How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Licramite]

The research has come to a conclusion: there is no significant safety benefit to wearing a helmet. More studies will obviously be read with interest, but it's clear that if there is a beneficial effect it is very small and hard to detect. If helmets were brilliant at protecting against head injuries then we would have discovered that by now.

Accident reports can not show you whether a helmet would have helped protect someone from a head injury. Only statistical analysis of large numbers of accidents can do that.

The rest of your post amply demonstrates that you have no understanding of statistics.

I apologise I'm winding you up and I don't mean to, Of course your right in that to understand the big picture you need good statistical data, to be able to allocate priorities, make laws , to decide which are the real issues in cycle safety. - of course your right.

But at an individual, personel level all these statistics are going to do you no good, - because when your knocked off your bike and heading earthwards at a great rate of knots , statsticaly this shouldn't be happening and statiscly if my head hits the ground I will be fine - isn,t going to save a lot of pain , flesh and blood. including premature balding as hair doesn't grow on scar tissue.
And I,m not saying the helmet will save you, you would be suprised how much a wooly hat will do to reduce superficial damage as much as a helmet.

At our level I think the accident reports are more illustrative of a helmets worth.

 

[Davidc]

But at an individual, personel level all these statistics are going to do you no good, - because when your knocked off your bike and heading earthwards at a great rate of knots , statsticaly this shouldn't be happening and statiscly if my head hits the ground I will be fine - isn,t going to save a lot of pain , flesh and blood. including premature balding as hair doesn't grow on scar tissue.
And I,m not saying the helmet will save you, you would be suprised how much a wooly hat will do to reduce superficial damage as much as a helmet.

At our level I think the accident reports are more illustrative of a helmets worth.

Sorry, but that shows again that you just don't understand what the statistics are, are for, or are telling you.

The statistics allow you to make informed decisions about actions, such as wearing of helmets and even whether or not cycling is a sensible option for you. You can get a good idea of the size of the risk and of what that means by comparison with the figure for other risks and activities. What they can't tell you is whether or not you will be one of those who does crash, one of those who is killed etc.

If you happen to be one of those who has a crash it's bad news.

It's even worse news if you're on the commercial airliner that crashes, most times you die.

You may have considered that being on a commercial airliner is the safest place it's possible to be. In that scenario it doesn't help you. Nonetheless the statistics allow you to make the best decision despite the possibility that the outcome of your decision will turn out to be the worst possible.

Statistics tell you that cyclists live an average of 2 years longer than non cyclists. That doesn't mean all cyclists live an extra 2 years over what they would have lived otherwise. If you are one of the average 2 a week who are killed then you clearly haven't. Most people cannot know how much cycling has extended their lives, but they know from the statistics that it's likely to be of benefit. (I am one of the few who are reasonably certain they do know how much they've gained - so far, but that's another story). If this is a factor in deciding to cycle then again the statistics have informed your decision making.

 

[Licramite]

2 dead a week, that means thiers at least 4 injured a week as well , if the Taliban could do that we would pull out of afganastan (pathetic but true)

You and your statistics have convinced me - I,m getting out the armoured underwear.

 

[snorri]

I,m getting out the armoured underwear.

That could be a risky strategy

 

[ufkacbln]

I apologise I'm winding you up and I don't mean to, Of course your right in that to understand the big picture you need good statistical data, to be able to allocate priorities, make laws , to decide which are the real issues in cycle safety. - of course your right.

But at an individual, personel level all these statistics are going to do you no good, - because when your knocked off your bike and heading earthwards at a great rate of knots , statsticaly this shouldn't be happening and statiscly if my head hits the ground I will be fine - isn,t going to save a lot of pain , flesh and blood. including premature balding as hair doesn't grow on scar tissue.
And I,m not saying the helmet will save you, you would be suprised how much a wooly hat will do to reduce superficial damage as much as a helmet.

At our level I think the accident reports are more illustrative of a helmets worth.

Now explain why this erudite statement does not apply to the far more common issue of pedestrian head injuries?


At an individual, personal level all these statistics are going to do you no good, - because when your knocked over as a pedestrian, (or simply slip and fall) and heading earthwards at a great rate of knots , statistically this shouldn't be happening and statistically if your head hits the ground you will be fine - isn't going to save a lot of pain , flesh and blood. including premature balding as hair doesn't grow on scar tissue.
Not saying the helmet will save you, you would be surprised how much a woolly hat will do to reduce superficial damage as much as a helmet.

 

[Licramite]

well It does, yes you could read accident reports about pedestrians being knocked over if you want to.
how will that help you decide about cyclists?

you hide behind , well other people get injured - so what!
We are looking at people on bikes , injuries in factories or on ships are still injuries - but utterly irrelivant. -

Yea pedestrians are a bunch of dum animals - they walk around traffic utterly obliviously with there head in the cloads , I'm just as guilty on occasions -

maybe if more people read accident reports about pedestrians it might switch them on to , hmm unlit street, I will walk in the road with my back to the traffic and wear all black. - why, is that dangerous?

Oh you don,t wear a helmet in a car so why should I wear one on a bike.
A) because you are already surrounded by safety devices in a car
B) because youve got sod all safety devices on a bike - I wonder why they made it compulsory for Motorbikes after all you don,t wear one in a car or in a house. ? -

Fine don't wear a helmet , what do I care , its all luck in the end.

 

[green1]

Oh you don,t wear a helmet in a car so why should I wear one on a bike.
A) because you are already surrounded by safety devices in a car
B) because youve got sod all safety devices on a bike - I wonder why they made it compulsory for Motorbikes after all you don,t wear one in a car or in a house. ? -

And a lot of those safety devices could actually increase the chance of a head injury, seatbelts & airbags for example.
Motorcycle helmets are very different to cycle helmets, go compare the standards they are designed & built to.

 

[Licramite]

I agree entirely, - I wasn,t comparing motorbike helmets I was saying its the same principle, after all the earlier , much used, argument about well what about other injuries to other people , counts for all safety measures equally
why have safety devices in cars when you don,t for surfers. - what safety devices do they have? arn,t thier injuries any less tramatic ?
and do you wear a seat belt at home , or in bed , or in the office?

its a stupid arguement but it keeps getting trotted out.

 

[benb]

well It does, yes you could read accident reports about pedestrians being knocked over if you want to.
how will that help you decide about cyclists?

The point is, why are cyclists put under such pressure to wear a helmet, but pedestrians are not.

 

[screenman]

Green1, I would love to have your last post explained in more detail. Mainly the piece about seat belts and airbags, like where the chance of them causes injury outweighs the benefits they can have.

Not looking for an argument I just wanted the thinking behind it.

 

[Licramite]

The point is, why are cyclists put under such pressure to wear a helmet, but pedestrians are not.

well its part of a safety campaign I suppose, thier used to be pedestrian safety items on the tele , green cross code, wear something bright at night that sort of thing (haven,t seen them for ages)

pedestrians don,t travel at 20mph (well I don,t on a bike unless going down hill) , don,t travel in the road (ha much) or mingle with moving traffic and its a visible safety device that says to common lodgic it will protect your head. (wether it does or not) , thiers little that can be done to make bikes safer, theirs nothing going to be done to make roads/traffic safer so this is a symbol at least of safety and may do some good. - If you wear a helmet your at least saying - I am taking safety seriuosly. - hopefully you will back it up with lights ect.
and in the event of a head on collision with the ground , at least they can say he was wearing a helmet. - may not have made any difference in physical terms, but I suspect you will get more sympahy than if you weren,t wearing one.

 

[Drago]

Please can somebody explain, as if to a simple child, how a layer of protection can not protect the head, at least a little bit?

If a car drives over your skull, it ain't gonna help one bit.

I'm fairly pro-helmet, but I'm realistic about their limitations, and I'm even more realistic about thinking that I've got some invisible cloak of invincibility just because I've got a lid, lights and a florrie.

It's not those without a helmet that scare me - it's those with a helmet who think it bestows immortality. It's an aid, nothing more.

 

[Drago]

...but no pressure on the pedestrian to lid up. Any ideas why this should be?

Because they went to the same remedial physics class as you did?

 

[ufkacbln]

well It does, yes you could read accident reports about pedestrians being knocked over if you want to.
how will that help you decide about cyclists?

you hide behind , well other people get injured - so what!
We are looking at people on bikes , injuries in factories or on ships are still injuries - but utterly irrelivant. -

Not at all, I am assuming that you actually at some point walk somewhere. YIU now have (your example) your head plummeting towards a pavement.......What you need to answer is why you are happy to suffer a preventable head injury whilst on a bike, but are wiling to accept an identical injury when walking?

Yea pedestrians are a bunch of dum animals - they walk around traffic utterly obliviously with there head in the cloads , I'm just as guilty on occasions -

maybe if more people read accident reports about pedestrians it might switch them on to , hmm unlit street, I will walk in the road with my back to the traffic and wear all black. - why, is that dangerous?

Doesn't actually make sense

Oh you don,t wear a helmet in a car so why should I wear one on a bike.
A) because you are already surrounded by safety devices in a car
B) because youve got sod all safety devices on a bike - I wonder why they made it compulsory for Motorbikes after all you don,t wear one in a car or in a house. ? -

Good question... we could prevent far more head injuries if pedestrians and car divers both wore helmets.... care to explain why we shouldn't prevent these?

Fine don't wear a helmet , what do I care , its all luck in the end.

Exactly correct -- it is a personal choice

 

[Drago]

Yes, that's been apparent for some weeks, probably because you skipped the remedial physics classes