Steve Almond said:Very clever. Your attachment to 7 mph is touching. Does 8 mph mean instant
death? Is it possible that at 11 mph a helmet might mean the difference
between concussion and brain damage?
It's /possible/, yes, but the salient point in this argument (which I
used to use to justify always wearing a helmet, btw) is that since the
helmet wearing rates went up dramatically in countries following
mandatory helmets for cyclists there was *no* effect on the
killed/seriously injured rates in the cycling population. We cannot say
with any certainty /why/ they haven't helped, that's just conjecture,
but we do have sound evidence that, for whatever reason, the above
effect doesn't happen at any degree of significance.
Quoted message said:avoid head injury is not completely successful, but the helmet just makes
that bit of difference.....?
Working from the above, either it doesn't make that bit of difference,
or there are a similar number of cases where it makes things worse (for
example, the larger volume of the helmet to catch on things and put
rotations into effect on the neck and spine may make some injuries
worse, which is again conjecture in terms of what actually happens in
the accidents but the bottom line is *no change* in KSI with more helmet
wearing.
Quoted message said:bicycle), I had no say in my bodies attitude when it hit the deck.
But that's me, many people here have convinced themselves that either:
1. They are skilful enough to avoid all accidents (30 years without coming
off.....).
2. They can defy the laws of physics (I'll keep my head from hitting
anything hard....).
There is a significant degree of reflex action involved in protecting
the head, even in instances where it does no good at all, but this is a
side issue to the facts I've previously outlined of no improvement in
KSI with more helmet wearing.
Quoted message said:3. They decide helmets are useless in some defined cases (say, hit a car
head first which is travelling at 20/30/40 mph), therefore helmets are
useless in all cases and not worth wearing.
The data tells us they don't make any difference in KSIs. That isn't to
say they don't help remove a lot of pain and discomfort resulting from
less serious injuries, and for that reason alone they should be
considered. But it's hardly conclusive as arguments go, especially as
they'll reduce comfort on every trip where they're used.
Quoted message said:And I guess the saddest are the ones who will teach their kids to ride
properly on a well-maintained bike, thus negating the need for a helmet.
Said kid is never to have a moment of inattention; never to be reaching into
back pocket for Mars bar at the moment when the braking tutorial in urgently
required; never to be admiring the countryside and just have a silly 'off'?
This suggests that you should always err on the side of "just in case".
Well, fact is that more kids end up in A&E from falls while playing
than cycling accidents, so if you /really/ think that then you should
make your kids wear lids if they're running about. Lots of people get
into A&E with head injuries from falling downstairs. It's possible
they'd be mitigated with a helmet, so do you (or your kids) always wear
crash helmets when using stairs? If not, why not?
This probably sounds like I'm just being facetious, but it's a real
question as the same logic /should/ work in both situations. But it
doesn't, so why doesn't it? I think the answer is that those people
very familiar with stairs and running around in parks know very well
that the chances of them being in a nasty accident as a result are very
slim, so slim that it isn't worth assuming they'll have an accident.
And the same really does go for cycling if you look at the real injury
rates.
Didn't have a helmet on my well maintained bike as a kid, as they didn't
exist at the time. I did fall off it, usually because of my own
stupidity trying daft things, but I never had a trip to A&E as a result,
and I never hit my head. And that was (and more to the point remains) a
perfectly normal profile for a child cyclist.
Quoted message said:Despite this, I have found the arguments put forward (particularly in the
references quoted) to be compelling. I, too, thought the matter of helmet
wearing was black and white; now I see all shades of grey....
Well, that's about the size of it. What finally tipped me over the edge
of not bothering very often was looking at how people do things in the
Netherlands where the cycle culture has never disappeared as it has
here. People who wear helmets use them for serious sport cycling and
never bother for utility cycling. The former is far more likely to
involve falling off in a nasty manner than the latter. Spend a weekend
in Amsterdam, where you will probably see more bikes and cyclists than
you have ever seen before in your life, and count the helmets. I think
I saw 10 the weekend I was there, 7 on roadies heading out for a Sunday
morning hack, 1 on an MTB in All The Gear, probably also out for a
sporting hack, and a couple of tourists piled with panniers who almost
certainly weren't local. If there was a real problem with kids having
off moments where helmets might Really Help then most Dutch folk you'd
meet would have their heads covered in scars. But they don't. The
reason for that is that is that cycling simply isn't nearly as dangerous
as popular perception in the UK likes to think.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
