Oh dear!

[magnatom]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2400000.0.0.php

Front page article on this Glasgow paper.

Obviously horrible for the family and my thoughts are with them, but the reaction is crazy. Has anyone considered the possibility that she may have broken her neck because she was wearing a helmet. I'm not sayin that this is the case, just pointing out how none of the reaction is based on any scientific evidence

 

[magnatom]

In fact I am puzzled by one statistic that they quote:

It is not compulsory in the UK to wear a helmet. Since New Zealand made it compulsory head injuries have fallen by 30%

Has anyone else hear of this statistic? Is it purely due to the reduction in cyclists since helmets were made compulsory?

I don't want to start a thread about should we or shouldn't we wear helmets, but I do want to reply back to the Evening Times about the quality of their reporting!

 

[tdr1nka]

Poor little mite. Fingers crossed the op goes smoothly.

I'd wonder if there would be enough supporting evidence to suggest the helmet was a contributing factor?
Also, any contrary opinions on the validity of wearing a helmet in this instance would only be seen as using someone elses misfortune to pursue an already contentious issue.

I guess paramedics & doctors have the true insight into just how much cycle helmets offset injuries but I understand what you mean, without the helmet might she only have had a fractured skull, etc.

 

[spindrift]

In fact, the official LTSA data shows there was a 26% reduction in cycling trips between 1989/90 and 1997/98. The LTSA estimate of total New Zealand bicycle trips dropped from 181.5 million in 89/90 to 110.8 million in 97/98. Estimated hours of cycling fell from 39.2 million to 26 million, and the number of kilometres cycled plunged from 351.6 million km to 284.2 million km.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Very sloppy reporting there.

 

[magnatom]

Poor little mite. Fingers crossed the op goes smoothly.

I'd wonder if there would be enough supporting evidence to suggest the helmet was a contributing factor?
Also, any contrary opinions on the validity of wearing a helmet in this instance would only be seen as using someone elses misfortune to pursue an already contentious issue.

I guess paramedics & doctors have the true insight into just how much cycle helmets offset injuries but I understand what you mean, without the helmet might she only have had a fractured skull, etc.

That's the problem tdr1nka, paramedics and doctors don't understand injuries like this in relation to helmet wearing. I should know, I work in the very building she was brought to!

You are right though any reply would have to be very careful to not come across as reactionary in itself, but I know what the Evening Times is like, they will now start a campaign, without looking at any of the evidence.

I have some contacts in the Evening Times and I am tempted to contact them, but we have to be very careful....

 

[magnatom]

In fact, the official LTSA data shows there was a 26% reduction in cycling trips between 1989/90 and 1997/98. The LTSA estimate of total New Zealand bicycle trips dropped from 181.5 million in 89/90 to 110.8 million in 97/98. Estimated hours of cycling fell from 39.2 million to 26 million, and the number of kilometres cycled plunged from 351.6 million km to 284.2 million km.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Very sloppy reporting there.

Thanks spindrift, that's what I thought. Completely reactionary, with no basis in fact.

 

[spindrift]

but we have to be very careful....

I know, you are a sensitive person magna, probably cos of your job.

they've kind of "exploited" a horrible event by using that poor, poor girl to make daft assumptions. It should be challenged, but then it looks like we're tussling over her.

Unedifying, very.

 

[magnatom]

but we have to be very careful....

I know, you are a sensitive person magna, probably cos of your job.

they've kind of "exploited" a horrible event by using that poor, poor girl to make daft assumptions. It should be challenged, but then it looks like we're tussling over her.

Unedifying, very.

I'm wondering if a complaint, not to the paper but the press complaints commission might be the best approach.

 

[dondare]

I would like to ask the surgeons who reckoned that the-helmet-saved her-life what proportion of serious head injuries arise from this kind of accident?

 

[4F]

In fact, the official LTSA data shows there was a 26% reduction in cycling trips between 1989/90 and 1997/98. The LTSA estimate of total New Zealand bicycle trips dropped from 181.5 million in 89/90 to 110.8 million in 97/98. Estimated hours of cycling fell from 39.2 million to 26 million, and the number of kilometres cycled plunged from 351.6 million km to 284.2 million km.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Very sloppy reporting there.

So the results in New Zealand were very much the same as happened in Australia then. Very sloppy reporting indeed.

 

[Tynan]

what;s the problem, seems to me that was exactly the sort of accident the much reviled helmet is designed to help with, might have saved her from a fractured skull etc

surely nothing to do with the broken neck

as for the rest, same old same old surely, it's the accepted mainstream argument that helmets are a good thing, not saying that's so

there's far worse fallacies about cycling that that one

 

[spindrift]

100 people drank in pubs before the smoking ban.

Three got head injuries in a fight.

After the ban only 2 got head injuries.

A massive 33% reduction in head injuries because of the smoking ban.

See what I mean?

 

[Cab]

what;s the problem, seems to me that was exactly the sort of accident the much reviled helmet is designed to help with, might have saved her from a fractured skull etc

surely nothing to do with the broken neck

You mean, you reject the principle that the extra movement caused by having a geet big helmet on can cause neck injuries such as this?

as for the rest, same old same old surely, it's the accepted mainstream argument that helmets are a good thing, not saying that's so

there's far worse fallacies about cycling that that one

Maybe, but we're in the middle of just a little bit of mass hysteria about the dangers of cycling; if we remain rational and ignore this as the drivel it is we may just end up having helmets made compulsory.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Great comment made on that article too...

"It should absolutely be made illegal to cycle without a helmet, and should be more stringently enforced than driving without a seatbelt on. If you die through poor or dangerous cycling, then your life is yours to lose - your choice, fair enough. Think, however, of the guilt that the innocent driver whose wheels you cycle under will feel. I feel let down when I see fellow cyclists ride dangerously without a helmet - giving us all a bad name!"

...and this person says he/she is a cyclist.

Each person can make their own choice, I wear a helmet, if others don't want to then that's their call.... but wtf is this comment all about???

 

[magnatom]

what;s the problem, seems to me that was exactly the sort of accident the much reviled helmet is designed to help with, might have saved her from a fractured skull etc

surely nothing to do with the broken neck

as for the rest, same old same old surely, it's the accepted mainstream argument that helmets are a good thing, not saying that's so

there's far worse fallacies about cycling that that one

They suggesting that helmets are a good thing and have done so with very sloppy reporting which falsely suggests that wearing a helmet will reduce head injury. The only statistic that they have used to support this is wrong.

The ET is the sort of paper that likes campaigning. If we say nothing I can almost guarantee you that they will start campaigning for compulsory helmet wearing. The evidence certainly does not suggest that this is a good thing. I think this is especially true in Glasgow, where obesity is a much bigger problem than head injuries from cycling.