Only a few guys in the world of Usenet could state the case against helmets with such clarity. And
since I know you ain't me (And since I also don't believe that I could state the case so eloquently
even then) I can guess who you am.
Tom
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Fred Nieman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
> > scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be
> > strapped in by seatbelts.
>
> Remember there were once people who compared the fatality rates in
countries
> with and without sealt belt laws and found them to be the same. Obviously that couldn't be right,
> so that data was buried. Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver
> fatalities stayed the same!
But
> there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat
passenger
> fatalities.
>
> > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and
> > take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b)
> > a fool.
>
> There is no inevitability about it.
>
> > Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over
> > ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal.
>
> And acquired brain injuries - amazingly - are mostly caused by crashes
well
> outside the design envelope of hlemets, and by mechanisms which helmets do nothing to mitigate.
>
> > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
> > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
> > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.
>
> Or not. Maybe it was your Mk. 1 Skull which did the job. That would be a reasonable assumption,
> given that people not wearing helmets also often survive without significant injury. That's the
> problem with helmet-saved-my-life anecdotes, they always attribute the outcome solely
to
> helmets. Why? Lids are designed for straight impacts at speeds up to
about
> 12mph. Why should we assume that they work in glancing or rotational impacts at higher speeds? And
> what about the people who die when wearing helmets? And the people who don't die when not wearing
> helmets?
>
> At the population level it's not possible to proive that helmets have any effect on brain injury.
> And even then, most cyclists who die of head
injury
> turn out to have other mortal injuries as well.
>
> The case for helmets really is not half as cut-and-dried as the Liddites would like us to believe.
>
> The only absolutely repeatable effect of helmet legislation is a
substantial
> drop in cycling. And the major determinant of risk for cyclists appears
to
> be the number of cyclists - the more people cycle, the safer it gets.
>
> > And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on
> > pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or
> > worse. I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why.
>
>
> Why? I have had several crashes with and without helmets and there was no noticeable difference in
> outcomes. The most serious head injury I ever
had
> was going through a low doorway. Should we have compulsory helmets in old buildings? Or only for
> tall people?
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
>
> WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
>
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
