Pros and Helmets

[MikeG]

When everyone has calmed down, all you'll see I have done is suggest that medics are in a better position than anyone else to comment as to whether or not a helmet may or may not have helped someone in a single particular accident.

Now if you could explain how that unequivocal statement should be read and comprehended, I would be grateful.

When you highlighted the phrase "the medics are in a better position to comment", why did you ignore the "in a single particular accident" phrase? Because that is the key to my sentence, and to my argument. You, like a number of others here, seem to struggle with the concept of a difference between medics commenting on an individual case, and them making general safety pronouncements, which has been my entire point for the last 3 pages. When this penny eventually drops, you may just begin to understand my growing frustration with being utterly mis-represented over and over again.

 

[swansonj]

When you highlighted the phrase "the medics are in a better position to comment", why did you ignore the "in a single particular accident" phrase? Because that is the key to my sentence, and to my argument. You, like a number of others here, seem to struggle with the concept of a difference between medics commenting on an individual case, and them making general safety pronouncements, which has been my entire point for the last 3 pages. When this penny eventually drops, you may just begin to understand my growing frustration with being utterly mis-represented over and over again.

I always understood your distinction. But I didn't bother intervening because I consider that you are wrong in your first premise, that medics are best placed to comment in a specific accident. How on earth is someone supposed to look at a patient with a cracked skull and, drawing on their no doubt extensive knowledge of physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology etc, pronounce in whether a given amount of a given grade of expanded polystyrene would or would not have made a significant difference to the extent of damage to the skull?

 

[swansonj]

I anticipate multiple TMN claims.

Willingly conceded. That's the thing about arguments that go round in circles - they do tend to go through the same points multiple times.

 

[MikeG]

I always understood your distinction. But I didn't bother intervening because I consider that you are wrong in your first premise, that medics are best placed to comment in a specific accident. How on earth is someone supposed to look at a patient with a cracked skull and, drawing on their no doubt extensive knowledge of physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology etc, pronounce in whether a given amount of a given grade of expanded polystyrene would or would not have made a significant difference to the extent of damage to the skull?

I willingly accept that the extreme cases, such as a cracked skull, are beyond the capabilities of anyone to comment on with regards to the question of whether or not a helmet would have helped. But in the case of a broken nose, or a torn ear, some missing teeth or the like then of course the medic can validly comment, and, of course, the medic is better placed than anyone else to so comment.........which is all I have claimed all along.

 

[swansonj]

I willingly accept that the extreme cases, such as a cracked skull, are beyond the capabilities of anyone to comment on with regards to the question of whether or not a helmet would have helped. But in the case of a broken nose, or a torn ear, some missing teeth or the like then of course the medic can validly comment.

I'll accept that distinction. I think it's not really disputed that a helmet can protect against some facial grazing. But I also think few people, medics included, argue for helmet wearing solely on the grounds of reducing grazing.

And it's not beyond the capabilities of "anyone" to comment usefully on whether a given amount of expanded polystyrene would make a difference to a given impact. It's perfectly within the competence of, say, a half-decent materials scientist.

 

[MikeG]

Well, for a proper assessment, I guess you'd need a medically trained materials scientist. They're probably quite thin on the ground .

 

[ufkacbln]

When you highlighted the phrase "the medics are in a better position to comment", why did you ignore the "in a single particular accident" phrase? Because that is the key to my sentence, and to my argument. You, like a number of others here, seem to struggle with the concept of a difference between medics commenting on an individual case, and them making general safety pronouncements, which has been my entire point for the last 3 pages. When this penny eventually drops, you may just begin to understand my growing frustration with being utterly mis-represented over and over again.

The problem is that these "medics" are not the best people in ANY particular accident

They are untrained, ignorant and failing to observe their own professional requirement for "evidence based practice"

 

[ufkacbln]

I willingly accept that the extreme cases, such as a cracked skull, are beyond the capabilities of anyone to comment on with regards to the question of whether or not a helmet would have helped. But in the case of a broken nose, or a torn ear, some missing teeth or the like then of course the medic can validly comment, and, of course, the medic is better placed than anyone else to so comment.........which is all I have claimed all along.

Nope....... they still have no training or remit to make a valid comment

 

[screenman]

C, under what circumstances would you consider a helmet may protect the head in some way.

 

[ufkacbln]

The variation in incidents is wide, so an overall reply is difficult.

However helmets are designed to take impacts at 12 mph or less, and may protect in this type of collision.

The interesting fact is that cohort studies show that the majority of head injuries in this type of impact are simple falls and not cycling injuries.

The question is really if the helmets are effective, in which group would their use be most effective..... and it isn't cyclists!

 

[MikeG]

The problem is that these "medics" are not the best people in ANY particular accident

They are untrained, ignorant and failing to observe their own professional requirement for "evidence based practice"

I doubt you would let me get away with an unsupported assertion like this. Any chance of backing this up with some credible evidence?

 

[swansonj]

C, under what circumstances would you consider a helmet may protect the head in some way.

A helmet may make a bad headache less severe, or even prevent a mild concussion. A helmet may reduce or prevent bad grazing of the skin. A helmet may also create an impact where none would otherwise have happened, it may make a serious brain damage worse by increasing the rotation, and, in children, it may kill them by strangling them on the straps. Oh, and promotion of helmets kills people through heart disease.

Fair summary?

 

[Wobblers]

No. No, no, no..........This is where you're obviously struggling. Those two statements, despite your claim, are not in conflict. Let me say this again......

Medics are in a better position to comment as to whether or not a helmet may have helped in a particular accident, but not to give general advice as to the efficacy of helmets. Where on earth is the problem with that? It really is simple.....they've got a kid covered in grazes in front of them, and they can say.........."looks like the helmet saved him a head wound", but, (unless they have a special personal interest in cycling and have reviewed all the available research and data) they are in no position to say "all kids should be wearing a helmet".

You're very good at complaining about how people "don't read your posts". Perhaps, then, you could do me the honour of reading mine. Most particularly my comments on how forensic scientists work. Then apply that comment onto clinicians who lack any detailed knowledge far less accurate measurements on how a particular accident happened and how it could have been mitigated by a helmet.

PS: @swansonj, allow me to be the first to claim a TMN.

 

[screenman]

The variation in incidents is wide, so an overall reply is difficult.

However helmets are designed to take impacts at 12 mph or less, and may protect in this type of collision.


The interesting fact is that cohort studies show that the majority of head injuries in this type of impact are simple falls and not cycling injuries.

The question is really if the helmets are effective, in which group would their use be most effective..... and it isn't cyclists!

The question was the one I asked, so a helmet could protect your head in a 25mph crash if you slowed a bit before your head made contact with the hard stuff, do you think I am right or wrong.

 

[screenman]

A helmet may make a bad headache less severe, or even prevent a mild concussion. A helmet may reduce or prevent bad grazing of the skin. A helmet may also create an impact where none would otherwise have happened, it may make a serious brain damage worse by increasing the rotation, and, in children, it may kill them by strangling them on the straps. Oh, and promotion of helmets kills people through heart disease.

Fair summary?

Nope.