How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Angelfishsolo]

Which of those sources introduces a bias towards proving that helmets are of limited value and which can introduce a bias towards proving helmets protect the wearer?

Lets see. If sponsered by a pro helmet charity I might expect different results to that of one sponsored by a anti-compulsion lobby.

 

[dellzeqq]

It would be interesting to send him the paper by Rodgers - the biggest study every carried out - finding an increased risk and suggest he might be subject to a greater claim if someone is injured for forcing them to wear a harmful helmet and see how he reacts.

it might be, but the trouble is that the whole thing stems from a kind of precautionary box-ticking that is very difficult, if not impossible to reason with. At the root of it is the fear that if someone were to suffer brain damage (which is very, very expensive) then the charity might have been found negligent if it hadn't strongly advised the wearing of helmets. That has nothing to do with risk, and everything to do with liability.

I think that BC and the BHF take the same line, and that we have a kind of orthodoxy here. Next year I'll do my best to get cover through the CTC who don't ask for this kind of arse-covering.

 

[lukesdad]

Which of those sources introduces a bias towards proving that helmets are of limited value and which can introduce a bias towards proving helmets protect the wearer?

Any, to either

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Go find it then

Without your co operation I won't know which paper(s) you have read, although I'm starting to have a suspicionn that you haven't actually read any of them!

 

[lukesdad]

Without your co operation I won't know which paper(s) you have read, although I'm starting to have a suspicionn that you haven't actually read any of them!

Thats right its all a conspiracy But do you believe your suspicions or do you have evidence mmm

 

[Red Light]

it might be, but the trouble is that the whole thing stems from a kind of precautionary box-ticking that is very difficult, if not impossible to reason with. At the root of it is the fear that if someone were to suffer brain damage (which is very, very expensive) then the charity might have been found negligent if it hadn't strongly advised the wearing of helmets. That has nothing to do with risk, and everything to do with liability.

I think that BC and the BHF take the same line, and that we have a kind of orthodoxy here. Next year I'll do my best to get cover through the CTC who don't ask for this kind of arse-covering.

So what happens if someone suffers brain damage wearing a helmet they were forced to wear. I reckon I could make an even stronger case that the charity was actively responsible for the outcome. Much bigger penalties for wilful than negligent behaviour.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So what happens if someone suffers brain damage wearing a helmet they were forced to wear. I reckon I could make an even stronger case that the charity was actively responsible for the outcome. Much bigger penalties for wilful than negligent behaviour.

I guessing there would have to be a legal ruling that helmets are dangerous before you could do that.

 

[Red Light]

Without your co operation I won't know which paper(s) you have read, although I'm starting to have a suspicionn that you haven't actually read any of them!

BTDTGTTS with LD and it's more than a suspicion and getting close to a certainty.

 

[Red Light]

I guessing there would have to be a legal ruling that helmets are dangerous before you could do that.

No, you would just need to put some of the papers in front of the Court with expert testimony to that effect that was more persuasive than the insurance companies. Not difficult to do.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No, you would just need to put some of the papers in front of the Court with expert testimony to that effect that was more persuasive than the insurance companies. Not difficult to do.

So why has it not been done? I mean with all the people who ride around with helmets on one of them must have suffered brain damage surely?

 

[dellzeqq]

So what happens if someone suffers brain damage wearing a helmet they were forced to wear. I reckon I could make an even stronger case that the charity was actively responsible for the outcome. Much bigger penalties for wilful than negligent behaviour.

well, here's the thing.........it's very unlikely to happen, so I don't worry about it. I was just very put out that a safety message that had been based on the experience gained from running 55 night rides was sidelined by the poxy helmet message.

And, lest anybody think otherwise, there is a safety message to get across, concerning lights, tyres, signalling, giving people room and so on and so forth. I know that running a charity rides involves risk, but minimising it has naff-all to do with helmets

 

[lukesdad]

BTDTGTTS with LD and it's more than a suspicion and getting close to a certainty.

Could nt resist could you eh ?

 

[Cyclopathic]

So, to get to the nub of the matter, is it safer to wear a helmet or not to wear a helmet?

 

[david k]

So what happens if someone suffers brain damage wearing a helmet they were forced to wear. I reckon I could make an even stronger case that the charity was actively responsible for the outcome. Much bigger penalties for wilful than negligent behaviour.

so you are in a stronger position to take action aginst a charity if you wear a helmet than not?

 

[david k]

So, to get to the nub of the matter, is it safer to wear a helmet or not to wear a helmet?

IMO to wear one