Pros and Helmets

[MikeG]

You started with the claim that health professionals know the subject, ball in your court on point 2. Away you go.

No, you started with the claim that health professionals didn't know the subject:

Doctors and ambulance crew often say this sort of thing. Ask yourself how they could know.

Your ball, your court.

 

[MikeG]

No, you claimed they couldn't know ("ask yourself how could they know?"). I merely questioned whether there was anyone who might be in a better position to know. You are the only one who has made a claim, and I note your resistance to backing it up.

You could also, perhaps, tell us all why you think this line of conversation is appropriate in a thread about professional cyclists.

 

[martint235]

Sorry, but they deal with population-wide studies and the like. They would be in no position whatsoever to comment on whether an individual would have survived a specific accident without a helmet on.

An individual has either survived an accident or not. After the event has occurred, how can it be possible to prove that a piece of foam would have made a difference?

 

[MikeG]

.........You offered an opinion on it, which you cannot back up, can you?

You can say that as many times as you like, and it won't make it any more true. You made the original claim, to which I responded. "Ask yourself if there is anyone more likely to know than them" (medical personnel in A&E) is not an assertion, and requires, therefore, no substantiation, particularly as the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one with unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) assertions:

Every time a cyclist ends up at casualty they are either praised for having been wearing a helmet or chided for not wearing one.

EVERY TIME, mark you. Unsubstantiated assertion exacerbated by silly hyperbole.

In either case it is without correlation to whether or not there was any impact to the head or any possible knowledge as to the possible efficacy of a helmet. .

Unsubstantiated assertion translating as: medics cannot have any possible knowledge of whether or not helmets are efficacious.

You made the original claims:

Doctors and ambulance crew often say this sort of thing.

Unsubstantiated assertion

Ask yourself how they could know.

The inference to which I responded.

You have 3 major unsubstantiated assertions which you refuse to back up. You clearly have no idea whatsoever about the principle of the burden of proof. Let me help you: the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

Not those responding to any such claim. Time to stop playing games, back up your claims, or accept that you can't.

 

[AndyRM]

Jeebus. Get a room you pair!

 

[Dan B]

It would be interesting to calculate the accident/km ratio for, say, TdF participants over the length of the event and compare to commuting/utility cycling rates. I would not be surprised if it were an order of magnitude higher

Following up to myself, http://rdrf.org.uk/2014/07/04/will-the-tour-de-france-be-good-for-cycling-in-the-uk/ - but I don't know if 2012 was an especially bad year, the numbers would be more convincing if the analysis were repeated over more events

 

[MikeG]

Don't worry. The problem has....erm........gone away.

 

[srw]

Ask yourself if there is anyone more likely to know than them.

A statistician who's done proper research on a decent sample set.

Such as the sample set of all pro cyclists.

 

[MikeG]

A statistician who's done proper research on a decent sample set.

Such as the sample set of all pro cyclists.

You missed the point. No statistician is ever going to be able to comment on whether someone who has just had an accident would have been better off with or without a helmet on. The only person who could make any sort of comment on that is a doctor. Statisticians can make points about population-wide trends or probabilities, not about an individual sitting in A&E with concussion.

 

[srw]

You missed the point. No statistician is ever going to be able to comment on whether someone who has just had an accident would have been better off with or without a helmet on. The only person who could make any sort of comment on that is a doctor. Statisticians can make points about population-wide trends or probabilities, not about an individual sitting in A&E with concussion.

The only person who's really going to be in a position to make the assessment you're asking for is a pathologist.

 

[ufkacbln]

I am all for choice not compulsory helmet use, but have to ask, do you really know someone who ended up in coma after tripping off a kerb?

Absolutely... in fact over the years I have known quite a few.

In fact the people most at risk are elderly male pedestrians!

 

[ufkacbln]

Let us give MikeG's faith in the emergency services some respect?

After all they are the "experts" and we should obey their superior wisdom and knowledge.

The endorsement by medical professionals is unequivocal:

It is a pleasure to support the 'Thudguard' in my capacity as President of the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine. Any device which helps to reduce the number of head injuries sustained by young children each year is most welcome

John Heyworth
President
British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine

... should make a valuable contribution to risk reduction in a similar way to cycle helmets...

David W. Jenkins BA MPhil(Eng) PhD DCA FTSI
Product Safety Adviser to RoSPA



So there we have the unequivocal und unarguable situation where ALL children should wear the Thudguard.... and no possible argument against given that:

Ask yourself if there is anyone more likely to know than them.

Sorry, but they deal with population-wide studies and the like. They would be in no position whatsoever to comment on whether an individual would have survived a specific accident without a helmet on.

Speculation that they, above all other people, are best placed to make.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

This terrible feeling of déjà vu I keep getting from this thread, do you think it might be a brain injury?

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't think this is proof but we don't cycle as slow as we walk therefore impact would be less fierce and you have more time to react.

A bit of a red herring?

Impact from falls is more than enough to cause a head injury, and the majority of head injury admissions are from this group

What is needed here is an explanation why helmets need not be worn in the group where their proven performance is appropriate, yet we are expected to have a blind faith in the performance of these same helmets in conditions that greatly exceed their design and proven performance parameters

 

[Sara_H]

How about you substantiate yours, or astonish us all by admitting you don't know what you're talking about and showing some humility for once?

Paging @Sara_H, and repeating her interesting post from another thread not that long ago:

Says it all in the quote you posted, I'm an expert in treating serious head injuries. Prevention and helmet use doesn't come in to education/training for medical professionals in ED, critical care etc where these stories often come from.