The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

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?

Exactly the point of the posts.........

 

[ufkacbln]

'Medical practitioner' is not a protected title - nor is 'doctor'. 'General Practitioner' is a protected title however (Section 49(1) of the Medical Act 1983).

The definition I use most frequently is based on the legisation I mentioned

A Nurse, AHP or others do not come under the term "Medical" in the regulations covering referral for procedures that administering radioactivity. They have a different system set up as "non-medical" referrers for this reason

 

[Justinslow]

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.

So are you suggesting helmets should be banned then as they are useless and any anecdotal evidence regarding their use is "tosh"? Interesting.........

 

[Racing roadkill]

If (let's say for arguments sake) 3 qualified medical professionals, are assessing 2 patients who have suffered very similar cycling accidents. Both accidents were witnessed by reliable sources, and in both accidents, the patients were seen to have hit their heads, hard onto solid surfaces. Patient A, is now receiving treatment in the ICU, and the prognosis is not favourable, patient B, is receiving treatment for a mild concussion, and is just in for observation really. Patient A, was not wearing a lid, patient B, was wearing a lid. If any one of those medical professionals, was to form the opinion that there was no benefit for patient B, from wearing a lid, I'd love to hear their reasoning. And if there was only the one, who thought the lid had no benefit, I'd quite happily ignore that persons opinion, as it would be at odds with both logic, and the other two opinions.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

There was an article some years ago in BikeBiz where a second factor was recognised by the manufacturers. They firmly believe in the evidence that compulsory helmet use reduces the number of cyclists and that this is also a factor when you suggets cycling is dangerous

The maths become simple..... promote helmets and lose out on all the other sales!

 

[martint235]

If (let's say for arguments sake) 3 qualified medical professionals, are assessing 2 patients who have suffered very similar cycling accidents. Both accidents were witnessed by reliable sources, and in both accidents, the patients were seen to have hit their heads, hard onto solid surfaces. Patient A, is now receiving treatment in the ICU, and the prognosis is not favourable, patient B, is receiving treatment for a mild concussion, and is just in for observation really. Patient A, was not wearing a lid, patient B, was wearing a lid. If any one of those medical professionals, was to form the opinion that there was no benefit for patient B, from wearing a lid, I'd love to hear their reasoning. And if there was only the one, who thought the lid had no benefit, I'd quite happily ignore that persons opinion, as it would be at odds with both logic, and the other two opinions.

Patient B has a naturally tougher skull?

The medical profession itself is one in which evidence is paramount. They don't use anecdotal evidence in any of their own processes, why would you be so eager to believe it outside their sphere of expertise?

These threads and discussions could be solved simply. Helmet manufacturers to develop tests that provide scientific evidence similar to that in medicine ie that the helmet would work in such a way in such a scenario and b. that any harm the helmet may do is fully outweight by the benefits provided. The very fact that no helmet manufacturer anywhere on the globe is willing to do this provides all I need to know about helmet efficacy.

 

[Profpointy]

So are you suggesting helmets should be banned then as they are useless and any anecdotal evidence regarding their use is "tosh"? Interesting.........

that's what we call a "straw man" argument. Miss-state what someone has said, then argue against it.
It is dishonest, and hardly helpful in trying to understand the question. This thread has by and large gone quite well with people, (mostly) listening and answering, even if no one's convinced. Why should anyone be calling for banning helmets ?

 

[ufkacbln]

If (let's say for arguments sake) 3 qualified medical professionals, are assessing 2 patients who have suffered very similar cycling accidents. Both accidents were witnessed by reliable sources, and in both accidents, the patients were seen to have hit their heads, hard onto solid surfaces. Patient A, is now receiving treatment in the ICU, and the prognosis is not favourable, patient B, is receiving treatment for a mild concussion, and is just in for observation really. Patient A, was not wearing a lid, patient B, was wearing a lid. If any one of those medical professionals, was to form the opinion that there was no benefit for patient B, from wearing a lid, I'd love to hear their reasoning. And if there was only the one, who thought the lid had no benefit, I'd quite happily ignore that persons opinion, as it would be at odds with both logic, and the other two opinions.

There are two answer:

Firstly
By far the most common head injury admission is due to alcohol, so if these contrived "perfect" accidents were falls due to alcohol..... would it be "evidence" for the rest of the people in that pub to wear helmets?

If (let's say for arguments sake) 3 qualified medical professionals, are assessing 2 patients who are drunk and have both fallen and suffered similar head injuries. Both accidents were witnessed by reliable sources, and in both accidents, the patients were seen to have hit their heads, hard onto solid surfaces. Patient A, is now receiving treatment in the ICU, and the prognosis is not favourable, patient B, is receiving treatment for a mild concussion, and is just in for observation really. Patient A, was not wearing a lid, patient B, was wearing a lid. If any one of those medical professionals, was to form the opinion that there was no benefit for patient B, from wearing a lid, I'd love to hear their reasoning. And if there was only the one, who thought the lid had no benefit, I'd quite happily ignore that persons opinion, as it would be at odds with both logic, and the other two opinions.


Secondly:
Once again there is a worrying bias to the question.

You are again quite happy to insist that one medic's reasoning is questioned, yet have no need to listen to why they have decided, and happy to ignore that decision simply because it is inconvenient for you

Hardly an "informed" choice if you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "LA-LA-LA" every time someone says anything you disagree with

 

[Racing roadkill]

So are you suggesting helmets should be banned then as they are useless and any anecdotal evidence regarding their use is "tosh"? Interesting.........

And that's another thing, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any of these qualified medical types, who could put their hand on their heart, and say that a helmet actually caused more damage. I have heard some badly misquoted, in cases where rotational injuries caused injury, where the refusenik brigade have jumped on, and selectively (mis) quoted the person. They said (something along the lines of) the person who had the accident, suffered a lot of damage to the brain, because of a rotational injury, and a helmet wouldn't have stopped this. What is usually missed out is the bit about the helmet almost definitely preventing a fracture injury, which may have had far more severe consequences / made matters even worse.

 

[Justinslow]

that's what we call a "straw man" argument. Miss-state what someone has said, then argue against it.
It is dishonest, and hardly helpful in trying to understand the question. This thread has by and large gone quite well with people, (mostly) listening and answering, even if no one's convinced. Why should anyone be calling for banning helmets ?

Because I don't understand where Martin is going with his post? I know nobody has called for "helmets to be banned" but what do the people like Martin want? The non wearers are very vocal in errrrr not wearing helmets, but what do they want, what is their goal?

 

[martint235]

So are you suggesting helmets should be banned then as they are useless and any anecdotal evidence regarding their use is "tosh"? Interesting.........

Not at all. If you would like to wear one as a fashion accessory go right ahead. What I want banned is people telling me I should be wearing a helmet when there's not a scrap of evidence to say it would make a difference in a crash.

 

[ufkacbln]

The Medical Act 1956 was replaced by the Medical Act 1983.

The IR(ME)R 2000 and IR(ME)R 2006 do not define "medical". In fact, the Regulations use to the term 'registered healthcare professional' (not 'medical practitioner') in relation to those who are able to take responsibility/refer for exposures - the definition of 'registered healthcare professional' is a person who is a member of a profession regulated by a body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, not just registered medical practitioners.

My username is a hint as to my knowledge on such matters...

ARSAC

All staff who are neither Medical or Dental (as originally defined) are required to refer under delegation as non-medical

 

[Justinslow]

Not at all. If you would like to wear one as a fashion accessory go right ahead. What I want banned is people telling me I should be wearing a helmet when there's not a scrap of evidence to say it would make a difference in a crash.

I haven't seen anybody here saying "you should wear a helmet", or people pushing their "helmet wearing" on others, most people are saying "I wear one because........".
So they don't make any difference in any crash?
You see how your message becomes jumbled?

 

[Justinslow]

You mean apart from the highly qualified consultant orthopaedic surgeon who was the expert witness in my case, who said exactly that in his witness statement and verbal testimony to the court, you mean?

Yer but, that's your own anecdotal evidence and is equally as valid as my mate who suffered brain swelling and concussion when he landed in his head and ALL the medical personnel commented that his helmet probably saved his life.

 

[Racing roadkill]

You mean apart from the highly qualified consultant orthopaedic surgeon who was the expert witness in my case, who said exactly that in his witness statement and verbal testimony to the court, you mean?

Like I said before, refuseniks are everywhere, and occasionally you do find them in the medical profession, they are entitled to their opinions, but they should really think before they speak. How long did it take you to find someone who would actually do this? The only time I've ever encountered one, was when someone I know was looking for compo, and he had a devil of a job finding someone to say it.