Would any cycle helmet have helped here?

[Milkfloat]

The more they are worn, the easier it is to justify compulsion on the grounds of normalising,

By far the majority of people wear shoes to walk in - it is not illegal to not wear them. Compulsion would be more likely come about if it were proven that helmet wearing had a hugely significant positive outcome to by far the majority of accidents AND that the majority of people were not choosing to wear a helmet. We know that this is not possible to prove as every accident is different.. Other countries experience of pro compulsion appears to show significant drawbacks and there seems to be very little serious effort to bring it in here.

I believe that trying to tell people not to wear helmets in case it encourages compulsion is just as bad as pushing for compulsion.

 

[Milkfloat]

What I am actually telling you is that you should consider quite how dangerous you wish to portray cycling. Some like to think of it as a high risk activity that shows them as adventurous. Others not.

It can be dangerous - at times I think it is sensible to wear a helmet and if I think that will be of benefit to me I will do it. If anyone can prove that in the balance of probability that a helmet is likely to be more dangerous in a typical accident than not wearing one then I would not wear one.

 

[mjr]

I believe that trying to tell people not to wear helmets in case it encourages compulsion is just as bad as pushing for compulsion.

It's not "in case it encourages compulsion" but rather "because it does weaken a barrier against compulsion".

In the words of government: "Compulsory laws would therefore cause significant enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have a negative effect on levels of cycling with direct disadvantages and costs in terms of health. For these reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce compulsory cycle helmet laws".

If anyone can prove that in the balance of probability that a helmet is likely to be more dangerous in a typical accident than not wearing one then I would not wear one.

If you are in an accident, you've probably already lost. The thing to consider is whether a helmet offers a net benefit to cyclist outcomes, which they seem not to.

 

[ufkacbln]

Lets assume that helmets are 100% effective

Lets assume that every head injury would be prevented by a helmet

For every 100 head injuries helmets would save:

34.8 pedestrians
5.9 cyclists
13.1 motorcyclists
28.1 drivers
18.1 vehicle passengers


Which group would benefit most?

 

[doog]

Lets assume that helmets are 100% effective

Lets assume that every head injury would be prevented by a helmet

For every 100 head injuries helmets would save:

34.8 pedestrians
5.9 cyclists
13.1 motorcyclists
28.1 drivers
18.1 vehicle passengers


Which group would benefit most?

Here we go again. You simply cannot stick cyclists into that equation...how many times do you need telling that helmet wearing cyclists who suffer a head impact that doesnt require treatment (thanks to the helmet ) cannot be subject to statistical analysis like this....why because they simply go home and get on with there life...

So your stats, as usual are completely flawed.

 

[Milkfloat]

Apologies @User, i know how much you dislike this point but it has to be said. @Milkfloat travelling in a car be dangerous Do you wear one there? If not why not?

Yes at times. When I used to have a Westfield I used to wear it when it was compulsory and also when not. I judged the risk and took sensible precautions. I do not wear it in my usual car is because it has airbags all round and my risk is lower.

 

[doog]

[QUOTE 3814565, member: 45"]If you're attaching the same level of risk to all driving or all cycling or all walking activities then you're inconsistent in your accuracy. And that's what brings confusion to people and where you lose them.

That's my view anyway.[/QUOTE]

Nail on head...

 

[Milkfloat]

If you are in an accident, you've probably already lost. The thing to consider is whether a helmet offers a net benefit to cyclist outcomes, which they seem not to.

And that is provable?

 

[Milkfloat]

Lets assume that helmets are 100% effective

Lets assume that every head injury would be prevented by a helmet

For every 100 head injuries helmets would save:

34.8 pedestrians
5.9 cyclists
13.1 motorcyclists
28.1 drivers
18.1 vehicle passengers


Which group would benefit most?

If you could provide those figures by mile or by time spent in the activity it will make it a lot easier to answer. For myself, I have bashed my head once in a car (I was wearing a helmet), a few times whilst a pedestrian (none of which as an adult) and about 10-15 times as a cyclist. Per mile for me cycling is probably the most dangerous.

 

[Milkfloat]

You say that but people in cars still acquire head injuries. Why do they not deserve protection?

They do, they have airbags. I suspect, but don't know that a proper helmet and an airbag, could in fact be worse than an airbag alone. Injuries may occur, but the risk is lower than without airbags. In addition you have to consider the overall risk, there is a risk in everything we do, the trick is to minimise the really risky stuff, otherwise you sit at home wrapped up in cotton wool.

 

[mjr]

And that is provable?

And how exactly would you like an absence of effect proved?

 

[theclaud]

Interesting, thanks for the information. For years I've been collecting accounts of damaged helmets that are supposed to have saved injury, specifically looking for cases where e helmet seems to have worked as designed - i.e. compressed as yours did. So far they're running at 6%. Almost all the others describe the helmet being shattered or other words for broken - i.e. having had rather little useful effect in brain protection - and/or grazed which suggests they have potentially caused rotational injury while possibly also saving a nasty scraped scalp. Thanks again.

Hello Richard! Didn't realise you were on CC. The modest post count would account for that. Welcome.
Claudine

 

[theclaud]

This is known as melonation

Premature?

 

[ufkacbln]

If you could provide those figures by mile or by time spent in the activity it will make it a lot easier to answer. For myself, I have bashed my head once in a car (I was wearing a helmet), a few times whilst a pedestrian (none of which as an adult) and about 10-15 times as a cyclist. Per mile for me cycling is probably the most dangerous.

No need to provide by mile....

These figures are derived from the number of admissions due to head injury, requiring hospital admission and therefore a measure of the number of head injuries that could be prevented if helmets worked, and had been worn by these individuals

With the clear assumptions made it is a record of a head injury occurring and needing admission

Think of it as looking at a medicine, if you want to see the efficacy as a cure then you can only look at it's efficiency in those who have the disease.

No statistics will ever be absolutely accurate, and it is possible that other factors already affecting these figures such as air bags may have already reduced the number of car driver and passenger head injuries. Also you will note it includes motorcyclists who already wear helmets (and possibly some cyclists who were as well). the data (as with all data) is therefore limited, and it is up to you to make your own analysis and decide on its merit

It does leave us with a snapshot of the head injuries being admitted at the moment and under present circumstances

However what is evident is that when looking at head injuries that have occurred and needed hospital treatment is used as a baseline it is evident where the greatest improvements could be for the general population

 

[Milkfloat]

And how exactly would you like an absence of effect proved?

Exactly! This is the argument that people who wear a helmet will use. So how about we just let people choose, without statements that try to make those who choose to wear a helmet feel guilty.

Your own link to the anti-compulsion petition provides some some pretty good data that suggests that helmet wearing is often a good idea.

"The main focus of the TRL report was on the effectiveness of cycle helmets in the event of an accident. The report concluded that cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in many cycle accidents based on biomechanical principles, but the effectiveness would depend on a range of factors such as whether it was a fall or in collision with a vehicle and what object was struck by the head."

"The report also looked in depth at 113 fatal cycle casualties (2001-2006). The analysis concluded that 9 cyclist fatalities involving head injury from hitting the ground and 3 to 9 cyclist fatalities from hitting a vehicle could potentially have been prevented by helmet wearing, equating to 10-16% of all cyclist fatalities"


As I have stated before, I am not pro-compulsion, I am not anti-helmet, I am pro-choice. This means I am defend against pro-compulsion and anti-helmet. Personally, I wear a helmet on about 30% of my rides.