Helmet saved my heeeed!!!

meanredspider

What use is data without studies? "Data rich and insight poor" as the expression goes. Unless the data can be analysed to put it into context, it's useless. And, yes, it's expensive - I work in R&D for one of the world's largest medical product companies - I know exactly how expensive it is. And, to date, I've not seen a single helmet study that stands up to any scrutiny.

And I don't understand why people want to jump on people's anecdotes. The OP isn't trying to claim that everyone should wear a helmet just that, in his particular accident, the helmet absorbed some of the destructive energy. I think he's probably right. I'm not sure why it should bring down contempt on him.

I'm not offended just fed up with claims that the data says this or that. Currently the data says nothing.

Cycloslalomeur

Have you carried out an exhaustive review of the evidence?

I'm not trying to hold the original poster in contempt. I've already explained why I "jumped" on the anecdote.

Please define "destructive energy".

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

Have you carried out an exhaustive review of the evidence?

I'm not trying to hold the original poster in contempt. I've already explained why I "jumped" on the anecdote.

Please define "destructive energy".

If you want to play that game, please define "exhaustive review" . I've read an awful lot around the subject and read nearly everything that's been posted on helmet threads on here in the last year and links from there. There's holes in pretty much all of it - on both sides of the argument too. As part of my job is to review and understand studies of exactly this type, I think I'm fairly well qualified to comment.

I didn't see any flaunting of this as evidence. More constructive would have been to examine why the road surface was left in a dangerous state (for all forms of vehicle) as that's in all of our interests.

By "destructive energy" I mean energy likely to have caused his scalp/skull/brain damage. Given the state of his face and the damage to the helmet, it's likely (in the balance of probabilities) that the covered parts of his head would have sustained some form of injury. He obviously believes so and he's the only witness to the incident that we have. Of course, it's possible that, without a helmet, he'd have taken more care (the "risk compensation" argument - though we all accept helmets only protect a limited amount of our body so maybe those wearing helmets don't care about any other parts of their body, whilst cyclists who don't believe helmets work anyway, cycle more carefully). Or, that he only hit his head because of the extra weight/size on his head. I'm not sure about either of these.

Cycloslalomeur

Nobody's contesting the ability of a cycle helmet to stop soft tissue damage, but "my helmet saved my head" suggests a conviction that the helmet prevented more serious injury.

On a lighter note, given your job in big pharma (or is it medical equpment?) and your skillset in studies, why not pop into your boss's office and ask them to dispense a few hundred million quid to fund a proper cohort study?

meanredspider

I think perhaps your paradigm on helmets led you to that conclusion. Mine led me to believe he was just happy he wasn't any more hurt than he was. Either way, I'm happy for him. I wear gloves mostly to protect against soft-tissue damage - no harm in that. For some reason we don't have any great glove debates...

I'd love to. Only countries already baulk at their medical bills and it's often hard enough to prove to the regulators' satisfaction that your own products are good enough without taking on someone else's

Cycloslalomeur

It goes without saying that I'm happy the original poster was not hurt more than he was. But I have nothing but contempt for gloveless cyclists.

cookeeemonster

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

It goes without saying that I'm happy the original poster was not hurt more than he was. But I have nothing but contempt for gloveless cyclists.

gloveless scum...and don't get me on them mitt wearers...MAKE UP YOUR MIND ARE YOU WEARING GLOVES OR NOT?!!?!!?!?

:P

The Rookie

Persoanlly I wear a helmet on the basis that it's much less likely to cause injuries than it is to reduce the impact of others....in other wprds, over all the possible crash sceanrios (or pre-crash if you wish to argue a helmet may cause a crash) on average I'll be better off.

Yes many helmets may die saving injuries that may have been fairly superficial, but even those can hurt a lot!