The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Profpointy]

No, it's more down to the fact that I've only heard the anti / it makes no difference / it makes things worse, from medical professionals, who in my opinion, should be scrutinised a bit more closely by the ethics committee lot. I haven't encountered that point of view, from the vast majority of the medics I've had dealings with, and on the very rare occasions I have, I'd have classified the individual as deluded / nutter / someone who should find another vocation.

So the medics who say "helmets save lives" but haven't even bothered to look at (sorry, stuck record) Australia, and dismiss anyone who is swayed by evidence, are (by implication) OK, and presumably do not need scrutiny by the ethics committee..

sorry, I know the above is a bit straw-manish - but it's still fair to ask if that's your point of view

 

[Justinslow]

The whole point about the debate is that there is no "correct" answer and the important thing is that whatever you choose then the choice MUST be an informed one

Read the evidence, make up your own mind on its strengths weaknesses and validity weigh up what you want to do and then do it

The danger is when fanatics try and close the debate by trying to silence any opinion that does not agree with theirs

Your statement can cover both sides of the debate. I think you are correct - there is no correct answer, this is why it's such a "can of worms". But I disagree with you in the "MUST be an informed choice" a choice is a choice however it is come apon, do you make "informed choices" about everything you do in life or sometimes do you just go with a "gut instinct"? For me - I just stick a helmet on, I don't think about the why's or the wherefore's, I certainly don't go out thinking I'm going to crash and it might help me, quite the opposite - I'm never going to crash, confidence is king, but I'll still wear a helmet.
Your comment regarding "fanatics" could quite easily come from your side of the fence from what I've seen on here.

 

[ufkacbln]

Show me one person on the "pro choice side" who has dismissed evidence without even bothering to find out what it is because they classified the author as deluded / nutter / someone who should find another vocation

As to "my side"....

There isn't one - simply that the evidence is available

Dangerous advice, and a refusal to consider beyond a fixed intransigent agenda need to be challenged

 

[Justinslow]

Show me one person on the "pro choice side" who has dismissed evidence without even bothering to find out what it is because they classified the author as deluded / nutter / someone who should find another vocation

As to "my side"....

There isn't one - simply that the evidence is available

Dangerous advice, and a refusal to consider beyond a fixed intransigent agenda need to be challenged

What do you mean by "pro choice" we're all pro choice are we not? I haven't seen anybody shouting from the roof tops that you must wear a helmet, not here anyway?

 

[ufkacbln]

Have you read the posts about what should happen to medical staff who dare to express the opinion that a helmet may have been ineffective or even contributed to injury?

 

[Profpointy]

[QUOTE 3996277, member: 43827"] snipped - some fair enough stuff :.end-snip

My main criticism is of those who polarise the debate and appear to classify all those who disagree with them in pejorative terms such as "refuseniks" or "pro-helmet brigade".[/QUOTE]

I very much agree with that. The (rabid) pro-helmetters come out with "fine if you want your brains over the pavement and the NHS to pay" and so on, and conversely the ultra-sceptics say "can't possibly have done any good ever".

My heart / instinct tells me I'm better off wearing one, which I used to do. However with misgivings, I'm now swayed by the Australian numbers suggesting no benefit.
I'm also influenced by the campaigners being prepared to lie, use dishonest or discredit numbers to claim a benefit - this is very odd, if the really is good evidence. I now rather determinedly don't wear one to make a bit of a political point as I see compulsion as a real threat.

Your perfectly reasonable measured view, which at the risk of putting words in your mouth, sounds like "there may not be much in it, but for my type of cycling, and a couple of offs, suggest it might be of some benefit on balance" is perfectly reasonable. I've come down slightly the other side of the line, based on similar kind of reasoning.

 

[snorri]

I haven't seen anybody here saying "you should wear a helmet", or people pushing their "helmet wearing" on others,

I responded to this in Post 122, you did not disagree with me, yet five hours later you repeat........

I haven't seen anybody shouting from the roof tops that you must wear a helmet, not here anyway?

Repeating yourself does not change the fact that you are the only one claiming not to have seen such posts.

 

[Sara_H]

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.

It probably was me, though my experience is in critical care rather than a & e. I'll be honest, I can only bring to mind a couple of serious head injured cyclists that I've treated in my critical care career which spanned 15 years, as opposed to countless car passenger serious head injuries.
I very frequently have "the conversation" with colleagues when they find out I don't use a helmet. Without fail, they are oblivious to the peer review research available and are as brain washed as the public at large when it comes to the helmet debate.
And yes, they're always a bit stumped when I point out that the majority of serious head injuries we see are sustained inside cars and yet car helmets are not advocated for.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Profpointy]

It probably was me, though my experience is in critical care rather than a & e. I'll be honest, I can only bring to mind a couple of serious head injured cyclists that I've treated in my critical care career which spanned 15 years, as opposed to countless car passenger serious head injuries.
I very frequently have "the conversation" with colleagues when they find out I don't use a helmet. Without fail, they are oblivious to the peer review research available and are as brain washed as the public at large when it comes to the helmet debate.
And yes, they're always a bit stumped when I point out that the majority of serious head injuries we see are sustained inside cars and yet car helmets are not advocated for.

Interesting stuff.

whilst I do completely agree, in the interests of proper logic, it has to be conceded that just because (maybe) car helmets or pedestestrian helmets would be more beneficial and we don't wear them , that isn't a reason not to wear cycle helmets.

For the record I don't wear either !

Must be said, some of the "pro's" totally rubbished my comparison with beer-drinking-helmets despite the obvious propensity for drunken people to injure thselves -"because that would be stupid"

 

[Mugshot]

It probably was me, though my experience is in critical care rather than a & e. I'll be honest, I can only bring to mind a couple of serious head injured cyclists that I've treated in my critical care career which spanned 15 years, as opposed to countless car passenger serious head injuries.
I very frequently have "the conversation" with colleagues when they find out I don't use a helmet. Without fail, they are oblivious to the peer review research available and are as brain washed as the public at large when it comes to the helmet debate.
And yes, they're always a bit stumped when I point out that the majority of serious head injuries we see are sustained inside cars and yet car helmets are not advocated for.

Interesting stuff.

Thank you
I was close but no cigar.

 

[MontyVeda]

whilst I do completely agree, in the interests of proper logic, it has to be conceded that just because (maybe) car helmets or pedestestrian helmets would be more beneficial and we don't wear them , that isn't a reason not to wear cycle helmets.

For the record I don't wear either !

Must be said, some of the "pro's" totally rubbished my comparison with beer-drinking-helmets despite the obvious propensity for drunken people to injure thselves -"because that would be stupid"

That's the thing though, some folk will quite happily call a helmet free cyclist 'an idiot', but as soon as one suggests another group where helmet use would save many more cuts and bruises, such as those in cars, vans, HGVs and buses, or pedestrians, joggers and piss-heads... one is most likely to also be called 'an idiot'. You can't fight common sense and win!

 

[shouldbeinbed]

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 was there when the medical experts said to my dad, we've removed all of your cancer cells and cured you, so don't worry that the mask doesn't fit now, you don't need the last round of radiotherapy.

He died of the cancer that was growing in his jaw that was already stopping the radiotherapy mask fitting properly, 3 months later.

And these were cancer specialists with scans to look at.

I have a similar experience with an (now former) eminent specialist who used my son's very rare illness more as a vanity project than using the appropriate means of treating him.

You'll excuse me if I don't fall down at the feet of the medical professions every random pronouncement.

I'm also not aware of any A&E or trauma consultants with a specialism in the instantantaneous diagnosis of the palliative effect of headgear worn in falls.

 

[mjr]

whilst I do completely agree, in the interests of proper logic, it has to be conceded that just because (maybe) car helmets or pedestestrian helmets would be more beneficial and we don't wear them , that isn't a reason not to wear cycle helmets.

For the record I don't wear either !

Must be said, some of the "pro's" totally rubbished my comparison with beer-drinking-helmets despite the obvious propensity for drunken people to injure thselves -"because that would be stupid"

All of that is completely rational once you realise that we've accepted a threshold level of risk that we're comfortable with and applied it consistently across drinking, motoring, cycling and walking.

The vexing thing is the people who think cycling risky enough that everyone should wear helmets, while higher risk activities are left unprotected. Are they irrational? If so, why does anyone listen to them?

 

[ufkacbln]

All of that is completely rational once you realise that we've accepted a threshold level of risk that we're comfortable with and applied it consistently across drinking, motoring, cycling and walking.

The vexing thing is the people who think cycling risky enough that everyone should wear helmets, while higher risk activities are left unprotected. Are they irrational? If so, why does anyone listen to them?

This is the reason why this argument is important

Each individual assesses their own risk therefore stating that a pedestrian is at less risk and therefore helmet is not required is fine

Yet refusing to allow a cyclist who was undergone training has many years of experience does not race or cycle in close formation to decide that they also are at less risk is one of the biggest hypocrisies

 

[Justinslow]

@Justinslow, go and look at a thread entitled A week without a helmet. You posted in it, so can hardly claim a lack of awareness of its contents. On page 27, Racing Roadkill stated that he would like to conduct an experiment involving hitting other people on the head with a baseball bat. I don't recall any equivalent stuff from those who doubt the usefulness of helmets. I could be wrong though, has anyone suggested they would like to stick a broom handle through your front wheel's spokes to see how well your helmet works in real life? If you can find such a post, I will concede that the unpleasant vehemence is not quite the one way street I see. As matters stand though your blindness to it appears wilful.

Ah yes, that thread, 1 year ago, currently up to page 19, several to go, doesn't get any better with age does it?