Schumacher's Helmet

[flecc]

at the very least saved me from brain damage' and I trust my colleagues to know from their vast experience of accident trauma to know if that's true or not.

It is this nonsense I object to, since trauma personnel are not in any way experts on the protection a helmet can give. Their expertise is not in the materials used in helmet construction and their impact resistance characteristics.

If you believe their experience makes them experts in materials technology, presumably you would be happy for the helmet test team from the British Standards Institute to have been the A & E team dealing with your injuries?

 

[Emo Rider]

It is this utter nonsense I object too, since trauma personnel are not in any way experts on the protection a helmet can give. Their expertise is not in the materials used in helmet construction and their impact resistance characteristics.

If you believe their experience makes them experts, presumably you would be happy for the helmet test team from the British Standards Institute to have been the A & E team dealing with your injuries?

It is this utter nonsense I object too, since trauma personnel are not in any way experts on the protection a helmet can give. Their expertise is not in the materials used in helmet construction and their impact resistance characteristics.

If you believe their experience makes them experts, presumably you would be happy for the helmet test team from the British Standards Institute to have been the A & E team dealing with your injuries?

I have read many of your posts on other threads and respect your opinions, knowledge and insights. However, your postings on this thread leave me wondering why in the world you are so against mandatory helmet use. Again it is ok to be against it but you comment as if you know more than the experts, medical professionals, first responders and the people that give their own testimony about the benifits of having a helmet on when they've had an accident. The tone of your replies and comments are on the border of being insulting.

I myself have been in a motorcycle accident and a bicycle accident and both times I am 100% sure that my injuries would have been much more serious had I not been wearing a helmet. These incidents happened in two different countries and I was told by medical staff in both cases that this was the case. Can it possibly be that you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong?

I did a little experiment while I was cooking this evening. I dropped an egg from a height of 6 inches onto the counter. It broke. I dropped another egg from the same height on the same spot. This time it did not break. It was still in the egg carton. I am 100% sure the egg carton protected the egg. Could I be wrong.

 

[flecc]

Simple answers.

I'm in favour of the freedom of the individual to wear one or not to wear one so am against compulsion.

I have acknowledged here and previously that helmets give some protection. I have nowhere said that a helmet would not lessen the consequences of an accident, so why the examples given where it does? Of course any crushable layer between an impact and a head will reduce the impact and as an engineer I need no lectures on that.

But I will not tolerate medical professionals pretending to have expertise in areas where they clearly have none. Any statement by them that a helmet saved a life is no more than a guess with almost no foundation. It can be demonstrated that a cycle helmet will hardly ever prevent a death in an impact that can cause that end result.

 

[Emo Rider]

www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

Perhaps they had no expertise in helmet research but perhaps they read this research paper published here in England in 2003 by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

This report was not compiled by cycling groups with various motives for not wanting manditory helmet use. The RoSPA seems to be unbiased in its findings and base their conclusions on both medical and statistical research.

 

[flecc]

Perhaps they did read that, perhaps they didn't, but to say RoSPA might be unbiased could hardly be further from the truth. They have a blatantly protectionist culture and are very strongly in favour of compulsion, arguing for it regularly, so could hardly be more biased.

However, once again not relevant to the subjects of freedom to choose and the materials technology knowledge of medical professionals. Nor can their medical and statistical research throw any light on those subjects.

Our governments and those of our EU partners have access to all the relevant knowledge including road research departments findings, and they have all concluded that compulsion is not desirable. I respect their much more comprehensive inquiries more than those of a biased organisation or the guesses of those without the necessary knowledge.

The important thing is that helmets are available for those who want or need them, and I think you should be satisfied with that. When I started cycling and motor cycling long ago there weren't any so this is a great improvement.

 

[Scimitar]

I also said 'Or at the very least saved me from brain damage' and I trust my colleagues to know from their vast experience of accident trauma to know if that's true or not.

Another anecdote -
Last year a cycling friend who always wears a helmet but not while testing, was adjusting his brakes and trying them while just going 20 yards from his drive and back. On his 3rd test he slipped, fell forward and banged the front of his forehead into the ground resulting in a lost eye. He would have 100% not lost his eye if he had his helmet on. I now always wear my helmet even when I'm going a circle in front of my house testing brakes etc.

I wear a helmet when I'm putting my trousers on - always; because you never know. 4 or 5 people die every years in the UK from slipping and banging their nut when donning breeks, so that's a sensibile precaution.

 

[aardvark5]

I wear a helmet when I'm putting my trousers on - always; because you never know. 4 or 5 people die every years in the UK from slipping and banging their nut when donning breeks, so that's a sensibile precaution.

Like I said I got up the other night without my walking stick and fell head first into a wall but thankfully I was OK on this occasion, the next time I might not be so lucky so I've decided to always wear it now and body armour.
You can never be too careful.

Oh and Flecc, oh dear.
Completely and utterly pointless debating with you since you know it all above medical professionals who see this kind of stuff day in & out.

 

[lectureral]

You go away for a bit, come back and what do you find - a helmet thread!
I find that compulsory helmet advocates usually have poor arguments rich in anecdote and "common sense" which usually do not consider points such as the following:
(i) compulsion is associated with less bike riding - the overall effect seems likely to be negative with health damage from obesity outweighing head injuries
(ii) research has shown that drivers are more considerate to non-helmet-wearing cyclists - you are less likely to have an accident if you don't wear a helmet.
(iii) the line-drawing argument - plenty of people are at risk of head injuries, including pedestrians and passengers in cars. Why focus upon cyclists for compulsion?
(iv) freedom - there is a genuine value in allowing people to decide for themselves. The banners are the ones who need to justify their desire to impose things on others. In my view they don't get close.

 

[peerjay56]

But I will not tolerate medical professionals pretending to have expertise in areas where they clearly have none. Any statement by them that a helmet saved a life is no more than a guess with almost no foundation. It can be demonstrated that a cycle helmet will hardly ever prevent a death in an impact that can cause that end result.

Flecc,
I'm afraid you ignore one pertinent point. Medical personnel in A&E departments see ALL those who receive head injuries (unless they're immediately fatal, of course). As a routine part of the casualty assessment, a history of the mechanism of injury is obtained, either from the casualty himself, or gathered from witnesses to the incident. In addition, the nature of the injury can be a clear indicator of that mechanism. Experience of dealing with such injuries gives them the ability to recognise those whose injuries have been miinimised by the protective items they wore, be it a cycle helmet, full body armour or even just a pair of gloves. They don't need to be experienced in helmet design criteria or materials, any more than you (or any other cyclist) need to know the full design criteria of a bicycle to be able to eventually judge what it can or can not do.
As you've never had an accident, you wouldn't know that, of course.

 

[peerjay56]

You go away for a bit, come back and what do you find - a helmet thread!
I find that compulsory helmet advocates usually have poor arguments rich in anecdote and "common sense" which usually do not consider points such as the following:
(i) compulsion is associated with less bike riding - the overall effect seems likely to be negative with health damage from obesity outweighing head injuries
(ii) research has shown that drivers are more considerate to non-helmet-wearing cyclists - you are less likely to have an accident if you don't wear a helmet.
(iii) the line-drawing argument - plenty of people are at risk of head injuries, including pedestrians and passengers in cars. Why focus upon cyclists for compulsion?
(iv) freedom - there is a genuine value in allowing people to decide for themselves. The banners are the ones who need to justify their desire to impose things on others. In my view they don't get close.

One, maybe another, person in this thread feels helmet wearing should be compulsory. Most of the rest of us who DO wear helmets do so for a reason, but acknowledge your right to choose.
This thread has never been about compulsion to wear helmets, it is usually those against compulsion who seem to turn any thread on helmets around to that.

 

[lectureral]

I don't know - I have never felt the need to discuss preferences with a stranger wearing a helmet but have had plenty of behelmeted cyclists tap their heads at me. It is a form of arrogance - I know more than you about your choice, whereas usually the opposite is true (a lot of people know less than Flecc about most things, in my experience). There is a relatively short path between "you ought to wear a helmet" and "you shall wear a helmet".

 

[flecc]

Flecc,
I'm afraid you ignore one pertinent point. Medical personnel in A&E departments see ALL those who receive head injuries (unless they're immediately fatal, of course). As a routine part of the casualty assessment, a history of the mechanism of injury is obtained, either from the casualty himself, or gathered from witnesses to the incident. In addition, the nature of the injury can be a clear indicator of that mechanism. Experience of dealing with such injuries gives them the ability to recognise those whose injuries have been miinimised by the protective items they wore, be it a cycle helmet, full body armour or even just a pair of gloves. They don't need to be experienced in helmet design criteria or materials, any more than you (or any other cyclist) need to know the full design criteria of a bicycle to be able to eventually judge what it can or can not do.
As you've never had an accident, you wouldn't know that, of course.

But I've acknowledged that Phil, I've already posted above and elsewhere that a helmet lessens the effects of an accident, that's blindingly obvious.

But again I repeat that the experience of medical professionals does not equip them to make such statements as "the helmet saved his life. They can't even say "probably" with any degree of certainty. for they don't have the relevant physical facts of the accident or the mechanisms involved, they only have the the resultant symptoms.

The witness accounts of the accident don't even remotely give enough information as I've observed in watching A & E programs, and if you want to know more about witness evidence, just ask the police how good (bad) that can be! And once again, those medics know nothing about the materials technology of helmets, even assuming they even see the one involved.

 

[flecc]

Oh and Flecc, oh dear.
Completely and utterly pointless debating with you since you know it all above medical professionals who see this kind of stuff day in & out.

I know hardly anything about their area of expertise and would never pretend to. It's a pity that they don't display the same humility about the protection that helmets give, something they know nothing about.

It's a sad fact that the rightly received and fully justified high praise that medical professionals receive can make them rather swollen headed. In this respect I point you to the most obvious example, Professor Robert Winston.

He first appeared on our TV screens on a program concerning his area of medecine, an excellent program. But that seemed to give him a taste for TV presenting and he's since appeared repeatedly apparently thinking he has expertise in child development, psychology and some other subjects unrelated to his experience. If he was merely presenting, that would be fine, but his programs go far beyond that. Just look at the narrow area of published works covered by his fertility expertise and the vast range of TV subjects involved in his TV work on this link

He's not the only one of course, just the most blatant.

 

[aardvark5]

(iv) freedom - there is a genuine value in allowing people to decide for themselves. The banners are the ones who need to justify their desire to impose things on others. In my view they don't get close.

Do you also think the same way about seat belts?
I've been driving for 38 years and never needed one (touch wood) so it's a bit pointless wearing one.

 

[mike killay]

I wear a helmet when I'm putting my trousers on - always; because you never know. 4 or 5 people die every years in the UK from slipping and banging their nut when donning breeks, so that's a sensibile precaution.

That is a very sensible precaution, particularly for the over 70's.
Underpants can be extremely dangerous. But I think your figure is wrong, I heard that it is more like 11-12 deaths per year.
I was putting mine on only the other morning when I had a passing giddy spell, as we geriatrics sometimes do. My foot got caught and I luckily fell onto the bed, but a passing mendicant Friar told me that if it had not been for the bed, I would probably have died!

 

[aardvark5]

but a passing mendicant Friar told me that if it had not been for the bed, I would probably have died!

This is outrageous, how would the Friar know? Has he got expertise in trauma accidents and exactly how you would have fallen and into what? Bloody Friars commenting on stuff they know nothing about.

Oops, I thought I was Flecc.

 

[flecc]

I wear a helmet when I'm putting my trousers on - always; because you never know. 4 or 5 people die every years in the UK from slipping and banging their nut when donning breeks, so that's a sensibile precaution.

I've never had a head injury from a road accident, but have suffered the following:

At 12 years old a brick carelessly thrown high by another kid crashed down onto the top edge of my forehead at the hairline. I still bear the slight groove in the skull that resulted. No emergency treatment of course, that was the 1940s, just let it heal.

In the 1970s when standing on a high floor truck platform looking at a problem with the load content, a labourer was struggling to free a trapped steel pallet foot with a crowbar. The pallet suddenly freed and skated across the platform, shoving me backward off the truck onto the concrete surface below. The impact of the fall onto the back of my skull knocked me out and when I came round I had no eyesight for a few minutes, due to bruising of the brain's optical centre at the rear. No medical attention was necessary so I phoned and cancelled the ambulance that had been called.

In the 1980s after working for a long time in a crouched confined position, I straightened up forgetting that there was a projecting steel rack corner above me. That split the crown of my head open with copious blood and a resultant large blood clot matted in the hair which I just left in place for healing.

So what does this show? Two things. Firstly how tough we humans are due to the protection that evolution has given us for accidents at our normal speeds of movement. Secondly that there's a far greater range of head injury possibility outside of road use than within it, but we don't even attempt to protect for those much greater risk possibilities.

These put cycle helmet wearing into perspective for the following reasons. Cycling is very minor source of accident possibilities covering a very small proportion of the risks, in my case none of the risks. And a high proportion of cycling accidents are within the range of normal human speeds. Since most humans can run at up to approximately 18 mph, evolution has equipped our bodies to deal with that quite well, both in damage resistance and healing ability.

What is so good about this is that it is a self-adjusting mechanism, as we get older, more vulnerable and with slower reactions, we cannot run or move as fast and are usually less inclined to do so anyway. Conversely, the young with higher speed abilities and inclinations have the fitness and lightning reactions to suit.

 

[mike killay]

Flecc,
I'm afraid you ignore one pertinent point. Medical personnel in A&E departments see ALL those who receive head injuries (unless they're immediately fatal, of course). As a routine part of the casualty assessment, a history of the mechanism of injury is obtained, either from the casualty himself, or gathered from witnesses to the incident. In addition, the nature of the injury can be a clear indicator of that mechanism. Experience of dealing with such injuries gives them the ability to recognise those whose injuries have been miinimised by the protective items they wore, be it a cycle helmet, full body armour or even just a pair of gloves. They don't need to be experienced in helmet design criteria or materials, any more than you (or any other cyclist) need to know the full design criteria of a bicycle to be able to eventually judge what it can or can not do.
As you've never had an accident, you wouldn't know that, of course.

Cannot you see that this is a load of tosh?
The physics involved in an accident are highly complex, and just to look at an injury in the A+E cannot give any indication of the nature of the collision. I replaced the tarmac on my drive with chippings when my wife became crippled with arthritis. I delight in startling people by throwing an empty wine bottle into the air and letting it crash onto the chippings. It never breaks because of the slight displacement of the chippings as it strikes.
That is just one tiny example of the complexity of a collision between two objects.
Bet A+E people would also be startled, despite their vast experience!

 

[peerjay56]

That is a very sensible precaution, particularly for the over 70's.
Underpants can be extremely dangerous. But I think your figure is wrong, I heard that it is more like 11-12 deaths per year.
I was putting mine on only the other morning when I had a passing giddy spell, as we geriatrics sometimes do. My foot got caught and I luckily fell onto the bed, but a passing mendicant Friar told me that if it had not been for the bed, I would probably have died!

It's for this very reason that it has been compulsory in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick to wear a bed since 1958. No one has died in that country whilst wearing a bed since.

 

[aardvark5]

Anecdotes .......

Blimey if you want to compare head injuries I've also had a fair few over the years with the worst one also ripping my left ear off but you are still talking twaddle. The second worst was ending up knocked out in ICU for 3 days after I was head butted in a football match. I still know 100% that I would have been better off if I'd had worn a helmet but obviously in those two incidents I'd look stupid with one on.