helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: boltar2003 on 30 Apr 2010 07:31 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:46:52 +0100 Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > In fact by unit distance it's marginally less productive of serious >head injuries than being a pedestrian. I don't remember ever seeing a pedestrian fall over so badly they've been hospitalised , but it happens all the time with cyclists. >> 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/ Well unless you cycle under bridges with a tolerance of 1cm above your head that so what? >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 Well I guess in that case motorcyclists shouldn't wear their even thicker helmets then. >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 No , but your head can hit the ground which is the same thing. >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. Since the energy to cause that fracture would otherwise have gone into the persons skull then I would suggest thats still better than having no helmet. >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 Holland also has probably the greatest number of cycle paths in the developed world too. If you keep bikes away from traffic there will be fewer accidents and hence head injuries. B2003
From: Peter Clinch on 30 Apr 2010 07:40 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > I don't remember ever seeing a pedestrian fall over so badly they've been > hospitalised , but it happens all the time with cyclists. Annual rate of deaths from trips and falls in the UK is about 350 IIRC. Go into your local A&E department and ask them if they ever have folk in with head injuries from trips and falls. > Well unless you cycle under bridges with a tolerance of 1cm above your head > that so what? A bigger, heavier head is easier to hit. For instance, harder to keep up off the road (as you instinctively do) if you've just fallen. > Well I guess in that case motorcyclists shouldn't wear their even thicker > helmets then. Where helmet laws have been repealed in some US states there hasn't been any evident worsening of the head injury rates. Not what I'd have expected, but that doesn't make it wrong. >> 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 > > No , but your head can hit the ground which is the same thing. Same goes for falling downstairs, which you seem to think never happens. > Since the energy to cause that fracture would otherwise have gone into the > persons skull then I would suggest thats still better than having no > helmet. Brittle fracture means it absorbs pretty much zip. > Holland also has probably the greatest number of cycle paths in the developed > world too. If you keep bikes away from traffic there will be fewer accidents > and hence head injuries. As I just told you, EN1078 helmets assume a fall involving no other vehicles. Nothing magic about paths that prevents that. And plenty of other traffic (cycling) that will knock you off and let you hit your head on the ground, as you were theorising about above. 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 07:53 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:40:13 +0100 Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > >> I don't remember ever seeing a pedestrian fall over so badly they've been >> hospitalised , but it happens all the time with cyclists. > >Annual rate of deaths from trips and falls in the UK is about 350 IIRC. And how old are these people who die? Its highly unlikely someone in their 20s is going to die from tripping over unless they fell off a cliff and you don't find many of those on Oxfird Street. Very likely for someone in their 80s however. Cyclists however tend to be fairly young especially commuter cyclists - the group where most of the accidents happen. >Go into your local A&E department and ask them if they ever have folk in >with head injuries from trips and falls. I'm not getting the logic your're using to link that fact that because people injure themselves falling off a ladder , cycling helmets are no use. >A bigger, heavier head is easier to hit. For instance, harder to keep >up off the road (as you instinctively do) if you've just fallen. Now you're just grasping at straws. >Where helmet laws have been repealed in some US states there hasn't been >any evident worsening of the head injury rates. Not what I'd have >expected, but that doesn't make it wrong. A lot who would have had head injuries just died instead. >> No , but your head can hit the ground which is the same thing. > >Same goes for falling downstairs, which you seem to think never happens. You'd have to live in a seriously big house to hit the bottom of the stairs at 25mph. >As I just told you, EN1078 helmets assume a fall involving no other >vehicles. Nothing magic about paths that prevents that. And plenty of >other traffic (cycling) that will knock you off and let you hit your >head on the ground, as you were theorising about above. Except if there were on the road that other bike traffic would still be with them except with the added bonus of cars, buses and trucks. B2003
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 30 Apr 2010 08:32 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:19:35 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> Just a quick reminder that according to DfT statistics, 38% of >> cyclists involved in road accidents in 2008 suffered injuries to the >> head or face. > >Just a quick reminder that those are the figures for the ones they >know about. Most cyclists involved in accidents get up, don't go >to A&E, don't need to involve the police so don't get into the >statistics. Minor injuries are enormously under-reported, which is >why papers concentrate on major injuries, those being the ones >there are anything close to good stats for. So you are saying that 38% of cyclists with major injuries suffer injuries to the head and face. Do you think cycle helmets may have helped in those cases? I think you must also be saying that the injuries which are serious or cyclists are killed - something like 2,500 per year - is the tip of the iceberg when looking at numbers of total cyclists injured in road accidents. Yes - fascinating - I see what you mean - and I agree with you. >Do you have, or at least have read, Cyclecraft? > >Pete. Does it recommend the psycholist's "primary position"? -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 30 Apr 2010 08:41
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:21:10 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> So cycling is a lot more dangerous than you claim then! > >No, unless you think any accident equates to "unsafe". > >> There are enough things to worry about when driving, without making a >> special point of checking cyclists to see if they are wearing cycle >> helmets or not! Even if I did notice, it wouldn't make any difference >> to my decision making. I think your lady driver must be in a very >> small minority. > >Yet the research on passing distances found results that suggested >helmet wearing did influence passing space. Ah yes - the research by Dr Ian Walker: To our astonishment, Dr. Ian Walker of the United Kingdom garnered international publicity in 2006 for a pretty stupid-sounding study �showing� that (a) the bicyclist�s lane position doesn�t affect the overtaking motorist�s lane position (an assertion roundly refuted before your very eyes by overtaking motorist videos available at http://dualchase.com) and (b) the bicyclist�s apparel affects the amount of clearance the overtaking motorist gives the bicyclist. Specifically, Walker observed that the overtaking motorist gave the bicyclist an average of 3.3 inches more clearance when the bicyclist was not wearing a helmet. When the bicyclist wore a female wig, he got an additional 2.2 inches of clearance, for a total of 5.5 inches more. The silliness of this measurement comes from the fact that the average clearances were over four feet. We think there are more important topics in bicycle safety than arguing about the difference between 4 feet 3 inches and 4 feet 6 inches of clearance. http://www.outthereliving.com/Ian_Walker_move_over_pls.pdf -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass." |