How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Angelfishsolo]

Specialised helmets are tested to the more rigorous Snell standard and are, I think, the only ones on sale in the UK that are. So why don't they make something of it?

What would you like me to make out of it? A model aircraft. Good on Specialised.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Personal experience Red Light, good for you !

Perhaps you can tell me if such a study has been conducted as I asked above ?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I hurt my neck quite badly like that back in the days when I wore a helmet. Branch caught in a vent on the helmet and I was lifted backwards off the bike by it.

Long and curly hair is a no-no as well then!!

 

[Mad at urage]

You mean telltale signs like loss of balance, slured speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds. Yep a helmet will mask those.

They have the potential to disguise the fact ? So does long hair a wooly hat a buff
and any manner of other things you care to have on your bonce.

You both either didn't read or didn't understand my earlier post:

After much pressure from doctors and 'concerned parties', Boxing (and many Martial Arts) adopted the protection of head guards because these would "obviously" reduce head injury. Very similar groups are now pressuring for cycle helmet compulsion, for the same reasons.

Medical opinion now accepts that the boxing head guards have increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

This is the case despite the awareness that boxing and Martial Arts have the potential for brain injury and the frequent attendance of doctors and first aiders at matches.

One assumes that these people would be looking out for "loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds" AFS, but the presence of the head protection has still increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

Obviously the later symptoms such as loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds are not disguised by a helmet (I'm surprised at you AFS as a professed first aider for thinking they would be ). However these are later indicators and I'm sure you know that they may show up only several hours after a head injury - because the brain trauma is getting worse! Again I am surprised at a first-aider suggesting that if these don't immediately show, there is no brain injury.

Lukesdad, hair, or wooly hats may indeed give some protection against cuts and bruising, I'm glad you are coming round to a more informed view of the degree of protection offered by cycle helmets. Anyone selling a wig or wooly hat as protection for cycling would (probably) be laughed off. They were not promoted as so doing by the medical profession (nor do they make so much profit for manufacturers), but (as some people have tried to point out already) they may well give better protection against injury on the roads than a helmet - because you will probably be given more room in an overtake.

 

[theclaud]

Different forms low impact collisions can take.

OT, but I read that as "Low impact collisions can take different forms" rendered in Yoda-speak. As you were!

 

[lukesdad]

You both either didn't read or didn't understand my earlier post:

After much pressure from doctors and 'concerned parties', Boxing (and many Martial Arts) adopted the protection of head guards because these would "obviously" reduce head injury. Very similar groups are now pressuring for cycle helmet compulsion, for the same reasons.

Medical opinion now accepts that the boxing head guards have increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

This is the case despite the awareness that boxing and Martial Arts have the potential for brain injury and the frequent attendance of doctors and first aiders at matches.

One assumes that these people would be looking out for "loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds" AFS, but the presence of the head protection has still increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

Obviously the later symptoms such as loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds are not disguised by a helmet (I'm surprised at you AFS as a professed first aider for thinking they would be ). However these are later indicators and I'm sure you know that they may show up only several hours after a head injury - because the brain trauma is getting worse! Again I am surprised at a first-aider suggesting that if these don't immediately show, there is no brain injury.

Lukesdad, hair, or wooly hats may indeed give some protection against cuts and bruising, I'm glad you are coming round to a more informed view of the degree of protection offered by cycle helmets. Anyone selling a wig or wooly hat as protection for cycling would (probably) be laughed off. They were not promoted as so doing by the medical profession (nor do they make so much profit for manufacturers), but (as some people have tried to point out already) they may well give better protection against injury on the roads than a helmet - because you will probably be given more room in an overtake.

we were talking about disguising injury not protecting against it. You really must try and keep up with your own posts. Otherwise how can you expect to keep up with anybody else.

Or are you a punchdrunk ex boxer ?

 

[lukesdad]

Mmm still waiting for replys from LYB and Red Light.

 

[lukesdad]

OT, but I read that as "Low impact collisions can take different forms" rendered in Yoda-speak. As you were!

Ooops didn t realise you visited this part of the forum

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You both either didn't read or didn't understand my earlier post:

After much pressure from doctors and 'concerned parties', Boxing (and many Martial Arts) adopted the protection of head guards because these would "obviously" reduce head injury. Very similar groups are now pressuring for cycle helmet compulsion, for the same reasons.

Medical opinion now accepts that the boxing head guards have increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

This is the case despite the awareness that boxing and Martial Arts have the potential for brain injury and the frequent attendance of doctors and first aiders at matches.

One assumes that these people would be looking out for "loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds" AFS, but the presence of the head protection has still increased the frequency of brain trauma which remains undetected and untreated, because the tell-tale signs of bruising and cuts are no longer present.

Obviously the later symptoms such as loss of balance, slurred speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds are not disguised by a helmet (I'm surprised at you AFS as a professed first aider for thinking they would be ). However these are later indicators and I'm sure you know that they may show up only several hours after a head injury - because the brain trauma is getting worse! Again I am surprised at a first-aider suggesting that if these don't immediately show, there is no brain injury.

Lukesdad, hair, or wooly hats may indeed give some protection against cuts and bruising, I'm glad you are coming round to a more informed view of the degree of protection offered by cycle helmets. Anyone selling a wig or wooly hat as protection for cycling would (probably) be laughed off. They were not promoted as so doing by the medical profession (nor do they make so much profit for manufacturers), but (as some people have tried to point out already) they may well give better protection against injury on the roads than a helmet - because you will probably be given more room in an overtake.

So let me get this straight. You are comparing martial arts injuries with cycling ones. Also you are stating that a cut to the head would indicate to you potential brain trauma. In martial arts the head is likely to recieve multiple blows in quick sucsession and yes in that a guard would hide the extent of injury suffered. Cycling falls tend to be infrequent in comparison and a person (especialy in a group) will be checked over and observed. A fighter is not checked after every punch or kick. It is bad science to compare the two.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Mmm still waiting for replys from LYB and Red Light.

You think you are owed replies????????????


In actual fact I thought I had replied I cerntainly started typing it, but obviously didn't send.

 

[lukesdad]

Or let me put it another way. A study of head injuries amongst cyclists that is broken down into disciplines where the injuries occured ?

The lack of replies suggests a negative. Which quite frankly would astound me if true.

So we ll apply some of LYBs famous logic to make some assumptions.

Assumption 1. The vast majority of serious head injuries occur on the highway. As general consenus is that this is by far the most likely enviroment for serious injurys to occur.

With me so far ? Good.

Next we ll take the increase in helmet use.

Assumption 2. The increase in helmet use coincides with the explosion in mtb and off road leisure riding. The replys to the various threads show that it is roadies who are going helmetless. (evidence by the way ) We will forget about the helmets they have stashed in their wardrobes,contributing to the helmet use as in sales of helmets, which im assuming is the method being used to gauge the increase. So it would follow that the vast increase in helmet use is mainly due to the off road and leisure rider.

So what can we conclude from this ?

Well I may be wrong ( it has been known) but it seems to me the increase in serious head injuries are happening where the Smallest percentage of helmet use is.

And may I say one Bl**dy great hole in the evidence !

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The lack of replies suggests a negative. Which quite frankly would astound me if true.

So we ll apply some of LYBs famous logic to make some assumptions.

Assumption 1. The vast majority of serious head injuries occur on the highway. As general consenus is that this is by far the most likely enviroment for serious injurys to occur.

With me so far ? Good.

Next we ll take the increase in helmet use.

Assumption 2. The increase in helmet use coincides with the explosion in mtb and off road leisure riding. The replys to the various threads show that it is roadies who are going helmetless. (evidence by the way ) We will forget about the helmets they have stashed in their wardrobes,contributing to the helmet use as in sales of helmets, which im assuming is the method being used to gauge the increase. So it would follow that the vast increase in helmet use is mainly due to the off road and leisure rider.

So what can we conclude from this ?

Well I may be wrong ( it has been known) but it seems to me the increase in serious head injuries are happening where the Smallest percentage of helmet use is.

And may I say one Bl**dy great hole in the evidence !

That makes sense to me.

I am also waiting for feedback on my MA is not like cycling comment.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

The lack of replies suggests a negative. Which quite frankly would astound me if true.

Why? The figures for head injuries is known to be incorrect because hospitals are very poor at differentiating between cylcists and motorcyclists in their records. Considering this ,I think it's well beyonf their ken to be able to manage offroad/road/MTB/commuting/racing/pootle etc...


I'm not holding out on you, I really don't know any figures split the way you want them.

 

[dellzeqq]

Which ever you do take great care. The last year for which the data was collected by the Home Accident Surveillance System, 5,310 people were taken to hospital for injuries from putting on trousers and another 11,788 for injuries from putting on socks, tights or stockings. Most were from trips during over hasty attempts to dress or tripping on messy bedroom floors.

So best wear a helmet when you get dressed. You know it makes sense.

I know this is amusing, but such is the screwed up relation between risk and legislation in this country that a few simple measures that might reduce the incidence of falls (In 2009 in England and Wales, there were 3,593 deaths as a result of falls) have been dismissed out of hand, while legislation to reduce glass injuries (which cost half of all plastic surgery time in London's NHS hospitals) is nowhere in sight. Instead of which we have an entire Building Regulation on electrical safety, that costs the country hundreds of millions, and might save 5 lives a year.


If I appear irritated with people who promote helmet use it's because I know that deaths due to head injuries are a rarity, while deaths due to left-hooking trucks are distressingly frequent. If people are really exercised about the safety of other cyclists I suggest they stop flaunting their ignorance and get off their backsides to lobby their council, MP and the DfT for safer junctions, compulsory training for lorry drivers, proper mirrors and sensors of the kind used by Cemex, and the presumption that somebody who has been found guilty of drink driving should never get behind the wheel of a truck, and the closure of firms like Thames Aggregates. Now that's a subject that might profitably occupy fifty pages (and has, see Campaigning below....)

 

[JonnyBlade]

Interesting read http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm seems at least one USA institute feels wearing a helmet reduces the risk of head injury by up to 85%

Apparently 91% of those that died were not wearing a helmet

Go figure