metro article on helmets

[Little yellow Brompton]

If you just step away from the stats for a min you'll understand that.

By "step away from the stats" , you do mean ignore the things that show that you are wrong and just go with how you believe?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

But the risk is virtually identical, so that can't be true, so it must go back to risk perception: cycling seems like it should be more dangerous than being a pedestrian.

I remember having the same sort of argument with my van driver, he woudn't accept that if we left at the same time and I did >70Mph and he did >80Mph , and we arrived at the same time then we had the same average speed. He spent hrs ( of his own time) adding up various lenghts of time /distance rather than just using V=D/T.



The distance spent travelling = the same no of injuries for each mode therefore each mode is equally risky ( albeit for different reasons).

 

[gaz]

I think I should wear helmets on my feet. The amount of times i've stubbed my toe or stood on a plug whilst walking is soooo much higher than banging my head.

 

[caimg]

By "step away from the stats" , you do mean ignore the things that show that you are wrong and just go with how you believe?

I'm sorry? I'm wrong to wear a helmet now? I'm not quite sure where this debate turned from a 'we wear helmets because of this reason' and 'we don't for this reason' to I'm wrong and you're right.

I'm not posting here to convince you guys to wear a helmet, as I said pages and pages ago, I'm having a discussion where I'm telling you the things I take into account personally as a cyclist. I will almost certainly continue to wear a helmet whilst I think that it can offer protection in the event of head trauma whilst cycling, you won't, and that's cool.

Except it's not because I'm also apparently a hypocrite for not wearing one whilst walking down the road, and I'm wrong because the stats show I'm unlikely to have an incident involving my head whilst cycling. I choose to not fall into the unfortunate few of the unlikely tally, and that's all.

 

[ufkacbln]

The weirdest thing for me is the way that increasing the use of helmets by the logical extension to pedestrian use due to similar risk of head injury becomes bizarrely translated as "don't wear a helmet" !

 

[col]

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.

The clavicular and AC joint injuries took 5 rounds of surgery over two years to sort out. The fracture in my neck complicated matters, as you need to rotate on C7 in order to intubate duing general anesthaesia, which meant I ended up having surgery unintubated - increasing the risk substantially. Unfortunately, I couldn't have nerve blocks for the surgery as the damage to the nerves was so bad that they didn't work.

Whilst the bony injuries have now healed, the damage to the nerves is permanent. I've been left with nerve impairment in both arms and I'm in constant pain low level pain, which gets worse if there is any pressure on my neck. I also have problems with motor control in my right arm.

The consultant orthopaedic surgeon and the consultant neurologist who treated my injuries, and the specialist consultant orthopaedic surgeon and consultant neurologist who examined me for the the legal case, all agree that the helmet I was wearing made my injuries worse - in fact it made me suffer injuries that in all probability I would have avoided if I hadn't been wearing a helmet. They were so confident in their opinion that they included in the reports to the court.

OK - my case is only one case... but I wasn't the only case that the medics treating me had seen. Let's just say they were equivocal about the benefits of helmets.

Why do you wear a helmet that has protruding edges at the back, this shows its an unsafe design doesnt it?

 

[col]

Of all the incidents I have had in Bromley high street, two were being hit by a car as a pedestrian and the other was being hit by a car as a cyclist. This would therefore suggest that you are twice as likely to have an accident as a pedestrian than you are as a cyclist. The case for helmet compulsion for pedestrians is hereby made. Could someone now do the same for people travelling in cars?

This would therefore suggest you dont look where you go

 

[ufkacbln]

Why do you wear a helmet that has protruding edges at the back, this shows its an unsafe design doesnt it?

Do people in general actually know this though.

As I repeatedly state - this is all about making an INFORMED choice. This is one of the reasons that it is important to participate in these threads and ensure that the information about what helmets are capable of, their limitations and hazards is out there. If people wish to ignore it, deny it exists and believe that helmets will save their lives in every incident then that it is up to the individual.

It could be that people may still decide to still wear a helmet that is better ventilated, but has the hazard of snag points, it will depend upon your priorities and needs.

I look at some choices I have made over the years and I think with hindsight there are some that I would change if I had had all the information.

 

[col]

Do people in general actually know this though.

As I repeatedly state - this is all about making an INFORMED choice. This is one of the reasons that it is important to participate in these threads and ensure that the information about what helmets are capable of, their limitations and hazards is out there. If people wish to ignore it, deny it exists and believe that helmets will save their lives in every incident then that it is up to the individual.

It could be that people may still decide to still wear a helmet that is better ventilated, but has the hazard of snag points, it will depend upon your priorities and needs.

I look at some choices I have made over the years and I think with hindsight there are some that I would change if I had had all the information.

Most cycling helmets stick out at the back and the front, is this supposed to be slipstreaming ? I cant see it making any difference to most, so why not wear a helmet like bmx types. would do away with most snagging points wouldnt it?

 

[ufkacbln]

It gets even more complex than that and this is another reason why the research needs to brought into the debate.

The British Dental Association has commented on helmets and is worried about the facial injuries and the failure of the preset design of helmets to prevent them.

The conclusion of one paper was that:

The dental profession could: play an active role in promoting cycle helmet use; support calls for the compulsory wearing of cycling helmets, particularly for children; press for modification of helmet design and standards to increase protection of the face.

So not only compulsion, but full face as well!

 

[col]

It gets even more complex than that and this is another reason why the research needs to brought into the debate.

The British Dental Association has commented on helmets and is worried about the facial injuries and the failure of the preset design of helmets to prevent them.

The conclusion of one paper was that:



So not only compulsion, but full face as well!

The nanny state gets worse.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I'm sorry? I'm wrong to wear a helmet now?.

No, you are wrong because you don't wear a helmet when walking, an activity that the statistics show to be of equal risk as cycling,where you do wear a helmet!

 

[caimg]

No, you are wrong because you don't wear a helmet when walking, an activity that the statistics show to be of equal risk as cycling,where you do wear a helmet!

How ridiculous. It's about taking easy precautions to prevent something no matter how unlikely numbers say it might be, do you not get that? Most drivers will never 'need' their seatbelt, most airplane passengers will never need their seatbelt, most police officers will never need their stab / bullet proof vests. Those are all used because in the unlikely and unwanted event of an incident it may just protect them. Why are you arguing against this idea?

No pedestrian feels at risk enough to have to walk around wearing a helmet. Being a pedestrian is, to the average, smart and able-bodied person, very safe and routine. No ped would feel it appropriate to walk around with a cumbersome piece of plastic and foam on their head, I'm fairly sure. Again I reiterate, travelling on a road at anywhere between 0-30 mph alongside cars, this is felt more appropriate by people, apart from you and other non helmet wearers, because of either a) you don't think you'll ever get a head injury b) you don't think a helmet would help in the event of a head injury c) They look stupid.

I've read enough accounts of people on this forum alone who have had offs involving hits to the head, whilst wearing a helmet, to warrant wearing one. It's just not enough of an inconvenience, as a London cyclist, not to wear one IMO. If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority so don't wear one you hypocrite unless you wear one walking down the road!' manner.

 

[mickle]

How ridiculous. It's about taking easy precautions to prevent something no matter how unlikely numbers say it might be, do you not get that? Most drivers will never 'need' their seatbelt, most airplane passengers will never need their seatbelt, most police officers will never need their stab / bullet proof vests. Those are all used because in the unlikely and unwanted event of an incident it may just protect them. Why are you arguing against this idea?

No pedestrian feels at risk enough to have to walk around wearing a helmet. Being a pedestrian is, to the average, smart and able-bodied person, very safe and routine. No ped would feel it appropriate to walk around with a cumbersome piece of plastic and foam on their head, I'm fairly sure. Again I reiterate, travelling on a road at anywhere between 0-30 mph alongside cars, this is felt more appropriate by people, apart from you and other non helmet wearers, because of either a) you don't think you'll ever get a head injury b) you don't think a helmet would help in the event of a head injury c) They look stupid.

I've read enough accounts of people on this forum alone who have had offs involving hits to the head, whilst wearing a helmet, to warrant wearing one. It's just not enough of an inconvenience, as a London cyclist, not to wear one IMO. If you haven't already, search back at past discussions and fellow cyclists with near tragic stories about themselves or loved ones who have seen the effectiveness of their helmet first hand. I, like lots of others, am just not willing to brush off those stories in a 'oh but they're in the minority so don't wear one you hypocrite unless you wear one walking down the road!' manner.

You've missed a really profoundly important point in all of this. And it is this: There is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce head injuries.

 

[caimg]

You've missed a really profoundly important point in all of this. And it is this: There is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce head injuries.

Mickle as I said, having in just the last hour read posts from mid 2011 on this forum (in yet another helmet thread), my wearing a helmet is enforced for me. In one thread alone there are at least 2 or 3 instances of cyclists having hit their head whilst wearing a helmet, the helmet taking the impact and being damaged, rather than the head. Unless these people are lying, this is as good as reading any bunch of numbers and as i KEEP saying - it is not enough of an inconvenience to not wear a helmet. That's just from one thread, from less than a year ago, on this forum.

I'm not the only one who chooses to wear a helmet for this reason but clearly I'm the lone nutter in this thread and everyone's done a runner!