Good grief man, get a grip, I've never heard twaddle being called an insult before.

 

It can become offensive as in this case when it's the response to rational and accurate postings.

Funnily enough since my last post I once again banged my head into a corner where the stairs come down in the hallway and it put me to my knees with a few tears and a lot of swear words. When I eventually recovered without death or brain damage I tried banging my head into it with my helmet on and didn't cry. I even banged it much harder and still didn't cry or say a rude word. I'm not sure what that experiement proved. I'm now sitting here with my helmet on just in case.

Not surprised, that's the sort of impact cycle helmets are designed for, and they are great for preventing minor non life threatening injuries. If we all ambled around like most Dutch cyclists at around 10 mph or so they'd be the perfect protection, though ironically almost none of the Dutch wear one.

 

Still, they have the lowest cycle accident injury rate of all so one can hardly blame them. Obviously the best cycling protection is to slow down!

I'm still amazed you won't accept that if I'm riding at 30+ mph and I come off with my head hitting the ground or into a vehicle that the helmet (even though only tested at 12 mph) won't give a better protection than not wearing one.

I'm still amazed you won't accept that if I'm riding at 30+ mph and I come off with my head hitting the ground or into a vehicle that the helmet (even though only tested at 12 mph) won't give a better protection than not wearing one.

 

Why do you keep posting this!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have repeatedly acknowledged that a helmet adds some protection. Of course that will apply at any speed, but the faster one goes, the less the protection afforded.

 

For example, if the point of death in a specific circumstance impact is 18 mph for example, the protection given above that is academic, the rider still ends up dead. The fact remains that cycle helmets are wholly inadequate for higher speeds and it's facile to protest otherwise.

The fact remains that cycle helmets are wholly inadequate for higher speeds and it's facile to protest otherwise.

 

So I'll come back to what I originally posted - If I was riding at 30 mph and came off you would think it pointless for me to be wearing a helmet because it would be wholly inadequate?

So I'll come back to what I originally posted - If I was riding at 30 mph and came off you would think it pointless for me to be wearing a helmet because it would be wholly inadequate?

 

No, and I've never said that. It is an individual's choice according to their perceived risk. As a mostly low speed utility cyclist with a proven safety record on the roads, I perceive my risk to be extremely low. You are entitled to feel differently about your own risk and I respect that.

 

I think you should respect others decisions for themselves and not try to enforce your personal circumstance decisions upon others.

 

As I remarked earlier, it's a good thing that we even have helmets available now, unlike when I was young, showing that I am far from anti-helmet, just anti irrational enforcement.

 

I think you should respect others decisions for themselves and not try to enforce your personal circumstance decisions upon others.

 

.

 

I never said that I didn't respect other peoples decisions whether to wear them or not so I don't know where you got that from.

My argument is that if you fall off your bike at 0 mph and bang your head on the floor like I did the first day I wore cleats or come off and bang your head at 20 mph like I did last year, I 100% believe that a helmet will protect you more than not wearing one.

I really think that is common sense.

And I don't disagree in any way with your argument and have agreed with the principle several times in this thread. Even when someone is killed in a head impact, a helmet gave them more protection.

 

As for enforcement, I'd gained the impression you were in favour. My mistake, so my apologies for that misreading.

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.

Because my evidence derived from the experience of the falling bottle is a repeatable experiment. The only conclusion I draw is that the nature of contact surfaces is highly relevant.

The experience of A+E staff is not to do with the nature of collisions and is completely subjective i.e. a guess.

Your belittlement of them only reveals your own ignorance on this subject. Believe it or not, the majority of road accidents (and pretty much any type of 'accident') are repeatable experiments too. For many years now, when people have accidents, rather than everyone just saying 'Oh dear, he's had an accident', a lot of follow up goes into the circumstances, the resulting injuries, the prognosis and possible preventative measures. And despite the billions of people on this planet, the basic design of people means the nature of trauma injuries is such that most people have the same types of accident, with the same types of injuries.

The empirical evidence resulting from all these repeatable experiments (worldwide: millions of 'accidents') is what has led to a complete revolution in the way A&E departments, and first responders, now deal with such incidents. The experience that medical staff who specialise in trauma management have is based not only on their own dealings, but also upon sharing the experiences of trauma management people the world over.

Your belittlement of them only reveals your own ignorance on this subject. Believe it or not, the majority of road accidents (and pretty much any type of 'accident') are repeatable experiments too. For many years now, when people have accidents, rather than everyone just saying 'Oh dear, he's had an accident', a lot of follow up goes into the circumstances, the resulting injuries, the prognosis and possible preventative measures. And despite the billions of people on this planet, the basic design of people means the nature of trauma injuries is such that most people have the same types of accident, with the same types of injuries.

The empirical evidence resulting from all these repeatable experiments (worldwide: millions of 'accidents') is what has led to a complete revolution in the way A&E departments, and first responders, now deal with such incidents. The experience that medical staff who specialise in trauma management have is based not only on their own dealings, but also upon sharing the experiences of trauma management people the world over.

I am sorry but I do not want to get into an argument with you over this. The vast experience of injuries received and observed at A+E does not make the doctors experts at the nature of impacts. True they may be better at treating those injuries, but they are not qualified to say 'If he had not been wearing a helmet etc. etc.'

They have no knowledge of impacts, speeds, surfaces etc.

Sharing trauma management techniques the World over makes them experts at exactly that..trauma management, not crash helmets.

I am sorry but I do not want to get into an argument with you over this. The vast experience of injuries received and observed at A+E does not make the doctors experts at the nature of impacts. True they may be better at treating those injuries, but they are not qualified to say 'If he had not been wearing a helmet etc. etc.'

They have no knowledge of impacts, speeds, surfaces etc.

Sharing trauma management techniques the World over makes them experts at exactly that..trauma management, not crash helmets.

No, they're not qualified to say that; they are qualified and experienced enough to make a reasoned and logical assessment of the effects of an impact if the casualty had not been protected. Unlike you and me.

they are qualified and experienced enough to make a reasoned and logical assessment of the effects of an impact if the casualty had not been protected. Unlike you and me.

 

That simply is not true. It infers an exact knowledge of the helmet materials and their crumpability strengths, the exact speed at point of impact, the nature and resistivity of the impacted surface, the angle of impact and the exact weight of the person involved.

 

Without those, any estimate they make has little more value than a guess from anyone else. There are three organisations who individually have far more knowledge to make such impact judgements than all the A & E departments combined. The expertise of A & E takes over where their knowledge leaves off and concerns the treatment of the trauma which is the symptom of the impact.

That simply is not true. It infers an exact knowledge of the helmet materials and their crumpability strengths, the exact speed at point of impact, the nature and resistivity of the impacted surface, the angle of impact and the exact weight of the person involved.

 

Without those, any estimate they make has little more value than a guess from anyone else. There are three organisations who individually have far more knowledge to make such impact judgements than all the A & E departments combined. The expertise of A & E takes over where their knowledge leaves off and concerns the treatment of the trauma which is the symptom of the impact.

There really is no point in continuing this. You and Mike won't accept the premise that someone with experience on a regular basis of dealing with trauma of all kinds, combined with an understanding of the outcomes of the study of the millions of accidents worldwide, can make a reasoned judgment of the probability of a different outcome if protection had/had not been worn. I cannot accept your argument that they cannot.

There really is no point in continuing this. You and Mike won't accept the premise that someone with experience on a regular basis of dealing with trauma of all kinds, combined with an understanding of the outcomes of the study of the millions of accidents worldwide, can make a reasoned judgment of the probability of a different outcome if protection had/had not been worn. I cannot accept your argument that they cannot.

 

I agree this is pointless if you can't see the point Phil. The key is in your words:

 

"an understanding of the outcomes of the study of the millions of accidents worldwide"

 

The outcomes, that's it, not the accidents that caused those outcomes. It is in those that the knowledge of protection efficacy exists, the knowledge of the RRL, MIRA and traffic police departments.

Can anyone else hear a head banging on a wall???

 

http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/07-179-training/image005.jpg

 

Can anyone else hear a head banging on a wall???

 

http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/07-179-training/image005.jpg

 

 

is that with a helmet or not?

Not head banging, I've been quietly amused by this discussion for a while now, it's the way all the helmet threads end up.

 

It's a proxy subject (yes, the "r" should be there). Basically two pro helmet wearing members are arguing against two anti-compulsion members via the proxy of the claimed knowledge of A & E staff.

 

Whatever the form of pro helmet advantage arguing, it's always seen as exaggeration by the other side, so the fight is on!

 

Being on the anti side I always feel smug, knowing as I do that there will never be compulsion in my lifetime, either in the UK or mainland Europe.

 

Anyway, if A & E advances are so brilliant, shouldn't they be at least B & F by now, or even C & G.

is that with a helmet or not?

 

You'll notice I didn't say;)!

 

Here in NZ, helmets ARE compulsory.

 

I dunno if the UK is like this (I know the US isn't;)), but we have ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) which is a Government Agency that is basically Medical Expense insurance for accidents (funded via taxes of varying kinds). Everybody is covered.

 

So, if ACC say I have to wear a helmet, I do . If I fall off, they cover the medical costs.

We have the National Health Service in the UK which covers treatment for any accident, so no need for a separate agency. Helmet policy here and in the rest of the EU is "please use" but no compulsion. The countries with the highest proportion of cycling use helmets the least, hardly ever used in the Netherlands where almost everyone cycles, 27% helmet usage in the UK where few cycle.

We have the National Health Service in the UK which covers treatment for any accident, so no need for a separate agency. Helmet policy here and in the rest of the EU is "please use" but no compulsion. The countries with the highest proportion of cycling use helmets the least, hardly ever used in the Netherlands where almost everyone cycles, 27% helmet usage in the UK where few cycle.

 

Ahh, very good - I wondered. ACC manages the costs they pay out, and also do accident prevention campaigns.

 

It also means we can't sue via Civil Court for damages, as ACC covers the costs.

Our accident prevention campaigns in the UK are run by central government and in a few cases by the largest local authorities, notably the Greater London Council with cycling safety campaigns at times.

 

The central government activity in this is currently minimal, due to shutting down their public information films program as a result of cutbacks since the 2007/8 economic crisis. The police also run specific subject face-to-face road safety campaigns by stopping offending road users to give guidance or sometimes penalties.

At last.

A woman in our building had a very nasty accident last year and ended up in ICU for a week after going over her handlebars and hitting her head without a helmet but still wouldn't wear one when she came back.

About a month ago I saw her showing another woman some new injuries down her side plus a nasty scraping on her forehead and I asked her if she was going to wear a helmet but she said no.

Today she arrived with a helmet on so I don't know if she'd had a 3rd incident.

Perhaps A & E bought her one in desperation! It seems she certainly needs one, scraping her head twice in under a year.

First one wasn't a scrape, she was in ICU for a week.

She also badly damaged her arm and it's now full of metal.