helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 May 2010 10:28 On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:39:13 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(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. Wicked - and I sent my previous post before I saw this !!!!! How dare a hospital consultant express a view on cycle helmets!! Of course if he had said that in his experience cycle helmets did no good whatsoever - then his view would have been most welcome. -- The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children. The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.
From: Peter Clinch on 21 May 2010 10:28 pk wrote: > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:85nc1bFc4pU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> >> >> Some research has shown that overtaking is closer for helmeted riders >> than unhelmeted riders. > > don't you mean some non peer reviewed junk science where the researcher > used himself as test subject and dressed up in a blond wig? AFAICT Accident Analysis and Prevention is actually a peer reviewed journal, so presumably the contents of vol. 39, pages 417-425 are peer reviewed? 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: bugbear on 21 May 2010 10:29 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:31:03 +0100 > bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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. >> Would you care to expand on that "reason" > > No. You know perfectly well what it is. Strongly argued sir. I stand humbled at your erudition. BugBear (being sarcastic, obviously)
From: bugbear on 21 May 2010 10:30 JMS wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 02:24:54 -0700 (PDT), Derek C > <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> The BBC program 'Hospital Heros' shown yesterday morning, 20th May, >> featured a teenage boy who had been thrown over the handlebars of his >> bike at some speed after the front wheel had jammed for some reason. >> Although he had suffered some deep cuts to his face, he was found not >> to have suffered any skull fractures or brain injury. 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. >> >> Derek C > > > Wait for it : > > For goodness sake what does a hospital consultant know about the > workings of cycle helmets :-) Excellent question. BugBear
From: Tony Raven on 21 May 2010 10:40
Derek C wrote: > The BBC program 'Hospital Heros' shown yesterday morning, 20th May, > featured a teenage boy who had been thrown over the handlebars of his > bike at some speed after the front wheel had jammed for some reason. > Although he had suffered some deep cuts to his face, he was found not > to have suffered any skull fractures or brain injury. 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. > > Derek C This type of story is wheeled out every time someone wearing a helmet comes off their bike. If it were true you would expect large numbers of cyclists who don't wear a helmet (the majority) to be wheeled into hospitals with skull fractures and brain injuries. The fact that they aren't can only mean either: a) Helmet wearing cyclists crash far more often than helmetless cyclists or b) Helmeted cyclists suffer far worse injuries than helmetless ones when they crash or c) the claim is bunkum and the the odds are that the helmet made no difference. I go for c) myself but I can't rule out a) or b) -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell |