Just zis Guy said:Following previous research by the Board of Science on
cycling, the BMA established specific policy at its 2006 annual
representative meeting that the Association promotes cycling as a
safe, healthy and sustainable alternative to car use.
So why does it, and BeHIT continually promote cycling as unsafe, with
their insistence that we should all wear MFHs.
Quoted message said:Safe cycling
Cycling statistics
The proportion of people travelling by cycle has fallen over the
past 25 years in England. [Reference 1]
I am sure I have read that there has been an increase in cycling in the
last five-ten years. Post 7/7 in London, and noticeably in Bristol in
the last two years.
Quoted message said:As will be discussed later,
cycle helmets do not prevent all types of injury or death; they play
a significant role in reducing head injuries. They are most
effective at low impact speeds (approximately 13 mph or less), such
as when a cyclist falls from a cycle without the involvement of
other vehicles. [Reference 9]
I think we all know that one.
Quoted message said:
advertising standards officials should ensure that the
public are protected against misleading safety claims from
manufacturers
Now that is good, perhaps beHIT could stop their misleading safety claims.
Quoted message said:cycle manufacturers and retailers should consider supplying
a free cycle helmet (or helmet voucher) with every bike sold
There is no such thing as a free lunch. A free helmet will either push
up the price of the bike, or reduce the quality of the components (e.g.
the already cheap brakes).
Quoted message said:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080122/text/80122w0007.htm#08012323000031.
Quoted message said:Charles' story
Charles, a senior orthopaedic consultant, fell from his bike
following a collision with a car on an A-road. He was cycling off a
roundabout onto a dual carriageway at just under 20 mph when the
crash occurred. He suffered a grazed and fractured shoulder, grazing
to the right side of his head and cuts to his chin. He strongly
believes that the cycle helmet he was wearing saved him from
sustaining more severe injury to his head.
Would he have hit his head if he was not wearing a MFH?
Does he understand basic physics? which I thought Doctors had to know.
20mph is 2.4 times the KE of a 13 mph collision, plus there was a car
involved. The helmet would simply have failed in this case. Also the KE
of the helmet is similar to the max. energy it can absorb.
Quoted message said:Cycle helmets perform three functions. Firstly they reduce the
deceleration of the skull and hence the brain by managing impacts.
This is achieved by crushing the soft material contained within a
helmet. Secondly a helmet acts by spreading the area of an impact.
As it is impacted, the expanded polystyrene shell of the helmet
dissipates the energy over a rapidly increasing area like a cone.
This prevents forces from being localized to one concentrated small
area. Finally a helmet plays a vital role by preventing direct
contact between the skull and the impacting object.
This ignores rotational injuries, and the fact that the skull already
does much more of this than a MFH will
Quoted message said:Simon's story
Simon, in an effort to get fit for his 40th birthday, started a
regular regime of cycling in the evening. Like many people, he
didn't wear a cycle helmet because he thought they looked stupid. On
one occasion, for reasons unknown, he blacked out and fell from his
bicycle, hitting his head on the pavement as he fell.
So why did he just suddenly black out whilst riding a bike?
If he had sudden brain damage for no apparent reason causing a black
out, could this have caused the rest of his symptoms.
Quoted message said:"I have seen - in my practice and when working in A/E -
quite a number of serious head injuries from children falling off
bicycles. I have also seen a number of children who wore helmets who
only suffered minor injury. I am convinced that helmets reduce
injury."
Someone I work with is convinced that the world is flat.
Quoted message said:Effectiveness of helmets at reducing injuries
As part of its policy to improve the safety of cyclists, the DfT
conducted an independent critique of evidence on the efficacy of
cycle helmets. [Reference 14] It concludes that:
Is this the one that was discussed recently and show to be a pile of
smelly stuff?
Quoted message said:Samuel's Story
Seven year old Samuel was out cycling near his home when he collided
with a car. The cycle helmet Samuel was wearing almost split in two
as a result of the impact. While Samuel did suffer cuts and bruises
he did not suffer any serious injuries to the head.
So he collided with a car (outside of the design specs. of the helmet).
The helmet then catastrophically failed, providing no protection whatever.
Quoted message said:McDermott 1993 Thompson 1996a Cochrane review of five studies To
determine if cycle helmets reduce head, brain and facial injury for
cyclists of all ages in event of a crash or fall Systematic
review Incidence of head injuries
Incidence of facial injuries
Protective effect of helmet Helmets reduce the risk of head
injury by 85%, brain injury by 88% and severe brain injury by 75%.
Helmets provide equal level of protection from cars (69%) compared
to other causes (65%)
Wow 85-88%, now where I heard that one before. I wish I had been wearing
a cycle helmet last year when I broke my leg.
I will snip the rest, as it is clearly not worth reading after quoting
the above statistic.
As you say, it is ironic that the idiot wants to stop misleading safety
claims, yet quotes the 88% stat.