Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

[Sorni]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.
>
> Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or
> so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up
> means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since,
> say, 1985?

Can't prove a negative, which is the obvious flaw in so many studies and
stats.

Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the
pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER
FILED.

Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see
they don't work; or even that it caused the injury. Never mind, of course,
that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse --
without the lid.

I'll take the protection, thanks. You certainly don't have to.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Sorni wrote:

> Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the
> pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER
> FILED.

So if this would have been worth attending ER for without a hat
then it would have been in the records, and the absence of such
incidents would register as a fall in injury rates, if there
absence was significant. It appears it isn't.

> Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd says, see
> they don't work; or even that it caused the injury.

Again, it will go into the population stats where the sum total of
all the incidents will give you a better indication of what you
might expect.

> Never mind, of course,
> that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse --
> without the lid.

But you don't actually know that. For example, if it were an
accident where the extra size and weight of the lid meant the
difference between hitting the head and not hitting at all, then it
wouldn't have been at least as bad. I don't know that would have
been the case, but you don't know it wouldn't.

> I'll take the protection, thanks.

As is your choice. I choose to take it at certain times, like
technical MTBing. What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not*
wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions
about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they
/must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other
things you do without one don't have a significant chance of
landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Sorni]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Sorni wrote:

>> I'll take the protection, thanks.

> As is your choice.

TYVM. Let the threads cease!

> ... What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not*
> wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions
> about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they
> /must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other
> things you do without one don't have a significant chance of
> landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well.

I'll worry about my own expectations, TYVM. (And they're not as you
describe, anyway.)

Darn, we almost had it there...

 

[Neal]

Sorni wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>> But if one takes a skidding-type fall... ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.
>>
>> Then as people have found out skidding over the last 100 years or
>> so on bikes on hard surfaces, their instinct to keep their heads up
>> means they tend to do that. Have injuries fallen hugely since,
>> say, 1985?
>
> Can't prove a negative, which is the obvious flaw in so many studies
> and stats.
>
> Person takes an unexpected, hard & fast fall. Helmet bangs off the
> pavement; few bruises and road rash here and there. NO REPORT IS EVER
> FILED.
>
> Conversely, person has lid on and IS injured. The anti-lid crowd
> says, see they don't work; or even that it caused the injury. Never
> mind, of course, that the person would have been injured at least as
> badly -- if not worse -- without the lid.
>
> I'll take the protection, thanks. You certainly don't have to.



I'm having a problem understanding the statistics. I have read many of the
posts and references in this endless discussion but I'm not understanding how
what I call the average fall on a bike is not included in the statistics. I
have fallen twice in the last three years due to my own stupidity and both times
I really hit my helmeted head hard on the street. I had a cracked helmet and my
head hurt for a few hours but I did not go to the emergency room. I have seen
this same thing happen to others with no trip to the hospital. How are these
accidents included in the statistics? How can the statistics be valid without
them? I have no doubt that a helmet is not going to help me in anyway with a
head on impact with a truck but it seems the helmets do help in dumb accidents
like I had. Can someone help me to understand this?

Neal

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Peter Clinch:
>So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?

You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a
windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb and all
his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
riding around.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Hadron Quark]

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]> writes:

> Per Peter Clinch:
>>So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?
>
> You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.
>
> Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
> head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a
> windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb
> and all

Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
"situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
not have believed it.


> his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
> riding around.

Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
least some protection.

> --
> PeteCresswell

--

 

[[email protected]]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Peter Clinch:
> >So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?
>
> You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

If we could agree to keep mountain biking separate from ordinary riding
on roads, perhaps we could save lots of misunderstanding.

If you're going mountain biking in tricky terrain, it's not illogical
to want to wear a helmet. Falling is part of the game.

Ordinary road riding is much, much different.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
> dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
> "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
> not have believed it.

Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting me.
What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you
suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for
typical cyclists on roads.

**** happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other
than on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head
protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment
going on.

> Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
> least some protection.

Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB
work. But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built
to, don't take my word for it), and have a very low chance of
saving anyone a serious injury. If it were otherwise increased
wearing would have dented the serious injury figures for cyclists.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
> head-first.

Mine are typically far more controlled than when I'm walking, and
sideways rather than over the bars. Last time I went over the
bars... I hit my head! Was I wearing a hlemt? Yes? Was I glad
about that? No, because I landed on my chin and it made no
difference at all :-(

> Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
> riding around.

As I usually do wear mine for technical MTB work. Most helmet
sceptic data comes specifically from road based incidents, so
anybody trying to draw hard conclusions about MTB through a rock
garden is kidding themselves. Please note I'm not trying to do any
such thing.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
>> dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
>> "situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
>> not have believed it.
>
> Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting
> me. What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you
> suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for
> typical cyclists on roads.

No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing mirror,
drainage slots and other such things. You replied that it would be the riders
own fault for not being aware enough to avoid them : a pathetic attempt
to suggest that any form of protection for a cyclist is unnecessary
since its "safer than walking down the street" and less prone to head
injuries than doing the shopping....

>
> **** happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other than
> on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head

Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are
not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether
bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case
of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie).

> protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment
> going on.
>
>> Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
>> least some protection.
>
> Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB work.
> But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built to, don't
> take my word for it), and have a very low chance of saving anyone a
> serious injury. If it were otherwise increased wearing would have
> dented the serious injury figures for cyclists.

Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough
material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who
reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe
even their lives. See "point of contact" post earlier in the day.

 

[[email protected]]

I don't use a helmet during the day,
because there is no sun protection, for cancer;
so I use a wide golfers type hat.

I don't use a helmet at night,
because they're so ugly! I do own one,
So I'm trying to get over the "looks" thing.

waterboy

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:31:09 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Per Tom Kunich:
>>I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a
>>bicycle
>
>One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading.
>
>Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a
>curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of
>acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so
>the object doesn't cave in your skull.

Dear Pete,

My impression from reading the studies is that (despite our
lurid but understandable imaginations) most serious head
injuries in bicycling are not penetrating, not fractures,
and not caving-in.

But I haven't browsed around again to check this, so I'm
just raising the question because it seems to address your
point.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing
> mirror, drainage slots and other such things.

Including hedges...

> You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being
> aware enough to avoid them

Drainage slots are a known hazard and are very easy to avoid by the
simple expedient of riding further out than the gutter and looking
where you're going. It /is/ the riders' fault if they go over them
on a regular basis. If you're close enough in to the kerb for that
to be a major problem you're also encouraging close overtaking,
which is where you'll get clipped by mirrors.

> a pathetic attempt o suggest that any form of protection for a
> cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the
> street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the
> shopping....

The simple fact of the matter is that what will get cyclists killed
is collisions with motor vehicles and helmets aren't built to a
spec that helps against them. Look up the spec if you don't
believe me. Physical protection for cyclists is much better served
by not being in collisions.

> Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this?
> We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are
> discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to
> reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where
> blame were to lie).

Who said anything about caving? And is juggling really dangerous?
~350 people under 75 are killed in the UK every year from trips
and falls on foot, so you can have terminal accidents using stairs
or just walking down the street. So in terms of terminal
potential, it's a risky activity, and to a similar extent to
utility cycling. Cycling is not particularly more dangerous in
terms of deaths and serious injuries than being a pedestrian, and
the accidents that do happen are no more productive of head
injuries. So it makes sense to compare the risk avoidance
behaviour in one to the other.

> Its hard to sport trends in small samples.

Which is why I'm taking my data from whole national population
sized samples.

> But I have seen
> enough material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists
> out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them
> considerable injury and maybe even their lives.

Yes, there are lots, and they turn up at a far greater rate than
unhelmeted cyclists are losing their lives or getting serious head
injuries, so either helmeted cyclists are taking a lot more tumbles
or they're overestimating how bad their crashes were.

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

Hadron Quark wrote:
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are
> not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether
> bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case
> of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie).

We are bringing other activities into this because, once one examines
the real data - as opposed to the fearmongering - it's obvious that
bicycling is not particularly dangerous. There's no more reason to use
a helmet during ordinary bicycling than there is during ordinary
driving, or ordinary walking. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

People who are intent on scaring us about bicycling will never admit
that, apparently. Or, in some cases, they will never understand that
comparing risk is a logical thing to do!


> I have seen enough
> material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who
> reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe
> even their lives.

You should look into witch doctors, faith healers and magic crystals!
There are even more people who believe those things have saved them!
Why, they _must_ be correct - no?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing
>> mirror, drainage slots and other such things.
>
> Including hedges...
>
>> You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being
>> aware enough to avoid them
>
> Drainage slots are a known hazard and are very easy to avoid by the
> simple expedient of riding further out than the gutter and looking
> where you're going. It /is/ the riders' fault if they go over them
> on a regular basis. If you're close enough in to the kerb for that

Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts. Suppose you're doing
25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the
drain? Is that your fault too?

> to be a major problem you're also encouraging close overtaking,
> which is where you'll get clipped by mirrors.
>
>> a pathetic attempt o suggest that any form of protection for a
>> cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the
>> street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the
>> shopping....
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that what will get cyclists killed is
> collisions with motor vehicles and helmets aren't built to a spec that
> helps against them. Look up the spec if you don't believe me.
> Physical protection for cyclists is much better served by not being in
> collisions.

Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this :
"you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind
numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious. But how that has anything
to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no
helmet is beyond me.

>
>> Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this?
>> We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are
>> discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to
>> reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where blame
>> were to lie).
>
> Who said anything about caving? And is juggling really dangerous?

Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some
reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where
people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential
for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me.

> ~350 people under 75 are killed in the UK every year from trips and

I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving ....

> falls on foot, so you can have terminal accidents using stairs or just
> walking down the street. So in terms of terminal potential, it's a
> risky activity, and to a similar extent to utility cycling. Cycling
> is not particularly more dangerous in terms of deaths and serious
> injuries than being a pedestrian, and the accidents that do happen are
> no more productive of head injuries. So it makes sense to compare the
> risk avoidance behaviour in one to the other.
>
>> Its hard to sport trends in small samples.
>
> Which is why I'm taking my data from whole national population sized
> samples.
>
>> But I have seen enough material to know that there are a plethora of
>> cyclists out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them
>> considerable injury and maybe even their lives.
>
> Yes, there are lots, and they turn up at a far greater rate than
> unhelmeted cyclists are losing their lives or getting serious head
> injuries, so either helmeted cyclists are taking a lot more tumbles or
> they're overestimating how bad their crashes were.
>
> See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

--

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts.

No, because the odd drainage grate is going to happen but if the odd
drainage grate had a significant chance of knocking you off then there's
be far more falls than there are. Gravel /can/ take you down, but since
my house is accessed by a gravel covered track (on a hill, for extra
fun) and I don't make a habit of falling off on it, the fact that
there's /some/ potential for losing it isn't necessarily an excuse to
wear a helmet.

> Suppose you're doing
> 25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the
> drain? Is that your fault too?

Emphatically tes, because it means you're in the gutter to start with.
You should not be in the gutter to start with, so if you're not and a
bus pulls alongside as you move and you can't go out further, you'll
still miss it.

> Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this :
> "you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind
> numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious.

But not so onvious that you keep bringing up examples where the
underlying problem is riding in the wrong place on the road which in
turn increases your chances of having an accident!

> But how that has anything
> to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no
> helmet is beyond me.

The point is that the "more protection" you keep on about is (a) still
not the degree that will save lives, and (b) is not clear to expert
witnesses of far more experinece than either of us, as I've already
outlined for you.

> Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some
> reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where
> people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential
> for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me.

Because the potential to save a head injury exists for other similarly
risky activities where it is not taken, so what is exceptional about
cycling that it is a good idea there, but not elsewhere where there are
similar risks?
The answer, I suspect, is people have a misconception about the relative
risks of cycling. Body armour is available for cyclists and will
provide you more protection against injury than if you don't wear it, so
why not wear it? Same logic applies, yet is not being applied.

> I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving ....

You suspect wrong. What /is/ so dangerous about juggling?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
> said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection.

I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have ignored
it so here it is again:

"the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
be made."

That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are
responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant standards
in the UK.

> You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
> you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
> in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their
> ugly head.

On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly, and
do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where I'd end
up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH, the way that
millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of serious injuries
than pedestrians /does/ prove something.

> Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
> bike, into dangerous riding positions

Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in
especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing
something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious
accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher.

> Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence
> that helmets have saved lives.

So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any
populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did
the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated?

> I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
> many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
> blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
> the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).

Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side,
and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above
doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty.

> What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
> cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
> walking etc ...

Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk /only/
if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it cycling then
that would be because of a certain level of risk. To bother doing
something about risk when cycling but nothing when you engage in another
/equally risky/ activity is ridiculous.

[what's so risky about juggling?]
> Think about it.

Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets are
available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've seen
carrying a safety warning.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
>> said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection.
>
> I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have
> ignored it so here it is again:
>
> "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
> tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
> for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
> safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do,
> stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both
> with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the
> performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a
> sweeping claim to be made."
>
> That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are
> responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant
> standards in the UK.

Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with
whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not?

>
>> You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
>> you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
>> in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their
>> ugly head.
>
> On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly,
> and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where
> I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH,

??? eh ???? Of course it doesnt : but its you who mentioned it. So why?
To deflect the thread again thats why.

> the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of
> serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something.

What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of
protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here.

>
>> Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
>> bike, into dangerous riding positions
>
> Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in
> especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing
> something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious
> accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher.

You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for
incidents. I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened
to me that I could not plan for.

>
>> Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence
>> that helmets have saved lives.
>
> So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any
> populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did
> the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated?

Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their
radars : thats why. Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides
more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple.

>
>> I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
>> many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
>> blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
>> the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).
>
> Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side,
> and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above
> doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty.

At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again.

>
>> What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
>> cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
>> walking etc ...
>
> Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk
> /only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it

err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not
understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than
cycling" : I wish to keep it on track - hence my juggling dig.

> cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To
> bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you
> engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous.
>
> [what's so risky about juggling?]
>> Think about it.
>
> Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets
> are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've
> seen carrying a safety warning.

An pint with you must be a riot.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Hadron Quark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
>>> said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides
>>> protection.
>>
>> I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have
>> ignored it so here it is again:
>>
>> "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
>> tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
>> for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
>> safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do,
>> stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both
>> with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the
>> performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a
>> sweeping claim to be made."
>>
>> That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are
>> responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant
>> standards in the UK.
>
> Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with
> whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not?
>
>>
>>> You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
>>> you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
>>> in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears
>>> their
>>> ugly head.
>>
>> On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly,
>> and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where
>> I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH,
>
> ??? eh ???? Of course it doesnt : but its you who mentioned it. So why?
> To deflect the thread again thats why.
>
>> the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of
>> serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something.
>
> What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of
> protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here.
>
>>
>>> Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
>>> bike, into dangerous riding positions
>>
>> Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in
>> especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing
>> something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious
>> accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher.
>
> You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for
> incidents. I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened
> to me that I could not plan for.
>
>>
>>> Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already
>>> evidence
>>> that helmets have saved lives.
>>
>> So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any
>> populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did
>> the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated?
>
> Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their
> radars : thats why. Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides
> more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple.
>
>>
>>> I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
>>> many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
>>> blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
>>> the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).
>>
>> Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side,
>> and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above
>> doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty.
>
> At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again.
>
>>
>>> What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
>>> cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
>>> walking etc ...
>>
>> Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk
>> /only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it
>
> err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not
> understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than
> cycling" : I wish to keep it on track - hence my juggling dig.
>
>> cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To
>> bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you
>> engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous.
>>
>> [what's so risky about juggling?]
>>> Think about it.
>>
>> Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets
>> are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've
>> seen carrying a safety warning.
>
> An pint with you must be a riot.

Do not waste much breath on this English-Scottish numskull. Note his
signature:

Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Surely, that ought to tell you everything you will ever need to know about
him.

He should get himself a nice modest humble signature like mine.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with
> whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not?

If it surely helped then they'd be more inclined to say you must be
better off wearing it than not, as they were repeatedly asked.

> What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of
> protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here.

The point is whether it provides protection, and to what degree, is much
more sensible to ascertain within a context of overall risk. So body
armour will provide /some/ protection, but just leaving it at that
doesn't tell you anything useful about whether or not it's useful.
Especially if you don't take into account any of the possible pitfalls.

> You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for
> incidents.

On the contrary, I have /lots/ of space to account very specifically for
them, and that's one of the reasons they don't pose me particularly bad
levels of risk.

> I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened
> to me that I could not plan for.

Yet you're still alive and your head is in one piece. Was that just
luck, or riding with sufficient contingency in place to deal with the
problems?

> Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their
> radars : thats why.

But all the events that didn't appear on their radars will be in the
whole population data, which is precisely why we use the whole
population data. And they show no reduction in rates of deaths and
serious injury rates as helmet wearing increases.

> Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides
> more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple.

But since the answer is it provides *different* protection, it is only
that simple if you're overly simplistic about it. For example, last
time I hit my head coming off a bike I was wearing a helmet and it
emphatically did /not/ provide more protection, as the injury on my chin
bore witness. In an incident where the extra size and weight of a
helmeted head makes a difference between hitting your helmeted head or
not hitting an unhelmeted head at all, you are clearly worse off with
the hat. While OTOH there are many laceration injuries that would
benefit from a helmet. So it isn't "yes or no", it's "maybe, depending
on a few things".

"It provides more protection, period" is a simplistic and sweeping
generalisation that means nothing useful. It needs qualifying to be
useful. "A helmet probably provides useful protection against minor
injuries such as lacerations to those parts of the head it covers" would
probably be a fair comment, just as it would be for body armour. But
only when you take into account the degree of risk of such minor
injuries in the first place and weigh in the downsides of wearing it do
you have the sort of data that can really be useful to make an informed
decision.

> At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again.

No. The question put was not "at the brain surgery level", it was would
a wearer be "better off". Nothing more, nothing less.

> err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not
> understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than
> cycling"

In which case the question returns and remains: "what is so special
about cycling that it requires discussing more protective measures than
other equally risky activities that cyclists partake in?"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/