metro article on helmets

[Little yellow Brompton]

Not really a good example, as its not while cycling. Tell you what , Ill add, with cyclists using it while cycling. Just in case you find an example of a cycling helmet falling from a van, and causing a motorcyclist to swerve and crash into a crowd of people who just happened to have been there at the time, then one of the crowd managing to jump out of the way, unfortunately into the path of an artic, who skillfully swerving to miss them hit an oncoming car. Tsk those bloody cycling helmets can be really bad for you

Sqquuueek Sqquuueek, Plod , plod puff, Sqquuueek puff, Sqquuueek....

The sound of goalposts being moved.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Dear caimg,

I think what you are failing to understand is that we are all privileged to have such profoundly clever contributors to this site who are prepared to give up their time to enlighten us from the data banks of their vast intellects.

It is most unwise to suggest that they have got it all wrong. Personally I just cannot understand why the thickos who make our laws and prepare documents such as the highway code and bikeability don't spend a little more time consulting this source of deep wisdom and then they too would arrive at the point of view - if you bash your head it's better not to be wearing a helmet.

TyT;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[col]

Sqquuueek Sqquuueek, Plod , plod puff, Sqquuueek puff, Sqquuueek....

The sound of goalposts being moved.

Reads more like your farting? What goalposts are these you speak of?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Your right, Iv only said the obvious that they can stop some injuries. So lets put this total and inexcusable thing Iv done right, they can also cause some injuries too. But I do believe very improbable injuries.
Is there anything else you want to jump on that I havnt said yet?

Improbable?

www.cycle-helmets.com/head-helmet.doc
"
Canadian data shows the length of stay in hospital increased following helmet laws, from 4.3 days to 6.9 days.
"

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Dear caimg,

I think what you are failing to understand is that we are all privileged to have such profoundly clever contributors to this site who are prepared to give up their time to enlighten us from the data banks of their vast intellects.

It is most unwise to suggest that they have got it all wrong. Personally I just cannot understand why the thickos who make our laws and prepare documents such as the highway code and bikeability don't spend a little more time consulting this source of deep wisdom and then they too would arrive at the point of view - if you bash your head it's better not to be wearing a helmet.

TyT;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Isn't it time you ran away Tyt , before you have to answer all those tough questions?

 

[Svendo]

I find it interesting that Metro's letter page covered nearly all the main points of the helmet debate in two issue's worth of letter pages, and it was a bit more polite (but only a bit mind).

FWIW, I wear a helmet. I don't disapprove of those who don't. I've had 4 big offs: one the helmet may or may not have helped, in one it was irrelevant, in one it definitely helped as I left a helmet sized dent in the rear panel of a car, and when a driver pulled out into the side of me, i went over the bonnet and was grateful for the polystyrene when I landed partly on my head. I've no idea if I've been lucky not to have neck injury.

Based on last weeks crash, I'd like something that stops me injuring my thumb as that's what stopped me being able to ride until today.

 

[Red Light]

Your right, Iv only said the obvious that they can stop some injuries. So lets put this total and inexcusable thing Iv done right, they can also cause some injuries too. But I do believe very improbable injuries.
Is there anything else you want to jump on that I havnt said yet?

You won't mind then agreeing that they only prevent improbable injuries too? Only the evidence is that overall the net effect of wearing a helmet is between no effect and slightly worse off. Which means any injuries they prevent are roughly in balance with those they cause.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[benb]

I'd really like someone to explain why they are in favour of helmets for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. Thus far, no one has answered this satisfactorily.

 

[ufkacbln]

Dear caimg,

I think what you are failing to understand is that we are all privileged to have such profoundly clever contributors to this site who are prepared to give up their time to enlighten us from the data banks of their vast intellects.

It is most unwise to suggest that they have got it all wrong. Personally I just cannot understand why the thickos who make our laws and prepare documents such as the highway code and bikeability don't spend a little more time consulting this source of deep wisdom and then they too would arrive at the point of view - if you bash your head it's better not to be wearing a helmet.

TyT;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hello again

There are still a number of questions from your previous visits that you are avoiding answering

For instance, you objected (felt miffed) to paying for the treatment of cyclists by the NHS, yet refused to answer if you felt the same about other preventable injuries

You stated frequently that anyone who did not wear a helmet was a fool, yet refused to explain why this was the case

You misquoted several deaths, including one where there were multiple injuries as "proving" cycle helmets.

What you did not to was challenge anything, or make any contribution that was beyond simple trolling.

I think that your contribution was excellently summed up by another member of this forum:

It's the equivalent of sticking his head in the door to shout "willy, bum, poo" before running off.

Now lets see if we can get a single answer to a question now outstanding for several months.... ods on there won't be one!

YOu posted :

It's my opinion and my decision and I'm quite comfortable with it. I don't ask you to agree, I actually don't care very much provided I don't end up, as a tax payer, paying for your medical treatment for an injury you could have protected yourself from, but chose not to. Because that would pi55 me off.

You then supported that with this

Not at all everyone has the opportunity to make decisions about their own protection. If they fail to take the necessary precautions to avoid hurting or injuring themselves then I am entitled to feel peeved if I have to pay to treat or care for them.

Now answer the question (I will make it simple - say yes or no) Do you feel equally annoyed with people who drink, smoke, or pedestrians who suffer preventable head injuries by not wearing a helmet?

For a fuller version of TyT's techniques and avoidance see here

 

[ufkacbln]

Not really... brace yourself for a bit of anecdata folks.

I was left hooked (by an ambulance of all vehicles). As I gracefully flew over his bonnet I automatically 'tucked and rolled' - a reflex action honed by years of judo (or so I like to think ) . I landed on my shoulder on the other side of the vehicle, dislocating my AC joint and smashing my clavicle. However, as I rolled, the foam extrusions on the rear of the helmet (which extended several inches beyond the natural curve of my head) came into contact with the road.

As they weren't the shiny plastic of the helmet, which is designed to slide on contact, they snagged on the tarmac. My neck was hyperextended, fracturing my C7 vertebra, crushing the brachial plexus on the left side and tearing the brachial plexus on the right.

(Post shortened by me)
Sorry to hear about your injuries, but glad you are still cycling

These are the "snag points" that were referred to earlier, and are a known and reported feature of modern helmet design. Your anecdote is supported by science and research

In fact in the US there is a "rounder, smoother, safer" campaign for helmet design

Also interesting is an email to the US Committee that approves helmet standards from an eminent head injury researcher calling for amongst other things a warning on certain designs of helmet!

During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell.
The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.
Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily, and even break the [occipital--Prof. Hurt used a trademarked name] retention devices.
We request that F08.53 committee study this problem and develop advisory information for both manufacturers of these streamlined helmets and consumer bicyclists who now own and wear such helmets. There is a definite hazard for displacement or ejection from impact on the rear wedge of these helmets, and bicyclists should be warned of this danger by an authority such as ASTM.
s/Hugh H. Hurt, Jr
Professor Emeritus-USC
President, Head Protection Research Laboratory

 

[ufkacbln]

I'd really like someone to explain why they are in favour of helmets for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. Thus far, no one has answered this satisfactorily.

Nor will they, its a position that has no logical defence. Far easier to avoid and ignore

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Dear All,

You make your case as you wish to. I'll make mine my way.

Doctors Manitoba, the provincial medical association, has told the government that bike helmet laws reduce the number of head injuries that require hospitalization by as much as 45 per cent.​

Rondeau knows that first-hand. He was involved in a collision with a vehicle last year while out riding his bike.​

"I went sideways and hit my head and cracked my helmet. I know that if I was not wearing a helmet, I would have had a serious brain injury," he said.​

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120318/manitoba-consider-bike-helmet-law-120318/#ixzz1pY8Z7igs

Regards

TyT :~)

 

[benb]

Dear All,

You make your case as you wish to. I'll make mine my way.

Doctors Manitoba, the provincial medical association, has told the government that bike helmet laws reduce the number of head injuries that require hospitalization by as much as 45 per cent.​

Rondeau knows that first-hand. He was involved in a collision with a vehicle last year while out riding his bike.​

"I went sideways and hit my head and cracked my helmet. I know that if I was not wearing a helmet, I would have had a serious brain injury," he said.​

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120318/manitoba-consider-bike-helmet-law-120318/#ixzz1pY8Z7igs

Regards

TyT :~)

Is that really your idea of evidence?

If that's the best you can do, you should give up now.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain why a cyclist is a "fool" for not wearing a helmet, but a pedestrian is not.

 

[Svendo]

I'd really like someone to explain why they are in favour of helmets for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. Thus far, no one has answered this satisfactorily.

I was musing over this question myself.

I wonder if it is because as a pedestrian, most of the risk of being injured can be mitigated by not being stupid, i.e. following the Green Cross Code like we were told in the 70s, looking extra carefully when wearing headphones etc. etc. Whereas when cycling there is a greater proportion of the risk that can't or can only partially be mitigated. Cars clipping you, pulling out into you, unexpected slippery roads and all the other unavoidable causes of offs. That at least is my (probably post hoc) reasoning, and it is nothing to do with helmets looking cool on cyclists, but not on pedestrians.

 

[Dan_h]

Have you seen race across America with james cracknall, Did you see the state of his head after being hit by the mirror of a truck, the damage to his head and brain afterwards, did you see the damage done to the helmet.. Do you think the injury would have been more severe had the impact of that mirror been directly on the back of his skull? ..

I did see this, but seeing the state of his helmet I rather suspect that the mirror of the truck DID hit the back of his skull. The helmet works by the crushing of the foam. Once the foam is crushed the helmet offers no further protection. As the wing mirror of the truck did not stop moving on impact with the helmet we can make a fair guess that the mirror then split the helmet and went on to hit the back of his skull anyway. As the helmet cannot slow down the truck the mirror would then hit his head with the same force as had he not been wearing a helmet. In this instance I am afraid that I cannot see how the helmet made any difference one way or another.