Research into helmet compulsion

[ufkacbln]

Because helmets are a wonderful panacea for all ills!

Note how the helmet has also saved the guinea pig fromthe common injuries of fractured lower limbs, spinal injuries and all the other problems that usually occur with such an experience.

Ofcourse the experiment also raises the question about the vehicle...... There is an EnCap rataining for pedestrian (and cylist) safety in which some vehicles are allowed on the road with absolutely no pedestrian safety built in at all - the Jeep Cherokee failed every single test!

What EnCAp rating was the vehicle used in this test - as this would dictate the extent and severity of the injuries.

 

[MartinC]

Yes, I thiught the idea that a cycling helmet could save you from all injury in a collision with a motor vehicle at a closing speed between 20 and 40mph was a bit optimistic.

If these helmets existed I would love to have one, I guess they must be Snell B950000000.

 

[col]

The way a helmet could save you is minimal in comparison to all the other injuries you could get, but those minimal ones are enough. Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky? well? do yah? punk?

 

[yello]

Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky?

Agree 100%. I guess that's where the choice element comes in. Individuals can choose to take that risk (or not) along with all the others they may face.

 

[MartinC]

This is one of the fault lines in the argument. That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact. Everyone is allowed to make their own assumptions if they want but they shouldn't expect others to share them.

 

[col]

This is one of the fault lines in the argument. That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact. Everyone is allowed to make their own assumptions if they want but they shouldn't expect others to share them.

The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?
In the same vein a head on collision in a car is going to see the driver hurt without a seat belt, but with a seat belt the injuries would be less. Assumptions again? I dont think so? What gives you the opinion these are assumptions?

 

[Greenbank]

The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?

You're assuming that there are no negatives to wearing the safety equipment. There are various examples that have been mentioned in the thread already.

Imagine your head gets to within 1mm of the ground. No helmet = no impact. With the increased diameter of helmet means you get an impact. As many people have pointed out above in the thread, an impact doesn't have to do any damage to the skull in order to have significant effect on the brain.

Put it another way. Stand just far enough away that the boxer Ricky Hatton throwing a punch comes to within 1mm of the side of your head.

Now move an inch closer.

I've no doubt that in many situations a helmet *may* reduce the severity of the injury involved, but it's foolish to assume that it will reduce the severity of *every* situation, and also foolish to assume that it's not impossible for the helmet to make the injuries more severe.

 

[ufkacbln]

The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?
In the same vein a head on collision in a car is going to see the driver hurt without a seat belt, but with a seat belt the injuries would be less. Assumptions again? I dont think so? What gives you the opinion these are assumptions?

All of which again applies totally to pedestrians.

The other problem is the assumptions about head injuries. In factthe head injuries are often not the cause of death. It is often the multiple other injuries that cause the death, but because the head injury is recorded it is seen as the "Cause"

Very few serious head injuries are isolated.

 

[col]

You're assuming that there are no negatives to wearing the safety equipment. There are various examples that have been mentioned in the thread already.

Imagine your head gets to within 1mm of the ground. No helmet = no impact. With the increased diameter of helmet means you get an impact. As many people have pointed out above in the thread, an impact doesn't have to do any damage to the skull in order to have significant effect on the brain.

Put it another way. Stand just far enough away that the boxer Ricky Hatton throwing a punch comes to within 1mm of the side of your head.

Now move an inch closer.

I've no doubt that in many situations a helmet *may* reduce the severity of the injury involved, but it's foolish to assume that it will reduce the severity of *every* situation, and also foolish to assume that it's not impossible for the helmet to make the injuries more severe.

Iv never assumed that, like I said in my post.

The way a helmet could save you is minimal in comparison to all the other injuries you could get, but those minimal ones are enough. Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky? well? do yah? punk?

Take note of the first sentence, I dont think its foolish?

 

[Bollo]

Iv never assumed that, like I said in my post.

The way a helmet could save you is minimal in comparison to all the other injuries you could get, but those minimal ones are enough. Yes we know you have to be unlucky to be involved with those minimal ones, but do ya feel lucky? well? do yah? punk?

Take note of the first sentence, I dont think its foolish?

Aaargh! I can't stay put.

So if a minimal improvement to safety "is enough", then you should also wear a helmet while driving, walking, climbing stairs, performing DIY.................all activities where head injuries occur and where a helmet might make a minimal difference.

Repeating Cunobelin's question, why is cycling uniquely dangerous that it requires a helmet where it would be unthinkable for other activities with comparable KSI rates?

BTW, how's the ankle col?

 

[col]

Aaargh! I can't stay put.

So if a minimal improvement to safety "is enough", then you should also wear a helmet while driving, walking, climbing stairs, performing DIY.................all activities where head injuries occur and where a helmet might make a minimal difference.

Repeating Cunobelin's question, why is cycling uniquely dangerous that it requires a helmet where it would be unthinkable for other activities with comparable KSI rates?

BTW, how's the ankle col?

I meant the minimal chances are enough to warrant a helmet if you want to use one, but thats why I said its unlucky if these minimal chances occur, and do you feel lucky. In essence its a choice we all make. As far as walkers driving ect, I thinks its because cyclists are more vulnerable and the risks are higher, if not that high anyway, to head injury?
Its loads better thanks

 

[MartinC]

The same could be applied to all safety devices, they are there to help in the off chance something happens. Its not an assumption that a head hitting a kerb is going to hurt, nor is it an assumption that a head hitting the kerb in the same way but with a helmet on is not going to hurt as much as without a helmet. I would see it as a given fact? what would you see it as, as assumption?
In the same vein a head on collision in a car is going to see the driver hurt without a seat belt, but with a seat belt the injuries would be less. Assumptions again? I dont think so? What gives you the opinion these are assumptions?

Col, sorry this is just more of the same - more assumptions.

Many safety devices are backed up by swathes of research and empirical evidence e.g. seat belts. Cycle helmets are not.

That a head head hitting a curb will hurt is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one. That hitting it whilst wearing a cycle helmet won't hurt as much is, again, an assumption and far more open to debate than the original one. It also begs many questions of degree - will it hurt less than if you were wearing a woollen beanie or a motor cycle helmet. If you want to promote the second assumption there's an implicit need (if you intend being reasonable) to show that the difference is significant.

Things are assumptions when they're not backed by evidence.

 

[col]

Col, sorry this is just more of the same - more assumptions.

Many safety devices are backed up by swathes of research and empirical evidence e.g. seat belts. Cycle helmets are not.

That a head head hitting a curb will hurt is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one. That hitting it whilst wearing a cycle helmet won't hurt as much is, again, an assumption and far more open to debate than the original one. It also begs many questions of degree - will it hurt less than if you were wearing a woollen beanie or a motor cycle helmet. If you want to promote the second assumption there's an implicit need (if you intend being reasonable) to show that the difference is significant.

Things are assumptions when they're not backed by evidence.

I suppose the only real evidence you will believe is if you go and bang your head on a kerb, then put a helmet on and do it again. I dont really see how you can say that that is assumption? And we are talking about cycle helmets are we not? not woollen beanies. I think what Im saying is reasonable. Your opinion that banging your head and it hurting is only an assumption seems unreasonable to me. What evidence is needed, or indepth investigations to show that banging your head will hurt, then having a helmet on will lessen the pain? Im at a loss how you can say this is just assumption?

 

[MartinC]

Col, I posted - "That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact" and you took issue with this.

If you want to refute this then refer to some evidence, I'm struggling to find anything relevant in your last post.

 

[Crankarm]

I suppose the only real evidence you will believe is if you go and bang your head on a kerb, then put a helmet on and do it again. I dont really see how you can say that that is assumption? And we are talking about cycle helmets are we not? not woollen beanies. I think what Im saying is reasonable. Your opinion that banging your head and it hurting is only an assumption seems unreasonable to me. What evidence is needed, or indepth investigations to show that banging your head will hurt, then having a helmet on will lessen the pain? Im at a loss how you can say this is just assumption?

+1 .

Col, I posted - "That there's an extra risk of a significant head injury without a helmet is an assumption not an established fact" and you took issue with this.

If you want to refute this then refer to some evidence, I'm struggling to find anything relevant in your last post.

There's none more stupid than those without common sense . Go bang your head on the kerb sans head gear then go do the same again wearing a cycling helmet. If you don't realise the helmet is protecting your head remove helmet and bang your head harder ....