Alistair Jenkins, a consultant neuro-surgeon at Newcastle General Hospital, is a club cyclist and rides to work every day. He's in favour of helmets because he sees the results of accidents where people haven't been wearing them.
"I have to pick up the pieces when people have accidents, often literally. I see the results of both wearing and not wearing helmets. I have looked after cyclists who have been involved in accidents who have died, been severely disabled and some who have made a good recovery. I have never looked after a cyclist who was wearing a helmet who later died or was disabled.
Unless he's lying, there's no argument.
1. This is an anecdote and not evidence, whilst stating that he is in fact "lying" would be strong.
However this level of selective quotation could be contrued as such.
2. Talkng this selective quote at face value ...the fact that a neurologist has never looked after a cyclist who has died or suffered a disability certainly flies in the face of any cohort study of head injuries. Cyclists with helmets do suffer head injuries, they do (unfortunately) die and suffer disability.
Even Rivara and Thompson only claimed 85% reduction in head injuries. It would be interestintg to see the published evience of 100% reduction in head injuries claimed by this individual!
BHIT the most avid pro-helmet campaigners also do not claim 100% effectiveness
If we look at the full quotation there is a massive revelation!
"However, I don't want to give the impression that I operate on lots of injured cyclists all the time. I see far more pedestrians and motorists. "When a motorist has an accident they are often in a pretty bad way".
Surely the logic would state that if he is seeing far more pedestrians and motorists this would imply that far greater benefit would be achieved if helmets were worn in these groups?
3. However let us (just for the minute) accept this paragon of medical experience as being accurate in his assessment.
Sharon Thornhill (Department of Neurosurgery, University of Glasgow, Southern General NHS Trust) states that:
The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%)
So it appears that there is no argument against helmets for drinkers or the general public who may suffer a fall?
When Malcolm Wardlaw states that:
Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping
So there is no argument against wearing a helmet when using stairs?
Equally when Wardlaw points out that:
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more “dangerous” than a mile of cycling.
There can be no argument against pedestrian helmets?
