Wear that helmet!
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
I can only say it again - head injuries are common, with some 2,000 people visiting a&e each day with a head injury. This is a fact, and I doubt that many of those daily attendances would have involved motor racing or snow boarding.
I have absolutely no idea why you're asking me to compare walking with motor racing, and what on earth does motor racing have to do with ordinary cycling anyway?
I was answering your question about when I wear helmets.I have absolutely no idea why you're asking me to compare walking with motor racing, and what on earth does motor racing have to do with ordinary cycling anyway?
Your stats are completely misleading - they are based on an overall population, of which only a small proportion will engage in the activities mentioned. Per participant statistics would be more relevant, but I still wouldn't pay any attention to them.
As I said above, everyone's actual risk level will be different according to where they sit on the spectrum (popping to the shops v racing), and their personal perception of risk will vary within that. If you don't feel at risk when you are riding then that's your call, I don't know what you do on a bike.
Right now, however, I am probably at greater risk of death from old age or boredom at my keyboard than I am from cycling. It's been terrific fun, but I'll leave you to it and I'm going to promise myself that I'll never get drawn into one of these threads again.
heebeegeetee said:
I can only say it again - head injuries are common, with some 2,000 people visiting a&e each day with a head injury. This is a fact, and I doubt that many of those daily attendances would have involved motor racing or snow boarding.
I have absolutely no idea why you're asking me to compare walking with motor racing, and what on earth does motor racing have to do with ordinary cycling anyway?
2000? Per day? Head injuries? Got a linky for that and any helpful context too?I have absolutely no idea why you're asking me to compare walking with motor racing, and what on earth does motor racing have to do with ordinary cycling anyway?
It is commonly established that head injuries are the most common type of severe or fatal injury sustained by car occupants in crashes. Of vehicle occupants taken to hospital in Australia, the head was usually the most severely injured body region. [pdf]
This same paper notes that, for car occupants,
a bicycle style soft shell helmet could provide a large degree of protection for the head very cheaply. A simpler form of headwear, in the form of a headband covering mainly the forehead, where most impacts to the heads of car occupants occur, could offer almost as much benefit without as much bulk and even less weight. Protective headwear also has the very considerable advantage that it could be available within a matter of months for use by those who wish to reduce their risk of sustaining brain damage if involved in a road crash.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/11/2...
Similarly, a UK study of data from 33 hospitals between 1996 and 2003 found that around 25% of car occupants who had suffered a head injury did not survive [pdf].
Plainly the heads of car occupants are susceptible to serious damage. Yet lobbying for car occupants to wear helmets is non-existent, even if, to use the emotive language of bicycle helmet advocacy, ‘they might just save one life’. Or that ‘wearing a helmet is surely better than not wearing one’.
So antone who keeps flapping their gums about cyclists wearing helmets but who doesn't put a plastic hat on every time they get in a car is a rank hypocrite, probably the sort of shroud-waving ghoul who makes up dead cyclists to try to bolster their case.
This same paper notes that, for car occupants,
a bicycle style soft shell helmet could provide a large degree of protection for the head very cheaply. A simpler form of headwear, in the form of a headband covering mainly the forehead, where most impacts to the heads of car occupants occur, could offer almost as much benefit without as much bulk and even less weight. Protective headwear also has the very considerable advantage that it could be available within a matter of months for use by those who wish to reduce their risk of sustaining brain damage if involved in a road crash.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/11/2...
Similarly, a UK study of data from 33 hospitals between 1996 and 2003 found that around 25% of car occupants who had suffered a head injury did not survive [pdf].
Plainly the heads of car occupants are susceptible to serious damage. Yet lobbying for car occupants to wear helmets is non-existent, even if, to use the emotive language of bicycle helmet advocacy, ‘they might just save one life’. Or that ‘wearing a helmet is surely better than not wearing one’.
So antone who keeps flapping their gums about cyclists wearing helmets but who doesn't put a plastic hat on every time they get in a car is a rank hypocrite, probably the sort of shroud-waving ghoul who makes up dead cyclists to try to bolster their case.
Vipers said:
The problem I see with your request is how many incidents are reported. I didn't report mine, no reason to do so. But it was of benefit to me.
Common sense sort of tells me they are of benefit.
Well when looking at whether a public health intervention is effective or not, we tend to rely on firm evidence rather than common sense. And the evidence shows that helmets offer no statistically significant protection against head injuries.Common sense sort of tells me they are of benefit.
Justin Cyder said:
2000? Per day? Head injuries? Got a linky for that and any helpful context too?
If you google the numbers of head injuries in the uk pa, two figures seem to come up, of either 700,000 or a million.Divided by 365 this comes up with either 1,917 or 2,739 .
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/topic/head-injury
1.2 mill p.a if I'm reading right http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC265839...
ohHello said:
Vipers said:
The problem I see with your request is how many incidents are reported. I didn't report mine, no reason to do so. But it was of benefit to me.
Common sense sort of tells me they are of benefit.
Well when looking at whether a public health intervention is effective or not, we tend to rely on firm evidence rather than common sense. And the evidence shows that helmets offer no statistically significant protection against head injuries.Common sense sort of tells me they are of benefit.
Nevertheless the individuals common sense certainly comes into it, otherwise how do explain how so many cyclists choose to wear a helmet.
heebeegeetee said:
If you google the numbers of head injuries in the uk pa, two figures seem to come up, of either 700,000 or a million.
Divided by 365 this comes up with either 1,917 or 2,739 .
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/topic/head-injury
1.2 mill p.a if I'm reading right http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC265839...
1 in 5 according to the NHS resulting in admission I.e. serious, so in other words, 700,000/5/365 = 383 per day in a population slightly south of 70 million. Or 0.0000054%. Or so insignificant as to be irrelevant.Divided by 365 this comes up with either 1,917 or 2,739 .
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/topic/head-injury
1.2 mill p.a if I'm reading right http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC265839...
Which is a delicious example of why there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Justin Cyder said:
1 in 5 according to the NHS resulting in admission I.e. serious, so in other words, 700,000/5/365 = 383 per day in a population slightly south of 70 million. Or 0.0000054%. Or so insignificant as to be irrelevant.
Which is a delicious example of why there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
And then given how few of those will be utility cyclists, brings us back full round to why would you wear a helmet for ordinary cycling and if you did why would you take it off afterwards?Which is a delicious example of why there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
The 1.2 mill figure was given in 2007, when I reckon the population was nearer 60 mill, which means 1/60th goes to a&e each year with a head injury, yet for some reason many here on ph firmly believe that head injuries are only an issue for cyclists. On this very thread people have been arguing that pedestrians don't/can't suffer from head injuries, yet the majority of that 1/60th per year will not have been a vehicle user or occupant when they were injured. The majority will have been on their feet, and the home and workplace are significant sources of head injury.
I do love the confusion of risk.
The internet will not change peoples minds nor will other peoples experiences.
Some of us have needed a helmet and continue to wear one just in case. Its hard to throw statistics and numbers at this group to convince them they are as safe without it as they know first hand whether it helped them or not.
The other camp have not crashed with a helmet or without and will remain unconvinced. Their views are re-enforced by terrible collation of statistical data but more importantly at the same time they are living proof cycling is a low risk activity.
End of the day there is never going to be a statistic detailed and focused enough to specifically look at cycling head injuries. Just make your decision one way or another and hope its the right one.
And please stop comparing cycling to walking and cycling to driving. They are so different in overall injury type should an accident happen that there is no similarity. Also stop comparing us to countries with a high national use of cycles. They have better infrastructure, more relaxed culture and also due to numbers other road users are naturally more aware of the more vulnerable
The end..........................PLEASE!
The internet will not change peoples minds nor will other peoples experiences.
Some of us have needed a helmet and continue to wear one just in case. Its hard to throw statistics and numbers at this group to convince them they are as safe without it as they know first hand whether it helped them or not.
The other camp have not crashed with a helmet or without and will remain unconvinced. Their views are re-enforced by terrible collation of statistical data but more importantly at the same time they are living proof cycling is a low risk activity.
End of the day there is never going to be a statistic detailed and focused enough to specifically look at cycling head injuries. Just make your decision one way or another and hope its the right one.
And please stop comparing cycling to walking and cycling to driving. They are so different in overall injury type should an accident happen that there is no similarity. Also stop comparing us to countries with a high national use of cycles. They have better infrastructure, more relaxed culture and also due to numbers other road users are naturally more aware of the more vulnerable
The end..........................PLEASE!
Batfink said:
I do love the confusion of risk.
The internet will not change peoples minds nor will other peoples experiences.
Some of us have needed a helmet and continue to wear one just in case. Its hard to throw statistics and numbers at this group to convince them they are as safe without it as they know first hand whether it helped them or not.
The other camp have not crashed with a helmet or without and will remain unconvinced. Their views are re-enforced by terrible collation of statistical data but more importantly at the same time they are living proof cycling is a low risk activity.
End of the day there is never going to be a statistic detailed and focused enough to specifically look at cycling head injuries. Just make your decision one way or another and hope its the right one.
And please stop comparing cycling to walking and cycling to driving. They are so different in overall injury type should an accident happen that there is no similarity. Also stop comparing us to countries with a high national use of cycles. They have better infrastructure, more relaxed culture and also due to numbers other road users are naturally more aware of the more vulnerable
The end..........................PLEASE!
And of course it's not the end.The internet will not change peoples minds nor will other peoples experiences.
Some of us have needed a helmet and continue to wear one just in case. Its hard to throw statistics and numbers at this group to convince them they are as safe without it as they know first hand whether it helped them or not.
The other camp have not crashed with a helmet or without and will remain unconvinced. Their views are re-enforced by terrible collation of statistical data but more importantly at the same time they are living proof cycling is a low risk activity.
End of the day there is never going to be a statistic detailed and focused enough to specifically look at cycling head injuries. Just make your decision one way or another and hope its the right one.
And please stop comparing cycling to walking and cycling to driving. They are so different in overall injury type should an accident happen that there is no similarity. Also stop comparing us to countries with a high national use of cycles. They have better infrastructure, more relaxed culture and also due to numbers other road users are naturally more aware of the more vulnerable
The end..........................PLEASE!
Why on earth would we not want to emulate those countries - those near-neighbouring European countries? Why on earth would we want to move in the opposite direction? Why do we have this unique attitude, that makes things so much worse for all road users?
I've cycled about 160 miles over the weekend and now I have a sore chin. Had I not been wearing a helmet this injury would never have occurred...Vipers said:
Statistics or not, I know mine saved me from a head injury, and thats good enough for me to continue to do so. And as I said, not all incidents are reported, therefore do not form part of the statistics, I am not denying available statistics say whay they say, (albeit I have your say so for that).
Nevertheless the individuals common sense certainly comes into it, otherwise how do explain how so many cyclists choose to wear a helmet.
You claimed that your helmet was "broken around the rim". This means that the impact was not diffused. Your helmet failed.Nevertheless the individuals common sense certainly comes into it, otherwise how do explain how so many cyclists choose to wear a helmet.
OTBC said:
Vipers said:
Statistics or not, I know mine saved me from a head injury, and thats good enough for me to continue to do so. And as I said, not all incidents are reported, therefore do not form part of the statistics, I am not denying available statistics say whay they say, (albeit I have your say so for that).
Nevertheless the individuals common sense certainly comes into it, otherwise how do explain how so many cyclists choose to wear a helmet.
You claimed that your helmet was "broken around the rim". This means that the impact was not diffused. Your helmet failed.Nevertheless the individuals common sense certainly comes into it, otherwise how do explain how so many cyclists choose to wear a helmet.
Vipers said:
Round objects spring to mind. It conforms to an acceptable standard, intepret it as you will.
Vipers, how do you think helmets work, how do you imagine they protect the skull? If I go to punch a wall and stop an inch short of impact, then repeat the action with a two-inch think bit of plastic foam on my fist, do the scratches and dents on the plastic "prove" that it prevented harm? Surely you can see how daft this sounds?
1/
Without the helmet you may not have fallen
2/
The damage you describe does not suggest any compression of the foam that would indicate a diffused impact.
To claim your helmet saved you demonstrates nothing except your inability to understand how helmets are supposed to work.
OTBC said:
1/ Without the helmet you may not have fallen
.
Let me get this straight, if I had not been wearing my helmet, the bit of ice I skidded on may have not been there, amazing to say the least..
The fact I did fall, cracked the helmet, but didnt sustain any scratches or abrasions to my head means the helmet was a waste of time, ho hum
I refuse to continue this drivel any further, bye bye.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff