From: boltar2003 on
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:19:14 +0100
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>As usual you've failed to account for the part a helmet may play in the
>accident occurring, and as usual you have failed to apply the same logic
>to cycling as you do to other comparably risky activities.

Cycling helmets play as much part in causing road accidents as hard hats do
on building sites. Ie - none. Perhaps it should be investigated whether hard
hats are of any use when a brick fall on your head or whether they caused
the brick to fall?

Muppet.

B2003

From: boltar2003 on
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:27:58 +0100
Brian Morrison <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
>And yet there will be other minor types of accident where the
>intervention of the helmet will lead to greater injury because in those
>particular cases the geometry and dynamics of the impact happen to
>produce greater rotational forces to the neck and upper spine.

The total increase in circumferance of the head (and hence the potential
increase in tortional forces) is small when wearing a cycle helmet. The risks
of brain injury are far greater than neck or spine damage. Theres a reason
motobike helmets - which really do increase the head circumference a lot - have
saved a lot of people who would otherwise have died.

B2003

From: Peter Clinch on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:

> Cycling helmets play as much part in causing road accidents as hard hats do
> on building sites. Ie - none.

Is your assertion, but there's contrary evidence available.

> Perhaps it should be investigated whether hard
> hats are of any use when a brick fall on your head or whether they caused
> the brick to fall?

Some research has shown that overtaking is closer for helmeted riders
than unhelmeted riders. On urc in the past someone reported an incident
where they were reprimanded by a driver for not wearing a helmet, as if
he had she'd have been able to squeeze past him "safely" instead of
having to wait for a proper overtaking opportunity.

There is quite a body of evidence that shows that many people take more
risks when using safety equipment.

> Muppet.

Whether or not the case, apparently better read on the issues than you.

Since you think they /must/ help, please explain the absence of improved
serious head injury rates after a huge rise in wearing rates following
laws to mandate their use in Australia and NZ.

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
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:

> The total increase in circumferance of the head (and hence the potential
> increase in tortional forces) is small when wearing a cycle helmet. The risks
> of brain injury are far greater than neck or spine damage. Theres a reason
> motobike helmets - which really do increase the head circumference a lot - have
> saved a lot of people who would otherwise have died.

You appear to be comparing apples to oranges.

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
On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:18:55 +0100
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Perhaps it should be investigated whether hard
>> hats are of any use when a brick fall on your head or whether they caused
>> the brick to fall?
>
>Some research has shown that overtaking is closer for helmeted riders
>than unhelmeted riders. On urc in the past someone reported an incident
>where they were reprimanded by a driver for not wearing a helmet, as if
>he had she'd have been able to squeeze past him "safely" instead of
>having to wait for a proper overtaking opportunity.

Oh right, so now its car drivers getting to close to blame. A minute ago
it was the helmet itself. Make your mind up.

B2003