Helmets - increase injuries

tomasrojo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Are you reading bad science too?

Ben Goldacre's column in The Guardian? I find that a great read.

ROK ON

tomasrojo wrote: »

Ben Goldacre's column in The Guardian? I find that a great read.

Is it true that he is being sued for defamation(sorry, off topic I know).

tomasrojo

ROK ON wrote: »

Is it true that he is being sued for defamation(sorry, off topic I know).

I think it's Simon Singh who is being sued, for taking chiropractors to task.

tomasrojo

ednwireland wrote: »

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html

dont who these guys are though

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html

blorg

ednwireland wrote: »

dont who these guys are though

I think they have a bit of an agenda. It is accepted that there are circumstances in which wearing a helmet can make injuries worse. Similarly you can be hurt by a seatbelt. The question to be answered however is whether this is more likely than the helmet lessening an injury. I believe (without any hard data as I believe there are no conclusive studies) that on balance wearing a helmet is likely to reduce injury. This does not translate to me wearing one 100% of the time.

tomasrojo

They're definitely more on the sceptical side. However, they're far from being cranks. For example, John Franklin is in there, and, as many of you know, he wrote Cyclecraft, which is the textbook for the UK Bikeability programme, and he is also an expert witness in cycling-related road safety.

monument

News just in: "At long last logic prevails. A new campaign has hit the streets of Denmark, thanks to the visionaries at The Danish Road Safety Council [Rådet for Større Færdselssikkerhed] and Trygfonden [an insurance company]."

Gavin wrote: »

Anyone else notice that when helmetless, one gets strange looks from helmeted cyclists?

Yeah, and I get them even more when cycling with my camera handing from around by neck, it's really funny.

Húrin

I've only ever had two bad spills and they were both on steep downhills - which is when helmets really are a good idea - involving no other vehicles. I didn't hit my head but I still usually wear a helmet on hilly courses.

Traumadoc

One of my patients was pulling a wheelie on a BMX bike and fell backwards the back of his helmet hit the ground and protected the back of his head. Unfortunatly the helmet also acted as a fulcrum and the excessive lever action caused him to fracture his neck through excessive forward flexion.

BostonB

Traumadoc wrote: »

One of my patients was pulling a wheelie on a BMX bike and fell backwards the back of his helmet hit the ground and protected the back of his head. Unfortunatly the helmet also acted as a fulcrum and the excessive lever action caused him to fracture his neck through excessive forward flexion.

What was the outcome? I think with a helmet you are playing the odds. Which means sometimes it doesn't work out. thats life I guess. My experience was going over handlebars sliding/falling over a bonnet then landing almost square on my head but at relatively slow speed. I think the helmet saved me from a much bigger blow. It split. But I did get slight whiplash from it, which still bothers me a bit. Though its fading over time. The whiplash didn't start up till 2 weeks later.

Having backpack saved my back though as I landed on that. Any stats for that? I don't bring one now and miss it.

rubadub

BostonB wrote: »

I think with a helmet you are playing the odds. Which means sometimes it doesn't work out.

And the problem is some people think it gives them better "odds".

i.e. I doubt the lad on the BMX would have done such a dangerous wheelie if he had no helmet on. For SOME people it can give a false sense of security.

Traumadoc

BostonB wrote: »

What was the outcome?

Complete paralysis.

DirkVoodoo

That's a pretty horrific story traumadoc. However, there are of course unavoidable or freak accidents that can't be used as an argument. I remember hearing a story years ago, maybe when I was in school, of a guy who tripped in rugby/football training and hit the back of his head off a football that caused his neck to flex in a similar manner. He was paralyzed too as a result. Of course, this hardly means that football (or rugby) is anymore dangerous because of this and people should stop playing.

BostonB

rubadub wrote: »

And the problem is some people think it gives them better "odds".

Maybe it does. Doesn't seem definitive enough either way to say for sure.

rubadub wrote: »

i.e. I doubt the lad on the BMX would have done such a dangerous wheelie if he had no helmet on. For SOME people it can give a false sense of security.

I don't really agree with the idea that people with more safety gear do more dangerous stuff. That not what I see everyday. Usually its the exact opposite, in my experience.

Moreofthatjazz

Our poor state, what has it ever done for us? do you not feel that instead of us being nannied it really is the other way round... dose the state not have a right to be protected from the irresponsibilities of its citizens... Our poor overworked healthcare system, dealing with wayward miscreants crashing willy nilly into things and smoking, possibly both at the same time... helmets are not for your protection, friends, they are there to salve the conscience and budget deficit, in lieu of having a correctly inplemented cycle network... Therefor i propse a reduction on the ammount of trees in our environment... Having first hand or rather elbow molestation by our vicious arborial vagabonds obviously the only conclusion that can be drawn is that trees are the real and present danger... Lying in wait to attack and feigning nonchalance when confronted by hurtling innocent citizens, such as myself for instance... Only to leaf me at the mercy of our ailing healthcare system till 4 a-goddamn-m this morning... Oh no my freinds, it is not helmets but surely trees that need our attention...
Beware, that is all...

Chips Lovell

Trees! I knew it was them! Even when it was the helmets, I knew it was them.

Jawgap

Moreofthatjazz wrote: »

Our poor state, what has it ever done for us? do you not feel that instead of us being nannied it really is the other way round... dose the state not have a right to be protected from the irresponsibilities of its citizens... Our poor overworked healthcare system, dealing with wayward miscreants crashing willy nilly into things and smoking, possibly both at the same time... helmets are not for your protection, friends, they are there to salve the conscience and budget deficit, in lieu of having a correctly inplemented cycle network... Therefor i propse a reduction on the ammount of trees in our environment... Having first hand or rather elbow molestation by our vicious arborial vagabonds obviously the only conclusion that can be drawn is that trees are the real and present danger... Lying in wait to attack and feigning nonchalance when confronted by hurtling innocent citizens, such as myself for instance... Only to leaf me at the mercy of our ailing healthcare system till 4 a-goddamn-m this morning... Oh no my freinds, it is not helmets but surely trees that need our attention...
Beware, that is all...

So to get the full benefit of my taxes, levvies, PRSI etc I should stop wearing my helmet and try and come off the bike in a way that requires serious medical attention to be lavished on me? Interesting.

I wonder how long my stay in intensive care would have to be for me to get value for money for my taxes.......However as much and all as I resent paying taxes to bail out the banks, I may just keep my lid on for a while longer.

I'd be against the wholesale removal of trees - they look nice. May be they can be replaced with rubber ones that you can bounce off.

petethedrummer

Moreofthatjazz wrote: »

Our poor state, what has it ever done for us? do you not feel that instead of us being nannied............................Beware, that is all...

Isn't this from some book or short story? It sounds remarkably similar to something my english teacher was going on about in school.

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

Trees! I knew it was them! Even when it was the helmets, I knew it was them.

I have had more than one of those bastards jump out at me at an innoportune moment sending me flying from the bike... generally happens on the MTB although I have come across similar behaviour from murderous lamposts on the road.

DirkVoodoo

Don't forget election posters, they are always around head height and can take you out if you are not careful. Hopefully that was the only time I was flattened by Mary Harney.

mcgratheoin

Came around a bend too fast and ended up in the wall. Helmet in bits afterwards, head sore but nothing damaged.

Definitely wouldn't agree with making helmets compulsory - education/ road surface and many other factors more important...

GreeBo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Came around a bend too fast and ended up in the wall. Helmet in bits afterwards, head sore but nothing damaged.

Definitely wouldn't agree with making helmets compulsory - education/ road surface and many other factors more important...

Isnt that a bit like saying Im not going to carry condoms as girls should be educated about taking the pill?

I.e. wearing a helmet is something that you can do. You cant do squat about the other numpties on the road.

Also, in relation to a previous point, the measurement of "dangerousness" is risk by exposure. An airplane has low risk and low exposure and thus is "safer" than other modes of transport. Cycling is relatively low risk, but has high exposure. Even if the average person falls once in every 500 journeys, thats over twice a year for a commuter.

dub_skav

GreeBo wrote: »

Isnt that a bit like saying Im not going to carry condoms as girls should be educated about taking the pill?

.

Do you have access to any research that claims that using condoms can increase risk of pregnancy more than not wearing 1 would have - even if only in rare circumstances?

Actually, do helmets also reduce the rather more important risk of being shot?

Helmets do not = condoms people, a thin rubber on your head will not protect you from cranial impact, though it would reduce the risk of rotational injuries hmmmm

GreeBo

dub_skav wrote: »

Do you have access to any research that claims that using condoms can increase risk of pregnancy more than not wearing 1 would have - even if only in rare circumstances?

erm what?

dub_skav wrote: »

Actually, do helmets also reduce the rather more important risk of being shot?

Helmets do not = condoms people, a thin rubber on your head will not protect you from cranial impact, though it would reduce the risk of rotational injuries hmmmm

I refer you to my previous question.

petethedrummer

GreeBo wrote: »

Isnt that a bit like saying Im not going to carry condoms as girls should be educated about taking the pill?

I.e. wearing a helmet is something that you can do. You cant do squat about the other numpties on the road.

You cannot equate the two. Noone refutes that condoms assist in preventing pregnancy or preventing AIDS except perhaps the catholic church.

Helmets can protect you from some (probably most) types of impact but can in certain cases cause excessive brain rotation or, in the example outlined in this thread, cause injury to the neck and paralysis.

There is also the indirect effect of your behaviour while wearing a helmet and also how other road users interact with you. Which may make you more likely to be in an accident.

Have you not been reading the thread?

I have a link saved at home with medical doctors debating whether they are of benefit or not. And each side puts up some very valid points. You wouldn't get that kind of debate about condom effectivity. I'll post it later.

BostonB

But look at the results of the poll. If helmets make you ride more dangerously, does that mean most people (in this survey) ride dangerously?

furiousox

Lads

Just back online after coming a cropper in Drogheda yesterday evening.
Roadworks/temp lights etc on Dublin Rd, impatient line of traffic behind me so l moved closer to the kerb to let them pass.

Clipped kerb and landed hard on left shoulder, left knee and front left side of helmet.

Taken to A&E in an ambo and the result is a bloody knee, 4" cut over left eye (from helmet absorbing impact) and shoulder bones that are crushed "like an eggshell" so in l'm in a sling for 6 weeks.
l'd say the time between me leaving the saddle and my head whacking the ground was about a second, if l'd no helmet on, my skull might have been the eggshell.
So, for me, wearing a helmet (if you'll excuse the pun) is a no brainer.
And next time...l ain't moving over, they can f'ing wait!!

petethedrummer

BostonB wrote: »

But look at the results of the poll. If helmets make you ride more dangerously, does that mean most people (in this survey) ride dangerously?

How could anyone draw parallels between a person's vote in this poll and whether or not they ride dangerously? They may according to some opinion marginally increase their speed and risk taking, consciously or otherwise, due to risk compensation.

I can't find the BMJ article I referred to in my previous post, but here is some articles and links to arguments on both sides:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/21231/Helmet-battle-flares-up-in-BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a/DC1
http://www.bikeforall.net/linkcat.php?cid=183

It should be compulsory to read up on the subject and make a decision with an informed view based on the type of cycling you're about to engage in, and not compulsory to wear a helmet at all times. Anyways, I'm done. I'm off to get murdered by Darwin.

monument

petethedrummer wrote: »

How could anyone draw parallels between a person's vote in this poll and whether or not they ride dangerously?

I agree, you can't really.

But I would add that the amount of injures reported by many posters here on this board in general seems to be abnormally high compared to the average commuter cyclist. While all cyclists share the this section, given it's in the sports section of this site, and, largely sports focused, it's not surprising that there are more injures reported.

BostonB

monument wrote: »

I agree, you can't really....

I was being facetious at the idea that the big issue is, if you wear safety gear your more likely to take risks. Thats not what you see in every day life. IMO Risk compensation is being greatly overstated. Stand on any junction and see who is taking risks. Ok helmets have disadvantages aswell theres no denying that.