'Organ donors' without helmets

TinyExplosions · 21-03-2011 01:06PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

His concern was not to change the junction, or put up a sign warning cyclists, but to appeal to cyclists to wear helmets.

That's cos a warning sign might mean less patients for him to treat!

BostonB · 21-03-2011 01:13PM

I have no doubt helmets save some injuries. Having fallen on my head myelf.

But I'm wondering if the danger, and the risk is overstated, compared to the problems of a helmet law that would reduced the numbers cycling. When its clear theres safety in numbers.

Undercover Elephant · 21-03-2011 01:13PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

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

That's if you accept that the safety equipment will actually increase safety. No point more people wearing helmets if helmets don't make you safer.

Blazer · 21-03-2011 01:14PM

interesting article on Moncrieft's show a while back about surveys.
One of them was on cycling.
They found that the safest cyclists were as follows after testing in London city for a year.
a) having long hair and no helmet- car driver assumes it's a female cyclist and automatically allows her more space when overtaking etc.
b) not wearing a helmet/bald-headed - car driver allows less space than above/but more than c) as he/she assumes cyclist is an amateur and not used to being on the roads.
c) the most at risk- cyclists with helmets - car drivers automatically assume cyclist is highly experienced or professional and allows the least room when overtaking etc out of all 3.

BostonB · 21-03-2011 01:23PM

I never was convinced by that report.

CramCycle · 21-03-2011 01:25PM

BostonB wrote: »

I never was convinced by that report.

Personally (not scientifically) I feel I get less space when i wear a helmet, hence I prefer not to in city traffic.

BostonB · 21-03-2011 01:27PM

I've noticed any difference.

Lumen · 21-03-2011 01:35PM

BostonB wrote: »

I've noticed any difference.

You obviously look too pro. Try to wobble more and maybe hang a Centra bag off the handlebars.

ergo · 21-03-2011 01:35PM

ok, apologies I haven't had time to read the entire 9 pages of the thread

my tuppence worth (and I'll read the thread tonight)

myself am a long time commuter cyclist, in Dublin past 15 years, been lucky enough to never have a problem or been knocked off or anything, did come off the bike once in the ice but no harm done

I never wore a helmet...

until I had a placement in the National Rehab Hospital in Dun Laoghaire, working with patients with brain injuries for a short period, including one cyclist who had come over the handlbars and landed on his head - changed his life completely - never able to work in a competitive job or live fully independently as memory affected

since then I have generally always wore a helmet,

In my opinion they probably won't save your life in most of the cycling fatalaties, but in the case of the innocuous enough incident leading to traumatic brain injury and a life changing injury...I don't want to take my chances anymore

ClareVisitor · 21-03-2011 01:36PM

TinyExplosions wrote: »

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!

Well if people who wear helmets were found to be sustaining less head injuries then that would be a place to start.

As I said in my previous post, I wear a helmet and my reasoning is that if the thing even might help me if I was involved in an accident then I'd be foolish not to wear one. Just a personal opinion.

I don't know how we can get around the assumptions about cyclists that their headgear (or lack of) seems to engender in drivers according to [EMAIL="Sc@recrow's"]Sc@recrow's[/EMAIL] post, I would guess that most people on this cycling board are also drivers and having been on both sides of this issue we are more careful around cyclists we see when driving.

Cookie_Monster · 21-03-2011 01:43PM

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That's if you accept that the safety equipment will actually increase safety. No point more people wearing helmets if helmets don't make you safer.

possibly not but lights and reflectors will make you more visible and will make you safer at night, without question.

Mucco · 21-03-2011 01:44PM

ergo wrote: »

until I had a placement in the National Rehab Hospital in Dun Laoghaire, working with patients with brain injuries for a short period, including one cyclist who had come over the handlbars and landed on his head - changed his life completely - never able to work in a competitive job or live fully independently as memory affected

How did all the other patients get their injuries?

CramCycle · 21-03-2011 01:47PM

ClareVisitor wrote: »

Well if people who wear helmets were found to be sustaining less head injuries then that would be a place to start.

I just don't get why it is cyclists who are being singled out. Why are car drivers and passengers not recommended to wear helmets? Why are people using public transport not required to wear one.

If Ergo works out at the NRH he also must have noticed a few car drivers/pedestrians in the same situation.

Just a point but I think it is reasonable.

Gavin · 21-03-2011 01:49PM

ergo wrote: »

I never wore a helmet...

until I had a placement in the National Rehab Hospital in Dun Laoghaire, working with patients with brain injuries for a short period, including one cyclist who had come over the handlbars and landed on his head - changed his life completely - never able to work in a competitive job or live fully independently as memory affected

since then I have generally always wore a helmet,
....
I don't want to take my chances anymore

Freak accidents happen. I'm not going to reduce the quality of my life in an attempt to avoid them.

Kevo · 21-03-2011 01:50PM

Lumen wrote: »

Car occupants and pedestrians are the major organ donors.

That is misleading. There will of course be a larger amount to car occupants and pedestrians on that list because there are more pedestrians and drivers. The question is if there is a difference between the outcome of a serious cycling accident if a helmet is worn or not.

TinyExplosions · 21-03-2011 01:53PM

ClareVisitor wrote: »

Well if people who wear helmets were found to be sustaining less head injuries then that would be a place to start.

As I said in my previous post, I wear a helmet and my reasoning is that if the thing even might help me if I was involved in an accident then I'd be foolish not to wear one. Just a personal opinion..

No it wouldn't, as no two accidents are identical, and so you can't say for certain if a head injury was caused, or would have been lessened with the wearing of a helmet without conducting very detailed experiments. The general assumption amongst the public, and the medical profession is a blanket "if you were wearing a helmet, you wouldn't have sustained an injury" (as illustrated a couple of posts back in the case of a cut chin and a concussion). Unless this is changed, anything short of a full, detailed and very expensive set of experiments will only give you supporting answers to whichever side you happen to align with.

There is no problem at all with wearing a helmet, and the overwhelming opinion on this board (and it's one that I share) is that it's a personal choice, and if you want to wear a helmet then fine.

The only thing people take exception on (and this is in general, not necessarily yourself) is the militant "Helmets DO save live and anyone who doesn't wear one is an idiot" type of line

Lumen · 21-03-2011 01:54PM

Kevo wrote: »

That is misleading. There will of course be a larger amount to car occupants and pedestrians on that list because there are more pedestrians and drivers. The question is if there is a difference between the outcome of a serious cycling accident if a helmet is worn or not.

This thread started with:

"A friend of mine who works in the ambulance services calls cyclists who don’t wear helmets “organ donors”. This might be a bit shocking, but it is based on his experience"

The ambulance driver in question would be likely to see far more "organ donors" from the car occupant and pedestrian populations.

Therefore the table isn't misleading at all.

Iwannahurl · 21-03-2011 01:57PM

Arguments for or against helmets based on individual unrelated cases are unreliable. Since experimental research would be unethical, epidemiological studies at population level, time-series analyses, case control studies and the like constitute a more reliable evidence base for public policy.

My understanding is that the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, and that making cycle helmets compulsory may have the unintended effect of reducing the number of cyclists, thereby reducing or negating the population-level health benefits of cycling promotion.

I am also of the view that there is no logic or consistency in any approach that sees cyclist heads as being different from other heads.

In my opinion, the emphasis on cycle helmets is a deliberate attempt to privatise risk and to place the primary responsibility for road safety on the individual rather than on society and its laws, policies and systems. It's no accident that the corporate sponsors for the likes of Headway tend to be firms of solicitors -- head injuries must be litigation heaven. It's also no accident that helmet use is much lower in countries with strong pro-cyclist policies and infrastructure (and better road safety standards). Perhaps it's much cheaper and easier for certain car-centric governments to put the onus on individual cyclists.

As an example of the kind of anti-cyclist bilge regularly spewed out by the finger-wagging individualists, this contribution takes some beating. Note that it is a comment on the deaths of cyclists due to collisions with left-turning HGVs.

ergo · 21-03-2011 02:01PM

Gavin wrote: »

Freak accidents happen. I'm not going to reduce the quality of my life in an attempt to avoid them.

I don't think wearing a helmet significantly reduces my quality of life...! And I do feel naked without one now...also they're handy for keeing your head warm...

I don't work in the NRH now

of course there were a lot of patients there with brain injuries related to RTA's/Alcohol or both

I can drive safely/drink sensibly/make sure not to combine the two but I don't have control over what driver is coming towards me/crossing the white line etc...that is a gamble you take when you get behind the wheel or cross the road

but I do have control over whether I wear a helmet or not, I choose to wear one..I cycle a lot, if that freak collision occurs I'll have some protection, I do accept it won't save my life tbh

Jeez, health professionals taking a bashing on this thread, a lot of docs are cyclists too ye know...!

petethedrummer · 21-03-2011 02:06PM

ergo wrote: »

I don't think wearing a helmet significantly reduces my quality of life...!

When I used to wear a helmet I saw girl I fancied walking down Capel street. I couldn't stop to talk because I looked like a numpty.

TinyExplosions · 21-03-2011 02:08PM

ergo wrote: »

I don't think wearing a helmet significantly reduces my quality of life...! And I do feel naked without one now...also they're handy for keeing your head warm...

I don't work in the NRH now

of course there were a lot of patients there with brain injuries related to RTA's/Alcohol or both

I can drive safely/drink sensibly/make sure not to combine the two but I don't have control over what driver is coming towards me/crossing the white line etc...that is a gamble you take when you get behind the wheel or cross the road

but I do have control over whether I wear a helmet or not, I choose to wear one..I cycle a lot, if that freak collision occurs I'll have some protection, I do accept it won't save my life tbh

Jeez, health professionals taking a bashing on this thread, a lot of docs are cyclists too ye know...!

I spent a year visiting a friend with serious head injuries in the NRH caused by getting hit by a car when crossing the street.

I never leave the house now without my walking helmet on, and despair that nobody else seems to take their safety seriously -do you not know that helmets save lives pedestrians!?

The only health professionals that are getting bashed on here are the ones that (erroneously or unintentionally) come out with inflammatory statements that helmets remove all risk of head trauma. Most of the docs that cycle wouldn't make such assumptions

CramCycle · 21-03-2011 02:22PM

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The only health professionals that are getting bashed on here are the ones that (erroneously or unintentionally) come out with inflammatory statements that helmets remove all risk of head trauma. Most of the docs that cycle wouldn't make such assumptions

Talking to a doctor in Vincents, he informs me the biggest issue with cyclists when they come in is that they wear locks around their waists or hooped around their shoulders and this leads to a far greater incidence of broken/shattered hips/ribs during collisions.

OPINION FROM DOCTOR: Based on experience, he has never worn a helmet as he claims that the added weight to his head is only going to lead to increased problems with muscles in his neck and shoulders, (leading to an assumed increased risk of stroke due to an increased risk of developing the want to crack his neck to release tension which he was shown increases the risk of stroke, again only opinion I couldn't find the studies he refered to after)

AstraMonti · 21-03-2011 02:27PM

CramCycle wrote: »

OPINION FROM DOCTOR: Based on experience, he has never worn a helmet as he claims that the added weight to his head is only going to lead to increased problems with muscles in his neck and shoulders, (leading to an assumed increased risk of stroke due to an increased risk of developing the want to crack his neck to release tension which he was shown increases the risk of stroke, again only opinion I couldn't find the studies he refered to after)

I am really really suprised that a 200g styrofoam helmet can increase the risk of injury due to weight! I could understand the shape in different scenarios.. but weight?!

Undercover Elephant · 21-03-2011 02:32PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

possibly not but lights and reflectors will make you more visible and will make you safer at night, without question.

That's certainly true. OTOH, are people really deterred from buying lights because a half decent set is €10 rather than €8? Those of us prepared to spend €50 or more probably don't need the VAT saving, even if it would be nice.

I suppose the broader point is that these are the sort of questions legislators should be asking themselves, rather than hoping that the magic bullet du jour will make them look like they are doing something.

BostonB · 21-03-2011 02:34PM

Lumen wrote: »

You obviously look too pro. Try to wobble more and maybe hang a Centra bag off the handlebars.

TBH I think I look so unsteady they stay well clear.

BostonB · 21-03-2011 02:37PM

What I read it was the size of the helmet, it acts a lever on the neck. I didn't read about weight.

seamus · 21-03-2011 02:57PM

I don't know if I could stop wearing a helmet now. I'd have nowhere to put my gloves when I stop.

That's certainly true. OTOH, are people really deterred from buying lights because a half decent set is €10 rather than €8? Those of us prepared to spend €50 or more probably don't need the VAT saving, even if it would be nice.

I imagine laziness is the biggest factor here. If all bikes came with lights pre-installed that were hard to remove (i.e. needed a spanner) and used a dynamo - like dublin bikes, then lighting up in the evening would be of little consequence. At present it's the "couldn't be arsed" factor. Don't have lights, couldn't be arsed buying some. Bought lights, need to be fitted, couldn't be arsed messing around with that. Fitted lights, batteries are dead. Couldn't be arsed buying new ones.

Cars have the same problem to a lesser degree; bulb blown, couldn't be arsed replacing it until a Garda gives out to them.

It would be interesting to hold an on-the-street survey to find out how many cyclists have lights but couldn't be arsed using them.

tomasrojo · 21-03-2011 02:59PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Talking to a doctor in Vincents, he informs me the biggest issue with cyclists when they come in is that they wear locks around their waists or hooped around their shoulders and this leads to a far greater incidence of broken/shattered hips/ribs during collisions.

I have always assumed that this was an unwise practice, but it was just a gut reaction. I've seen people with them more or less looped around their necks. Now that's asking for trouble.

tomasrojo · 21-03-2011 03:04PM

A thread on CTC forums mentioned that about 1% of Headway's clients incurred injury cycling. Something funny going on when the only time I hear Headway mentioned in the media is in relation to mandatory helmet laws. If I were a donor, I'd be annoyed at this misapplication of my money.

DirkVoodoo · 21-03-2011 03:16PM

Helmets mess up my hair. If I could ride everywhere with a cigar between clenched teeth, my hair slicked back and a podium girl across the crossbar, I would.

Unfortunately, reality gets in the way, I never quite manage to balance the second podium girl on the handlebars.

POW!

'Organ donors' without helmets

Comments