'Organ donors' without helmets

helmet saved me when i came down going downhill pretty fast, hit potholed part of road trying not go wide on downhill and down went flew over top onto my head and onto my elbow, my head was grand and helmet did its job, but my elbow wasnt so good and surgery the next day.

This has nothing directly to do with cycling but an Irish Times article entitled "Questions over helmet design raised by sport injuries study" does perhaps raise questions about the simplistic thinking that tends to surround debates around supposed safety equipment generally. Many people would likely assume that wearing a helmet during sport would make you safer but as the article discusses, this is not always the case (the study specifically raises questions about the design of hurling helmets). Certainly when it comes to discussion of mandatory helmet usage for cyclists, some of the loudest voices in favour of such a proposal typically are dismissive of any suggestion that helmets are not some kind of magic wand, but as the snippet below states for hurling helmets, that is a very simplistic assumption:

The study was conducted some months before helmets became mandatory for those playing hurling.

Of the 93 people who suffered facial injuries while involved in sports, just over one in five was wearing a helmet. Seven out of 10 of those playing hurling did not have facial protection.

Worryingly, 63 per cent of those with facial injuries who were wearing a helmet sustained a “severe” injury, while only 48 per cent of those not wearing protective headgear sustained an injury of this nature.

Those without helmets sustained more contusions and simple lacerations than those with the protective headgear. However, 19 per cent of those with helmets sustained complex facial lacerations compared with 16 per cent of those without facial protection.

Players with helmets on were more likely to receive subluxation (partial fractures) and to lose teeth than those without. Those without helmets were more likely to fracture a tooth crown.

“To me, the study suggests that there is a need to look at the design of helmets,” stressed Ms Byrne, who presented the findings at Sligo General Hospital’s annual research conference on Friday.

The study found that almost one-third or 29 of those who sustained sports-related facial injuries suffered facial fractures. Ten of these occurred in people wearing helmets.

I wonder if the original letter writer's "friend in the ambulance service" was the same one whose ambulance carved me up on the Howth Road yesterday evening? On the hunt for organs, perhaps.

Yawn:

Irish Times wrote:

A chara, – Emmet Mordaunt (former cycle courier) claims that, “contrary to popular belief, cycling is not dangerous” (March 9th) and on this basis, there is no need to wear a helmet when cycling. Contrary to his belief, 54 cyclists were killed in Ireland between 2005 and 2009; in the region of 3,000 were injured – many of these injuries were significant.

Death rates while cycling are falling. This is probably due to increased safety awareness (including an increase in helmet wearing). I am a helmet-wearing cyclist, and consultant in emergency medicine at Mr Mordaunt’s local trauma centre. – Is mise,

Dr BRENDAN McCANN

MICGP MRCP FCEM,

Waterford Regional Hospital,

Waterford.

Idleater wrote: »

Total yawn.

Reminds me a lot of the Simpsons episode about the bear patrol

I hereby proclaim that Bicycle Helmets protect me from bear attacks. I shall now sleep soundly.

I think he's going be this diagram, but conveniently ignoring the pedestrian figures - I wonder how many of them were wearing helmets?



I prefer this graph:

For all that I agree with the sentiments expressed by Emmet Mordaunt in his letter (i.e. I don't think that helmets are necessary to keep you safe), I think his response to the original ridiculous letter feeds the argument rather than dispels it. It seems like there are three schools of thought: a) helmets are essential to your safety; b) helmets are detrimental to your health; c) helmets can be a help but not not always. The first two schools of thought are often accompanied by horrified expressions and frothing at the mouth of their most ardent supporters. Those two groups will never see eye-to-eye and unfortunately their arguing tends to drown out voices from that third, and rational, school of thought. I don't necessarily think Mordaunt's letter actually falls into the second group, but people in the first group will interpret it as doing so I'd imagine.

In reality I'd imagine that most people who actually cycle regularly fall into that third school of thought, me included. I cycled for years, including off-road, without a helmet and never incurred a serious injury despite quite a few falls (well okay, I landed on my face and employed my eyebrow as a rudimentary brake on the tarmac when cycling home from school as a kid, but a helmet would possibly have led to a worse outcome in that particular instance as it may have tilted/driven my lower face into the tarmac). I've seen people land on their heads and crack their helmet (= helmet win), I've seen people wearing helmets land on their face, literally kissing the ground, where the standard helmets give no protection (= helmet fail). I've also cycled for my most recent 15 years or so with a helmet, and not had a fall where my helmet actually came into play at all. Those are just my experiences and actually prove/disprove nothing but certainly convince me that the scaremongering attitude that helmets are essential to safety are nonsense.

I'd actually find it hard to explain why I continue to wear a helmet each day, incidentally. I think the scaremongering is actually very effective at eating away at your own sense of reason, so at some subconscious level I think I find it hard to shake the learned "reasoning" that a helmet-less head is going to explode in a fall despite my common sense telling me that view is rubbish. If I were to really believe that my head is so fragile, I'd either wear a full-face helmet all of the time (something which the "helmets are ESSENTIAL" hand-wringing lobby consistently fail to suggest - do they really not care enough for our safety that they don't propose this, or are they actually aware of how close they already come to hysteria most of the time without pushing themselves further into the loony category?) or I'd simply not cycle. Part of my reason for wearing a helmet, I think, is that I still have various memories from many years back of falling head first onto ice covered tarmac and that sensation leaves a lasting memory - 'tis obviously a slightly hysterical memory though, as that has happened to me while walking too but I still don't wear a helmet when I go for a walk.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Correspondence continues.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0314/1224292061987.html

The figure of 977 is incorrect - it's actually about 320, but the point is the same, I suppose.

M

TinyExplosions wrote: »

No no no, you have it all wrong, it was only the presence of a helmet that stopped you dying, 100% guaranteed and now you'll never talk to anyone stupid enough to not wear one from this day out

Is this a trick? I mean, I can't possibly reply to this until you've confirmed whether or not you wear a helmet, and yet I have to reply to pose that question. My head hurts more now than it did after my fall (sorry my near death experience)...