killed when he was run over by a car. - conclusion, smoking won't do you any harm at least until you're over 87.

Member xyz on Cyclechat had a bike crash and was wearing a helmet which got cracked, and he didn't hurt his head. - conclusion, he'd have been killed or seriously injured if he hadn't been wearing a helmet. (Must be true because a paramedic said so)

Member Davidc on Cyclechat had a crash at over 30mph and wasn't wearing a helmet. He grazed both ears at the same instant. - conclusion, not wearing a helmet saved him from certain death. (Must be true because the police chief road safety officer for Bristol said under oath that if he'd been a motorcyclist with a helmet he'd have been dead).

Why can't people see that all 4 are rubbish, along with every other anecdote?

 

[Red Light]

If its design specification was significantly exceeded, I don't think it's fair to say the helmet didn't work as intended.

It still didn't work as intended. Its intended to slow the decelleration by compressing the foam. The foam at the point of impact clearly hasn't compressed, its broken off instead. That's not how its intended to work and produces minimal protection. The explanation for why it failed lies elsewhere but fail it did.

Helmets are indeed magic. There are not many things that can so glaringly fail let be proclaimed by their owners as glaringly successful. Imagine what people would say about a car if instead of the front crumple zone of the car crumpling it fell off and was found uncrumpled near the accident scene.

 

[StuartG]

Agreed. A particular incident is of no importance except to the participant. It needs aggregation to decide whether helmets with give you more chance of a happier and/or longer life or not.

Two things are certain. The chance of your life being cut short/seriously damaged in a cycling crash are low. The chance that a helmet may have significantly changed the outcome is even lower. The other certain thing is wearing a helmet will have denied you the pleasure of feeling the pleasure of the wind blowing through your hair. Or not, Adrian.

 

[NormanD]

Personal thing ... Enough said!! (Next cycle helmet debate please)