Helmet debate continues
Comments
-
WGWarburton wrote:supersonic wrote:You could apply that logic to many scenarios - the airbag: did it save his life? My heart drugs - would I be dead if I had not been put on them? In my case, possibly, probably...It doesn't, which is wierd!
Are you saying that helmets do not reduce the chance of a head injury, or severity, and therefore is no point in wearing them? Or just using that stat? ;-) I think the argument can be broken down into many different points which need to be examined ie type of accident, speed, type of helmet, road/off road, impactor etc etc before we can say categorically that they don't 'work' in any shape or form. Unfortunately the published stats and papers for both sides of the argument are hard work, and are often misleading and contradictory.
I don't see a lot of point in analysing any given incident- about the only thing you can be sure of is that the next one you look at will be different.
Aggregating over a reasonable sized population ought to show that there is a beneficial effect overall. So if, for example, head injuries, or numbers killed stepped down as usage stepped up you could imagine that there was a correlation. You could then reasonably say that there was evidence that helmets saved lives and that you would typically be better to wear one.
For motorcyclists this is clearly demonstrable. For cyclists it is not.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter that much. Cycling is fundamentally safe and you have to be really unlucky to be seriously injured as a result of riding a bike, so it's an academic discussion... or at least, it would be if people didn't rant & rave about fools riding without helmets and call for legislation to mandate them. I also worry (a little) that the level of faith people appear to have in helmets leads them to put themselves at risk due to ignorance. Putting yourself at risk consciously, when you know the score and make an informed choice is fine, but I feel uncomfortable thinking that someone believes they are safer than they are.
Cheers,
W.
I agree with much of what you say, but I am also speaking about MTBing - the debate, even though discussed here in the commuting section, stretches further than just commuting on the roads. Off road biking can be very dangerous. I see many inexperienced newcomers wobbling and falling off on difficult trails.
Also I do think that the nature of impacts should be investigated more to see if helmets are effective in certain situations. While everyone is going to be different to a point, many will show certain similarities as in any injury study. I don't think it is as simple as looking at one stat and drawing conclusions from it. This has helped with MTB helmets as many are now deeper at the rear after it was found many riders were sustaining injuries low down on the back of the head. However I have no stats on injury numbers. I think helmets on a whole are effective in some situations, and not in others. And effective in different ways. I can say pretty conclusively that a helmet for me has at least stopped superficial injuries, the same way cycling gloves have prevented gashes.I also worry (a little) that the level of faith people appear to have in helmets leads them to put themselves at risk due to ignorance
I agree this could be the case. So many factors could influence why some stats do not show a reduction in injuries (some do show a reduction though! So many studies out there). Extra confidence, and the 'drivers driving closer' aspect may certainly compensate. Or maybe they just don't work? ;-)
Do I wear a helmet? Sometimes. I do if the nature of my cycling makes me feel I will hit my head with a greater possibilty (ie downhilling or dirtjumping). In these cases I wear armour too. So as ever it is trying to draw up the pros and cons and making your own decisions to your risk and effectiveness.0 -
dougzz wrote:biff55 wrote:my 2 pence ;
conditioning the body to handle impacts and learning to fall / roll properly are elements that can aid your safety just as effectively if not more than wearing ppe ( helmets ).
many a time i've seen folk drop like a sack of spuds in low speed comedy collisions through poor balance and physical readyness.
granted , ths is an opinion bourne from years of rugby and martial arts which are way more dangerous than cycling and neither use helmets.
just an personal observation in this on-going debate.
Yeah right. How many deaths in recent years from playing Rugby or Martial arts then?
No idea , probably not many.
and if youre trying to make a point be a bit more concise.0 -
Recent news in Italy:
Thomas Casarotto, during the Tour of Friuli, is now in hospital, brain dead, after falling off his bike and reporting brain injuries so bad it is not possible for surgeons to operate.
He was wearing a helmet, but that did not help. He clipped the rear view mirror of a car parked on the side of the road, while accelerating out of a bend during a descent, according to the newspapers.0 -
biff55 wrote:dougzz wrote:biff55 wrote:my 2 pence ;
conditioning the body to handle impacts and learning to fall / roll properly are elements that can aid your safety just as effectively if not more than wearing ppe ( helmets ).
many a time i've seen folk drop like a sack of spuds in low speed comedy collisions through poor balance and physical readyness.
granted , ths is an opinion bourne from years of rugby and martial arts which are way more dangerous than cycling and neither use helmets.
just an personal observation in this on-going debate.
Yeah right. How many deaths in recent years from playing Rugby or Martial arts then?
No idea , probably not many.
and if youre trying to make a point be a bit more concise.
My point is your comment that Rugby and Martial Arts are "way more dangerous than cycling" is so obviously wrong as to make one wonder at the sanity of the poster. I wasn't aware that forum rules demanded concise postings, or indeed that my post was not concise, perhaps you could suggest how I might have made my point so as to have passed your exacting standards?0 -
OK, glad that's clear. I'm not.supersonic wrote:...I agree with much of what you say, but I am also speaking about MTBing -...the debate, even though discussed here in the commuting section, stretches further than just commuting on the roads. Off road biking can be very dangerous. I see many inexperienced newcomers wobbling and falling off on difficult trails.
I think that's a discussion best taken up on an MTB board. I recall that injuries are more common away from roads but don't know if the source was reliable.Also I do think that the nature of impacts should be investigated more to see if helmets are effective in certain situations. While everyone is going to be different to a point, many will show certain similarities as in any injury study. I don't think it is as simple as looking at one stat and drawing conclusions from it. This has helped with MTB helmets as many are now deeper at the rear after it was found many riders were sustaining injuries low down on the back of the head. However I have no stats on injury numbers. I think helmets on a whole are effective in some situations, and not in others. And effective in different ways. I can say pretty conclusively that a helmet for me has at least stopped superficial injuries, the same way cycling gloves have prevented gashes.
Hmm... I think we need to be careful how we assess things. Although there often seems to be only one "helmet debate", it covers several distinct arguments- Are they needed? Do they work? What are the unintended consequences of using them? as well as some side questions (children? on-road/off-road? racing?).
Cheers,
W.0 -
dougzz wrote:My point is your comment that Rugby and Martial Arts are "way more dangerous than cycling" is so obviously wrong as to make one wonder at the sanity of the poster. I wasn't aware that forum rules demanded concise postings, or indeed that my post was not concise, perhaps you could suggest how I might have made my point so as to have passed your exacting standards?
Wow , more worthless ramblings.
Still yet to make any contribution of use to this topic.
How is it wrong then?
As an article in mens fitness magazine which i read last year carried out research which concluded that there are considerably more injuries per 100 hours trained for rugby than any other physical activity. Maybe you know something they don't ?
If so please share.
Otherwise try bringing something to the table other than snotty comments.0 -
dougzz wrote:biff55 wrote:dougzz wrote:biff55 wrote:my 2 pence ;
conditioning the body to handle impacts and learning to fall / roll properly are elements that can aid your safety just as effectively if not more than wearing ppe ( helmets ).
many a time i've seen folk drop like a sack of spuds in low speed comedy collisions through poor balance and physical readyness.
granted , ths is an opinion bourne from years of rugby and martial arts which are way more dangerous than cycling and neither use helmets.
just an personal observation in this on-going debate.
Yeah right. How many deaths in recent years from playing Rugby or Martial arts then?
No idea , probably not many.
and if youre trying to make a point be a bit more concise.
My point is your comment that Rugby and Martial Arts are "way more dangerous than cycling" is so obviously wrong as to make one wonder at the sanity of the poster. I wasn't aware that forum rules demanded concise postings, or indeed that my post was not concise, perhaps you could suggest how I might have made my point so as to have passed your exacting standards?
Having done first aid cover for Martial Arts (and know people who cover rugby) I think it is fairly obvious that both are more dangerous than cycling.
We take a huge box of chemical ice packs for head injuries, and this is supposed to be non-contact Martial Arts, I hate to think what it would be like if they were trying to hit each other hard.
Martial Arts events are popular as you are bound to get to treat something. Cycling events you get a few blisters, if you are really lucky you may get a graze or dehydration.0 -
blott9b wrote:Having done first aid cover for Martial Arts (and know people who cover rugby) I think it is fairly obvious that both are more dangerous than cycling.
We take a huge box of chemical ice packs for head injuries, and this is supposed to be non-contact Martial Arts, I hate to think what it would be like if they were trying to hit each other hard.
Martial Arts events are popular as you are bound to get to treat something. Cycling events you get a few blisters, if you are really lucky you may get a graze or dehydration.
a reasoned contribution to the point i was making earlier.
i did full contact kick-boxing for 5 years and that was a walk in the park compared to first team rugby union.
whereas after 18 months of urban and off road biking i have suffered nothing more than scuffed shins and grazed hands.
your experiences seem to back that up.0 -
biff55 wrote:blott9b wrote:Having done first aid cover for Martial Arts (and know people who cover rugby) I think it is fairly obvious that both are more dangerous than cycling.
We take a huge box of chemical ice packs for head injuries, and this is supposed to be non-contact Martial Arts, I hate to think what it would be like if they were trying to hit each other hard.
Martial Arts events are popular as you are bound to get to treat something. Cycling events you get a few blisters, if you are really lucky you may get a graze or dehydration.
a reasoned contribution to the point i was making earlier.
i did full contact kick-boxing for 5 years and that was a walk in the park compared to first team rugby union.
whereas after 18 months of urban and off road biking i have suffered nothing more than scuffed shins and grazed hands.
your experiences seem to back that up.
If you really want fun things like broken bones, then motor cycle cross is supposed to be the best event to do cover for0 -
I would have thought free fall parachuting without the parachute (extreme extreme sport) would have been a good candidate for that title?If you really want fun things like broken bones, then motor cycle cross is supposed to be the best event to do cover forSteve C0 -
sc999cs wrote:
I would have thought free fall parachuting without the parachute (extreme extreme sport) would have been a good candidate for that title?If you really want fun things like broken bones, then motor cycle cross is supposed to be the best event to do cover for
I'm thinking a priest rather than a first aider might be a better bet to cover that one0 -
blott9b wrote:sc999cs wrote:
I would have thought free fall parachuting without the parachute (extreme extreme sport) would have been a good candidate for that title?If you really want fun things like broken bones, then motor cycle cross is supposed to be the best event to do cover for
I'm thinking a mop rather than a first aider might be a better bet to cover that one
Fixed that for you.
0
