A&E and h*lmets

Robin Johnson said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

I know utter bollocks when I see it, but does anyone have any idea where
this story might have come from?

down the pub would be my best guess.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:29:14 +0100 someone who may be Robin Johnson
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

I know utter bollocks when I see it, but does anyone have any idea where
this story might have come from?

Why not get her to ask her dad?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Roger Merriman said:

Robin Johnson said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

I know utter bollocks when I see it, but does anyone have any idea where
this story might have come from?

down the pub would be my best guess.

Yes, from the same mouths that insist I can commit a speeding offence on
a bike or lose my licence for being [censored] on my bike.

Colin

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:29:14 +0100, Robin Johnson
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

I suspect it was Fat Angie...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robin Johnson said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

Obviously we all know this is bollocks but perhaps anecdata will help
convince where arguments from official policy (or epidemiology) won't.

When my front wheel locked solid and I went over the bars at 20mph in
September last year, I got taken to A&E in an ambulance and they
cleaned up and supergluedglued a couple of cuts on my head.

I wasn't wearing a helmet - which IMO is a jolly good thing, as I
think it likely that if I had been I would have suffered much more
severe injuries - rotational concussion or spinal damage would have
been on the cards. As it was badly shaken and had cuts and bruises,
but no concussion. A few hours later I was well enough to go and
fetch the bike, which was about 200m from home, and then to prefer to
ride it back (carefully!), peering out of the rapidly developing black
eye, rather than walk.

The ambulance crew asked me whether I was wearing `a hat'. The A&E
nurse did ask whether I was wearing a helmet and tried to tell me I
should but backed off rapidly when I asked for their card so I could
email them references.

Writeup and camera footage of the crash at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email hidden]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Robin Johnson said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

I know utter bollocks when I see it, but does anyone have any idea where
this story might have come from?

It sounds like a "logical"(*) extension of the notion
that the NHS getting stroppy about
"self inficted" injuries and/or illnesses.

About the only concrete example at the moment
is the restriction in fertility treatment
for obese people.

BugBear

(*)I use the term loosely

Ian Jackson said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robin Johnson said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

Obviously we all know this is bollocks but perhaps anecdata will help
convince where arguments from official policy (or epidemiology) won't.

When my front wheel locked solid and I went over the bars at 20mph in
September last year, I got taken to A&E in an ambulance and they
cleaned up and supergluedglued a couple of cuts on my head.

I wasn't wearing a helmet - which IMO is a jolly good thing, as I
think it likely that if I had been I would have suffered much more
severe injuries - rotational concussion or spinal damage would have
been on the cards. As it was badly shaken and had cuts and bruises,
but no concussion. A few hours later I was well enough to go and
fetch the bike, which was about 200m from home, and then to prefer to
ride it back (carefully!), peering out of the rapidly developing black
eye, rather than walk.

The ambulance crew asked me whether I was wearing `a hat'. The A&E
nurse did ask whether I was wearing a helmet and tried to tell me I
should but backed off rapidly when I asked for their card so I could
email them references.

Writeup and camera footage of the crash at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

I've just looked at "Tailgating by and collision with N99 JHC". Almost
unbelievable!!!!

I hope you reported this idiot to the police?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
("😉_("😉 their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"Ian Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wasn't wearing a helmet - which IMO is a jolly good thing, as I
think it likely that if I had been I would have suffered much more
severe injuries - rotational concussion or spinal damage would have
been on the cards.

Wild speculation even worse than "my helmet saved my life"!

all you can say is that in the accident you did not hit your head hard
enough to do any serious damage.

pk

"PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ian Jackson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wasn't wearing a helmet - which IMO is a jolly good thing, as I
think it likely that if I had been I would have suffered much more
severe injuries - rotational concussion or spinal damage would have
been on the cards.

Wild speculation even worse than "my helmet saved my life"!

all you can say is that in the accident you did not hit your head hard
enough to do any serious damage.

Not quite true, he can also say not only that "a helmet didn't save my life"
but that it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that it would.

Quoted message said:

Writeup and camera footage of the crash at
 http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

--
Ian Jackson                  personal email: <[email hidden]>

Ian, amongst your very amusing films there is one particularly
extraordinary one of a wound -up driver deliberately ramming your bike
and knocking you off . Did the police get involved in that one?
TerryJ

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

What I can say is that I had a crash at reasonable speed, suffered
minor injuries with no concussion or long-term damage, and that a
helmet didn't 'save my life'.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course you will never head anyone say, "A helmet didn't save my life, I
wish I had been wearing one"

pk

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:40:03 +0100, "PK" <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Of course you will never head anyone say, "A helmet didn't save my life, I
wish I had been wearing one"

Of course not. But a report which investigated cyclist deaths in
detail, including post-mortem findings, concluded that those who had
died of head injury almost all had other mortal injuries as well.
The only one who died of head injuries alone was also the only one
in the study who had been wearing a lid at the time.

All this is, of course, merely a reiteration of well-known facts. If
helmets made any significant difference to rates of death and
serious injury, Liddites would be able to cite something other than
observational case-control studies to support their position.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

All this is, of course, merely a reiteration of well-known facts. If
helmets made any significant difference to rates of death and
serious injury, Liddites would be able to cite something other than
observational case-control studies to support their position.

Guy, aren't you being a bit economical with the truth there?

I think you mean "methodologically substandard observational
case-control studies". :-) The observational approach has its
weaknesses, but TRT made their own hash of it.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:16:38 +0100, Brendan Halpin
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think you mean "methodologically substandard observational
case-control studies". :-) The observational approach has its
weaknesses, but TRT made their own hash of it.

Actually the TR&T study was more an example of policy-based evidence
making than anything else.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 13/06/2008 16:29, Mark said,

Quoted message said:

I've just looked at "Tailgating by and collision with N99 JHC". Almost
unbelievable!!!!

I hope you reported this idiot to the police?

I hope the driver was banned from driving. That wasn't an accidental
bump - he appeared to accelerate just before hitting the bike.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

About the only concrete example at the moment
is the restriction in fertility treatment
for obese people.

BugBear

Unless they wear a hat...

Ian Jackson said:

Writeup and camera footage of the crash at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

You are wrting there: "The chief difficulty is that the field of view is
rather narrow. Many events of interest may occur outside it, especially
hazards from the sides. It also gives the impression that things
(particularly, vehicles) are much closer than they really are."

You do know that it is possible to attach a wide angle lens to your
little cameras?

nmp said:

Ian Jackson said:

Writeup and camera footage of the crash at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

You are wrting there: "The chief difficulty is that the field of view is
rather narrow. Many events of interest may occur outside it, especially
hazards from the sides. It also gives the impression that things
(particularly, vehicles) are much closer than they really are."

You do know that it is possible to attach a wide angle lens to your
little cameras?

The problem with wide angle lenses is that they get more picture at the
expense of angular resolution. i.e. A wide angle will include more, but
it will be far more difficult to make out detail such as number plates.
In this instance it was easy to see the number plate, but I regularly
find my camera will not catch the detail.

That collision did look deliberate to me.

"Robin Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A friend who is about to start cycling says that her dad says that A&E
don't have to treat cyclists for head injuries if they weren't wearing a
helmet in an accident.

This is ambiguous, does she mean they don't need to treat cyclists without
helmets, perhaps because they don't normally injure their heads
OR
they are not obliged to treat cyclists without helmets, perhaps because they
are seen as irresponsible.?

Jim J