helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Derek C on 8 Apr 2010 06:47 On 8 Apr, 11:35, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <6296f271-be0d-477c-84a4-4679ed207...(a)k13g2000yqe.googlegroups..com>, > Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >If you read TRL PPR446, you will find that even just falling sideways > >off your bike from a seated riding position can cause a skull > >fracture, with no need for any speed. This could happen after a > >glancing collision with a vehicle, or if you just lose balance for > >some reason. > > That is true, and the same thing applies to walking, and even standing. > > >Helmet testing is done as a drop test, and your head can > >some reason. Helmet testing is done as a drop test, and your head can > >drop four times further before you might suffer an injury for the > >EN1078 standard. > > And you are a professional scientist? Let me give a referee's > report on your submission: > > What the drop test demonstrates is that someone can drop a brick > on your head from four times further above it, but the form of > impact it tests and that which is typical for cyclists coming off > are sufficiently different that it may not carry over. Please > provide some evidence that the results do carry over, and resubmit. > > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. The testing of cycle helmets for EN1078 does not involve dropping bricks on your head or helmet, and neither would most forseeable road accidents, unless they happened to involve a lorry carrying bricks. Your criticism is therefore invalid. Derek C
From: john wright on 8 Apr 2010 06:56 On 08/04/2010 10:03, Adrian wrote: > john wright<john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>>>> Pedestrians don't have to balance on two very narrow wheels! > >>>>> Cyclists don't HAVE to. > >>>> They do, its just automatic. Hint - children's bikes often have >>>> balance wheels fitted. > >>> Getting closer - but you're still forgetting something... > >> Go on then, remind me. As an inveterate walker I am bound to forget >> something > > There's always the good old tricycle - either "traditional" or 'bent. Duh! I knew it. Still you can remove the balance wheels on kid's bikes when they can balance, you can't do that with a tricyle -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 8 Apr 2010 07:48 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:04:12 +0100 (BST), nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >In article <1b11cb23-e7a6-4ace-bc82-fe6f57f9dc72(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >>The problem is that just gently toppling off your bike at low speed >>and striking your head on a paving stone or the road can cause a >>possibly fatal skull fracture. As a child I managed to fracture my >>upper jawbone and damage my teeth when I skidded off my bike rounding >>a corner at quite low speed and struck a kerbstone with my bare head. >>I was also mildly concussed. That was before cycle helmets were >>available BTW. > >No, that is one problem. Another is that bicycle helmets make it >more likely that you will strike your head, and increase the impact >when you do. Is that just speculation that it makes it more likely? Care to point to any research which has shown that this is a measurable fact - eg it increases the chance of hitting your head by 0.0037% Or perhaps it is not as great as that. Perhaps there is research which shows that the increased impact is significant? -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 8 Apr 2010 07:50 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:12:29 +0100 (BST), nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >In article <111a41e2-e1ef-4b15-8836-4db839a26882(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, >Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >The problem is that just gently toppling off your bike at low speed >>> >and striking your head on a paving stone or the road can cause a >>> >possibly fatal skull fracture. As a child I managed to fracture my >>> >upper jawbone and damage my teeth when I skidded off my bike rounding >>> >a corner at quite low speed and struck a kerbstone with my bare head. >>> >I was also mildly concussed. That was before cycle helmets were >>> >available BTW. >>> >>> No, that is one problem. =A0Another is that bicycle helmets make it >>> more likely that you will strike your head, and increase the impact >>> when you do. >>> >>> That excludes various other effects, such as whether they are more >>> likely to make the rider careless, or to encourage motorists to >>> endanger the cyclist. >>> >>> The result is that we simply do not know whether wearing a bicycle >>> helmet is likely to increase or reduce the risk of brain damage. >>> Either is possible, but the statistics indicate that their effect >>> is very small, whichever way it is. >> >>Typical psycholist reply! > >I don't think that you can spell "statistician" :-) I am not the >only one who has come to that conclusion. > > >Regards, >Nick Maclaren. I am sure you are right. Could you recommend some published peer reviewed papers which support your outlandish views. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 8 Apr 2010 07:53
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 18:46:45 +0100 (BST), nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >In article <0ad927b2-c9c4-44bd-860f-db5d91c5c936(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >>I am a professional scientist with a Masters degree, and have used >>statistical data for most of my career, thank you very much. The >>telling statistic for me is the Police report that suggests that 10 >>-16 % of cyclists who died principally of head injuries probably would >>have survived if they had worn helmets (subject to the usual medical >>uncertainties). I shall continue to wear a helmet (my choice). > >Hmm. If you have actually looked at that claim and failed to spot >the large number of serious statistical defects in it, then your >understanding of statistics is vastly less than you think it is. >It's not quite fair to call it statistical nonsense, but it's pretty >close to it. > >Even if it were a reliable estimate (it isn't, but let's skip that), >it ignores the question of how much more likely helmet wearers are >to suffer a major head impact in the first place. No doubt you are about to tell us. And is the chance of the major head impact a direct result of wearing the helmet? -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea) |