How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[lukesdad]

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?


Doesn't actually make sense



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?






Exactly correct -- it is a personal choice

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?


Doesn't actually make sense



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?






Exactly correct -- it is a personal choice

All of this depends on the type of injury you are trying to protect against, as you well know Cunobelin.

 

[Drago]

I've had laughter filled PM's from a few others that spotted it. If the young gent used physics to explain why helmets do not work, but then goes and uses an example which actually supports the opposite viewpoint in physical terms then I'm not about to tell him myself.

But I shall mention it no more.

 

[lukesdad]

But a stationary pedestrian could easily be in collision with car that is travelling at 20mph, same relative impact and same potential head injury but no pressure on the pedestrian to lid up. Any ideas why this should be?

Because cars do not usually travel on pavements.

Next ?

 

[lukesdad]

Pedestrians never set foot in the road then?

If they feel so inclined they can wear a helmet crossing the road I don't really care, pedestrians are not the subject of debate, except when Adrian and Cunobelin introduce them, because they don't wear helmets cyclists shouldn't is at best a silly arguement.

 

[Drago]

Pedestrians don't usually travel in the road though. Their interface with wheeled traffic is supposed to be occasional, and under certain pre determined and managed situations. A zebra crossing, or crossing the road using the Green Cross Code, that sort of thing.

They are not infallible by any means. However, doing away with them in favour of helmets will quicklyeaf to carnage. No need to take my word for it don a cycle helmet and randomly cross a busy road while not using a crossing, or without using the Green Cross Code, or even looking, and you will almost certainly get hurt. Repeat the exercise but this time exercise the conventions that society and law have created for foot traffic and you almost certainly will be fine.

Conversely, cyclists actually travel in the road with the motorised wheeled vehicles. They have few conventions to protect them as there are for pedestrians, and those that do exist are often lacking at best or dangerous at worse, such as ill conceived cycle lanes, etc.

Ask a person of reasonable intellect if a pedestrian should wear a helmet from the moment they leave their house and the answer will be 'no' for these reasons, and to suggest they should, even jokingly to try and illustrate a counter point, is to make a bit of an arse of oneself.

 

[mcshroom]

If they feel so inclined they can wear a helmet crossing the road I don't really care, pedestrians are not the subject of debate, except when Adrian and Cunobelin introduce them, because they don't wear helmets cyclists shouldn't is at best a silly arguement.

Arguing that helmets are there for protection when being hit by a car is a silly argument as this isn't what they are designed for. The speeds of impact supposedly covered by cycle helmets are very similar to those of falling from standing, no vehicle required and something as common to pedestrians as to cyclists.

What you and Drago are showing is your lack of understanding of the assessment of risk and then trying to exclude another 'vulnerable' group as they don't interact with cars (I'll also point out to Drago that we seem to be able to survive out here without separate pavements for pedestrians on a majority of the roads). You seem to perceive that as cars will subject you to impacts that are not designed to be covered by helmet standards, they are now taking part in a more dangerous activity than pedestrians and then should use a piece of safety equipment that is not designed for the purpose it is desired to protect against.

This differential in risk isn't what the evidence suggests, but it is telling how your perceptions differ.

Them main point to make though, is that we are talking about minuscule risks taking part in either activity.

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2156765, member: 45"]If I must.....

People crossing roads are at a higher risk of head injury. People walking through a park aren't more at risk of head injury because people crossing the road aren't.

Using unhelpful terms is, well, unhelpful.[/quote]

You really mustn't

Have you any evidence to back up your assertions?

 

[mcshroom]

As Adrian said, you are trying to cherry pick the stats to suit your argument. All pedestrian head injuries are caused while they are pedestrians, all cyclist head injuries are caused while they are using their bikes. That is the total dataset.

To restrict the data to smaller subsets is deliberately warping the statistics to support your view. I have to question if you are actually sure who is trying to deceive whom?

 

[mcshroom]

Lets see. You have provided no evidence, just asserted that others are trying to deceive. Then you start cherry picking data - again without any evidence to base it on and then claim you are just trying to debunk something and therefore can't possibly be deceitful.

You are trying to deceive pure and simple. The difference is that you are trying to deceive people reading the forum that there isn't a case for relative pedestrian and cyclist casualty rates. If you are not then put up the evidence to back up your claim as you are happy to accuse others.

 

[mcshroom]

No it isn't, and the evidence has been given to you over and over again. Just because you don't accept them doesn't make the facts go away.

 

[lukesdad]

Arguing that helmets are there for protection when being hit by a car is a silly argument as this isn't what they are designed for. The speeds of impact supposedly covered by cycle helmets are very similar to those of falling from standing, no vehicle required and something as common to pedestrians as to cyclists.

What you and Drago are showing is your lack of understanding of the assessment of risk and then trying to exclude another 'vulnerable' group as they don't interact with cars (I'll also point out to Drago that we seem to be able to survive out here without separate pavements for pedestrians on a majority of the roads). You seem to perceive that as cars will subject you to impacts that are not designed to be covered by helmet standards, they are now taking part in a more dangerous activity than pedestrians and then should use a piece of safety equipment that is not designed for the purpose it is desired to protect against.

This differential in risk isn't what the evidence suggests, but it is telling how your perceptions differ.

Them main point to make though, is that we are talking about minuscule risks taking part in either activity.

Which is all precisely where you both* miss the point. It is not the interaction with vehicles that matters. Irrespective of how it happens, pedestrians are roughly as likely to acquire head injuries as are cyclists.
The fact that suggesting pedestrians wear helmets would be seen as ridiculous is the whole point because it illustrates the degree that mandating them for cyclists is also ridiculous.


*LD & Drago that is.

Who s said anything about mandating them ? You are jumping to whole different debate as usual.

 

[lukesdad]

No it isn't, and the evidence has been given to you over and over again. Just because you don't accept them doesn't make the facts go away.

While you about it Im an mtber supply some evidence to help me make a descision whether a helmet would be of benefit to me, or my 5 year old riding round the park or my wife who does the odd cycle path trip.

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2156954, member: 45"]Some reality??.....

Perhaps if I were to wear a helmet when cycling then I should also consider wearing one when crossing the road. Or walking home from the pub when ratted. Or when being frail elderly.

I don't wear a helmet. I'm able to assess risk. And assessing risk requires a whole lot more thinking than taking some numbers at face value.[/quote]

You're deliberately sub-dividing and and avoiding the subject yet again and then throwing up a straw man as Statistical studies are carried out on an area wide basis. On that basis, as all these journeys are going to be taken on rights of way in England and Wales then the numbers are as follows: -

Walking and cycling: risk per kilometre
Annual distance walked/capita: . . . . . . . . . .190 miles
Annual distance cycled/capita: . . . . . . . . . . .43 miles
Pedestrian deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .850 annually
Cyclist deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 annually

(3.37 deaths (capita) per mile for cycling, vs 4.47 deaths (capita) per mile

TEC (Wardlaw) Dec 2002

Or if you are an American
1.1 +/- 0.5x100 participantsx30 day for walking
0.9 +/- 0.5x100 participantsx30 day for cycling

NIH (Powell, Heath, Kresnow, Sacks, Branche) Aug 1998

Now explain how these aren't comparable rates of injury, and then go on to prove to me the effectiveness of helmets at reducing injuries.

 

[lukesdad]

You're deliberately sub-dividing and and avoiding the subject yet again and then throwing up a straw man as Statistical studies are carried out on an area wide basis. On that basis, as all these journeys are going to be taken on rights of way in England and Wales then the numbers are as follows: -

Walking and cycling: risk per kilometre
Annual distance walked/capita: . . . . . . . . . .190 miles
Annual distance cycled/capita: . . . . . . . . . . .43 miles
Pedestrian deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .850 annually
Cyclist deaths 1999-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 annually

He s throwing up a straw man ? Get off your soap box mcshroom and read the thread title .

 

[mcshroom]

You could actually try reading the evidence put in front of you.