metro article on helmets

[classic33]

You know I'm not going to agree with a ped wearing a helmet. If I'm walking on the pavement and a car rides onto the pavement and hits me then there is nothing I can do about that, it's not something that's even close to being a possibility. Cars stay on the road, peds on the pavement.

If I trip, I'm not going to fall on my head unless I'm an amputee and have lost the ability to try and cushion my fall at what would be a slow speed.

When cycling with the cars on a road I'm traveling faster than a ped on the pavement.

However, I'm amazed at the opposition to helmets to such a degree that I'll be chasing up all this research for sure...

Well that could lead to greater injury. "Runners Wrist" at the least, arm injury or shoulder injury. Presuming you only fall forwards onto level ground.

 

[growingvegetables]

If you anti helmeters are correct would you please explain why this rule appears in the highway code:

59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

Your comments will interest me!

Because a bunch of warbling witterers, moaning minnies, and morons got a bee in their bonnet, and made a noise. Sadly, the ww,mm,&m brigade had and have a very weak grasp of facts, logic, science, or statistics ..... but an extraordinary line in emotional blackmail, double standards, misrepresentation, and a complete failure to grasp the difference between reality and religious faith.

Well .... you did ask!

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1776236, member: 45"]I didn't compile any figures during my 4 years there, as that wasn't my job.

There are a whole host of causes of head injuries. Deciding whether the focus should be on whether cyclists or pedestrians should be targeted first for helmet promotion never factored in any discussion I ever heard about.

I will say that most of the "pedestrians" with head injuries I met had a drink problem. Alcohol abuse shrinks the brain and makes the person far more susceptible to bleeds from knocks.

Magnatom has far more experience than me, but he's not here any more.[/quote]


You carefully avoided the question. So in four years how many cyclists do you estimate you saw with head injuries, how many pedestrians and how many victims of assault and how many RTA victims? And did you see or hear any of the medical staff giving advice to anyone with a head injury other than a cyclist that they should have worn a helmet?

 

[screenman]

Red light, what has that got to do with cyclist and crash helmets? your replies always seem to add total confusion to a helmet post. Have you thought about taking your helmet stance to a walking forum, it seem obvious to me you are looking to make wearing a helmet whilst walking compulsory.

 

[Cycloslalomeur]

[QUOTE 1776356, member: 45"]No, I answered it with my first sentence.

I worked in a neuro unit, not A&E. I saw lots of severe head injuries. I was directly involved with a couple of cyclists. Again, most of those off the street were people with alcohol problems.

Telling an in-patient recovering from a severe head injury, whatever the cause, that they should have worn a helmet doesn't factor in appropriate hospital treatment so no, I never heard of anyone giving that post-injury advice. Be careful that you're not letting this run away with you, and let's keep this in perspective.[/quote]


You do realise that readers of this thread will conclude from your refusal to answer the question and your mention of having been involved with only a couple of cyclists with severe head injuries that you actually saw quite a few pedestrians and motorists with severe head injuries?

 

[ufkacbln]

Red light, what has that got to do with cyclist and crash helmets? your replies always seem to add total confusion to a helmet post. Have you thought about taking your helmet stance to a walking forum, it seem obvious to me you are looking to make wearing a helmet whilst walking compulsory.

Far more convenient than discussing the importance?

The point is that when hospital admissions are examined cyclists are only a small minority (about 1%).
Even with serious injuries that require admission, the numbers are still very low.

When you examine these figures and look at the risks then it shows that another group has a very similar risk.

Yet when the question is asked why there is a a massive emphasis for one group to wear helmets, ther is not for the other.

No-one has come up with an answer to this yet.

Of course simply dismissing this does imply that there is no sensible and defensible answer and that therefore it needs to be removed.

 

[ufkacbln]

Mr Paul is absolutely correct in that as a Health Care Professional you should be looking at the patient and their care.

In some 35 years I have imaged many head injuries and there are only one or two that particularly stick in one's memory. The rest are a blur.

The statistics will come from other research and again is difficult as it can prove what you want if you ask the correct question.

There are no studies looking at helmets in pedestrians and lots in cyclists, however the latter exclude all other head injuries.

Therefore it is a reliance on work that shows the general hospital admissions, and these are the ones that show cyclists and pedestrian head injury risk to be similar.

However crude this may be though it is still there as an unequivocal fact.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1776390, member: 45"]I've not refused to answer, and I'm not trying to avoid that. I've said before that I'm on neither side of the fence and so don't have to pretend anything that isn't so. But to go deeper than the cyclist/pedestrian comparison one starts to see the difficulties, and the more you do the more you realise that the helmet issue has little significance.[/quote]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what is your evidence for this difference?

I can't give numbers because I don't have them. Most of the brain problems I was involved with were down to tumours, strokes and other conditions. With some of those that weren't, there were more important influences than helmets, and that's why I mentioned the alcohol issue.

There's no tally on boards in hospitals with cyclists on one side and pedestrians on the other. It's the other way round. People are admitted with head injuries for all kinds of reasons. If they're classified as a pedestrian, RTC, cyclist or whatever else that's secondary and only because someone has created a tick-box somewhere. Any cyclist/ped stats are a red herring really because there are too many other factors involved and so it's very difficult to justify a comparison.

So when you said

I take it you've got an idea of the kind of people who are admitted to hospital with head injuries? I do, I used to work on a neuro unit.

You actually meant You didn't have any idea.

That's all that I've been trying to illustrate with these recent posts, but because there's an obsession with helmets on these helmet threads it's impossible for some to step back and look at this objectively.

Says the man who prefers personal anecdote apparently without knowledge to the official statistics.

There are some benefits to cyclists wearing helmets. There are some downsides. Same for alcoholics, walking commuters, skateboarders, toddlers, etc etc. One person might benefit more than another, regardless of their activity. It's not a significant issue, and not really worthy of an endless CC thread.

So why are cyclists uniquely targeted for helmets and helmet laws? And if it's not worth the debate, why do you always take part?

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1776655, member: 45"]What difference?[/quote]

You are claiming that the populations of 16-64 yr old cyclists and pedestrians in the national statistics are sufficiently different so as to invalidate the validity of any statistical comparison of their risk of head injury. So what is are these differences and what is your evidence that they invalidate the statistics. Otherwise you are akin to the tobacco industry trying to rubbish the smoking-cancer association.

Keep up. It's pointless just quoting stats without interrogating them. Here's the opportunity to, but you're avoiding it. That's your choice.

So why don't you interrogate them then? HINT: repeatedly saying "no they don't" isn't interrogating them. Cue Monty Python argument sketch.

Cyclists aren't uniquely targeted for helmet use. There are regulations which compel other groups to wear helmets, given the risk associated with their activity. And there are other groups (skiers for example) who have the same old discussions that are permanent on here.

Motorbike users excepted they are the only users of public highways that are singled out. By the way, how many head injured skiers did your unit treat?

The confusion with cycle helmets is that there aren't sufficient stats to weight the issue either way so people get bogged down in the smaller detail which, in the scheme of things, is pretty insignificant. It seems common sense to many that a helmeted head is better than a non-helmeted head, so that's why the (with respect) ignorant jump onto the pro- side.

On that we are agreed but in countering the ignorance, presenting the data on the lack of evidence and the illogicality compared to other groups is the logical approach (IMO). And in the absence of good evidence for a benefit then the scientific default is to assume no benefit. More importantly though helmet promotion/mandating is shown to put people off cycling and the health benefits of cycling are over 20 times the health risks. So helmet promotion is a health own goal

Those who are objective are able to accept this. There's no need to build a bigger argument than there is because all that does is confuse matters. For example, (we've been here before) there are regular occurences of newbies coming on here to ask about helmets, often from the place of "common sense" described above. They're often met by the inappropriate, rude and agenda'd blast of the insecure, which immediately denies the opportunity for reasonable and acceptable education.

No, the problem is newbies coming here and lecturing us from a position of ignorance about wearing helmets as with post #1 in this thread

I don't always take part. And I've already told you, it's my duty to apply some balance when anyone driven by bias seeks to apply more weight than is appropriate to the minutae while at the same time avoiding any possible acceptance that it's not black and white. Accepting that in some circumstances helmets may be effective shouldn't unnerve anyone who is anti-compulsion.

Don't take it personally.

So you say but the strong bias of your intervention and you unwillingness to bring any evidence speaks for itself. As did your claim of special knowledge of the head injuries in cyclists & pedestrians which you then had to admit you didn't actually have.

And as much as you may hope it's otherwise I do not take it personally despite your fixation almost exclusively on my posts.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1776356, member: 45"]
Telling an in-patient recovering from a severe head injury, whatever the cause, that they should have worn a helmet doesn't factor in appropriate hospital treatment so no, I never heard of anyone giving that post-injury advice. Be careful that you're not letting this run away with you, and let's keep this in perspective.[/quote]

Curious then that when my daughter came off her bike, every one of the 12 medical personnel she saw said she should have worn a helmet - and this despite her having no injuries a helmet might have prevented. I therefore don't believe you could have worked for four years in a head injury unit without hearing it said even once. But then we've already seen another of your claims from then admitted to not be true.

 

[Red Light]

Red light, what has that got to do with cyclist and crash helmets? your replies always seem to add total confusion to a helmet post. Have you thought about taking your helmet stance to a walking forum, it seem obvious to me you are looking to make wearing a helmet whilst walking compulsory.

You've not come across the concept of control groups in statistics and public policy then?

And if you think it ridiculous to raise helmets in a walking forum, why isn't it ridiculous to raise it in a cycling forum where the risks are lower than for walking?

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1776860, member: 45"]Did your daughter have a severe head injury? If not, then your response bears no relation to my post which you quote.

Your daughter would have been seen in A&E. I've told you that I've never worked in A&E.[/quote]

Are you suggesting medics only tell cyclists without head injuries they should have worn a helmet? Or is it that those that know about head injuries would never say it but those who don't say it all the time? What a curious situation!

Again, illogical. You're seeking to discredit fair discussion by placing it somewhere which it isn't. And this kind of process, as I've explained quite simply, doesn't help the discussion and certainly reduces any chance of a newbie being given a fair and objective understanding of the issues.

Please, go ahead. But you do yourself no favours in what you seek to achieve.

[Mr Paul in relation to cyclist and pedestrian head injuries]
I take it you've got an idea of the kind of people who are admitted to hospital with head injuries? I do, I used to work on a neuro unit.
.........

I can't give numbers because I don't have them. Most of the brain problems I was involved with were down to tumours, strokes and other conditions.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1776877, member: 45"]Again, you're mixing up promotion and compulsion.[/quote]

No. I said helmet promotion and compulsion are both shown to put people off cycling. So both are health own goals.

 

[ufkacbln]

I see TyT has done the usual ..... and disappeared rather than answer the questions.

 

[benb]

I see TyT has done the usual ..... and disappeared rather than answer the questions.

Good job I was sitting down for that shocking revelation.