From: Derek C on
On 21 May, 10:39, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > The very
> > experienced hospital consultant put this down to the fact that he had
> > been wearing a cycle helmet. This was shown and was quite badly
> > damaged at the front, so had obviously absorbed a lot of the energy in
> > this involuntary face plant.
>
> Oh deary me.  Hospital consultants, whatever their experience in doing
> neurosurgery, aren't actually required to have any knowledge of the
> engineering and physics involved in helmet efficacy.  And since lots of
> folk in the medical profession have been fed the line that helmets stop
> 85% of brain injury it would be entirely reasonable for him to assume
> it'd made a huge difference.

He was an A&E consultant, not a neurosurgeon!
>
> The above is an anecdote, it's not too hard to find others which
> contradict it (for instance, Guy Chapman reported two elderly cyclists
> in Reading head-planting over their bars, and the one without the helmet
> lived and the other died).

So how fast were the respective cyclists going and what did they land
on?
>
> Not for the first time, you are grasping at anything which supports your
> gut feeling while not looking at all dispassionately or carefully at
> what the problems are with it.  The BMAs position paper does the same.
>
How can adding a crumple zone to your skull not reduce injuries?

Derek C
From: boltar2003 on
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:39:13 +0100
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>contradict it (for instance, Guy Chapman reported two elderly cyclists
>in Reading head-planting over their bars, and the one without the helmet
>lived and the other died).

Perhaps the one who died ended up under a truck. So what?

If you think a skull absorbs impacts better than skull+helmet then go
ahead and ride without one, no ones going to care. But why try and persuade
others of your nonsense arguments?

B2003

From: Derek C on
On 21 May, 11:24, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:39:13 +0100
>
> Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> >contradict it (for instance, Guy Chapman reported two elderly cyclists
> >in Reading head-planting over their bars, and the one without the helmet
> >lived and the other died).
>
> Perhaps the one who died ended up under a truck. So what?

Also anecdotal evidence, which Peter Clinch always claims is only used
by his opponents.
>
> If you think a skull absorbs impacts better than skull+helmet then go
> ahead and ride without one, no ones going to care. But why try and persuade
> others of your nonsense arguments?
>
Here here!

Derek C

From: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:

> He was an A&E consultant, not a neurosurgeon!

Same applies though. Working in A&E makes you expect at repairing
things, not necessarily in the accidents that cause them.

> How can adding a crumple zone to your skull not reduce injuries?

Let's look at another distinguished opinion. The following writtten by
Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluation, who do most of the testing
of lids in the UK:

"the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
be made."

But you keep on making 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: Derek C on
On 21 May, 12:08, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > He was an A&E consultant, not a neurosurgeon!
>
> Same applies though.  Working in A&E makes you expect at repairing
> things, not necessarily in the accidents that cause them.
>
> > How can adding a crumple zone to your skull not reduce injuries?
>
> Let's look at another distinguished opinion.  The following writtten by
> Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluation, who do most of the testing
> of lids in the UK:
>
> "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
> tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
> for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
> safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
> that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
> without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
> cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
> be made."
>
As cycle helmets won't protect you from all possible impacts (neither
will any other type of crash helmet) I can understand their point. If
a 42 ton lorry wheel rolls over your head, you will almost certainly
die whatever you are wearing. They should however protect your skull
in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I recently
described.

Derek C