Why wouldn't you wear a helmet

[Bazzer]

According to A&E statistics head injuries accounted for 40% of injuries in RTAs , now if you devide the body up equally each bit should get roughly 14% of injuries (based on area of burns calcs) yet heads take 40%
now it could be heads get bashed more or head injuries are more likely to put you in A&E.
Some of the off roaders I've cycled with body armour - but the way they cycle (or routes they cycle) they need it.

I fear we are going round in circles.
Is the 40% of injuries related to cyclists?
What is defined as a head injury? For example are cuts to the face, or missing teeth, neither of which would be affected by the casualty wearing a helmet, considered as head injury?
Finally something which I think has come up before, assuming RTA's accounted for 40% of head injuries and this figure related entirely to cyclists, firstly that means 60% of of RTA's didn't account in head injuries. Obviously if the 40% doesn't relate solely to cyclists, the proportion which didn't account in head injuries is corrspondingly increased. Secondly that statistic only applies to A&E visits. It doesn't account for every cyclist accident/incident. For example I have had a number of offs, three of which involved actual collisions with a motor vehicle. On only one occasion have I visited A&E.

 

[ufkacbln]

So you've been duped by those clever marketing people employed by helmet manufacturers. Thanks for clearing that up.

Tragically the helmet makers are not the ones making the claims.

They realise that the efficiency of helmets is limited and that promoting their use is detrimental to cycling

It is the evangelical zeal of the pro-helmet campaigners that makes these unjustified and absurd claims

 

[ufkacbln]

I fear we are going round in circles.
Is the 40% of injuries related to cyclists?
What is defined as a head injury? For example are cuts to the face, or missing teeth, neither of which would be affected by the casualty wearing a helmet, considered as head injury?
Finally something which I think has come up before, assuming RTA's accounted for 40% of head injuries and this figure related entirely to cyclists, firstly that means 60% of of RTA's didn't account in head injuries. Obviously if the 40% doesn't relate solely to cyclists, the proportion which didn't account in head injuries is corrspondingly increased. Secondly that statistic only applies to A&E visits. It doesn't account for every cyclist accident/incident. For example I have had a number of offs, three of which involved actual collisions with a motor vehicle. On only one occasion have I visited A&E.

One of the issues is that all the helmet "evidence" excludes other causes, mainly because it raises questions that become uncomfortable

One of the few cohort studies was performed by Sharon Thornhill (et al) who looked at ALL head injury admissions

The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

Worthy of note is that when ALL head injury admissions are researched, cycling as a cause is never mentioned as being significant

 

[doog]

Yes, there is danger in many things. The point you are missing is that the campaign to have us all wear cycle helmets presumes that cycling is more dangerous that being in a car, or hill walking.

What campaign ....enlighten me ?

 

[doog]

One of the issues is that all the helmet "evidence" excludes other causes, mainly because it raises questions that become uncomfortable

One of the few cohort studies was performed by Sharon Thornhill (et al) who looked at ALL head injury admissions



Worthy of note is that when ALL head injury admissions are researched, cycling as a cause is never mentioned as being significant

The population of the UK is 64 million. 64 million people going around their business will result in higher risk and admissions than the cycling population doing the same.

So forget the percentage comparison...its all worthless unless you could say there were 64 million cyclists cycling. You might then get an approximate comparison of cyclists versus people falling on their heads from ladders and hitting kitchen cupboard doors.

 

[ufkacbln]

The population of the UK is 64 million. 64 million people going around their business will result in higher risk and admissions than the cycling population doing the same.

So forget the percentage comparison...its all worthless unless you could say there were 64 million cyclists cycling. You might then get an approximate comparison of cyclists versus people falling on their heads from ladders and hitting kitchen cupboard doors.

Which is entirely in agreement.

More people will suffer head injuries forms falls on stairs than cycling yet time on stairs is less tnan that spent cycling

Now all you have to do is explain why the cyclist (at less risk) needs to wear a helmet, yet the person on the stairs does not

 

[doog]

Which is entirely in agreement.

More people will suffer head injuries forms falls on stairs than cycling yet time on stairs is

Now all you have to do is explain why the cyclist (at less risk) needs to wear a helmet, yet the person on the stairs does not

Of course more people will suffer head injuries on stairs....because far more people climb stairs numerous times a day than cycle.

 

[doog]

Enlighten yourself

No campaigners at my door, in my mail box, in my street or on my rides.

I get on my bike on a daily basis and I see no placards, nothing nowt, zilch.......I dont get stressed about a non issue.

 

[doog]

That is because you don't wish to see it, which is why I have no interest in enlightening you because your request is not genuine, just part of your stalkerish trolling.

You appear to be stalking me sunshine and a few others would agree you give them the same treatment....its a subtle type of online bullying....you might be proud of yourself but im bigger and uglier than you . I'm pretty sure there's an ignore button, you might choose to use it.

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course more people will suffer head injuries on stairs....because far more people climb stairs numerous times a day than cycle.

Not the question asked......

Why not prevent the head injuries by wearing a helmet on stairs?


I cycled 18 miles today yet only climbed two sets of stairs... I would suggestthat most cyclists spend less time on stairs than on their bikes....your claim is unfounded

 

[Licramite]

and they are? - There aren't any , any data can be refuted right upto the point people will say a helmet will kill you through rotational injury (as if that couldn't happen if your not wearing a helmet)

I fear we are going round in circles.
Is the 40% of injuries related to cyclists?
What is defined as a head injury? For example are cuts to the face, or missing teeth, neither of which would be affected by the casualty wearing a helmet, considered as head injury?
Finally something which I think has come up before, assuming RTA's accounted for 40% of head injuries and this figure related entirely to cyclists, firstly that means 60% of of RTA's didn't account in head injuries. Obviously if the 40% doesn't relate solely to cyclists, the proportion which didn't account in head injuries is corrspondingly increased. Secondly that statistic only applies to A&E visits. It doesn't account for every cyclist accident/incident. For example I have had a number of offs, three of which involved actual collisions with a motor vehicle. On only one occasion have I visited A&E.

It doesn't matter its talking all (serious injuries) its interesting the head has such a high proportion of all injuries, when it should only be getting 15% in comparison to the rest of the body,
so in all circumstances the head is getting a higher proportion to other body areas, - this figure translates to all injuries,
it just illustrates in accidents your head is more likely to suffer a serious injury than any other part of your body. - a cracked skull - which is essentially a broken bone is far more serious than a broken tib or fib. - a femur can be life threatening most other broken bones are not except the skull.

and of course you don't even need to crack the skull to cause contusions on the brain that can be equally lethal.

 

[Licramite]

You continue to miss the point. No one is saying that helmets don't help at all. What is being said is that the instances where they might help are rare. Rare enough that there are loads of things a person can and should do before reaching for a helmet.

Actually there was bits I had my eyes closed , hung on and hoped to come out the other side still upright.

 

[doog]

Not the question asked......

Why not prevent the head injuries by wearing a helmet on stairs?


I cycled 18 miles today yet only climbed two sets of stairs... your claim is unfounded

It wasnt me who provided the stats it was you. Are you suggesting more people cycle than climb stairs ?

 

[doog]

LOL

My inbox would wipe the smile clean from your face.

You appear to be happy to respond to my posts on other threads without fear of me accusing you of stalking, so why not wind your neck in and concentrate on the thread in question.

 

[doog]

Why don't you just concern yourself with your self? If you have anything of interest to say on the subject say it. If not, perhaps you could keep quiet.

'perhaps you could keep quiet'

ooooooooooh ...are you the forum police ? ...wow, all I asked for was evidence for a campaign and you went off on one you big girls blouse.