Helmets, mothers and grandfathers



davek <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd accept that I'm possibly misunderstanding what you said.
>
> Could you explain what this means:
> "The girlfriend is very far from persuaded that not wearing a helmet is
> a good idea, particularly for children."
>
> Behind the vagueness and the double negatives, it seems to mean that she
> thinks wearing a helmet is a good idea. Is that not right?


No. It means that the arguments and evidence I've run past her so far
have failed to impress her very much, and that she wants to know more in
particular how the argumnents apply to and the statistics represent
children.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
 
The Oldfellow wrote:

> I wear a helmet for two reasons:
>
> 1) As an example to the young. Since it's not proven either way on the
> helmet front, the reponsible thing for a parent is to insist that
> children (especially the very young with still-soft skulls) must wear
> them (just in case the evidence does come in one day...)


That the jury is out works /both/ ways. The evidence could come in the
other way, or it could stay as it still is which is they have basically
no effect. So your "example" panders to the general tacit assumption in
the UK that they are Good Things, you are an idiot if you don't wear one
and you'll be Safe if you do. I don't see that that is a good example
for /anyone/.

> 2) It's big, red, up in the air, and tells motorists that I'm (a) there,
> and (b) serious.


Or rather in 'b' possibly that since you're "safe" it's quite alright to
pass you with enough gap for a feeler gauge and not much else? I don't
know, but neither do you and it strikes me as a rather tenuous
assumption. A fluo yellow jacket will be much more visible than a red
helmet and will have the same "serious" notice without any
misunderstandings about safety levels. But the best way to get noticed
as There and Serious is through road positioning, and that is
irrespective of whether or not you have a lid on.

> So, I don't expect it to save my life, but I still wear it.


Yet you feel that's a good example to youngsters, who can't tell that
you think it's basically useless in a serious crash, and may feel that
by following your example they /are/ safe? I don't really see that as
helping, to be honest.

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/
 
davek wrote:
> PK wrote:
>> To imply helmets are useless above 12mph because that is the
>> design limit is mendacious.

>
> You're singing the praises of helmets despite having had an
> accident in which a helmet failed to prevent your head injuries.
>
> And you call /me/ mendacious?



I presented my helmet with a challnge well outside its design limits. It
broke but provided some degree of protection. I'm very glad i was wearing it
for that particular fall where my head would otherwise have taken the full
impact.

pk
 
PK wrote:
> It
> broke but provided some degree of protection.


You don't know that.

d.
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> I don't see it that way. Comes across as more "it might do you some
> good, it's daft not to". Which I understand as it exactly conforms to
> how I felt about them for a long time.


But that would be a bit of a wishy washy position for someone who "asks
difficult questions for a living".

d.
 
D.M. Procida wrote:

> Isn't it perfectly possible in this case at least that the foam was
> compressed, absorbing energy, before breaking apart?


It's possible, but the bottom line is it is not a useful anecdote, even
to the extent that anecdoatl evidence can be useful in these things.

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/
 
D.M. Procida wrote:
> No. It means that the arguments and evidence I've run past her so far
> have failed to impress her very much, and that she wants to know more in
> particular how the argumnents apply to and the statistics represent
> children.


Rather than try to convince her yourself, why not point her in the
direction of all the evidence that supports helmet use and tell her to
ask her difficult questions there.

d.
 
davek wrote:

> Rather than try to convince her yourself, why not point her in the
> direction of all the evidence that supports helmet use and tell her to
> ask her difficult questions there.


Heh! Good point. She could start by asking Diane Thompson (a) whether she
believes that helmets prevent more brain injuries than trivial injuries, as
her conclusions suggest, and (b) why they chose to use the helmet wearing
rate from an unrelated group in their 1989 study rather than co-author
Rivara's own street counts from the year before, which essentially nullify
the supposed benefit.

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, PK
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

..
>
> If it broke it didn't help. Seriously. Helmets work by
> crushing. Brittle failure absorbs almost no energy.



I'm glad that the impact my head felt was spread by the helmet rather than
the point impact of my head on the ground.

pk
 
PK wrote:

> I presented my helmet with a challnge well outside its design limits. It
> broke but provided some degree of protection. I'm very glad i was wearing it
> for that particular fall where my head would otherwise have taken the full
> impact.


Very unlikely. I came off my bike last year and landed on my chin. Did
my chin take the /full/ impact of the fall? Of course not! For a head
to take everything you will need to land square from your direction of
travel onto the road and have nothing else cause any friction before you
stop. This doesn't actually happen very much.

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/
 
davek <[email protected]> wrote:

> D.M. Procida wrote:
> > No. It means that the arguments and evidence I've run past her so far
> > have failed to impress her very much, and that she wants to know more in
> > particular how the argumnents apply to and the statistics represent
> > children.

>
> Rather than try to convince her yourself,


I'm not trying to convinve her myself. As I said, I am not convinced of
anything myself, so I'm hardly in a position to start convincing other
people.

> why not point her in the direction of all the evidence that supports
> helmet use and tell her to ask her difficult questions there.


You seem completely determined to misread just about anything anyone
says.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
 
D.M. Procida wrote:
> You seem completely determined to misread just about anything anyone
> says.


You seem unwilling to clarify what you mean by certain statements to
help me avoid misunderstanding you.

d.
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I have: one girlfriend, two children, two cycle helmets and one father.
> >

>
> You have to make up your own minds based on the evidence available I'm
> afraid. A good place for your girlfriend to start is with John Franklin
> - the author of Cyclecraft - who has a section of his site on helmets
> including a summary of research on helmets.
>
> http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/helmets.html


That is a great collection of documents, thanks.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> PK wrote:
>
>> I presented my helmet with a challnge well outside its design
>> limits. It broke but provided some degree of protection. I'm
>> very glad i was wearing it for that particular fall where my
>> head would otherwise have taken the full impact.

>
> Very unlikely. I came off my bike last year and landed on my
> chin. Did my chin take the /full/ impact of the fall? Of
> course not! For a head to take everything you will need to
> land square from your direction of travel onto the road and
> have nothing else cause any friction before you stop. This
> doesn't actually happen very much.



Why the obsession with trying to argue that a helmet provides no protection.

i came off. Landed on my head. Helmet broke. i got concussion/anmesia. i
suspect my injuries might have been worse has there not been a big lump of
crushable/shatterable polystyrene to patrially absorb and partially
deflect/spread the impact.

If i had the choice to have a similar fall with or without a helmet - I'd
take the helmet!

pk
 
PK wrote:

> i came off. Landed on my head. Helmet broke. i got
> concussion/anmesia


aka "serious brain injury" (yes, really).

> i suspect my injuries might have been worse has
> there not been a big lump of crushable/shatterable polystyrene to
> patrially absorb and partially deflect/spread the impact.


Or not.

> If i had the choice to have a similar fall with or without a helmet -
> I'd take the helmet!


Your choice. Mine is to ride a bike where the well-padded **** hits the
ground first :)

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
On 7/9/04 1:15 pm, in article [email protected], "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> PK wrote:
>
>> i came off. Landed on my head. Helmet broke. i got
>> concussion/anmesia

>
> aka "serious brain injury" (yes, really).
>
>> i suspect my injuries might have been worse has
>> there not been a big lump of crushable/shatterable polystyrene to
>> patrially absorb and partially deflect/spread the impact.

>
> Or not.
>
>> If i had the choice to have a similar fall with or without a helmet -
>> I'd take the helmet!


I'd choose to minimise the rotational head injuries. Last time I had a
serious 'off' (about 17 years ago) I was going round a corner and there was
a load of loose gravel on the road. I slid and came off. (front wheel went,
hit the deck and then high-sided over the bike onto the other side.

I had grazes on both temples, ruined a pair of sunglasses, grazes on both
wrists and one shoulder, a large bit of road rash on one forearm and grazes
on by chin.

Would a helmet have helped? Well, it would most certainly have prevented the
minor grazes on my temples but would there have been an increased risk of
head injury from the rotational effects of a helmet hitting the ground?

Given the initial angle of impact where my shoulder hit the ground sliding,
a helmet would have hit sooner and harder than my head and been wrenched
upwards.

As it was I have no recollection of passing out and suffered no concussion.
An eyewitness didn't mention me passing out either so I presume I didn't.

> Your choice. Mine is to ride a bike where the well-padded **** hits the
> ground first :)


I'll wear a helmet for slow speed stuff where I am relatively likely to have
an appropriate style of crash.

I won't wear one for high speed [OK, relatively] stuff or amongst traffic
because it IMHO will do more harm than good.

...d
 
PK wrote:

> Why the obsession with trying to argue that a helmet provides no protection.


I did no such thing, I was merely commenting that your assertion that
your head would have taken the full force of an impact without it was
probably on shaky ground. That is not the same as saying it provides no
protection.

> i came off. Landed on my head. Helmet broke. i got concussion/anmesia. i
> suspect my injuries might have been worse has there not been a big lump of
> crushable/shatterable polystyrene to patrially absorb and partially
> deflect/spread the impact.


That is quite reasonable, but that is /not/ the same thing I was
commenting on.

> If i had the choice to have a similar fall with or without a helmet - I'd
> take the helmet!


That is also quite reasonable, and I'd take the same line recreating my
worst ever accident, but why do you think I'm saying they provide no
protection of any sort? From the opposite angle, why do you have a
tendency to suggest they provide more than there is clear evidence they
do (assumption of taking full force of an impact, for example)?

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/
 
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:17:43 +0100 someone who may be
[email protected] (D.M. Procida) wrote
this:-

>I don't really trust any of the information that has been put before me.


Have you taken a look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org ?

>I'm not even sure what I'd like the truth to be.


It is better just to accept the truth, whether it is as one would
like it to be or not.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 07:41:18 +0000 (UTC), PK <[email protected]> wrote:
> davek wrote:
> > A cycle helmet would not have prevented your girlfriend from
> > having her accident. And assuming she was doing more than 12mph
> > at the time then you can point out to her that not even the
> > helmet manufacturers would claim that a helmet would have
> > helped.

>
> I'm pretty sure my helmet helped when I came off at circa 20mph, shattered
> the helmet and ended up in hospital for 24 hours with partial amnesia. The
> sideways whiplash on my unhelmeted head is something I'm glad I did not
> experience.


Dear oh dear or dear.
Another lamb to the slaughter.

If teh helmet shattered it did not operate as designed - it failed in
a low energy dissipating mode. Since it did not operate as designed,
and did so in a manner that does not disipate significant energy, to
attribute any consequence to the behaviour that could be attributed to
a 'correctly' behaving helmet is foolish in teh extreme.


> Safety devices do no fail catastrophically at their design limit, a basic
> principle of such design is that failure is gradual above the design limit.


No. Your helmet (according to your account) failed in a manner that
did practically no good. Since it evidently did not fail as teh
design should have done, to claim any performance on teh basis of how
design ought to be operate out is foolish in teh extreme.

> To imply helmets are useless above 12mph because that is the design limit is
> mendacious.


No, and people rarely claim so. In may respects they may be
(literally) woprse than nothing at such speed.

> If a helmet shatters at 5 mph and the wearer injured, there is a likely
> claim against the manufacturer. If a helmet breaks above 12 mph, there is
> most likely no liability on the manufacture, but I'd rather be wearing one
> than not.


You are of course welcome to whatever incoherent, illogical and
non-sensical opinions you like. Just don't expect anyone else to take
your ill-informed preaching quietly.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:27:07 +0000 (UTC), PK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I presented my helmet with a challnge well outside its design limits.
> It broke but provided some degree of protection.


Speculation.

> would otherwise have taken the full impact.


Speculation.

Also, an implicit speculation that the 'full impact' would have had
more serious consequences than whatever you did suffer.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|