Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

'Organ donors' without helmets

1…34689…13

Comments

  • #152
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I think those who spend 50+ on lights are probably on darker roads, than those that can't be bothered. Many of those with lights, are very dim, so I assume they don't replace the batteries ever either.


  • #153
    ergo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,009 ✭✭✭ergo


    petethedrummer wrote: »
    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.

    you could've taken your helmet off maybe...?!?
    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    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!?

    you could extend that rationale and say that never leaving the house will significantly reduce your chances of a head injury/RTA/whatever......so we should all never leave the house...and when in the house never use the stairs

    but this is the cycling forum.....which I rarely frequent, as may be obvious
    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.

    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)

    re the first thing: never heard of this. And I've worked in several A+E's, and unlike brains, ribs and hips tend to fix themselves

    re the OPINION: doesn't make sense to me


    tbh I think it was irresponsible of the IT to publish the original letter - it's wasted a lot of subsequent space dragging out the corrections and contradictions

    that wikipedia article is good though

    *runs away from cycling forum*


  • #154
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    I'd be curious to know how many people have personal experience of helmets having been useful. It's tough to define what being "useful" means but for the sake of simplicity I'm taking it that a helmet that broke in a crash may actually have served a useful purpose (yeah, it's a very simple view and certainly not likely to be accurate in all cases). For me, the total comes to three:

    * a guy in the group I was riding off-road with went over the bars and landed on his head before rolling onto his back. His helmet virtually split in two but from what I can remember he had no visible head injuries. Suspected broken ribs were found by x-ray not to be broken. For what it is worth, the fall was almost inevitable as he chose to ride like a lunatic on a surface that was lethal at the speed he was pushing.

    * my wife's front wheel went from under her while riding at very low speed over painted road markings. She fell on her head and her helmet split but she was fine. As I understand it, this is actually the kind of scenario that helmets are designed to handle best i.e. a direct fall from a height, which I would expect is actually a very rare occurrence.

    * I know someone who crashed off-road and slid head first into a rock, splitting their helmet on one side. They cycled away after the crash.

    That is a total of 3 incidents where a helmet seems to have absorbed the bulk of the shock of an impact. It would be pointless, and uninteresting, to speculate on what the outcome might have been if the people involved had not been wearing a helmet at the time so I'm just going to assume that the helmet was beneficial in these cases. 3 is a pretty low number. I've been riding a bike for fun for over 20 years, and for several years before that as a means of getting from A to B. For some of those years I rode off-road too on a weekly basis with a bunch of other people.

    I didn't always ride with a club but I reckon I've ridden alongside a lot of cyclists in that time, and seen many others on my commutes, and my experiences seem very much at odds with the view that helmets are essential safety items. I wonder if anyone else has direct personal experience of helmets proving useful in any kind of significant numbers?


  • #155
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    doozerie wrote: »
    I'd be curious to know how many people have personal experience of helmets having been useful.
    See I only know of one incident really. We were going down the steep track of the hellfire club on BMXes (ah to be young and reckless again). Mate of mine came barrelling down, way too fast, insanity. No idea what specifically happened, but when he hit the ground he was literally upside-down; legs straight in the air, head straight down onto the ground. He landed on his back, lay there for a few minutes to regroup and then off we went again. His helmet was split in two though. Funnily enough we never wore helmets except that we at least had some sense that this was a bit mad, so he took a loan of an old mushroom helmet from one of us and wrecked it 30 minutes later.

    Outside of that I've come off the bike countless times in my life and I can't say I recall any time when I thought, "Thank God I had a helmet on".

    Oh, except when I was ten and wanted to see if I could cycle with my eyes closed. I fell over and landed my temple against the edge of a kerb. That was pretty sore.


  • #156
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,499 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    doozerie wrote: »
    I'd be curious to know how many people have personal experience of helmets having been useful.
    Me


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    ergo wrote: »
    you could extend that rationale and say that never leaving the house will significantly reduce your chances of a head injury/RTA/whatever......so we should all never leave the house...and when in the house never use the stairs

    Absolutely, or you could just not draw any silly conclusions from it (like mine or yours)


  • #158
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    doozerie wrote: »
    I'd be curious to know how many people have personal experience of helmets having been useful.
    Not yet.


  • #159
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Just as a matter of interest, when cyclists fall off their bikes and their helmets are cracked as a result, how do we know that their helmets prevented a significant head injury?

    Is the force absorbed by a cracked helmet generally equal to the difference between a bang on the head and a significant brain injury? Or is a cracked helmet the difference between a bang on the head and a very painful bang on the head?

    Sorry if these questions are badly worded. What I'm trying to get at is that a certain minimum force must be needed to crack a helmet (an outcome often used as a proxy for "my helmet saved my life"). If that extra force is applied to a bare head hitting the ground, is a serious skull/brain injury likely or even inevitable?

    Presumably there are data on these comparative forces? Or am I re-heating a long-opened can of worms here?


  • #160
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Just as a matter of interest, when cyclists fall off their bikes and their helmets are cracked as a result, how do we know that their helmets prevented a significant head injury?

    Is the force absorbed by a cracked helmet generally equal to the difference between a bang on the head and a significant brain injury? Or is a cracked helmet the difference between a bang on the head and a very painful bang on the head?

    Sorry if these questions are badly worded. What I'm trying to get at is that a certain minimum force must be needed to crack a helmet (an outcome often used as a proxy for "my helmet saved my life"). If that extra force is applied to a bare head hitting the ground, is a serious skull/brain injury likely or even inevitable?

    Presumably there are data on these comparative forces? Or am I re-heating a long-opened can of worms here?

    The simple answer is no, and it's not a can of worms, it's essentially the crux of the problem! Most people think that if you hit your head with enough force to crack a helmet it instantly means that you would be significantly worse off if you were wearing one.

    Anecdotally, I have been in one crash where both me and a friend came off and got concussions. I wasn't wearing a helmet, and she was, and it split. Now, nothing's to say we fell in the exact same manner, but it's interesting to me that in this specific case the helmet appeared to make no difference to the injury whatsoever (though is is entirely based on my own, non medical feelings, so may have no basis in fact whatsoever!)


  • #161
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Falls vary, as do human skulls. However, helmets are made from synthetic materials with defined physical properties.

    There must be some defined range and type of forces that could possibly crack a helmet. That engineering data could then be applied theoretically to biomedical data regarding the forces associated with skull damage and brain injury.

    Obviously the second part of the 'equation' is extremely complex, with lots of variables to factor in, but I would imagine that some estimates could be derived from the process.


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/0306_01_nsn.html


    .


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    cdaly_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    doozerie wrote: »
    I'd be curious to know how many people have personal experience of helmets having been useful.

    In two crashes in the last couple of years, while wearing a helmet, my head was not involved in the crash. One was a swan-dive over the handlebars, shredded one forearm and hurt knees. The other was over a fellow-boardsie in the road. Sore ribs from that one.

    In my youth I never wore a helmet. Of the three significant crashes I remember, two involved cars (me sideswiping them) and one was an over the handlebars. In one of the sideswipes I ended up in hospital for observation but apparently no concussion (had a sprained ankle tho), with the other two there was no head injury involved. I suspect the ended up in hospital one was due to the crash happening in a town with other people around. If it had been out in the country I might have just carried on.


  • #163
    cdaly_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Falls vary, as do human skulls. However, helmets are made from synthetic materials with defined physical properties.

    There must be some defined range and type of forces that could possibly crack a helmet. That engineering data could then be applied theoretically to biomedical data regarding the forces associated with skull damage and brain injury.

    Obviously the second part of the 'equation' is extremely complex, with lots of variables to factor in, but I would imagine that some estimates could be derived from the process.


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/0306_01_nsn.html


    .

    Maybe this is a question for the MythBusters!...


  • #164
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,507 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Falls vary, as do human skulls. However, helmets are made from synthetic materials with defined physical properties.

    There must be some defined range and type of forces that could possibly crack a helmet. That engineering data could then be applied theoretically to biomedical data regarding the forces associated with skull damage and brain injury.

    Obviously the second part of the 'equation' is extremely complex, with lots of variables to factor in, but I would imagine that some estimates could be derived from the process.


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/0306_01_nsn.html


    .

    I believe they have been carrying out impact testing for some time on skull tissue, bone is a material like any other, it has defined physical properties.

    A lot of impact injuries don't tend to be as a result of the actual force of impact cracking bone and squishing skull alone, but also from violent accelerations/decelerations that shear blood vessels and cause damage/death.


  • #165
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Just as a matter of interest, when cyclists fall off their bikes and their helmets are cracked as a result, how do we know that their helmets prevented a significant head injury?

    Is the force absorbed by a cracked helmet generally equal to the difference between a bang on the head and a significant brain injury? Or is a cracked helmet the difference between a bang on the head and a very painful bang on the head?

    As TinyExplosions says we simply don't know whether a cracked helmet means a life saved or a serious head injury avoided. Helmet manufacturers would have you believe that the helmet saved the person's life/brain, but of course they are peddling their wares so it is in their interests to promote that view. That doesn't mean they are wrong, of course, just that they are not objective in their assessment. And supporting data has to be looked at with an open mind too as there have been quite a few studies of the benefits of helmets which would have you believe that they can do no wrong yet other studies suggest that wearing a helmet can help contribute to injuries in certain circumstances.

    Even the safety standards with which helmets must comply may be questionable as concerns have been raised over whether the nature of the testing of helmets is relevant to a real world scenario. One thing that still strikes me as odd is that the helmet safety standards differ between europe, the US, and Australia (and possibly elsewhere too). Depending on your view, the european safety standard is either weaker than, or just different to, that of the US and Australia. At least some, and perhaps many, of the helmets sold legally in europe cannot be sold in the US as they don't meet the US safety standard. Cycling helmets are surrounded by controversial bureaucracy and financial interests, which is quite impressive for what are basically pieces of polystyrene.


  • #166
    NeedMoreGears
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭NeedMoreGears


    In the past two years I've had two falls from the bike (excluding the obligatory three topple overs when I got clips for the first time). In both instances I was well pleased to have been wearing a helmet.
    The first time a car forced me over and I contacted the ground with my hip initially(the back wheel slid out), then my shoulder and then my head. It felt a good solid thump through the helmet.
    The second time, I braked too hard (back wheel again) and fell pretty much the same way but skidded down the road a bit. In this case the helmet stopped the side of my face dragging along the ground.
    I doubt I would have been seriously injured had I not been wearing a helmet but I am convinced I would have been in A&E looking for some stitches.
    Generally speaking I'm happy to wear the helmet as I believe that overall it cuts down the odds of all sorts of injury to the head/face - not just the fatal ones. It's not a guarantee all will be ok and hopefully most people won't ever get to make use of a helmet for real.
    The other thing it does, I suspect, is make me a little more safety aware. The concious act of putting it one reminds me to be careful. Before anyone gets upset, I'm not implying people who don't wear helmets aren't safety concious ; it's just the effect it has on me.


  • #167
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    NeedMoreGears wrote: »
    I doubt I would have been seriously injured had I not been wearing a helmet but I am convinced I would have been in A&E looking for some stitches.

    But thats a bad thing... chicks dig scars you know, especially if you got them doing something a little dangerous...

    ..../hopes NeedMoreGears is a bloke for above to work...


  • #168
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    NeedMoreGears wrote: »
    The concious act of putting it one reminds me to be careful.
    Maybe for you. Another boring conversation I had (imagine it in Louth accents)...

    Buddy: Do you still not wear a helmet?
    Me: No.
    Buddy: I had to cycle home from work without mine th'other day. Felt very vulnerable without it, so i did.
    Me: That's a good thing, you probably took less risks and cycled a bit slower.

    Oh, the exciting life I lead.


  • #169
    unionman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭unionman


    petethedrummer wrote: »
    Maybe for you. Another boring conversation I had (imagine it in Louth accents)...

    Buddy: Do you still not wear a helmet?
    Me: No.
    Buddy: I had to cycle home from work without mine th'other day. Felt very vulnerable without it, so i did.
    Me: That's a good thing, you probably took less risks and cycled a bit slower.

    Oh, the exciting life I lead.

    You can't beat the droll of the wee county. Brilliant.


  • #170
    c0rk3r
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭c0rk3r


    3 weeks ago i filled out the online forms to recieve more forms to get an organ donor card. No word yet from the Irish kidney Association, who are in charge of the whole thing. They sure are slacking


  • #171
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    cue Jaws music as any ambulance appears around the corner from now on
    :D:D

    a donor kebab van!


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,997 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    petethedrummer wrote: »
    Maybe for you. Another boring conversation I had (imagine it in Louth accents)...

    Buddy: Do you still not wear a helmet?
    Me: No.
    Buddy: I had to cycle home from work without mine th'other day. Felt very vulnerable without it, so i did.
    Me: That's a good thing, you probably took less risks and cycled a bit slower.

    Oh, the exciting life I lead.
    Hot off the press:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01589.x/abstract
    This study investigated risk compensation by cyclists in response to bicycle helmet wearing by observing changes in cycling behavior, reported experience of risk, and a possible objective measure of experienced risk
    The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. They thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.

    There's an older paper which found something similar for children:
    Morrongiello BA, Walpole B, Lasenby J. Understanding children’s injury-risk behavior: Wearing safety gear can lead to increased risk taking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2007;39(3):618–623.


  • #173
    --LOS--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,028 ✭✭✭✭--LOS--


    seamus wrote: »

    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.

    Personally I don't have lights on my bike atm as they are grossly and irrationally over-priced which only makes me lazy from the inability to cycle in the dark :pac:
    ergo wrote: »
    you could've taken your helmet off maybe...?!?

    dude....helmet hair
    petethedrummer wrote: »
    Maybe for you. Another boring conversation I had (imagine it in Louth accents)...

    Buddy: Do you still not wear a helmet?
    Me: No.
    Buddy: I had to cycle home from work without mine th'other day. Felt very vulnerable without it, so i did.
    Me: That's a good thing, you probably took less risks and cycled a bit slower.

    Oh, the exciting life I lead.

    This exactly, helmets are such a false security blanket and probably a lot of people who use them lack basic awareness skills, understanding how typical accidents arise and having the foresight to avoid those scenarios.


  • #174
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    --LOS-- wrote: »
    Personally I don't have lights on my bike atm as they are grossly and irrationally over-priced which only makes me lazy from the inability to cycle in the dark :pac:

    I know its sarcasm (at least it better be) but in case its not, you can pick up a reasonable pair of SMART lights for city/town commuting for under 25euro at your LBS (including batteries).


  • #175
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    ...
    There's an older paper which found something similar for children:
    Morrongiello BA, Walpole B, Lasenby J. Understanding children’s injury-risk behavior: Wearing safety gear can lead to increased risk taking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2007;39(3):618–623....

    Another way of looking at that is that people who wear safety gear are in general not experienced, thus more likely to have accidents. Whereas people without are generally experienced, thus less likely to have accidents.

    From what I see on the road, people taking the most risks are those without safety gear. People with safety gear make in experienced mistakes, like going up the inside of left turning vehicles, or not blocking the lane to defend their position.

    But its a sweeping generalisation, as you get experienced people with safety gear and in experienced people with none.

    For example I have much better lights now than when I started. My leggings have reflectors now. Etc.


  • #176
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    From what I see on the road, people taking the most risks are those without safety gear. People with safety gear make in experienced mistakes, like going up the inside of left turning vehicles, or not blocking the lane to defend their position.

    But its a sweeping generalisation, as you get experienced people with safety gear and in experienced people with none.

    Get on your bike!

    None stop around the city I see helmeted and high-vis cyclists breaking lights, without lights on their bicycles, and doing silly things like going inside left turning vehicles.


  • #177
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    BostonB wrote: »
    ....its a sweeping generalisation...

    ;)


  • #178
    --LOS--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,028 ✭✭✭✭--LOS--


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I know its sarcasm (at least it better be) but in case its not, you can pick up a reasonable pair of SMART lights for city/town commuting for under 25euro at your LBS (including batteries).

    25 even sounds steep for just lights, why are they such expensive things, it's not like the components would cost much.


  • #179
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    --LOS-- wrote: »
    25 even sounds steep for just lights, why are they such expensive things, it's not like the components would cost much.

    This is on special.
    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=42103

    :D


  • #180
    --LOS--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,028 ✭✭✭✭--LOS--


    BostonB wrote: »
    This is on special.
    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=42103

    :D

    That's more than half my bikes worth, I'll buy it if it makes me fly.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    BostonB wrote: »
    This is on special.
    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=42103

    :D

    Alternatively, make your own:

    http://www.instructables.com/id/BIKE-LIGHT-500-Lumen-%22Mt.Bike%22-for-under-10-bucks-/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement