The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Racing roadkill]

Because medical experts are also expert in the design and manufacture of safety equipment?

I hit a truck at 25mph head first. I wasn't wearing a helmet. The surgeon who stitched my scalp wounds berated me for this so I asked him if a helmet would have been of use. He actually stopped to think about it and responded: if you'd been wearing a cheap helmet an impact like this, we'd probably be picking bit of helmet out of your skull. A more expensive helmet may have saved you a few stitches but there may have been more impact to your spine as well". So that's another medical expert who knows nothing about helmet design.

Oh and despite hitting a truck headfirst at 25mph, I didn't die. I didn't even fracture my skull (anyone would think it was designed in some way to survive impact). I did damage a lot of the muscles in my back though.....

I tend to find that the opinions of medical experts are generally based on their experiences. That is to say, that they see lots of these types of cases, and therefore are in a position to compare results of similar types of accident, where lids were worn, versus where lids weren't worn. Obviously in a truck squish accident, where someone ends up looking like 'chum', the helmet may have prevented a serious head injury, but the truck then caused a bigger problem, which negates this fact somewhat, where as if they saw the results of two very similar accidents, one with a lid, and one without a lid, where there were no other significant impacts, other than head to ground,where the primary concern would be the relevant degree of head injury, then it would be far easier to judge the degree to which the helmet reduced the amount of injury. Of course you have to factor in that helmet refuseniks, are everywhere (including the medical profession), and if you remove the void (IMHO) opinions of such people (who really should know better, given their implied Kudos), then I personally believe that there is plenty of evidence to say that a helmet is a worthwhile addition to your cycle kit.

 

[ufkacbln]

There was an interesting post about someone's dad having a bike accident, which resulted in him ending up in hospital with a concussion. The medical experts at the hospital were of the opinion that the helmet saved the guy from being far more seriously hurt, or killed. I tend to listen to what medical experts have to say on the subject.

I'll raise your Casualty doctor by a Neurosurgeon who says they don't work and are inadequate.

Dr Marsh went on to say that wearing a helmet could actually pose greater risks to cyclists than not wearing one at all.

Shall we listen to his advice?

 

[ufkacbln]

Doctors and Nurses other medics are appallingly unprofessional when it comes to this subject and beach their own rules on "informed and evidenced" practice

I remember attending a course where a young lad was berated by an A & E nurse for not wearing one. So I asked what peer reviewed evidence she based this on..... she had absolutely none

Hadn't even heard of Rivara, Thompson or ny other literature
DIdn't like being told that she was being unprofessional

 

[Racing roadkill]

[QUOTE 3995702, member: 43827"]My views are


Who is "they" - ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, or anyone in the medical profession?
Do you really mean " always" - every single time - is it based on scientific analysis or is it just exaggeration to make a point?
Who are " people like you" - white middle class males, immigrants, transvestites, or just people who disagree with you?

Please be more precise in your responses and clinical in your phrasing, or people like you, who always come out with the same stuff, could be accused of spouting irresponsible nonsense and ignorant propaganda based on no certain knowledge whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

'They' are who I said 'they' were at the beginning of my post, I guess you missed it somehow, so I'll reiterate it just for the hard of understanding "medical professionals" I'll put it in bold, just in case you missed it again. They = "medical professionals". There, is that easier to understand now? Just to clarify further, 'they' ie "medical professionals" alludes to the professional, at the hospital, who is dealing with the treatment of the accident victim.

 

[ufkacbln]

I tend to find that the opinions of medical experts are generally based on their experiences. That is to say, that they see lots of these types of cases, and therefore are in a position to compare results of similar types of accident, where lids were worn, versus where lids weren't worn. Obviously in a truck squish accident, where someone ends up looking like 'chum', the helmet may have prevented a serious head injury, but the truck then caused a bigger problem, which negates this fact somewhat, where as if they saw the results of two very similar accidents, one with a lid, and one without a lid, where there were no other significant impacts, other than head to ground,where the primary concern would be the relevant degree of head injury, then it would be far easier to judge the degree to which the helmet reduced the amount of injury. Of course you have to factor in that helmet refuseniks, are everywhere (including the medical profession), and if you remove the void (IMHO) opinions of such people (who really should know better, given their implied Kudos), then I personally believe that there is plenty of evidence to say that a helmet is a worthwhile addition to your cycle kit.

Interesting

Medic with pro-helmet view is acting on evidence and experience
Medic who questions helmet efficiency is a "refusenik" with no right to that opinion which should be removed from the debate


Why not consider that they are also acting on evidence and experience?

Why is it if the evidence for helmets is so overwhelming, is everyone so keen to devalue and dismiss the opinion of anyone who questions it, rather than accept their are in fact genuine limitations?

 

[Mugshot]

I tend to find that the opinions of medical experts are generally based on their experiences. That is to say, that they see lots of these types of cases, and therefore are in a position to compare results of similar types of accident, where lids were worn, versus where lids weren't worn.

I believe it was @Sara_H that made an interesting point concerning this from her time spent working in A&E and a conversation she had with her colleagues. The usual stuff concerning helmet saving lives or serious injuries was being trotted out along with it making no sense not to wear one, she asked them to consider where the majority of the head injuries they dealt with occurred and where the use of helmets could potentially be of the most benefit, it wasn't cycling.
I'm pretty sure it was Sara but I will apologise in advance if it wasn't and for my tagging her.

 

[Mugshot]

'They' are who I said 'they' were at the beginning of my post, I guess you missed it somehow, so I'll reiterate it just for the hard of understanding "medical professionals" I'll put it in bold, just in case you missed it again. They = "medical professionals". There, is that easier to understand now? Just to clarify further, 'they' ie "medical professionals" alludes to the professional, at the hospital, who is dealing with the treatment of the accident victim.

Think you may have your posters a little mixed up there Racing.

 

[ufkacbln]

... and the other piece of medical opinion

Over 65% of Doctors voting in the BMJ were against compulsion and the key factors for this was:

Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists, why would anyone want to bring in a law for something which is clearly not effective at reducing the risk to cyclists?"

Hey - I might even get to like this concept of listening to what medical experts have to say on the subject

 

[ufkacbln]

I believe it was @Sara_H that made an interesting point concerning this from her time spent working in A&E and a conversation she had with her colleagues. The usual stuff concerning helmet saving lives or serious injuries was being trotted out along with it making no sense not to wear one, she asked them to consider where the majority of the head injuries they dealt with occurred and where the use of helmets could potentially be of the most benefit, it wasn't cycling.
I'm pretty sure it was Sara but I will apologise in advance if it wasn't and for my tagging her.

I know evidence isn't a requirement here, but that experience is across the board, EVERY cohort study that looks at head injures finds cyclists to be a minority

Concentrating on helmets just for cyclists is like finding a cure for the plague, but only giving it to people who live in a small rural community as opposed to the cities where it would be more effective

 

[ufkacbln]

'They' are who I said 'they' were at the beginning of my post, I guess you missed it somehow, so I'll reiterate it just for the hard of understanding "medical professionals" I'll put it in bold, just in case you missed it again. They = "medical professionals". There, is that easier to understand now? Just to clarify further, 'they' ie "medical professionals" alludes to the professional, at the hospital, who is dealing with the treatment of the accident victim.

IIRC a "Medical Professional" was restricted to a fully registered person within the meaning of the Medical Act 1956

Others are "Allied Health Professions", Nurses or other definitions - they are NOT medical professionals

 

[Justinslow]

What views? What are they?

About 20 or so posts back sums up my stance and I dare say many others also. My views are as relevant on this thread as yours.

 

[Justinslow]

I'll raise your Casualty doctor by a Neurosurgeon who says they don't work and are inadequate.

Shall we listen to his advice?

You do know they get it wrong from time to time as many a high court trial has proven, they are only humans with opinions and other neurosurgeons may have differing views?

 

[snorri]

More evidence :-

IME none of the "you should wear a helmet" people is interested in evidence, in their view common sense trumps all and common sense says a head covering provides protection...end of story.
Trying to open a conversation on cyclist injuries in Australia or the wise words of St Chris of Boardman and the "wear a helmet" brigade just change the topic or walk away.

 

[martint235]

I tend to find that the opinions of medical experts are generally based on their experiences. That is to say, that they see lots of these types of cases, and therefore are in a position to compare results of similar types of accident, where lids were worn, versus where lids weren't worn. Obviously in a truck squish accident, where someone ends up looking like 'chum', the helmet may have prevented a serious head injury, but the truck then caused a bigger problem, which negates this fact somewhat, where as if they saw the results of two very similar accidents, one with a lid, and one without a lid, where there were no other significant impacts, other than head to ground,where the primary concern would be the relevant degree of head injury, then it would be far easier to judge the degree to which the helmet reduced the amount of injury. Of course you have to factor in that helmet refuseniks, are everywhere (including the medical profession), and if you remove the void (IMHO) opinions of such people (who really should know better, given their implied Kudos), then I personally believe that there is plenty of evidence to say that a helmet is a worthwhile addition to your cycle kit.

This. This is where the whole pro-helmet lobby is going wrong. If evidence was readily available, I'd expect the helmet manufacturers to be shouting about it but listen....... what's that noise? Silence.

A quick google of "Evidence of the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets" by comparison comes up with pages of the stuff.

Manufacturers want you to buy their helmets. They know they have no evidence but they have managed to achieve a drip-feed of anecdotal evidence that is convincing people including the UCI that helmets are of benefit (I'm going to be kind to the UCI and not suggest that bribery may have been involved). This anecdotal evidence doesn't stop it being tosh though.

 

[benb]

IME none of the "you should wear a helmet" people are interested in evidence, in their view common sense trumps all and common sense says a head covering provides protection...end of story.
Trying to open a conversation on cyclist injuries in Australia or the wise words of St Chris of Boardman and the "wear a helmet" brigade just change the topic or walk away.

Yep. I had a discussion with someone who couldn't understand why I didn't wear a helmet. I said "The evidence shows they are not effective at reducing head injuries" and they replied "Don't talk to me about evidence" with actual, proper contempt, like I'd just uttered a swear word! What is it with people who are actually proud to be ignorant?