Pro compulsion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
david k

david k

Hi
Location
North West
dellzeqq said:
Try construction. PPE (other than steel shod shoes) has had no effect on injury rates. Despite that one has to walk around a construction site wearing helmet, goggles, armoured gloves, hi-viz jackets and the shoes. Slowly. Bumping in to things.

As for your last post, David, it's tosh. Most, if not all almost all of us are anti-compulsion - including people who wear helmets. If you want to wear a helmet, that's fine with us..........
Click to expand...


it may be true of you but that is not what has been said by others, im happy to accept there are people like you who ar not anti helmet but are anti compulsion. This does not go for all though

ppe on building sites is essential, construction sites are so dangerous it wouldnt be wise not to be protected
 
M

Mad at urage

New Member
Location
Just N of Cardiff
david k said:
but it does protect against concussion, but yes if it didnt i would still use it, i dont mind having scars on my knees but dont want any on my head
Click to expand...
I'm afraid not David, it isn't designed to do so. Here's a link to some findings about head protection that was introduced to protect against concussion:
http://www.bma.org.u...cise/boxing.jsp
"Although some boxers wear head protection, in a bid to prevent injury, they might not guard against brain damage."
http://www.physoc.or...%20Soc%2017PC01

"Boxing head-guards do not prevent Cerebral Trauma"
"Boxing bouts are often stopped because of facial cuts, which have little impact on neuro-cognitive performance, but look horrific because of the sight of blood."
As you see, they fail to do so, because protecting the outer layers of the head against cuts (which cycle helmets can do, in the right circumstances, in the same way as padded knee supports can protect your knees) does not stop the sudden deceleration of the brain in the skull (which is what causes concussion).
If you or your kids ever fall so as to crush your helmet, please get checked for concussion, because helmets do prevent the immediate signs that indicate the possibility of this, such as bleeding scalp wounds.
david k said:
yes i do and i manage to do it without swearing at people who have a different opinion such as letting their children ride without a helmet

yes i let them play on the equipment without fear as it is completely safe. the ground is made of that spongy stuff and they are exposed to any potential risk for less time
Click to expand...
Oh dear...
Cunobelin said:
You are joking I presume?

Your impression of completely safe differs from mine!

RoSPA cites 40,000 hospitalisations per year with the HSE roughly agreeing (41,000), according to other groups, 75% of playground fatalities are due to head injury!

The BMJ cites 11% of accidents in playgrounds as head injuries.

So given the sort time of exposure - are you sure that these playgrounds are completely safe?
Click to expand...
So over all playgrounds (which are relatively safe compared to other risks that children are exposed to), including those spongy-surfaced ones 11% of accidents!
david k said:
if you are referring to me then you are taking my post out of context. i did not say all playgrounds are safer than all cycling. I said the playground i take my kids too is safe as it has a very good spongy floor, i could also add no sharp edges, nothing very high etc

If you want to use a post please use it in context and be accurate. all that inaccurate claims do is push the discussion into something personal, something the anti helmet lobby are good at doing like the personal abuse aimed at me for feeling helmets are of benefit

i await the 'im not anti helmet' reply, funnily enough thats how it comes across when you say cycling doesnt need helmets. If your not anti helmet why do you fight my justification for wearing one so vigourously? Oh i can see it now, 'im not anti helmet im anti compulsion'. yet you state they cannot be separated issues, so if you are anti compulsion which is the same as wearing a helmet you are anti helmet
Click to expand...
Oh dear:

http://www.hse.gov.u...2002/e02079.htm
"Professor Ball's report confirms that the risk of injury in UK playgrounds is low in comparison to the other risks to which children are exposed and have changed little in the period covered by the research. The report identifies the major risk factors in playgrounds as behaviour, equipment height, and body orientation in falls to the ground. Professor Ball notes that despite the introduction of playground safety measures such as IAS (impact absorbing surfacing), playground injuries are not decreasing. IAS is a surfacing material designed to reduce the risk of head injuries by absorbing the impact of a fall. Professor Ball found that the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of IAS as a risk reduction measure is mixed and he raises doubts as to whether the costs of IAS are proportional to the resulting reduction in injuries to children."

You are misinformed again here David I'm afraid!
 
A

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
Location
Cwmbach, South Wales
Mad@urage said:
I'm afraid not David, it isn't designed to do so. Here's a link to some findings about head protection that was introduced to protect against concussion:
http://www.bma.org.u...cise/boxing.jsp
"Although some boxers wear head protection, in a bid to prevent injury, they might not guard against brain damage."
http://www.physoc.or...%20Soc%2017PC01

"Boxing head-guards do not prevent Cerebral Trauma"
"Boxing bouts are often stopped because of facial cuts, which have little impact on neuro-cognitive performance, but look horrific because of the sight of blood."
As you see, they fail to do so, because protecting the outer layers of the head against cuts (which cycle helmets can do, in the right circumstances, in the same way as padded knee supports can protect your knees) does not stop the sudden deceleration of the brain in the skull (which is what causes concussion).
If you or your kids ever fall so as to crush your helmet, please get checked for concussion, because helmets do prevent the immediate signs that indicate the possibility of this, such as bleeding scalp wounds.

Oh dear...

So over all playgrounds (which are relatively safe compared to other risks that children are exposed to), including those spongy-surfaced ones 11% of accidents!

Oh dear:

http://www.hse.gov.u...2002/e02079.htm
"Professor Ball's report confirms that the risk of injury in UK playgrounds is low in comparison to the other risks to which children are exposed and have changed little in the period covered by the research. The report identifies the major risk factors in playgrounds as behaviour, equipment height, and body orientation in falls to the ground. Professor Ball notes that despite the introduction of playground safety measures such as IAS (impact absorbing surfacing), playground injuries are not decreasing. IAS is a surfacing material designed to reduce the risk of head injuries by absorbing the impact of a fall. Professor Ball found that the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of IAS as a risk reduction measure is mixed and he raises doubts as to whether the costs of IAS are proportional to the resulting reduction in injuries to children."

You are misinformed again here David I'm afraid!
Click to expand...
Just to play devils advocate for a moment. I wonder if more children are taken to hospitals after minor injuries nowadays than were 30/40 years ago?
 
totallyfixed

totallyfixed

Veteran
Location
The only county without a McDonalds
Angelfishsolo said:
Just to play devils advocate for a moment. I wonder if more children are taken to hospitals after minor injuries nowadays than were 30/40 years ago?
Click to expand...

Kids are heavier now, less athletic and not as 'ard as we were then. Seriously though guys, what do you really know about the practicalities of wearing / not wearing a helmet when you obviously don't ride a bike? How can you when you are on here all day?
smile.gif
 
twobiker

twobiker

New Member
Location
South Hams Devon
I knew a german boy called Helmut.
 
OP
OP
david k

david k

Hi
Location
North West
Mad@urage said:
"Professor Ball's report confirms that the risk of injury in UK playgrounds is low in comparison to the other risks to which children are exposed and have changed little in the period covered by the research. The report identifies the major risk factors in playgrounds as behaviour, equipment height, and body orientation in falls to the ground. Professor Ball notes that despite the introduction of playground safety measures such as IAS (impact absorbing surfacing), playground injuries are not decreasing. IAS is a surfacing material designed to reduce the risk of head injuries by absorbing the impact of a fall. Professor Ball found that the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of IAS as a risk reduction measure is mixed and he raises doubts as to whether the costs of IAS are proportional to the resulting reduction in injuries to children."

You are misinformed again here David I'm afraid!
Click to expand...

not sure i am, your quote suggests it is safer to have IAS but they raise doubts as to the costs being proportional. I am not discussing the pros of installing IAS against not installing it i simply stated my kids are safer at the playground because of the spongy stuff
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
david k said:
not sure i am, your quote suggests it is safer to have IAS but they raise doubts as to the costs being proportional. I am not discussing the pros of installing IAS against not installing it i simply stated my kids are safer at the playground because of the spongy stuff
Click to expand...

No he states clearly that...

IAS is a surfacing material designed to reduce the risk of head injuries by absorbing the impact of a fall. Professor Ball found that the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of IAS as a risk reduction measure is mixed
Click to expand...


This sentence means that the scientific evidence is not unequivocal and that some studies show the ability to impact a fall is not as good as other studies.

This means that there is no unequivocal evidence of the ability of these surfaces to reduce the risk of head injury.

Oh so simples!
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
david k said:
i await the 'im not anti helmet' reply, funnily enough thats how it comes across when you say cycling doesnt need helmets. If your not anti helmet why do you fight my justification for wearing one so vigourously? Oh i can see it now, 'im not anti helmet im anti compulsion'. yet you state they cannot be separated issues, so if you are anti compulsion which is the same as wearing a helmet you are anti helmet
Click to expand...

The "I'm being victimised because I wear a helmet" card again!

When will you actually understand that no-one really cares whether you wear one or not, or why you wear one. No-one is "fighting" your justification The"fight" is against stupid, uninformed and dangerously misleading statements such as "helmets prevent facial injuries"


1. Your assumptions are wrong (again) I believe that compulsion is integral and cannot be excluded (your desire). If you cannot understand the difference between integral and cannot be separated then please ask me to explain in more detail

2. Compulsion is forcing eople to wear helmets against their wishes and removing the ability to choose. I am clearly against this. However I am firmly in the position that people should be able to choose for themselves, but that choice should be informed, not misled by inflated and untrue claims about their abilities.

3. The logic in your last sentence is a little bizarre, and again is more about your inability to understand the concept of freedom of choice.

But lets play with your logic for ..

If the association holds true then pro helmet and pro compulsion as surely equally unequivocally linked, are you finally admitting your pro-compulsion agenda?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom