This is where a helmet can help a lot as Ive done the same...

[Mr Pig]

Or are we back to the weird conjecture that we only need to save cyclists - driver head injuries are acceptable

Your reasoning is jaundiced. If you chose to continue it you could argue that it is a failure to address cyclist safety by not putting them into cars!

Safety measures are developed that are appropriate for the situation. It is simply incorrect to say that car driver's head injuries have been ignored just because the safety devices involved are not the one you're choosing to suggest. My car has about ten air-bags which are all designed primarily to protect the head. Car interior material and configuration has for many years been designed to reduce the damage to body parts in an impact, you won't find a lot of concrete on the inside of a modern car.

Safety devices have been developed in line with typical patterns of use for vehicle concerned, the likelihood of the particular crashes that it could be in and the ability of the user to adopt the safety measures correctly. This is why you have air-bags in passenger cars but harnesses and helmets in racing cars. Which I would have thought was fairly obvious, unless you have an axe to grind and choose to be obtuse about it.

 

[ufkacbln]

Helmets would reduce the number of head injuries in cars - simples!

 

[Wigsie]

Helmets would reduce the number of head injuries in cars - simples!

True, they would also reduce the number of injuries of pedestrians, runners, pole vaulters, rodeo clowns and narcoleptics eating soup.

 

[MacB]

Helmets would reduce the number of head injuries in cars - simples!

Alternatively you could make cars far more fragile and possibly reduce the injury level even more.

Please be gentle with Wigsie he needs special care

 

[Wigsie]

Alternatively you could make cars far more fragile and possibly reduce the injury level even more.

Please be gentle with Wigsie he needs special care

I am special aren't I!

 

[very-near]

My profession is irrelevant here....

I am simply referring to the typically stupid and offensive:



I have produced equally valid evidence that car occupants suffer head injuries as do pedestrians. Does that make anyone who does not wear a helmet in their car a "Nob End in a wheelchair"?

Is anyone going to deny that full face helmets would not have reduced the head injuries in the video of the driver an car occupants?

Or are we back to the weird conjecture that we only need to save cyclists - driver head injuries are acceptable

I've got a question = Why do radiographers insist upon hiding behind lead shielding when exposing others to radiation ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Because there is an identified risk of harm, and lead shielding is proven to diminish that risk. There is well substantiated and unequivocal substantiation of the methods of reducing staff exposure to radiation

We also for the same reason refuse to perform some examinations and apply the principle of lowering the patient's exposure to the risk as well.

No radiation exposure should be carried out unless there is no alternative imaging with less on no radiation. The examination must be clinically justified and then the minimum amount of radiation used to achieve the required diagnostic result. Overall there must be a benefit to the patient that outweighs any possible risk.

Apart from the wonderful financial recompense offered by the NHS here is no such benefit to the staff. As with exposure to any other environmental hazard the employer and employee has a duty to protect, again with validated and proven methods. The principle one is to reduce your exposure to the hazard as opposed to protecting against it.

Although the the lead screens are the most visible, they are only one of the measures and the least important in many ways - the most effective safety method is to reduce the time you are exposed to the risk, then to ensure you keep the largest possible distance from the source and as a last resort use lead screens as protection.