helmet letter

Rich said:

The reply is at

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145367&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145048&contentPK=12990040

Quoted message said:

First up, confession - I wear a helmet.
Reading the letter at the above site, I can't help wondering if the
additional leverage afforded by the helmet may have played a part in
breaking that gent's neck?

--

Martin Bulmer

Rich said:

Should I respond along the lines of: medics know nothing about the
protective effect of helmets, a minister for transport has stated
that the government knows of not a single case where a helmet has
saved a life, and if all the stories of "helmet saved my life"
were true, there would be an effect on the death stats?

It is possible the helmet saved him from a more serious injury.
However, it is also possible that by wearing a helmet he exchanged a
cracked skull for a broken neck and would still have been better off
without it. If he'd turned up at hospital after this version of the
accident the medical staff would almost certainly have admonished him
for not wearing a helmet. In fact, as he himself admits, he was wearing
a helmet and he sustained a serious injury that could have left him
paralysed. Even in this supposed "helmet saved my life" case, which of
course is statistically meaningless, it's impossible to be certain
whether wearing the helmet reduced or increased the severity of his
injuries. The medical staff certainly were not in a position to say;
they are experts on injury treatment, not injury prevention.

Feel free to crib any or all of the above if you think it might be of
use.

--
Dave...

Martin Bulmer said:

First up, confession - I wear a helmet.

no need to be ashamed, many of us do; I think the only thing that is a
concensus on this NG is that helmet compulsion is not necessarily a
good thing and that helmets are not the magic talisman many would claim.

Rich said:

The reply is at
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145367&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145048&contentPK=12990040

Guh.

Quoted message said:

Should I respond along the lines of: medics know nothing about the
protective effect of helmets, a minister for transport has stated that the
government knows of not a single case where a helmet has saved a life, and
if all the stories of "helmet saved my life" were true, there would be an
effect on the death stats?

Other posters have mentioned everything I can think of, though I think a
jibe that only the truly dim would extrapolate from a sample of one might be
fun. Good luck with the letter in any case.

Perhaps you should suggest to this misguided soul that the effiacy of
helmets in protecting people from cluebat-related injuries should be tested?

Regards,

-david

Rich ([email hidden]) wrote:

: The reply is at
: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145367&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145048&contentPK=12990040

I especially like this:
"I am sure Mr Burton will disregard my comments with reference to some
statistic or other."

Probably everything about the helmet issue has been said and re-said
here. But one thing that really concerns me is that people refuse to
think in numbers. They think in vivid images. This is not new, of
course, and alas not unique to the cycling helmet issue.

m.

Rich said:

Should I respond along the lines of: medics know nothing about the
protective effect of helmets, a minister for transport has stated
that the government knows of not a single case where a helmet has
saved a life, and if all the stories of "helmet saved my life" were
true, there would be an effect on the death stats?

I would be inclined to point out in addition the greater incidence of
neck injuries in helmet wearers because of the heavier "head" and bigger
"head" when wearing a helmet plus, since most cyclists do not wear
helmets, most injured cyclists seen by hospital staff will not have been
wearing a helmet. While it is easy to see why this leads them to think
the lack of a helmet is the cause of the injury, there is no
justification for this view.

The nice stats are the recent ones from Exeter which showed that
although there was a large difference in helmet wearing rates between
young males and female cyclists (males half that of females), there was
no difference in the head injury rates. This is even more remarkable
given that males are likely to take more risks and therefore you would
expect a natural tendency towards higher injury rates for males absent
any helmet effect.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rich said:

Should I respond along the lines of: medics know nothing about the
protective effect of helmets, a minister for transport has stated
that the government knows of not a single case where a helmet has
saved a life, and if all the stories of "helmet saved my life" were
true, there would be an effect on the death stats?

I would be inclined to point out in addition the greater incidence of neck
injuries in helmet wearers because of the heavier "head" and bigger "head"
when wearing a helmet plus, since most cyclists do not wear helmets, most
injured cyclists seen by hospital staff will not have been wearing a
helmet. While it is easy to see why this leads them to think the lack of
a helmet is the cause of the injury, there is no justification for this
view.

The nice stats are the recent ones from Exeter which showed that although
there was a large difference in helmet wearing rates between young males
and female cyclists (males half that of females), there was no difference
in the head injury rates. This is even more remarkable given that males
are likely to take more risks and therefore you would expect a natural
tendency towards higher injury rates for males absent any helmet effect.

Thanks Tony, where can I find this research?

Quoted message said:

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote:
....
| The reply is at
| http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145367&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145048&contentPK=12990040
|
| Should I respond along the lines of: medics know nothing about the
| protective effect of helmets, a minister for transport has stated that the
| government knows of not a single case where a helmet has saved a life, and
| if all the stories of "helmet saved my life" were true, there would be an
| effect on the death stats?

A possibility is the line about helmets increasing head temperature and
reducing concentration. But I think I'd go for the starkest stats e.g.
several OZ & Can states, all of NZ, no or negative effect; very few
helmets worn in Denmark & Netherlands, smallest KSI figures.

But the writer's point is the "wear a helmet just in case a freak
condition arises where it can do some significant good". So perhaps one
should try to undermine the assumption that helmets can never do wrong.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

Patrick Herring said:

But the writer's point is the "wear a helmet just in case a freak
condition arises where it can do some significant good". So perhaps one
should try to undermine the assumption that helmets can never do wrong.

I don't think anyone does believe that helmets can "never do wrong".

I don't want to be forced to wear a helmet any more than you do, but
for me the issue is not whether it is safer or not. Even though I
believe I am on balance "safer" wearing a helmet I often choose not
to - and even if it were provably safer to do so I would still want
the right not to.

It is probably safer to wear a helmet as a pedestrian too, you never
know what might fall out of a window and hit you on the head, or
you might slip on some ice and crack your skull on a step. But is
there talk of making helmets compulsory for pedestrians?

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Patrick Herring said:

But the writer's point is the "wear a helmet just in case a freak
condition arises where it can do some significant good". So perhaps
one should try to undermine the assumption that helmets can never do
wrong.

A number of children have been killed or injured by strangulation by
helmets caught on play equipment if you want freak conditions.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Ian Gregory said:

It is probably safer to wear a helmet as a pedestrian too, you never
know what might fall out of a window and hit you on the head, or
you might slip on some ice and crack your skull on a step.

After last night I might well be wearing a helmet as a ped. Walking from
Newcastle Station I passed a building up Pink Lane that decided to
collapse as I walked by. Specifically several large lumps of something
fell off the roof and crashed to the ground a couple of feet from me. I
will be writing to my MP immediately!

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

After last night I might well be wearing a helmet as a ped. Walking from
Newcastle Station I passed a building up Pink Lane that decided to
collapse as I walked by. Specifically several large lumps of something
fell off the roof and crashed to the ground a couple of feet from me. I
will be writing to my MP immediately!

And a cycle helmet will, of course, stop half a tonne of masonry falling
from 50 feet with no problems at all. Though how the helmet is
subsequently removed from the wearer's shoes is not explained... ;-/

I am reminded of a news item from when Skylab came down, some wag in the
US was flogging standard site helmets at a premium to gullible types who
thought they'd be safe from falling space station debris. There's
always one, but there's usually several!

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/

Peter Clinch said:

Colin Blackburn said:

After last night I might well be wearing a helmet as a ped. Walking from
Newcastle Station I passed a building up Pink Lane that decided to
collapse as I walked by. Specifically several large lumps of something
fell off the roof and crashed to the ground a couple of feet from me. I
will be writing to my MP immediately!

And a cycle helmet will, of course, stop half a tonne of masonry falling
from 50 feet with no problems at all. Though how the helmet is
subsequently removed from the wearer's shoes is not explained... ;-/

A cycle helmet is not predicated for protectiona gainst falling
objects. For that use a proper hard shell helmet. (protection against
rapidly moving small objects). A cycle helmet provides shock adsorption
for the contents on striling a large object slowly.

Quoted message said:

I am reminded of a news item from when Skylab came down, some wag in the
US was flogging standard site helmets at a premium to gullible types who
thought they'd be safe from falling space station debris. There's
always one, but there's usually several!

Not so daft.. a nut falling from height can kill, and a site helemt can
provide adequate protection. However, the chance of such an incident,
meteorite insurance anyone?

...d

David Martin said:

Not so daft.. a nut falling from height can kill, and a site helemt can
provide adequate protection. However, the chance of such an incident,
meteorite insurance anyone?

ISTR the only bit they thought might hit the ground was the film safe,
originally half a tonne of lead.

I think only one person is recorded as having been hit by a meteorite, a
10 lb specimen that struck a woman's leg shortly after it penetrated the
roof of her house. I imagine that slowed it up quite a bit, which was
fortunate.

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/

Martin Bulmer said:

Rich said:

The reply is at

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145367&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145048&contentPK=12990040

Quoted message said:

First up, confession - I wear a helmet.
Reading the letter at the above site, I can't help wondering if the
additional leverage afforded by the helmet may have played a part in
breaking that gent's neck?

Most studies also fail to separate the wearing of the helmet from the
purchase. It's possible that simply purchasing one has a protective
effect, or rather will be found to correlate with a reduced risk of
injury. And if rotational injury risk is as large as some claim, it
might be that the safest thing to do is to purchase one and not wear
it.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Ian Gregory said:

Patrick Herring said:

But the writer's point is the "wear a helmet just in case a freak
condition arises where it can do some significant good". So perhaps one
should try to undermine the assumption that helmets can never do wrong.

Quoted message said:

I don't think anyone does believe that helmets can "never do wrong".

Quoted message said:

I don't want to be forced to wear a helmet any more than you do, but
for me the issue is not whether it is safer or not. Even though I
believe I am on balance "safer" wearing a helmet I often choose not
to - and even if it were provably safer to do so I would still want
the right not to.

Quoted message said:

It is probably safer to wear a helmet as a pedestrian too, you never
know what might fall out of a window and hit you on the head, or
you might slip on some ice and crack your skull on a step. But is
there talk of making helmets compulsory for pedestrians?

Not yet. You have to do these things in steps. First
motorcyclists. Then cyclists. Then skateboarders. Then skaters. Then
pedestrians.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Peter Clinch said:

And a cycle helmet will, of course, stop half a tonne of masonry falling
from 50 feet with no problems at all.

If used to wedge the loose bits of masonry up.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:50:23 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

Most studies also fail to separate the wearing of the helmet from the
purchase. It's possible that simply purchasing one has a protective
effect,

I've come across that process in a different context i.e. when I was a
student, with the purchase of books. It's an osmosis sort of thing, I
reckon 🙂

Quoted message said:

or rather will be found to correlate with a reduced risk of
injury. And if rotational injury risk is as large as some claim, it
might be that the safest thing to do is to purchase one and not wear
it.

Again: see above...

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"More and more of our imports come from overseas."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

Chris Malcolm said:

Most studies also fail to separate the wearing of the helmet from the
purchase. It's possible that simply purchasing one has a protective
effect, or rather will be found to correlate with a reduced risk of
injury. And if rotational injury risk is as large as some claim, it
might be that the safest thing to do is to purchase one and not wear
it.

Mandatory purchasing of cycle helmets anyone? ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon