I despair, I really do.

[John B]

I despaired when I read this article in my local rag - the same paper
that champions Carlie Annetts and BeHit.

http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/display.var.1355819.0.boy_cyclist_hurt_in_freak_accident.php

It seems that because a young lad ruptured his spleen the parents are to
campaign for compulsory h*lm*ts.
As if the f*ck a helmet will stop a handlebar stem striking a stomach.

This is pure rabbits-foot syndrome.

I've rarely felt so cross.

John B

******<start quote>******

Boy cyclist hurt in freak accident
By **** Bellringer
Patrick Glendon of Andover, who had to have his spleen removed after
injuring himself by falling on his bike.

A BOY who had his spleen removed following a freak accident on his bike
will have to take medication for the rest of his life - but he says he
is lucky to be alive.

Patrick Glendon, aged 12, of Test Court, River Way, Andover - where he
lives with his mum and dad Ken and Diane Wedge - was riding his bike
home from The Depot on with his brother and friend when the accident
happened.

"I was going too fast and lost control of the bike," said Patrick, who
featured on the front page of the Andover Advertiser Midweek last week
in a much happier story.

"I went over the handlebars and landed on my shoulder."

Fortunately he didn't land on his head as he was not wearing a helmet.

But he was still in considerable pain because as he went over the bike
his stomach struck the central shaft which protruded about half an inch.


When he got home he was as white as a sheet and his lips were blue.

He was rushed by ambulance from Andover's Minor Injuries Unit to the
Royal Hampshire County Hospital, where he was operated on to have his
ruptured spleen removed that night.

He also had to have a blood transfusion because of the blood loss.

"I'm lucky to be alive," he said.

"As it is he will have to take penicillin tablets for the rest of his
life to replace the spleen's role in filtering foreign organisms that
infect the bloodstream.

He will always wear a helmet now and he and his parents will be
campaigning to make it compulsory for everyone to wear helmets on bikes.

They also want bike manufacturers to ensure there are no unnecessary
protruding parts.

*****<end quote>*******

 

[mb]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:44:46 +0100, John B wrote:

> Fortunately he didn't land on his head as he was not wearing a helmet.

Well, there we go then. Helmets make you land on your head.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Ziggy]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:22 -0500, mb <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:44:46 +0100, John B wrote:
>
>> Fortunately he didn't land on his head as he was not wearing a helmet.
>
>Well, there we go then. Helmets make you land on your head.

Ahh, but his head would have been that much bigger had he been wearing a
helmet and thus he may have hit it.

In which case, it would doubtless have been: "The helmet save his life"!

 

[AT]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I despaired when I read this article in my local rag - the same paper
> that champions Carlie Annetts and BeHit.
>
> http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/display.var.1355819.0.boy_cyclist_hurt_in_freak_accident.php

> He will always wear a helmet now and he and his parents will be
> campaigning to make it compulsory for everyone to wear helmets on bikes.
>
> They also want bike manufacturers to ensure there are no unnecessary
> protruding parts.
>

Sure, manufacturers should dispense with those awkward handlebars and
replace them with padded steering wheels. Or maybe go the whole hog and fit
airbags to the front of every bike just so that mumsie can have her peace of
mind. If mumsie had bothered to teach the lad some road sense in the first
place, he wouldn't have to be munching penicillin on toast for the rest of
his life.

Too many muppets make knee jerk reactions to Health & Safety issues without
tackling the root of the problem.

AT

 

[Peter Clinch]

AT wrote:

> Too many muppets make knee jerk reactions to Health & Safety issues without
> tackling the root of the problem.

In their cases, presumably the root of the problem being they don't
have any brains to protect... ;-(

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/

 

[bookieb]

On Apr 27, 3:44 pm, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
> I despaired when I read this article in my local rag - the same paper
> that champions Carlie Annetts and BeHit.
>
> http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/display.var.1355819.0.boy_cyclist_...
>
> It seems that because a young lad ruptured his spleen the parents are to
> campaign for compulsory h*lm*ts.
> As if the f*ck a helmet will stop a handlebar stem striking a stomach.
>
> This is pure rabbits-foot syndrome.
>
> I've rarely felt so cross.
>
> John B
>
> ******<start quote>******
<snip>
> He will always wear a helmet now and he and his parents will be
> campaigning to make it compulsory for everyone to wear helmets on bikes.
<snip>
> *****<end quote>*******

Is it possible that these people have suffered some kind of
physiological mix up, and do actually have their spleens located in
their skulls?
They've demonstrated fairly clearly that there's plenty of free space
for it in there.

As displays of the total absence of logic from a train of thought go,
it's pretty damn impressive.

bookieb

 

[OG]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I despaired when I read this article in my local rag - the same paper
> that champions Carlie Annetts and BeHit.
>
> http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/display.var.1355819.0.boy_cyclist_hurt_in_freak_accident.php
>
> It seems that because a young lad ruptured his spleen the parents are to
> campaign for compulsory h*lm*ts.
> As if the f*ck a helmet will stop a handlebar stem striking a stomach.
>
> This is pure rabbits-foot syndrome.
>

Personally,I'm cross that someone under the name of "Matt H from
Basingstoke" can put forward such **** 'arguments' against helmets. It does
no good at all to make such unsubstantiated claims as he does.

The one that caught my eye was the one where he claims that a helmet adds
'10-25%' to the weight of the head. Anyone here wear a 1kg helmet? I never
wear a helmet, but I'm married to someone who wears one that weighs less
than 250g - i.e. about 5% of head weight for an adult.

It's true that he does use 7 words to assert that helmets are not always
bad, but he uses a whole load more to propagate dodgy claims about the
'perils' of helmets. You all know about the 'rotational injuries' peril of
helmets - but are you all aware that this was tested on a
'starter helmet' like 6 year old's wear? As soon as you add a shiny shell,
frictional forces are dramatically reduced. Anyone seen a grown-up helmet
that doesn't have a shiny shell?

Just to make it clear I am totally against compulsion for helmet wearing,
but most of both sides of the 'helmets arguments' are bad science

This includes my scepticism about the 'www.cyclehemets.org has information
from both sides' claim.. Yes it does, but have a read of the 'Cycle
helmets - an overview' page on http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 and
try to follow up any of the specific claims made there. If you are fair
minded I think you'll agree that pro-helmet arguments are given more
rigorous criticism than neutral arguments.

So am I pro or anti helmets ? I'm certainly against comlpulsion, but I don't
see that helmets are overall a BAD thing in any specific way.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, OG
('[email protected]') wrote:

> It's true that he does use 7 words to assert that helmets are not always
> bad, but he uses a whole load more to propagate dodgy claims about the
> 'perils' of helmets. You all know about the 'rotational injuries' peril
> of helmets - but are you all aware that this was tested on a
> 'starter helmet' like 6 year old's wear?

As far as I know the rotational injury theory comes only from medical
studies, and has not been tested with real helmets at all - unless you
know different, in which case please could you give us a reference?

> As soon as you add a shiny
> shell, frictional forces are dramatically reduced.  Anyone seen a
> grown-up helmet that doesn't have a shiny shell?

A shiny shell doesn't stay shiny long when you drag it across tarmac. And,
even when shiny, it doesn't slide across tarmac anything like as well as
human hair.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
|> in message <[email protected]>, OG
|> ('[email protected]') wrote:
|>
|> > It's true that he does use 7 words to assert that helmets are not always
|> > bad, but he uses a whole load more to propagate dodgy claims about the
|> > 'perils' of helmets. You all know about the 'rotational injuries' peril
|> > of helmets - but are you all aware that this was tested on a
|> > 'starter helmet' like 6 year old's wear?
|>
|> As far as I know the rotational injury theory comes only from medical
|> studies, and has not been tested with real helmets at all - unless you
|> know different, in which case please could you give us a reference?

That is my understanding.

And the OTHER way in which helmets cause head injury hasn't even been
considered by the (pro-helmet) medical and political establishment,
as far as I know. It wouldn't be hard to test, either.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
"OG" <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> The one that caught my eye was the one where he claims that a helmet adds
|> '10-25%' to the weight of the head. Anyone here wear a 1kg helmet? I never
|> wear a helmet, but I'm married to someone who wears one that weighs less
|> than 250g - i.e. about 5% of head weight for an adult.

(a) Something like that. I bought it years ago and, as I never wore it
because I felt that it would do any good (or much harm) never replaced
it. In an upright position, that amount of extra weight isn't a
problem - its only you crouchers that get neck strain.

(b) Anyone here have a 10 Kg head? Don't commit the same crime that
you are accusing other people of. Small women and children often have
heads that are much lighter than you realise - what does a person's head
weigh if they have a brain volume of 1 litre?

(c) Very light helmets do exist, but most are even less likely to be
of any use than more normal ones; many of them will break up quite
rapidly even with normal handling. What is that 250 gramme one, and
what standards does it meet? Hard shell ones generally approach
500 grammes, and are the only ones that can handle normal domestic
wear and tear.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[John Kane]

On Apr 27, 6:09 pm, bookieb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 3:44 pm, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I despaired when I read this article in my local rag - the same paper
> > that champions Carlie Annetts and BeHit.
>
> >http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/display.var.1355819.0.boy_cyclist_...
>
> > It seems that because a young lad ruptured his spleen the parents are to
> > campaign for compulsory h*lm*ts.
> > As if the f*ck a helmet will stop a handlebar stem striking a stomach.
>
> > This is pure rabbits-foot syndrome.
>
> > I've rarely felt so cross.
>
> > John B
>
> > ******<start quote>******
> <snip>
> > He will always wear a helmet now and he and his parents will be
> > campaigning to make it compulsory for everyone to wear helmets on bikes.
> <snip>
> > *****<end quote>*******
>
> Is it possible that these people have suffered some kind of
> physiological mix up, and do actually have their spleens located in
> their skulls?

I was wondering if it was some kind of British mutation? I'm pretty
sure we don't keep spleens in our heads here in Canada.

> They've demonstrated fairly clearly that there's plenty of free space
> for it in there.
>
> As displays of the total absence of logic from a train of thought go,
> it's pretty damn impressive.

Ah but you missed the promoter of our cycle helmet law. Apparently
her son suffered serious brain injury in a car accident so she
sponsored a cycle helmet law.

> bookieb

 

[Peter Clinch]

OG wrote:

> Just to make it clear I am totally against compulsion for helmet wearing,
> but most of both sides of the 'helmets arguments' are bad science

I don't think that's really the case for the "helmets don't really
do much that needs to be done" position. It's fairly reproducible
for a start, and is relatively easy to study using available data
sets that are reasonable to use for the job.

Which is why it's the one I keep coming back to.

If helmets are either a) Good, or b) Bad, then show me the casualty
figures going down or up. What happens as helmet use increases
is... nothing much. And it's the same nothing much anywhere you look.

> This includes my scepticism about the 'www.cyclehemets.org has information
> from both sides' claim.. Yes it does, but have a read of the 'Cycle
> helmets - an overview' page on http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1139 and
> try to follow up any of the specific claims made there. If you are fair
> minded I think you'll agree that pro-helmet arguments are given more
> rigorous criticism than neutral arguments.

Though might that be because they are far fuller of holes and thus
more deserving of criticism? That is my feeling on the matter. A
good case in point was Robinson's paper in the BMJ, and the
"answer" piece. Reading the followup repsonses is quite
instructive, with the "answer" piece being fuller of holes than a
Swiss Cheese with aspirations to be a colinder and most of the flak
directed against Robinson's work being numpties with singular
anecdotes.

The whole population, "look, nothing much happens" is far more
straightforward than a set of case control studies with wildly
differing (i.e., non-reprodcible) results and varyingly poor
methodologies and data sets that don't lend themselves to case
control and tell us lots of lives are saved though with no sign of
them in the population data set. It's because of that that the pro
helmet arguments get a lot more flak. Quite simply, they've earned
it by being so ****.

If you want to say the ant-helmet (i.e., helmets are actively bad)
arguments like rotational injuries etc. are full of holes too, then
I'd have to say fair comment. It's a possible mechanism, sure, but
there simply aren't the fugures to back it up to say "this happens
a lot".

But if it's just a case of comparing pro-helmet to "where is the
real world evidence of effect, I don't see any" helmet sceptic line
then the pro case really /is/ much fuller of holes AFAICT.

> So am I pro or anti helmets ? I'm certainly against comlpulsion, but I don't
> see that helmets are overall a BAD thing in any specific way.

Bad in themselves, no. But beyond the helmet itself is the UK
Government's attitude that they should be made compulsory as soon
as enough people wear them, and I suspect that the more people see
the more they assume they must be worthwhile and start using them.
So there really is a pro-compulsion effect of wearing one in the
UK IMHO, and if you're anti-compulsion that's surely a BAD thing in
a specific way.
Beyond that, with the lack of knowledge amongst the public at large
on the risks of cycling they just reinforce the general perception
that cycling is particularly dangerous: well, you need a special
crash helmet and why would you need that if it's just as safe as
walking? A fairly natural question, with a fairly natural assumed
(though wrong, as it turns out) answer.
So take away the "mandate them at x% wearing level" assumption, and
educate the public about the real risk levels, and /then/ helmets
are not overall a BAD 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/

 

[Tony Raven]

John Kane wrote on 28/04/2007 14:21 +0100:
>
> I was wondering if it was some kind of British mutation? I'm pretty
> sure we don't keep spleens in our heads here in Canada.
>

Quite a few helmet proponents vent their spleen through their mouths so
it must be up there somewhere for them at least ;-).

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[_]

On 28 Apr 2007 06:21:32 -0700, John Kane wrote:

>
> Ah but you missed the promoter of our cycle helmet law. Apparently
> her son suffered serious brain injury in a car accident so she
> sponsored a cycle helmet law.
>

That sounds like a genetic flaw, not trauma.

 

[_]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:34:55 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> So take away the "mandate them at x% wearing level" assumption, and
> educate the public about the real risk levels, and /then/ helmets
> are not overall a BAD thing.
>

There is precious little difference between *worthless* and "BAD".

 

[Tony Raven]

OG wrote on 28/04/2007 03:13 +0100:
>
> So am I pro or anti helmets ? I'm certainly against comlpulsion, but
> I don't see that helmets are overall a BAD thing in any specific way.
>

They need to be more than not a bad thing to justify their promotion and
attempts at compulsion. They need to demonstrate that they have a
positive benefit. Just as a simple illustration of that lack of benefit
I have for a long time posted curves of the number of head injuries in
each of two countries that introduced helmet laws and doubled helmet
wearing from one year to the next. If helmets did any good you would
expect to see a step change reduction in head injuries between those two
years. So have a look at the evidence and do what every helmet
proponent I have challenged has so far failed to do and tell me at which
horizontal tick mark that step change occured.
http://cycling.raven-family.com/Helmet Graphs.jpg



--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Roos Eisma]

John Kane <[email protected]> writes:

>Ah but you missed the promoter of our cycle helmet law. Apparently
>her son suffered serious brain injury in a car accident so she
>sponsored a cycle helmet law.

Maybe the original poster's son had his brain in his spleen. I have heard
that men often have brains in odd places.

Roos

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
|> OG wrote:
|>
|> > Just to make it clear I am totally against compulsion for helmet wearing,
|> > but most of both sides of the 'helmets arguments' are bad science
|>
|> I don't think that's really the case for the "helmets don't really
|> do much that needs to be done" position. It's fairly reproducible
|> for a start, and is relatively easy to study using available data
|> sets that are reasonable to use for the job.
|>
|> Which is why it's the one I keep coming back to.
|>
|> If helmets are either a) Good, or b) Bad, then show me the casualty
|> figures going down or up. What happens as helmet use increases
|> is... nothing much. And it's the same nothing much anywhere you look.

Yes. The exceptions are the studies that show that they protect
against brain damage, broken legs and probably even AIDS.

|> If you want to say the ant-helmet (i.e., helmets are actively bad)
|> arguments like rotational injuries etc. are full of holes too, then
|> I'd have to say fair comment. It's a possible mechanism, sure, but
|> there simply aren't the fugures to back it up to say "this happens
|> a lot".

Not quite. They are less full of holes, but have even less evidence
that the effect occurs in practice. I.e. they are solid as far as the
physics and physiology goes, but there is no evidence that they are
significant.

|> So take away the "mandate them at x% wearing level" assumption, and
|> educate the public about the real risk levels, and /then/ helmets
|> are not overall a BAD thing.

Actually, no. That is unclear. You are probably right, but we can't
be sure - for example, even the use of helmets (with no compulsion)
may put people off cycling.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Beyond that, with the lack of knowledge amongst the public at large
|> on the risks of cycling they just reinforce the general perception
|> that cycling is particularly dangerous: well, you need a special
|> crash helmet and why would you need that if it's just as safe as
|> walking? A fairly natural question, with a fairly natural assumed
|> (though wrong, as it turns out) answer.

That is misleading. It is wrong only in the country as a whole.
Today.

I have a fair amount of informal evidence that it is locally true,
at least for Cambridge suburbia and the routes that you need to
travel around it and into the centre. Almost every one I know of
who does that has a MUCH larger minor injury and assault rate
compared to walking on the same routes, whether you measure it per
hour, per mile or per trip.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Roos Eisma
('[email protected]') wrote:

> John Kane <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Ah but you missed the promoter of our cycle helmet law. Apparently
>>her son suffered serious brain injury in a car accident so she
>>sponsored a cycle helmet law.
>
> Maybe the original poster's son had his brain in his spleen. I have heard
> that men often have brains in odd places.

Well, I know that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but I
didn't know he kept his brain there too...

H'mmm... doughnuts...

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]