Pro compulsion

[ufkacbln]

Modern helmets are more about fashion than safety with the increasing number of vents causing issues.

I find myself unable completely to agree with the above. It may be that there is an extent to which fashion (or similar) has some influence on the design of helmets, but I wonder whether there are any helmets whose design brief follows fashion more than it does safety - even if we do not agree with the parameters used for gauging safety.

Interpretation - many pro-helmet sites agree with this statement. There are no helmets on the UK or US market at present that could pass the Snell B95 standard that was the benchmark 15 years ago

There is less material to absorb an impact, and the material is also denser to maintain shape, again decreasing the ability to absorb energy. Modern helmets are in fact less effective than say ten years ago.

My helmet is around 15 years old and in terms of density, mass, size, shape and design it is very similar to the ones my children use which are about one year old. The appearence is different because of the 'aero-look' venting on the newer ones, but the only obvious 'snag point' on either design is the tail.

The materials are slimmer and helmet dimensions became smaller. The thickness is less than previoulsy

Now add the problem of snag points, the edges of the vents and pointed bits that break the smooth round line of a helmet. These can catch, causing rotational injuries, ejection of the helmet and also in some cases increase the injury if the snag point suddenly arrstes motion.

I can't disagree with this as a broad, sweeping statement, but on the majority of helmets there are fewer snag points than first appearence suggests. Many are simply vents whose graphics make them appear to protrude or have peaks.

So all in all the modern helmet is not a good opion and the level of protection is decreasing.

This may or may not be so. I suspect it is not so, but have no data to back up my suspicions. If the basis for the initial word 'so' is the argument made in the preceding paragraphs, then I do not agree that one follows the other....

The combination of less protection, the increase in likelihood of abrupt arresting of movement combined with the increased likelihood of ejection combine to a less effective product

Which brings us to standards and Lidl. These helmets are likely to be certified to the feeble EN1078, a standard that is so risible and offers so little protection that it is no longer accepted as worthwhile in the USA - Turn up for a racing or triathlon event in the US and when they stop laughing at you they ban you as the helmet is useless.

Yet we still allow them to be worn here!

I'm not sure an anti-helmet stance is strengthened by arguing that other (overseas) pro-helmet groups are opposed to safety standards used by manufacturers for hemlets sold in the UK. You appear to be saying that there are people who also insist on helmet use who would not approve of the use of shoddy helmets... Good for them! As to US Federal Safety standards in the wider sense... I cannot drive any Citroen with oleo-pneumatic suspension in the USA or drive a car with headlights that don't conform to their federal safety regulations. This has more to do with restricting imports than it does with safety. I've been involved in the re-import of European cars and motorcycles from the US to the UK. The number of pointless 'safety' mods required just to limit sales of European products in the US was beyond belief... It all has to be stripped off for the UK market because it has no purpose and is totally pants. I do not take federal safety regs very seriously.

There is no anti-helmet stance!

How is suggesting that the present standards are inadequate and need to be raised to a menaingful standard be anti-helmet?

As for product limitation, this is different. There i no restriction on import or sale of EN1078 helmets. It is the users, the racing and triathlon bodies that have banned their use.

Finally on helmet design, Headway the head injury charity is pro -compulsion, but is now promoting a paper from teh British Dental Association that suggests facial protection should be mandatory.. effectively Headway is now for compulsory full face helmets!

If a pro-compulsion body is also in favour of compulsory full-face helmets, that fact alone does not weaken wider the pro-compulsion argument. I am not in favour of compulsion (at all), but I do not follow the logic of your final point.

One might as well say: "This person who states that umbrellas are a good idea on wet days also says that submarines should be made of cardboard... It is therefore clear that umbrellas are not a good idea on wet days."

The point is whether we are looking at head injury prevention.

Advocating the use of full face helmets as with Headway and their use of the BDA suggestions is not in any way an attempt to weaken the compulsion argument. at all.

What is being suggested is that we should be looking at the helmets themselves.

Full face helmets with fewer vents and a smoother, safer rounder shape are what we should be advocating if we are interested in preventing head injuries.

It is more a case of suggesting that the umbrella should at least be capable of repelling water before using it on a wet day and that it is clear that an umbrella made of paper are not a good idea on wet days

 

[twobiker]

Cyclist head injuries are less than 1% of head injuries requiring admission.

If you are going to quote this as a justification, you need to explain why the cost in the above facilities should be acceptable in other groups.

Helmet would save three times as much "cost" if worn by vehicle drivers and some 5 times the cost if worn by passengers as well.

The savings would be five times greater if pedestrians wore helmets.

Are we really saying that we should balance the cost of helmets agains the cost to the NHS then we need an explanation why the expense is justified in these groups

If 1% is the case then why do the children have to wear them for cycling lessons,to take like with like for every accident involving a car and a bike, then the biker is far more likely to be needing the ambulance than the driver,nor do I believe that most car drivers suffer head injuries in a crash,
you need to "cost" how much it requires to clear up the cycling accidents which could have been prevented by proper training, against how much it would "cost" to supply helmets,especially since by buying in bulk they would be only a couple of quid each.

 

[Red Light]

nor do I believe that most car drivers suffer head injuries in a crash,

Percentage of Hospital Admissions with head injuries:

Pedestrians 46%
Cyclists 37%
Car Occupants 32%
Chart 6h, Hospital Admissions Data on Road Casualties 2009, DfT

So "most" people don't suffer head injuries in road accidents in any transport mode but car occupants are up there in the same ballpark as cyclists for head injuries.

you need to "cost" how much it requires to clear up the cycling accidents which could have been prevented by proper training, against how much it would "cost" to supply helmets,especially since by buying in bulk they would be only a couple of quid each.

I doubt you would get helmets in bulk at a 75% discount on the cheapest price out there. Even BHIT which claims to be a non profit making charity doesn't sell them anywhere near that cheap. But what really costs is the need to sterilise them after each use to prevent the transfer of head lice and other nasty scalp infections.

 

[twobiker]

Percentage of Hospital Admissions with head injuries:

Pedestrians 46%
Cyclists 37%
Car Occupants 32%
Chart 6h, Hospital Admissions Data on Road Casualties 2009, DfT

So "most" people don't suffer head injuries in road accidents in any transport mode but car occupants are up there in the same ballpark as cyclists for head injuries.




I doubt you would get helmets in bulk at a 75% discount on the cheapest price out there. Even BHIT which claims to be a non profit making charity doesn't sell them anywhere near that cheap. But what really costs is the need to sterilise them after each use to prevent the transfer of head lice and other nasty scalp infections.

A figure of 5% less is not the same ballpark at all it is a big difference, and car occupants are the lowest figure, also you do not quote how many of the cyclists injured had had any kind of cycle training,the reason behind my original comment,the cost of sterilizing could be negated by the use of a disposable plastic liner, similar to the throw away shoes you get at airports.

 

[Norm]

Percentage of Hospital Admissions with head injuries:

Pedestrians 46%
Cyclists 37%
Car Occupants 32%
Chart 6h, Hospital Admissions Data on Road Casualties 2009, DfT

Those figures, which would appear to be mutually exclusive, add up to 115%.

That would require some pretty nifty footwork to be both a pedestrian and a car occupant. No wonder they bumped their head.

 

[ufkacbln]

If 1% is the case then why do the children have to wear them for cycling lessons,to take like with like for every accident involving a car and a bike, then the biker is far more likely to be needing the ambulance than the driver

Selecting the accident is fiddling the figures!

To take like for like accidents where you nudge an obstacle when putting a car / cycle in a garage then neirther would need a helmet!

nor do I believe that most car drivers suffer head injuries in a crash,

Not what was stated - the figures are for those accidents requiring admission for a head injury

you need to "cost" how much it requires to clear up the cycling accidents which could have been prevented by proper training, against how much it would "cost" to supply helmets,especially since by buying in bulk they would be only a couple of quid each.

Funnily enough if you take the figures from RoSPA, and the (discredited) figures of Thomson and Rivara, the reduction is similar about 80%

Which brings us back to the cost of clearing up -

Lets do your maths and use the figures provided above

Lets also assume (as with the present "top slicing" accounting system ussed ny the NHS) each patient has a fixed cost of £1000

Lets also assume that a helmet is 100 % effective


The original post was about the cost of head injuries to the NHS


Savings from a pedestrian helmet - £46,000 per 100 patients
Savings from a cycle helmet - £37,000 per 100 pateints
Savings from car helmets - £32,000 per 100 patients


The simple fact is that the savings would be far greater if pedestrians and car occupants

Given the fact that drivers are already trained, helmets and this can therefore be discounted - helmets can only be a massive reduction

It is extremely likely that the greatest reduction would be with peeatrian training and helmet use!








So if we are keen on reducing costs why are we not looking at the areas where greatest reduction could be achieved?


.. or is this again the hypocritical case of these costs being perfectly acceptable and do not need reduction in other groups, but absolutely unacceptable and desperately need reduction when cyclists involved.

A wonderful discriminatory two tier system!

 

[twobiker]

Selecting the accident is fiddling the figures!

To take like for like accidents where you nudge an obstacle when putting a car / cycle in a garage then neirther would need a helmet!, we




Not what was stated - the figures are for those accidents requiring admission for a head injury



Funnily enough if you take the figures from RoSPA, and the (discredited) figures of Thomson and Rivara, the reduction is similar about 80%

Which brings us back to the cost of clearing up -

Lets do your maths and use the figures provided above

Lets also assume (as with the present "top slicing" accounting system ussed ny the NHS) each patient has a fixed cost of £1000

Lets also assume that a helmet is 100 % effective


The original post was about the cost of head injuries to the NHS


Savings from a pedestrian helmet - £46,000 per 100 patients
Savings from a cycle helmet - £37,000 per 100 pateints
Savings from car helmets - £32,000 per 100 patients


The simple fact is that the savings would be far greater if pedestrians and car occupants

Given the fact that drivers are already trained, helmets and this can therefore be discounted - helmets can only be a massive reduction

It is extremely likely that the greatest reduction would be with peeatrian training and helmet use!








So if we are keen on reducing costs why are we not looking at the areas where greatest reduction could be achieved?


.. or is this again the hypocritical case of these costs being perfectly acceptable and do not need reduction in other groups, but absolutely unacceptable and desperately need reduction when cyclists involved.

A wonderful discriminatory two tier system!

It would not be recorded on the statistics if you only nudged a car with your bike in your garage, now who's fiddling the figures? and if all the pedestrians were wearing helmets there is no evidence that a helmet would have made any difference, the same goes for car drivers, thats where like with like comes in, you may as well say 250 people were killed in a plane crash none of them were wearing helmets. you have to know how many of the car,pedestrian,cycle accidents would have had a different outcome if a helmet had been worn.

 

[ufkacbln]

It would not be recorded on the statistics if you only nudged a car with your bike in your garage, now who's fiddling the figures?

You need to reread that in context... it was what is call an extreme example a method frequently used (as in this case) to show why it is unwise to follow the route under discussion.



..

and if all the pedestrians were wearing helmets there is no evidence that a helmet would have made any difference, the same goes for car drivers, thats where like with like comes in, you may as well say 250 people were killed in a plane crash none of them Replywere wearing helmets. you have to know how many of the car,pedestrian,cycle accidents would have had a different outcome if a helmet had been worn.

Again you need to reread this in context.... hence the use of the words such as "assume" and "likely"


You have however highlighted the problem - we don't know how many accidents would have had a different outcome, the problem exists for all these groups. You cannot say definitively that the helmet would have made a difference in any accident. You can speculate that in a particular case the helmet
could have contributed, but the same criteria are applicable across all these groups so the level of evidence (or lack of it) is the same.


However there is obviously some evidence that they are effective in reducing head injury in car accidents, or are the professional drivers simply wearing them as a suitable area for advertising?

The basic asssumption (note the use of the word assumption) made is that helmets are effective in reducing and injury (as you point out it cannot be "known")

Or is there a suggestion that a cycle helmet on a cyclist in a low impact accident is a life saver, but in a like for like accident would be ineffective when worn by a pedestrian?

 

[twobiker]

You need to reread that in context... it was what is call an extreme example a method frequently used (as in this case) to show why it is unwise to follow the route under discussion.



..

Again you need to reread this in context.... hence the use of the words such as "assume" and "likely"


You have however highlighted the problem - we don't know how many accidents would have had a different outcome, the problem exists for all these groups. You cannot say definitively that the helmet would have made a difference in any accident. You can speculate that in a particular case the helmet
could have contributed, but the same criteria are applicable across all these groups so the level of evidence (or lack of it) is the same.


However there is obviously some evidence that they are effective in reducing head injury in car accidents, or are the professional drivers simply wearing them as a suitable area for advertising?

The basic asssumption (note the use of the word assumption) made is that helmets are effective in reducing and injury (as you point out it cannot be "known")

Or is there a suggestion that a cycle helmet on a cyclist in a low impact accident is a life saver, but in a like for like accident would be ineffective when worn by a pedestrian?

Racing drivers wear them as they travel at far greater speed than normal motorists, hopefully, and pedestrians, unless its me uphill, travel more slowly, we are trying to filter out the RTAs from the RTAs with helmets,and it is suprising that they do not show these statistics for cyclists.

 

[Red Light]

A figure of 5% less is not the same ballpark at all it is a big difference, and car occupants are the lowest figure, also you do not quote how many of the cyclists injured had had any kind of cycle training,the reason behind my original comment,the cost of sterilizing could be negated by the use of a disposable plastic liner, similar to the throw away shoes you get at airports.

14% difference is in the same ball park to me but others can apply their own definitions of a ball park.

Whether they have received training is not recorded in the STATS19 or HES databases but a RoSPA review of the studies that had been done concluded children who received training were 4-5x less likely to have an accident in the first place.

As for liners, how are you going to get those round the straps and what about the ventilation in hot weather. I bet you'd love to cycle round with a boil in the bag bag on your head and bits of stray plastic rustling away in the wind masking your hearing.

 

[Red Light]

Racing drivers wear them as they travel at far greater speed than normal motorists, hopefully, and pedestrians, unless its me uphill, travel more slowly, we are trying to filter out the RTAs from the RTAs with helmets,and it is suprising that they do not show these statistics for cyclists.

a) the helmets worn by cyclists are only rated for a fall off a stationary bike, no more. Much like the falls pedestrians have. Many have wishful thinking about protection when they are going faster but that's not what they are designed, tested nor certified for.

As for RTA statistics and helmet wearing have a look at the two papers by Paul Hewson which looked in detail at the hospital and police recorded data and found no effect on cyclist road safety from helmet wearing.

 

[twobiker]

a) the helmets worn by cyclists are only rated for a fall off a stationary bike, no more. Much like the falls pedestrians have. Many have wishful thinking about protection when they are going faster but that's not what they are designed, tested nor certified for.

As for RTA statistics and helmet wearing have a look at the two papers by Paul Hewson which looked in detail at the hospital and police recorded data and found no effect on cyclist road safety from helmet wearing.

If Paul Hewson ,sorry no idea who he is, related to Sherrie? , anyway He found no difference to road safety from Helmet wearing ,whats the point of wearing them ?.

 

[twobiker]

Any chance of posting a photo?

Hope this works.

old hat on left,stickers added for fun factor,

 

[Theseus]

If Paul Hewson ,sorry no idea who he is, related to Sherrie? , anyway He found no difference to road safety from Helmet wearing ,whats the point of wearing them ?.

Exactly!

 

[twobiker]

Exactly!

"FINALLY"