'Organ donors' without helmets

tomasrojo · 14-03-2011 01:18PM

doozerie wrote: »

As it is I just got a very small bruise where the inner part of the helmet hit my head - other than surface scratches though, the helmet itself appears to the eye as being undamaged which leaves me wondering exactly how hard a knock is required for the polystyrene to visibly compress to any extent whatsoever i.e. it raises that question to me of exactly how safe/useful this particular polystyrene shell is (in general, not just since this knock) - in a serious collision will it compress before my head does, or vice versa, I wonder.

It's a very good question. The standards to which helmets are being built are a bit questionable. As is how many helmets would pass the already rather lax standards. I think Which? did a test and the helmets chosen performed poorly.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html

The indications from experimental work are that current helmet liners are too stiff and a linear foam density of about 30 kg/m³ should be used rather than 50 kg/m³

However, until more comprehensive (and expensive) tests become mandatory, most helmets on sale will be designed to meet the current standards, and so provide no more protection than the liners inspected by Don Morgan that showed little or no evidence of damage despite bone fragments, fluid and teeth embedded into the foam.

EDIT: Found a summary of the Which? magazine results:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0305_CTChelmetpromo8brf.doc

In one test, 14 out of 24 helmets manufactured to internationally recognised standards failed the criteria for shock absorbtion and two others failed on retention and strap strength.

kumate_champ07 · 14-03-2011 01:20PM

doozerie wrote: »

other than surface scratches though, the helmet itself appears to the eye as being undamaged

you'll need to replace that helmet as it probably wont perform properly in another collision

doozerie · 14-03-2011 01:32PM

kumate_cham07 wrote:

you'll need to replace that helmet as it probably wont perform properly in another collision

That's certainly the recommendation of helmet manufacturers but the issue is that, other than where there is visible damage to the polystyrene, it is impossible to determine if the integrity of a helmet really has been compromised by a knock. As per tomasrojo's post above, there are some serious questions around whether current helmets are actually too robust, and if so then a helmet might well be "fine" following such a knock and just as safe (or, arguably, just as unsafe) in a subsequent collision. It's yet another aspect of bicycle helmets that seems to never be considered by the extreme pro-helmet factions.

CramCycle · 14-03-2011 01:50PM

Times The into writing people helmet pro the on SHENANIGANS calling I'm

damage real no done have to seem and helmet a without Saturday on head my hit I

ednwireland · 14-03-2011 01:59PM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you'll need to replace that helmet as it probably wont perform properly in another collision

giro recommend replacing helmets every 3 years (wonder wher the leaves my 11 and 15 year old ones)

BostonB · 14-03-2011 02:17PM

doozerie wrote: »

.. ... leaves me wondering exactly how hard a knock is required for the polystyrene to visibly compress to any extent whatsoever...

For me .... all it took was sliding over the bonnet of a taxi, and landing square on, head first on road on the other side. Relatively slow speed, but I had a rucksack and I'm heavy.

Scuffed the shell badly. Didn't notice till the next day that the lining was all split inside. I think the shell was cracked too.

tomasrojo · 14-03-2011 08:46PM

Leaving aside the merits or demerits of helmet laws for a minute, I noticed tonight, as I have before, that there really are a lot more helmet-wearing cyclists than there used to be in Dublin, at least on main routes at rush hour. Is this perhaps because there are more cyclists than there used to be and they got helmets on the bike-to-work scheme? The helmets look predominantly new.

Cookie_Monster · 14-03-2011 10:06PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is this perhaps because there are more cyclists than there used to be and they got helmets on the bike-to-work scheme? The helmets look predominantly new.

without any link or evidence or justification I'm going to yes, it is.

I wonder do some companies make buying the safety gear a condition of purchase perhaps?

BostonB · 15-03-2011 12:41AM

Maybe they all broke their old ones like me....

tomasrojo · 15-03-2011 08:45AM

And yet more:

Madam, – In the debate about the wearing of helmets by cyclists, several facts seem to be consistently overlooked. First, the Irish Government charges 21 per cent VAT on bicycle helmets and all safety equipment. This can discourage the wearing of a helmet. It could also be argued that this encourages the purchase of inferior helmets or cross-Border shopping as no VAT is charged on safety equipment in the UK.

Second, a cheap helmet will not provide protection in a crash if it is the wrong size or incorrectly fitted. Cyclists with helmets perched on the back of their heads or falling over their eyes are common sights on our streets.

Finally, the argument for making the wearing of helmets compulsory should logically be extended to motorists. A visit to the National Rehabilitation Centre or Beaumont Hospital would confirm that the number of serious head injuries to motorists far outweigh those to cyclists. – Yours, etc,

ANDREW PEREGRINE,
The Cloisters,
Terenure,
Dublin 6W.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0315/1224292159705.html

(If I were a fictional character, I couldn't ask for a better surname than Peregrine.)

tomasrojo · 18-03-2011 12:14AM

And more:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0317/1224292405600.html

Madam, – I must take issue with some of the opinions expressed by Emmet Mordaunt (March 9th) on the issue of picturing cyclists without helmets in the newspaper.

It is not correct to say that cycling is “not dangerous” as there are times when cycling does involve risk and cyclists do sometimes suffer serious injuries and even death as a result of becoming involved in accidents. While Mr Mordaunt may be a very skilful cyclist and capable of safely cycling without the use of a helmet, many others, including myself, may not be so skilled.

I recently had cause to be grateful that I was wearing a cycling helmet, when I struck a bad pothole and fell from my bike while cycling on a main road. I had a heavy fall from the bike, suffering injury to my shoulder and hip, and in the process struck my helmeted head hard on the tarmacadam surface. I dread to think what my injuries might have been had I not been wearing the helmet.

As a retired garda, I have also had some experience during my career in the Garda Síochána of being involved in the investigation of accidents where, on a number of occasions, serious and sometimes fatal head injuries were sustained by cyclists who had not been wearing helmets. In my opinion some of those serious injuries and loss of life could have been prevented by the wearing of cycling helmets. I would advise that the wearing of cycling helmets as a safe cycling measure should be promoted as strongly as possible. – Yours, etc,

MICHEÁL Ó’hAODÁIN,
Gleann Alainn,
Ballygarvan,
Co Cork.

kumate_champ07 · 18-03-2011 12:22AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

And more:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0317/1224292405600.html

its silly how that garda cant see the same logic for car helmets as Im sure he has come across more serious car accidents than bike accidents during his career were drivers and passengers could have been saved by weaing a helmet

tomasrojo · 18-03-2011 12:35AM

Also, his definition of "dangerous" is "can result in injury or death". By that logic, there is no activity that is not dangerous. Even gardening carries some risk of injury or death.

CramCycle · 18-03-2011 02:39AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, his definition of "dangerous" is "can result in injury or death". By that logic, there is no activity that is not dangerous. Even gardening carries some risk of injury or death.

How right you are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/5011927/Spring-gardening-is-a-dangerous-sport-claim-doctors.html

My favourite risks being gardeners' back, weeder's wrist and pruner's neck.

Harrybelafonte · 18-03-2011 10:40AM

This thread has inspired me to stop wearing my helmet on my commute.

tomasrojo · 21-03-2011 08:27AM

Picturing cyclists without helmets
Madam, – Maureen Fallon (March 4th), on reading the excellent piece “The wheel deal for safe cycling” (Joanna Roberts, HEALTHPlus, March 1st), expresses concern that head injuries present a risk to cyclists. Responsible cyclists acknowledge this risk, but helmet-wearing by cyclists is a complex and controversial subject: even professionals disagree on what constitutes best practice.

First, making cycling attractive as a normal means of everyday transport will reap very significant obesity and cardio-vascular benefits for our citizens. Unfortunately, as shown in numerous international studies, over-emphasising helmet use acts as a barrier to cycling uptake since it sends out the erroneous message that cycling is a dangerous activity. A topical illustration is that the Dublin Bikes rental scheme has been an overwhelming success (and almost 1.7 million trips have yielded no significant collisions) while a similar scheme in Melbourne, where helmets are mandatory, was a complete flop due to lack of take-up. If we wish to improve cyclist safety, we need to increase cycling numbers so as to experience the “safety in numbers effect” and promote the professional training described in Ms Roberts’s article.

Second, it’s a myth that cycling is unusually dangerous. For example, the risk of head injury to pedestrians and car occupants in a collision is similar or even higher than that to cyclists. So far this year there have been 25 car occupant fatalities and no cyclist deaths; 11 pedestrians have lost their lives (Garda website). Does this tell us that drivers and pedestrians should wear helmets?

Finally, it’s important to note that helmets – deriving from bike racing designs – are not intended to protect a cyclist from collisions with heavy goods vehicles, cars or buses, but from falls. Let’s put our energy into improving driver and cyclist training and we will all benefit. – Yours, etc,

WILL ANDREWS,
Chairman of Dublin Cycling Campaign,
Pearse Street, Dublin 2.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0321/1224292708291.html

Cabaal · 21-03-2011 08:35AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, his definition of "dangerous" is "can result in injury or death". By that logic, there is no activity that is not dangerous. Even gardening carries some risk of injury or death.

More people die each you from stairs related injurys and falls then in fires yet as a country we spend a small fortune on fire systems, drills etc,

If we look at the 2008 UK figures they compare as: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/02/causes-of-death-mortality-rates
Fall on and from stairs and steps 642
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames total 282

Of course we can see that stairs and steps are far more dangerous then cycling:
Transpt: Cyclist in transport accident 118

The real danger is stairs and we all know it! They all need to be wiped from the face of the earth and if this cannot happen we need to roll out a compaign of using special safety gear and harnesses when using or operating stairs. Somebody think of the children!
:pac:

Cabaal · 21-03-2011 08:37AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0321/1224292708291.html

One of the most senisable letters to date tbh

ClareVisitor · 21-03-2011 12:16PM

Obviously cycling doesn't appear to be as dangerous as some people are making out (although I think many more people may go up and/or down a flight of stairs every year than go cycling), the real research needs to be into why people who are killed in cycling accidents die. If a higher number/percentage die from head injuries after accidents who aren't wearing helmets against those who are wearing them then it would prove that the helmet has some value and a case could be made for compulsion.

Personally I wear a helmet, but I am very conscious of how vulnerable I am on a bike on my daily commute even so. I am lucky in that much of my daily cycle is on cycle-paths (when I get off the train, Colchester is a "cycling town" and was given moeny to build and upgrade cycling infrastructure as such), more of these is the obvious solution to bringing down cycling accidents and deaths.

TinyExplosions · 21-03-2011 12:23PM

ClareVisitor wrote: »

the real research needs to be into why people who are killed in cycling accidents die. If a higher number/percentage die from head injuries after accidents who aren't wearing helmets against those who are wearing them then it would prove that the helmet has some value and a case could be made for compulsion.

Unfortunately it's next to impossible to conduct that research in a meaningful manner, as all sorts of things come into play in the case of an accident, and the medical profession, in my experience are very quick to say "a helmet would have saved this chaps life" without performing the complex (and expensive) post mortem/modelling situations that would prove beyond doubt the effectiveness of a helmet, and this just won't happen.

Simplifying it in the manner you describe wouldn't tell anything as you're making the assumption that any head injury sustained when not wearing a helmet would have been lessened in lethality if a helmet was worn, which is very shaky ground to start with!

tomasrojo · 21-03-2011 12:24PM

ClareVisitor wrote: »

If a higher number/percentage die from head injuries after accidents who aren't wearing helmets against those who are wearing them then it would prove that the helmet has some value and a case could be made for compulsion.

The first thing that occurred to me off the top of my head was this:

Some studies have noted how bareheaded riders not only suffer more head injuries, but also more serious non-head injuries in crashes with motor vehicles, suggesting that riding style and other factors may be more important determinants of head injury than whether or not a helmet is worn [6]. On the other hand, helmeted cyclists have sometimes been found to have more serious non-head injuries, such as injuries to the neck, the trunk, extremities and pelvic girdle [1] [7] [8]. It has been suggested that helmeted cyclists hit their heads more frequently than those without helmets [46].

Significantly, only studies by one team of researchers have concluded that all types of cycle helmet offer protection to all cyclists under virtually all circumstances, with and without motor vehicle involvement [9] [10]. It is this research that is most frequently cited in favour of cycle helmet effectiveness and helmet laws.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

CramCycle · 21-03-2011 12:26PM

ClareVisitor wrote: »

it would prove that the helmet has some value and a case could be made for compulsion.

I think the point against compulsion is not an argument that they have no benefit, it is that the negative side effects to the level of cycling in Ireland would far outweigh the incredibly low level of injuries and deaths.

I realise this is going to invite the argument that if it saves one life it is worth it but if alot of people give up or avoid cycling because of a law that makes helmets compulsory, many more people will at the very least shorten their lifespans or increase the burden on the healthcare system due to a reduction in the overall fitness of the group who would have taken up cycling otherwise, again affecting the life expectancy and quality of life of alot of people.

BostonB · 21-03-2011 12:26PM

You mean this...
http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/

here were approximately 427 collisions involving cyclists reported to the Garda in Dublin city over the period (2002 to 2006), 11 of which involved fatalities.
11 Fatalities
8 of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning Lorries.
1 involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes
1 a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist
1 was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.
Cars involved in 70% of cyclist accidents
Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars.
Left-turning vehicles were involved the majority of fatalities,
The most common collision involved right-turning cars. These accounted for just fewer than 20 per cent of incidents.
The next most common type is classified as “side swipes”, accounting for 15 per cent of collisions. These occur where a vehicle overtaking a cyclist or changing lanes hits the bicycle.
Door opening accidents accounted for about 14 per cent of incidents
Left-turning vehicles hitting cyclists accounted for just over 12 per cent.

Cookie_Monster · 21-03-2011 12:40PM

Rather than making helmets compulsory, if the gov were in any way serious about promoting cycle safety then they would remove the VAT from safety equipment, be it helmet, lights etc.

That would have much more impact IMO, if the stuff is cheaper people will be willing to spend on it. The same can be said about VAT/VRT on safety extras in cars

tomasrojo · 21-03-2011 12:41PM

Almost 70 per cent off all cycle collisions involved cars.

It strkes me that it's unlikely that this is true of cyclist collisions in general. Collisions with pedestrians are common, but go unreported because both parties usually have minor injuries, if any.

petethedrummer · 21-03-2011 12:48PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I realise this is going to invite the argument that if it saves one life it is worth it

A woman got hit by a falling tree this year. I suggest we cut down all trees.

TinyExplosions wrote: »

and the medical profession, in my experience are very quick to say "a helmet would have saved this chaps life"

I fell off my bike which required stitches to my chin.
Doctor: Were you wearing a helmet?
Me: No.
Doctor: It might have prevented it.
Me: Helmets don't have chin protectors.
Doctor: Hmmph.

TinyExplosions · 21-03-2011 12:50PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I fell off my bike which required stitches to my chin.
Doctor: Were you wearing a helmet?
Me: No.
Doctor: It might have prevented it.
Me: Helmets don't have chin protectors.
Doctor: Hmmph.

Came off my bike and got a concussion
Doctor: Were you wearing a helmet
Me: No
Doctor: It might have prevented it
Me: Look at my concussed mate outside, she had one on...

Harrybelafonte · 21-03-2011 12:51PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I fell off my bike which required stitches to my chin.
Doctor: Were you wearing a helmet?
Me: No.
Doctor: It might have prevented it.
Me: Helmets don't have chin protectors.
Doctor: Hmmph.

This is exactly what's worrying me. It seems like some doctors blindly push the "you only got these inhuries becasue you weren't wearing a helmet" mantra

TinyExplosions · 21-03-2011 12:57PM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

This is exactly what's worrying me. It seems like some doctors blindly push the "you only got these inhuries becasue you weren't wearing a helmet" mantra

And it's why, at this moment in time, and 'studies' would be worthless

tomasrojo · 21-03-2011 01:03PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

A woman got hit by a falling tree this year. I suggest we cut down all trees.

I fell off my bike which required stitches to my chin.
Doctor: Were you wearing a helmet?
Me: No.
Doctor: It might have prevented it.
Me: Helmets don't have chin protectors.
Doctor: Hmmph.

My friend cycled across a lane of stationary traffic to the footpath, but the taxi she was passing in front of decided at that minute to take his foot off the brake and close the gap without looking. She was knocked off her bike at slow speed but awkwardly and an ambulance was called.

The ambulance staff told her it was a damned good thing she'd been wearing a helmet. She asked me days later to check her helmet to see whether it needed replacing. Not a scratch on it, no sign of compression. She'd landed on her hands, and needed physio for her wrists.

I guess, judging from these other stories, medical staff are conditioned to tut-tut about bicycle helmets.

I remember a doctor from Saint James' in Dublin lamenting the number of cyclists who presented themselves in the hospital, having come off on the Luas tracks outside the hospital. His concern was not to change the junction, or put up a sign warning cyclists, but to appeal to cyclists to wear helmets.

'Organ donors' without helmets

Comments