Safe Speed Forums

Then there is no point in debating with you. That does not make me sad.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Then there is no point in debating with you. Which is no hardship as your writing style is prolix to the point of unintelligibility.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Peer reviewed research from Melbourne.


Given the desire to believe anything "peer reviewed" means you cycling lot have to believe it


But seriously.. spend one day with A&E and you will find why medical bods like me would support helmet wearing. It may be just polystyrene .. but it's still an effective shock absorber and I prefer to have at least something to reduce a blow to my skull than nothing at all.


Back when I first qualified .. helmets were only just starting to be worn. Mostly because the professionals wore them. We found those wearing helmets even back then had less damage to heads than those not wearing them. Back in mid 80s when I was a junior medic - helmets were seen as "fashion gimmick". To some extent they still are a fashion gimmick .. and designwise/materialwise - still not moved on that much beyond polystyrene.


I gather more research is going on and perhaps something better than polystyrene will line these. At moment ... better than nowt.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Hmm. This whole peer reviewed stuff seems to be a bit of a bee-in-your-bonnet. To be honest the peers involved have to know what they're talking about, and from my experience very few medical professionals understand exactly what a bicycle helmet can and can't do. Even fewer seem to care that it can cause worse injuries than it may prevent. But such is the way of the BMA and BMJ, look into the debate on cycle helmets and you'll see why I have such a low opinion of these institutionss...

I'd rather take the opinion of someone I trust, such as John Franklin, the chap who wrote Cyclecraft. Here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2002.pdf

he explains the flaws in both the Australian "research" and other documents related to it. To be honest, even the flimsiest of "research" data would've been used by the helmet manufacturers to promote their products given half the chance. If they're not touching the Austarlian report then you can guarantee it's not worth the paper it's written on!

Oh well...

Quite apart from my shared our shared low opinion of the medical profession - that's the profession that is just coming to the view that a pre-operation check list ( as used in aviation for the last eighty years) might just be a good idea - they are in no position to judge the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets. They see a narrow range of casualities - those injured sufficiently to need hospital treatment but no sao severely as to be DOA. They certainly don't see the consequences of the thousands of minor accidents where the "caualty" treats himself.

I find the very name "cycle helmet" to be very misleading. It suggests a solid protective item as worn by builders and mountain climbers when in fact they are little more than bump caps.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Ahh.. but (we or rather ) he's having a dig at all those who keep on about "peer reviewed data" and a tendency to cherry pick the peer reviewed stuff which supports or can be taken out of contect to try to prove some point We had it all with the jub-jub-mongliblets saga when Paul was alive

But Franklin - expert as he is - does not come into contact with the accidents that we do - day in - day out.


Helmets offer a little bit of protection and if a lawyer -or rather the lawyer acting for an insurance company in a civil County Court hearing - can argue "contributory negligence" to reduce damages for the client - they will. Now the difference in those cases depends on arugments put forth .. witness statement questionning and which version the judge "prefers" on the day.

Basically it boils down to who has the best gift of the gab on the day

As for "low opinion of medics" - a poorly run and underfunded NHS with a lottery deal on medications relfects more on the managers and government of the day than the medics employed within it. Ted happens to have peer reviewed data on his own specialism in the medical press and says he has even supersded his own previous papers as he learns more about his lurgies and potential treatments/preventions/containment of the diseases.

But back to helmets - when I see those writing the mags and Franklin hmself photographed WITHOUT wearing one in his PR photos - then


The fact they are always pictured in full gear would endorse the wearing of the head gear

If a cyclist has a small collision and does not hit his head nor see the need to pursue for damages - then the incidents would suggest routine falls which we all have from time to time... or some fault on the part of cyclist which would negate liability on part of the other person.

We see the other side . the serious cases. Most who survive a serious nasty were wearing helmets at the time.


OK - they are not the same as a mountaineers helmet - but perhaps should be made similarly to alpine sportsgear. After all.. you go pretty fast down them hills

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

By the way - on page 191 of Cycle craft

Franklin writes that incorrect wearing of the helmet could increase the risk or head injury. You get one which fits well and strap it on correctly (Neck injuries - nasty ones result from an illfitting or carelessly worn helmet )

He does say that we can avoid injury



On page 192 - he confirms what the Mad Doc (and self earlier on did say ) that the helmet absorbs the shock and thus gives a margin of reducing the injury.

His argument is that other areas of the head can be injured. (We had one guy with a broken jaw) And another with multiple injuries which were similar to Ian's in the other thread .. when a lorry drove over him. (And again we have the unpalatable reminder that, as Franklin says, .. "we need to learn to cycle skilfully" and to many // just like the many complacent drivers out there - just do not nor even think they have plenty more learn as a continuum. The reminders which always make my tongue taste like tin.)





At the time Franklin wrote his book (1997) - fewer rode bikes. Not enough data to work with. As more take to bicycles - the more streamlined the research and the stats .. and there are further studies going on across the globe on the helmet issue based on more recent criteria

On page 193 .. Franklin suggests that wearing a helmet makes folk take risks or not ride carefully as they should, Not an adequate reason. YOU are the RESPONSIBLE one.. the MANAGER of YOURSELF out there. Your job when on the road is to pro-act .. react .. negotiate with the rest of the road users. If you cannot do that .. then helmet or no helmet - you should not be on the road either on a bike or driving a car. Telling us that you rode into someone or something because "you were wearing a helmet and took a risk you would not otherwise have taken" would have the exact same effect on me as a driver telling me the same nonsense for not wearing a seatbelt.


You would be making a contribution to the fine coffers. for being an inconsiderate muppet in the case of the careless cyclist who took a stupid risk and came a cropper as a result

I would take such a comment made to us as admitting being a twazak and admitting inconsiderate behaviour on their part. We did give someone a £30 fine for that once. He never challenged us or went to the tabloids despite threatening to

// whilst the driver may find himself on the wrong side of a careless driving charge for taking a stupid risk "because he wore a seatbelt".

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I wager that in A&E Maggie has seen lots of head injuries to non cyclists. Injuries that might have been prevented or mitigated if the casualty had been wearing a helmet. And I would wager an equal sum that he does not wear a helmet when he isn't cycling. And I don't understand the thought process behind that.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I think a better analogy is that of walking onto a building site without a hard hat.

Now, it is certainly arguable that somebody who drops a brick off the scaffolding may well have been careless or even wreckless.

However, I would feel that the failure to wear a hard hat in an enviroment where such incidents are known to occur means that the "victim" shares responsibleity for the outcome.

(remember, we are dealing with the "civil" consequences of the accident, not the "criminal" consequences, people often mix the two up or run them into one where they should really be kept separate)

While it is reasonable that the "dropper" should bear responsibility for his own foolishness, he should not be held acountable for his "victims" foolishness aslo!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

No, Dusty, that doesn't convince me. On a building site or on a climbing crag the environment is intricately dangerous. The normal responsible behaviour of careful people can still cause injury to unprotected bystanders. On the roads the environment is safe and the only dangers are from people behaving in a careless and irresponsible manner.

Suffering a head injury on a building site when not wearing a helmet is akin to getting soaked in a thunderstorm because you didn't take your umbrella. Suffering the same injury in a on road cycling accident is akin to having a bucket of water thrown over you in your own sitting room. Some thing that no reasonable person would expect to have to guard against.

And no one has come up with an explanation as to why it is only two wheel road users who are expected to protect their heads.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Never seen him or any of us without one. All of us accept we may wear as wedo not like comobing out dead insects from out hiar.


But we each have seen more than palatable in our lines of profession. He speaks fromt he medical stance. me from the "obn the job stance" and Wildy does the light fun stuff on here -= with a tinge of serious That woman has a sense of fun which sugars bitter pills at times // [i]if you decide to read her comments and not get wound up to much by her weak written command of English. She's much better to understand n#in person..but ignore the spelling issues and be amazed at the insight shown. OK . I've known her from her being days old and perhaps "immune" as a result. But I know her and respect her views all the same.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

disagree.

on the basis that it's reasonably foreseeable that any one journey can bring into conflict with any twazak (to use Swiss veracular_ out there.

Franlklin tells us "acquired skilled expertise helps" - likewise the driver of the car. only too many are too complacent to accept this simple fact of life


If only they did. By Heck" we would really be abl to say "advanced homo sapiens" then.

Oh .. do take note of my sarcasm as it is directed more at the wold at large and no one in particular

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

AAhha. The scales have fallen from my eyes!

I see where you are coming from!

I, however, have NEVER considered the highway as an intrisically safe enviroment, Indeed the contrary apples.



I have actually considered this one. My concluson is that (given that I am already inside a metel box) the loss of periferal vision that would result from wearing a hat would out weigh the benefits (However, if I drove a ragtop I would take a diferent view!)

In my cycling life, I have fallen off many times and have on ocasiuon been saved from serious injury by the fact that I have been wearing a hat.

I have NEVER been knocked off by a passing motorist!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

This is going to sound a bit loony, but I personally think it's closer to the truth.

The primary pressure IMO for cyclists to wear helmets is about demonstrating authority on a group of people that other people think are anti-authoritarian, or anti-compliant.

Several times I've had car drivers with whom I've had words with regarding their ridiculous driving retort "you should be wearing a helmet then"; what does that mean? It's certainly not in concern for my safety considering they just nearly wiped me out.

It's like cyclists must be seen to be doing what they're told, even if people have to come up with an arbitrary thing to do, i.e. wearing a helmet. Cycle helmet's are a good one because it plays on the perception of saftey; not wearing a helment? You're going to get hurt and it will be your fault (i.e. not mine for crashing into you).

Sorry, bit of a mixed up post, but it's quite hard to put this into words.

Really? Excellent! Lets all go home!



Are you serious? Seatbelts, airbags, metal cage, need I go on? Sure these are not always enough to prevent a head injury, but if you bother to read the link in the OP you'll see that its accepted that they are not always enough in the case of two wheels also. Obtusity.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You're right, perhaps you should eschew the helmet in favour of a tin-foil hat.



You're probably right; its more likely to be concern for the fact that if you become a paraplegic as a result of a collision that may be attributed to them, they'll be paying to employ someone to wipe your ar*e for the rest of your natural days, when a helmet may have avoided this eventuality. This is why I welcome this verdict.

I find it quite telling that your opposition to helmets is born of an anti-authoritarian sentiment.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Rather like speed cams in fact.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

OTHO wearing a helmet may mean that victim "becomes a paraplegic as a result of a collision that may be attributed to them and they'll be paying to employ someone to wipe your ar*e for the rest of your natural days" rather than suffering a clean ,and relatively inexpensive to them, death.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I don't think that you do. The argument is not about whether helmets protect the head. It is about whether not wearing a helmet should reduce the compensation offered to the victim of criminal or reckless behaviour


Again you misunderstand. The highway is intrinsically safe. It is a passive strip of well constructed tarmac. It only becomes dangerous when reckless or criminal individuals are introduced. One should expect to cycle on a highway in perfect safety unless another individual behaves in a reckless or criminal manner. By insisting in law that a cyclist protects himself against such individuals we are, to some extent, condoning their behaviour



I was thinking more of pedestrians. In summer I have seen pedestrians crossing the road wearing little more than shorts and sandals. What protection does that offer in a collision with a car? Should their compensation be reduced because they are not wearing protective clothing?

Would you wear one of these http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/developments/headband/ if it was proved that they were as effective as cycle helmets in reducing head injuries?



Self inflicted injuries are not apposite to the argument about compensation. But if you are falling off so frequently perhaps you should consider modifying your behaviour or taking some tuition. In over fifty years cycling I have fallen off less than a dozen times (and that includes many trips back from public houses ) On none of those occasions was I wearing a helmet and I never suffered anything worse than road rash. Nor have I ever been knocked off by a passing motorist. But I have been knocked over by a pedestrian!

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Tin hat syndrome!

and there is an element of truth in it!

IIRC when Tin hats became standard issue for soldiers it was noted that while fatalities were cut, serious injuries went up massinvly.

One of the dark secrets of the current gulf war is that while body armour stops many US soldiers from being killed very large numbers of servicmen are being flown back to the states with various bits blown off and you dont see that on the news!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"