I knew you'd type that. Of course downhill racers do but for the rest of us, cooling might be an issue, along with peripheral vision so it's a slightly laughable proposition from the BDA unless they're trying to pass on business to casualty units and lighten their load.
Having to wear a helmet to do a sportive
- Thread starter jayonabike
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I knew you'd type that. Of course downhill racers do but for the rest of us, cooling might be an issue, along with peripheral vision so it's a slightly laughable proposition from the BDA unless they're trying to pass on business to casualty units and lighten their load.
Naughty.... Cooling and being hot / uncomfortable are factors you are not allowed to use when deciding on helmets.
The BDA is absolutely bang on though, facial injuries are serious and should be reduced.
Again it is a problem with the pro-helmet lobby, who try and suggest that we have no right to ignore "medical advice", and are then selective selective as to which we should observe.
Any doctor / nurse / cleaner in A/E says we should wear a helmet,and we are "fools" to ignore his personal opinion, yet when a peer reviewed and evidenced paper suggests something like full face helmets then its OK to ignore it?
Should we observe the "medical evidence" or ignore it... you can't have it both ways
Facial injuries are serious, cracking a rib and puncturing a lung is serious, in fact there are a host of serious injuries, I would hope to recover from most of them, I may not recover from a serious brain injury though, even a simple one can affect you for a long time, so there is much more of a case for wearing a helmet only rather than full body armour, so yes you can have it both ways. Anyway I'd like to see the context of the BDA's recommendation, any link?
Mark_Robson
Senior Member
- Location
- West Boldon Tyne & Wear
You promote the BDA's stance on full face helmets because it somehow suits your argument yet you choose to ignore the BMA's stance on standard helmets because it doesn't suit your argument?
Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR, Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.
You can google, but will need access of some sort to rad the full paper
Interesting paper as it is being used by Headway to promote compulsion!
Not promotion, I simply present this one as another example of the hypocrisy of the pro helmet lobby and the selective way that medical evidence is used.
Same as the Thudguard, the evidence of health care professionals is meaningless as it undermines a cycle helmet agenda
My "agenda" is simple.......
If you believe that helmets work and should be worn then:
The BMA stance is inadequate and does not go far enough.... As I have pointed out it does not cover most preventable head injuries.
My agenda is greater helmet use. I have suggested that there is evidence for pedestrian helmets and for driver helmets. (There are also lots of nice juicy anecdotes and stories of vegetables sucking soup through straws)
I also promote a meaningful and worthwhile level of protection as opposed to the useless EN1078 that is banned elsewhere in the world as inadequate
I have asked why there is no scrutineering of helmets by Sportive organisers, but apparently there is none - so no real concept of safety
Don't get your agendas twisted....
Including the same old trick of implying that ALL cycle injuries can be prevented by helmets!
But then agaiin this is a respected charity and is on the side of the pro compulsionist.
ferret fur
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Roseburn
No. Your agenda is that you don't want to wear a cycle helmet. As a result you are prepared to repeatedly trot out an argument that you don't actually believe in and which everyone else recognizes as specious.
Ravenbait
Someone's imaginary friend
- Location
- The Seventh Level of Hell
I had an injury that was made worse by wearing a helmet. I don't post on these threads because "anecdote" is not the same as "science" and frankly I've heard it all before a squillion times and I'm sick to the back teeth of it. It did, however, change me from a default helmet-wearer to a cyclist who wears a helmet only for off-road or when required ot by race regulations because the only time I've had a serious head or neck injury when falling off my bike has been when I was wearing a lid.
But far be it from me to insist that my experience should inform anyone else. It informs me, and that's quite enough.
Sam
But far be it from me to insist that my experience should inform anyone else. It informs me, and that's quite enough.
Sam
Rotational injury caused by the helmet being snagged by one of the vents if my memory from the old C+ days is correct.
Indeed. Funny isn't it, I can read this stuff until my eyes shrivel but ultimately, like you, my own experience is my guide.
Ravenbait
Someone's imaginary friend
- Location
- The Seventh Level of Hell
Was just the side of the lid, not the vent. It was a very low speed fall and, from experience in similar crashes when not wearing a lid, I wouldn't have hit my head at all if I hadn't been wearing it.
The result was an injury to the disc in my neck that took a lot of physio and time to put right.
How do I know? My opinion and the physio's opinion. For sure, if you wish to be pedantic, I can't be 100% certain that the injury wouldn't have been worse without it, any more than anyone can be 100% certain that his helmet saved his life in different circumstances; but I was there (and the physio treated my injury) and therefore have more data on which to form an opinion than anyone who wasn't. I'm not using my experience to tell anyone else what to do, however, merely demonstrating that there is at least one cyclist who has gone from wearing a helmet to not wearing one after being injured while wearing it.
Sam
