The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[gds58]

Why not actually look into the evidence before making peurile claims about fantasy?

puerile, a small point but if we're being childish....

 

[glenn forger]

I wondered if you could offer an explanation for the collision rate increasing after seat belt legislation?

 

[ufkacbln]

Back then I didn't always wear a helmet when out training (always when racing) until I crashed on a slippery corner one day and hit the side of my head just in front of the ear. This caused my jaw to dislocate which was one of the most painful things I have ever experienced. Had I been wearing a helmet it would have prevented that part of my head from hitting the road. From that day onwards I have never ridden without a helmet on. My choice based on my own experiences and from what I've seen professionally.

We are expected to pay some attention to the claims of being a "police officer" and assume this gives some credibility of the posts

Again it is interesting evidence from other professional is not condidered

Once more you are at odds with reality and the actual evidence

Your "evidence" is an anecdote and therefore only really applicable to your opinion

The fact is that in the real world a dislocated jaw is usually caused by a force to the point of the jaw which would not have been protected by anything less than a full face helmet. The British Dental Association has published evidence that helmets fail to address facial and jaw issues and proposing a role in campaigning for cycle helmets to have better facial protection.

 

[gds58]

We are expected to pay some attention to the claims of being a "police officer" and assume this gives some credibility o the posts

Again it is interesting evidence from other professional is not condidered

Once more you are at odds with reality and the actual evidence

Your "evidence" is an anecdote and therefore only really applicable to your opinion

The fact is that in the real worlda dislocated jaw is usually caused by a force to the point of the jaw which would not have been protected by anything less than a full face helmet. The British Dental Association has published evidence that helmets fail to address facial and jaw issues and proposing a role in campaigning for cycle helmets to have better facial protection.

Please don't try to be too clever. The dislocation of the jaw was in my case, caused by the impact on the joint in front of the ear which in turn caused the joint capsule to swell thereby forcing the jaw out of it's socket and therefore dislocated. So I'm afraid you are completely wrong in most of what you posted. Furthermore do not insult me by using such words as 'claims of being a Police Officer' it is a fact and not a 'claim' attributed to 30 years service from 1982 to 2012 whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you, but quite frankly I don't care.

 

[glenn forger]

How often did you polish your helmet?

 

[ufkacbln]

No one is disputing that you were a police officer. The point is that you are relying on some spurious level of authority on the subject of cycle helmets about which a police officer knows no more than anyone else.

But sooooo much easier than recognising the points raised...

I absolutely love the fact that the British Dental Association and others have no credibility over the claims of a police officer, despite I suspect most dentists being aware of the mechanisms of dislocated jaws

Including the fact that there is no tissue in the tempero-mandibular joint to swell, and that the description of the injury describes the swelling around the joint caused by the original dislocation, but I suspect police officers know better than any medic

Edited:Rregardless of which, and taking the original post at face value, it shows that the BDA is correct as there was an impact that the helmet failed to prevent, so not real a recommendation for is efficiency

 

[screenman]

I wondered if you could offer an explanation for the collision rate increasing after seat belt legislation?

More cars on roads maybe, the numbers killed are coming down I think. 1966 being the highest peace time death rates on our roads. (quick Google)

 

[Profpointy]

Please don't try to be too clever. The dislocation of the jaw was in my case, caused by the impact on the joint in front of the ear which in turn caused the joint capsule to swell thereby forcing the jaw out of it's socket and therefore dislocated. So I'm afraid you are completely wrong in most of what you posted. Furthermore do not insult me by using such words as 'claims of being a Police Officer' it is a fact and not a 'claim' attributed to 30 years service from 1982 to 2012 whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you, but quite frankly I don't care.

the "claim to be a police officer" point was presumably a gripe at the insinuation "therefore I'm an expert in such matters" rather than doubting whether you were a police officer or not. It is also fairly common for medics to claim expertise on a similar basis. Trouble is neither medics nor police officers (who claim this authority) are able to explain, or frankly are willing to even consider, the statistics (from Australia especially) which strongly suggest that helmets give little benefit on average, but instead simply spout "you are an idiot for not wearing one" - presumably the "idiocy" is base on coming to a view from such evidence. I can't help seeing a certain irony in medics dismissing the scientific approach given medicine is supposed itself to be based on science. Likewise police officers dismissing, or refusing to even countenance evidence that goes against their pre conceived opinions. I'd hope members of both professions actually do better when doing their day jobs, for which, we hope, they have some expertise.

Just to be clear, I'm not maligning police officers nor medics as a whole, just those who claim expertise in something they know f-all about.

 

[glenn forger]

There was a spike just after seat belt legislation that doesn't correspond with traffic growth. There was a campaign against drink driving at the same time that muddies the figures, but broadly people who feel safer take more risks.

 

[Profpointy]

The "making your head bigger" point is significant too. I've seriously heard people claim helmets don't make your head much bigger. Simple geometry suggests something between 50% and 100% bigger (cross-section area). And I do claim expertise in simple geometry having studied geometry beyond junior school. In fact I've a degree in maths, but that doesn't make me (more of) an expert as I didn't learn anything extra on areas of circles over and above 2ndry school; complex analysis, relativity etc yes, but no more simple geometry

 

[ufkacbln]

There was a spike just after seat belt legislation that doesn't correspond with traffic growth. There was a campaign against drink driving at the same time that muddies the figures, but broadly people who feel safer take more risks.

The same problem applied to the Australian helmet compulsion

It was part of a raft of road safety campaigns including drink driving, dangerous driving, speeding and a zero tolerance to others driving misdemeanours

So in theory even without helmet legislation, the roads should have been safer and less accidents occur.

The evidence however is contrary to this when corrected for the decrease in the number of cyclists

Despite the theoretical safer road and helmet legislation, the number of head injuries increased

 

[ufkacbln]

The "making your head bigger" point is significant too. I've seriously heard people claim helmets don't make your head much bigger. Simple geometry suggests something between 50% and 100% bigger (cross-section area). And I do claim expertise in simple geometry having studied geometry beyond junior school. In fact I've a degree in maths, but that doesn't make me (more of) an expert as I didn't learn anything extra on areas of circles over and above 2ndry school; complex analysis, relativity etc yes, but no more simple geometry

The pro-helmet Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute in the US worked out how much foam was required for a helmet to actually be effective in preventing concussion....

The result was enlightening:

 

[growingvegetables]

Your 'argument' suggests that if a cyclist is NOT wearing a helmet that he or she will be given more respect from motorists! You're in fantasy land I'm afraid, it makes no difference to them at all.

The difference between our points of view?

You have no evidence, beyond epidemiologists playing with statistics, generally to suit the case they want to make. However weak. (And it will always be weak, because the numbers do not lie - "Cycling is safer than gardening".)

Whereas mine is a slightly colourful, but not inaccurate, presentation of evidence. Hard, solid, observed and measured behaviour. Dr Ian Walker of Bath. A news report. The university's press release. Dr Walker's overview of his results.

Just for clarity - I respect your right to choose to wear a helmet. They are designed to offer protection to the skull and brain in low-speed impacts against stationary objects (rocks, boulders, trees); you are perfectly entitled to hope that they offer protection in collisions involving speeds above 13mph with a fast-moving ton of badly driven steel.

Equally, I have a right to choose - and value - the 3.5 inches AVERAGE extra space afforded by not wearing a helmet.

 

[gds58]

No one is disputing that you were a police officer. The point is that you are relying on some spurious level of authority on the subject of cycle helmets about which a police officer knows no more than anyone else.

It's nothing to do with a 'spuriuos' level of authority more a simple case of 30 years worth of seeing many many incidents and accidents and being witness to the horrific results of having not worn a helmet. Not scientific just simple hard fact. The bottom line is do whatever you want.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I wondered if you could offer an explanation for the collision rate increasing after seat belt legislation?

Glenn, you got to be kidding!!