helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Peter Clinch on 30 Apr 2010 05:36 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > I can't help thinking that people who think helmets don't help should try > headbutting a wall with a helmet , then try it without and compare the > results. A tough leather jacket will usefully reduce the trauma from stray duck-shot. Do you want to see if one would usefully reduce the trauma from high velocity targeted rifle fire? Another experiment you might try with and without a helmet, is have a cricket bat swung above your head 1 cm from your skull. I would wager it'll hurt much more with the helmet on. But if you're still convinced helmets are a Big Win then I take it you wear them around the house, since most accidents happen in the home, including banging of heads. getting in and out of baths and tripping on stairs particularly worthwhile places to wear them, or so you'd think... but pretty much nobody does. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 30 Apr 2010 05:39 Derek C wrote: > I don't believe that any reputable study has not found that helmets > reduce the KSI rate for cyclists. Sorry about the double negative! ISTM from everything you've said that your reading on the subject is limited to freely downloadable information, and that's just not enough to come to such a certain conclusion. I did use a medical research library at some length before I changed my mind from where you are to where I am now. You seem to be in a state of denial as to whether there's anything more to find out about the subject than what you've already seen or your gut feelings. Which is, again, very poor science. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: boltar2003 on 30 Apr 2010 06:24 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:36:23 +0100 Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > >> I can't help thinking that people who think helmets don't help should try >> headbutting a wall with a helmet , then try it without and compare the >> results. > >A tough leather jacket will usefully reduce the trauma from stray duck-shot. >Do you want to see if one would usefully reduce the trauma from high >velocity targeted rifle fire? And the armour in a humvee will protect against land mines but isn't much use against a cruise missle. Perhaps they shouldn't bother putting it in at all then? Sorry , we are playing the stupid analogy game arn't we? >Another experiment you might try with and without a helmet, is have a >cricket bat swung above your head 1 cm from your skull. I would wager >it'll hurt much more with the helmet on. What kind of moronic comparison is that? Try lowering the bat by 1cm then seeing what the difference is. >But if you're still convinced helmets are a Big Win then I take it you >wear them around the house, since most accidents happen in the home, >including banging of heads. getting in and out of baths and tripping on >stairs particularly worthwhile places to wear them, or so you'd think... >but pretty much nobody does. I don't generally run into brick walls at 25mph around the house. Call me old fashioned... But since you want to use that example do explain why cavers wear helmets and builders wear hard hats on building sites. Perhaps they're just fashion statements? B2003
From: Peter Clinch on 30 Apr 2010 06:46 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > And the armour in a humvee will protect against land mines but isn't much > use against a cruise missle. Perhaps they shouldn't bother putting it in at > all then? > > Sorry , we are playing the stupid analogy game arn't we? No. And I say that because your analogy is a very good one: the Humvee isn't likely to take cruise missile hits, and it's a good analogy because actually utility cycling doesn't typically involve head-banging. In fact by unit distance it's marginally less productive of serious head injuries than being a pedestrian. > What kind of moronic comparison is that? It tells you that having an effectively bigger, heavier head means you're more likely to hit it. I wear helmets for caving where I /am/ going to hit my head. But I do hit it more in the helmet than I would without it, because it's bigger. In that case the fact that the inevitable hit even without one would hurt a lot more than several hits with it is why it's worth wearing, but hitting one's head on a bike, at least as used for A to B transport, is actually quite unusual. > I don't generally run into brick walls at 25mph around the house. Call me > old fashioned... I don't generally run into brick walls at 25 mph cycling around the roads. As it happens cycle helmets are generally built to the EN1078 spec which doesn't guarantee /anything/ at 25 mph. Experience suggests they often fail by brittle fracture at much lower energies and when they do that they have very little effect at all. They're designed for the equivalent of a stationary fall, which you can have happen at home, even without a staircase to make things worse. > But since you want to use that example do explain why cavers wear helmets > and builders wear hard hats on building sites. Perhaps they're just > fashion statements? Caving already covered above. It is inevitable that when you're crawling through a variably low tunnel like a cave that you'll bang your head, so you do something about it. Building sites have lots of loose objects above people so there's a much greater risk of falling objects at a building site than most other places, so you take account of that. Cycling along the road isn't particularly productive of head injuries, so I don't see much point in taking precautions against it happening. Cycle helmets are specified for low speed falls with no other vehicles involved. The sort of thing, in other words, that's decidedly on the cards in the Netherlands, where both helmet wearing rates and serious head injury rates amongst cyclists are the lowest in the developed world. You'd think if they were so obviously a Win then they'd have noticed what with so many cyclists, but they're largely confiend to sports riding. I'd wear one myself for technical MTB work, where I /expect/ to fall off (and it's entirely likely I will) and I expect to encounter low vegetation that will strike my head. So I do something about it. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 30 Apr 2010 06:49
Derek C wrote: > > I don't believe that any reputable study has not found that helmets > reduce the KSI rate for cyclists. Sorry about the double negative! It's also the case that for your stance that they /must/ be a win you really need some *good* evidence of efficacy. My stance is there's no particular proof of performance one way or the other, which is a stance requiring only the absence of good evidence. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |