helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: mileburner on 21 May 2010 10:50 "bugbear" <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message news:KvmdnZvcLbkWF2vWnZ2dnUVZ8judnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> 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. > > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle > > BugBear I would also add that drivers often think that it is OK to squeeze by closely if the cyclist is close to the gutter, but if the cyclist is further out, they think it would be somehow "unsafe" to squeeze by so closely. Perhaps the helmeted cyclists were also being "cautious" by keeping out of the way?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 May 2010 11:38 On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:08:28 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(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: "Distinguished"? Perhaps you could let us know his qualifications and experience. He appears to me to be a one man band in a very "compact" company. "who do most of the testing" : I suppose that you can back that sweeping statement up somehow? It's odd that they don't even claim that themselves - perhaps it is a porky made up by Mr Clinch. So let me understand this : he (or his company) does most of the testing of helmets in the UK - and yet he fully supports the anti-helmet site called cyclehelmets.org. Is "Head Protection Evaluation(s)" a registered company? I can't find them at Companies House. They have a very impressive web-site : http://hpe.site-street.net/. There is a belter of a sentence there: "HPE's client base is completely multi-national and has been visited by most of the world's major helmet manufacturers." and then: "Work in evaluating new materials for protecting the human head in automobiles, has also brought HPE into contact with the world's major motor manufacturers." I am surprised that they do not have a list of the companies for whom they have carried out helmet testing. I also would have thought that a company who do most of the helmet testing in the UK would have had a much higher profile and would have been a larger company. BHRF has this to say about them : "Head Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds" (Interesting aside - I followed one of the links on their pages to the Snell Standards. Here it says: 1. Bicycling imposes risks of death or permanent impairment due to head injury. 2. The proper use of protective helmets can minimize the risk of death or permanent impairment." What do *they* know about death and impairment - eh Clinch? -- 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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 May 2010 11:42 On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:27:58 +0100, Brian Morrison <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:18:07 -0700 (PDT) >Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> They should however protect your skull >> in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I recently >> described. > >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. Yes of course it will. Perhaps you could point us to some research where this has been proven - perhaps some stats on the likelihood of it happening -- or perhaps a single coroner's report where it was found that a cycle helmet killed the wearer -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 May 2010 11:45 On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:29:28 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: >> 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. > >No, you've missed the point again. The point is that A Cyclist, setting >out from home, is (allegedly) safer in terms of /any accidents they >might have/ if they wear a helmet. Look again, the eminent QC is simply >trying to get the others "to state that one must be safer wearing a >helmet than without", not with any qualifiers about being in an accident >where a helmet can have no effect. Now - shall I listen to a third-hand account of what a QC said (or may have said) - or shall I listen to a Judge? -- There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury. The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one. Mr Justice Griffith Williams
From: Brian Morrison on 21 May 2010 11:58
On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:42:43 +0100 JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:27:58 +0100, Brian Morrison <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> > wrote: > > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:18:07 -0700 (PDT) > >Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> They should however protect your skull > >> in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I > >> recently described. > > > >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. > > > Yes of course it will. > > Perhaps you could point us to some research where this has been proven > - perhaps some stats on the likelihood of it happening -- or perhaps a > single coroner's report where it was found that a cycle helmet killed > the wearer I doubt I can, I'm simply pointing out that there will be circumstances where bad things happen when the helmet is not required to prevent a blunt trauma type head injury but causes another potentially fatal injury. I have no statistics, simply the knowledge that life is not so simplistic as to say that a helmet is always a benefit in a bike crash. -- Brian Morrison |