How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Angelfishsolo]

And others wear them?

Well there are lots of babies so there is an element of wearing I guess

 

[Red Light]

Hence me saying improve the safety requirements helmets have to offer along with them meeting riders needs (weight and coolness, et al). New materials can be created. Bakerlight is a great example. When it was first created no one knew what to do with it. As it was exclusive it was used inside Rolls Royse cars. You are making an assumption that nothing new can be created/discovered.

You are just illustrating the trickle down effect of new technologies. They start in the performance markets like Formula 1 and may, if successful, trickle down to mass use in time. Very very rarely do they start off in mass markets.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You are just illustrating the trickle down effect of new technologies. They start in the performance markets like Formula 1 and may, if successful, trickle down to mass use in time. Very very rarely do they start off in mass markets.

I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that upping the requirements a helmet must meet before it can be sold would kick start the improvement process no end.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

You are correct when you say that preventing the incident comes first and that PPE is last on the hierarchy provision.
In order for 'prevention of the incident' to be realised, due care and consideration would need to be exercised by both the cyclist and other road users.

The wearing of the helmet (PPE) is the last resort to reduce the risk of serious head injury.

this contradicts your earlier post where you said you wear a helmet because 'prevention is better than cure', and again, where is the proof that helmets 'reduce the risk of serious injury'?

 

[ufkacbln]

Not sure if it was that paper or another one but research in the US showed 96% of helmets were badly fitted or worn.

THe paper you refer to is the second one I mentioned ....

Parkinson and Hike - Bicycle Helmet Assessment During Well Visits Reveals Severe Shortcomings in Condition and Fit

 

[Red Light]

You are correct when you say that preventing the incident comes first and that PPE is last on the hierarchy provision.
In order for 'prevention of the incident' to be realised, due care and consideration would need to be exercised by both the cyclist and other road users.

The wearing of the helmet (PPE) is the last resort to reduce the risk of serious head injury.

So what do you do when the use of the PPE increases the risk of an incident in the first place? I fear you are looking at this focussed on the injury mitigation alone rather than holistically including the risk of injury in the first place. As Rodgers review of 8 million cyclist accidents for the US Consumer Product Safety Commission found

"The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use".

​

i.e. overall whatever injury mitigation the helmet provides is more than offset by the probability of an injury occurring in the first place.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

I work in the construction industry and am employed as a Health and Safety Advisor. The worst part of my job is to investigate accidents,and believe me I have seen some really nasty injuries, and sadly two fatalities, over the years. In the majority of cases, injured employees who have worn / used the prescribed PPE fortheir job roles have usually come off lighter, and in some cases walked away with their life.



To answer your question about whether I was trained to wear my helmet? The answer is no. However, I do not need to be told that I must not wear the helmet back to front. Also to ensure that the helmet is of the correct size and fits properly, and that the strap is secure.



Now back to my initial post; I stated that I believe in the adage that ‘prevention is better than cure’ and that I would always wear my helmet when cycling. I still stand by that.

if you have not had any training, how do you know this?
how do you know which standard of helmet to wear?
how do 16 year old apprentices learn this? just come onto your sites and follow everyone else?
if so, why bother training people how to use ladders or harnesses, they can just follow everyone else, because everyone else knows what they're doing, right?

 

[ufkacbln]

The helmet design is an issue, and also a wonderful hypocrisy.

We have differing groups with differing agendas. The "Rounder, Smoother, Safer" campaign in teh US campaigning againstthe snag points and vents in modern helmets, the British Dental Association wanting greater facial protection, and the "need" for a better range of sizes and fiting.

Basically we are looking towards a less ventilated, smoother surface, and full face helmet.....

Then we need to look at the materials, which have become less effective as the amount has decreased and the density of what there ies has increased. So we need to have a thicker layer of more energy absorbent material?

Then add the matter of speed, should we be designing the helmet to cope with a typical cyclist at 20 - 25 mph, or even a elme capable with dealing with 40 - 50 mph impacts such as those experienced in many head injury cases.

... and finally a retention system that does not fail, but is easily adjustable.



Really we are looking at something akin to a motorcycle helmet if they are to be truly protective.


Which is where we find out that finding the helmet hot, heavy and uncomfortable is adequate justification for not increasing the standards, but very silly indeed if you make the same risk analysis and decide not to wear one at all

 

[Red Light]

I work in the construction industry and am employed as a Health and Safety Advisor.

<snip>

To answer your question about whether I was trained to wear my helmet? The answer is no. However, I do not need to be told that I must not wear the helmet back to front. Also to ensure that the helmet is of the correct size and fits properly, and that the strap is secure.

Oh dear, oh dear

The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Section 9

Information, instruction and training

9.—(1) Where an employer is required to ensure that personal protective equipment is provided to an employee, the employer shall also ensure that the employee is provided with such information, instruction and training as is adequate and appropriate to enable the employee to know—

(a)the risk or risks which the personal protective equipment will avoid or limit;

(b)the purpose for which and the manner in which personal protective equipment is to be used; and

(c)any action to be taken by the employee to ensure that the personal protective equipment remains in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair as required by regulation 7(1).
​

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the information and instruction provided by virtue of that paragraph shall not be adequate and appropriate unless it is comprehensible to the persons to whom it is provided.

 

[ufkacbln]

Unequivocally- if a hard hat is issued as part of PPE and the user has not been trained in its use then the employer has failed in their duty.......

Information, instruction and training on PPE use
Where PPE is provided, employees must be provided with adequate information, instruction and/or training on its use.

Information and instruction should cover:

• the risk(s) present and why the PPE is needed
• the operation (including demonstration), performance and limitations of the equipment
• use and storage (including how to put it on, how to adjust and remove it)
• any testing requirements before use

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Oh dear, oh dear

The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Section 9

Information, instruction and training

9.—(1) Where an employer is required to ensure that personal protective equipment is provided to an employee, the employer shall also ensure that the employee is provided with such information, instruction and training as is adequate and appropriate to enable the employee to know—

(a)the risk or risks which the personal protective equipment will avoid or limit;

(b)the purpose for which and the manner in which personal protective equipment is to be used; and

(c)any action to be taken by the employee to ensure that the personal protective equipment remains in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair as required by regulation 7(1).
​

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the information and instruction provided by virtue of that paragraph shall not be adequate and appropriate unless it is comprehensible to the persons to whom it is provided.

exactly.....

 

[david k]

this contradicts your earlier post where you said you wear a helmet because 'prevention is better than cure', and again, where is the proof that helmets 'reduce the risk of serious injury'?

he never offered any proof? he doesnt have to to wear a helmet

were is the contradiction? he said prevention is better than cure, however never said cure should be ignored, as i have said before, it is not one or the other but both

 

[Red Light]

he never offered any proof? he doesnt have to to wear a helmet

were is the contradiction? he said prevention is better than cure, however never said cure should be ignored, as i have said before, it is not one or the other but both

But what if the cure harms the prevention?

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

he never offered any proof? he doesnt have to to wear a helmet

were is the contradiction? he said prevention is better than cure, however never said cure should be ignored, as i have said before, it is not one or the other but both

He made a statement of 'fact', I simply asked where is the proof to back up this statement.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

He made a statement of 'fact', I simply asked where is the proof to back up this statement.

5,4,3,2,1....

Cue arm waving and/or change of subject!