Would You Be Here Today If You Hadn't Been Wearing A Helmet?

[Red Light]

The cracked helmet was both compressed and snapped. The compression is a sign of dissipated force, the cracking the helmet reaching the end of its usefulness.

So if you knew that why did you say that it had cracked in two as a demonstration of how effective it had been and not that the foam was crushed? I sense a bit of post hoc revisionism going on here.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So if you knew that why did you say that it had cracked in two as a demonstration of how effective it had been and not that the foam was crushed? I sense a bit of post hoc revisionism going on here.

FFS - The last thing it did was crack in two. Maybe I should describe in minute detail the motions my body went through before the resulting impact as well?

 

[Red Light]

I though this was about the value of helmets protecting the head in a crash not the most likely places people will be injured.

And how do you know that any change in head injuries seen at hospital was down to helmets and not down to there being fewer or more accidents that month before because the weather was bad/it was a holiday month/there was a police driving crackdown/there was a Royal Wedding/etc? You look for changes in the number of injuries that would not be affected by wearing a helmet to see if there was anything out there changing it. But please go and do some reading up. I don't have time to give you an introductory course on epidemiological study design and dealing with data confounding.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

And how do you know that any change in head injuries seen at hospital was down to helmets and not down to there being fewer or more accidents that month before because the weather was bad/it was a holiday month/there was a police driving crackdown/there was a Royal Wedding/etc? You look for changes in the number of injuries that would not be affected by wearing a helmet to see if there was anything out there changing it. But please go and do some reading up. I don't have time to give you an introductory course on epidemiological study design and dealing with data confounding.

I think you want to believe helmets are dangerous and so will believe all the proofs the support that belief whilst disregarding conflicting reports. So be it. TBH I don't care. I choose to wear a helmet and will continue to do so until the day they are banned which if all the research you point to is correct should be the logical and morally correct result.

 

[Red Light]

FFS - The last thing it did was crack in two. Maybe I should describe in minute detail the motions my body went through before the resulting impact as well?

I'll rephrase. If you knew before what you are now claiming to know why did you originally write:

When the helmet cracks in two you realise what would have happened to you skull.

and not "When a helmet is heavily crushed you realise what would have happened to your skull" when cracking is evidence of nothing more than the helmet failing in brittle fracture mode?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'll rephrase. If you knew before what you are now claiming to know why did you originally write:



and not "When a helmet is heavily crushed you realise what would have happened to your skull" when cracking is evidence of nothing more than the helmet failing in brittle fracture mode?

Bored now, so bored.

 

[Red Light]

I think you want to believe helmets are dangerous and so will believe all the proofs the support that belief whilst disregarding conflicting reports. So be it. TBH I don't care. I choose to wear a helmet and will continue to do so until the day they are banned which if all the research you point to is correct should be the logical and morally correct result.

It seems to me I have read and reviewed a lot of the published research (and formed and changed my views as a result) and you have not read any of it. You can wear a helmet if you like, I really don't care what you do personally. Just as I don't care whether you smoke or not providing you don't do it near me. But if you want to promote your personal beliefs as facts in the face of the evidence then expect to be called on it just as you might expect to be called on it if you arrived here toting this anecdote as proof of your belief that smoking was good for you. [and no I'm not suggesting you smoke or believe its good for you - its a hypothetical]

 

[Red Light]

Bored now, so bored.

Boredom of convenience no doubt. Saves addressing the awkward issue doesn't it?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Boredom of convenience no doubt. Saves addressing the awkward issue doesn't it?

No. Just bored of circular arguments.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

It seems to me I have read and reviewed a lot of the published research (and formed and changed my views as a result) and you have not read any of it. You can wear a helmet if you like, I really don't care what you do personally. Just as I don't care whether you smoke or not providing you don't do it near me. But if you want to promote your personal beliefs as facts in the face of the evidence then expect to be called on it just as you might expect to be called on it if you arrived here toting this anecdote as proof of your belief that smoking was good for you. [and no I'm not suggesting you smoke or believe its good for you - its a hypothetical]

I take it then there is a some huge conspiracy at work in the world instigated by the manufacturers of cycling helmets and perpertrated by governments and medical professionals. Why else would helmets not be banned in the fact of such overwhelming evidence?

 

[david k]

i made a similar point that i am struggling to accept that if the evidence is true that wearing helmets leads to more injuries why it is seemingly ignored? what do the people ignoring it have to gain?

 

[benb]

as my post about hard hats suggests yes i would consider it, however i would like to see the balanced argument. how often does it save head injury compared to exasperate it

Well given that at a population level, helmet wearing increases the risk of head injuries, they must exasperate it more times than they save it. That's a simple mathematical fact.

If I could politely correct you: I think you mean exacerbate.

 

[benb]

there seems to be a direct attempt to discredit anyone who has fallen off and felt the helmet reduced their potential injuries, whilst i accept one offs cannot be taken to prove the whole case it cannot be ignored or trivialized either

Just because someone says "I fell off, the helmet saved my life" doesn't make it true. Not ignoring or trivializing it, but how do you know?
Anecdote ≠ data

 

[Zoiders]

I am bit miffed as to why people think helmets only "crush", especialy as most helmets have huge vents in them these days, a crushed section on part of the narrow webbed section of your lid would just focus the impact in one place as if you never had the helmet on in the first place

They are indeed meant to crack, the helmet fracturing carries the energy away and doesn't let it focus in one place.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I am bit miffed as to why people think helmets only "crush", especialy as most helmets have huge vents in them these days, a crushed section on part of the narrow webbed section of your lid would just focus the impact in one place as if you never had the helmet on in the first place

They are indeed meant to crack, the helmet fracturing carries the energy away and doesn't let it focus in one place.

Redlight spends all his time reading reports. He must be right