Another helmet press release

Chips Lovell

Many years ago I was at a party in some student flat on Baggot Street. Someone who lived there had a big stone as a paperweight up on a shelf. It fell off the shelf and onto my head, splitting my head open.

These days I never go to a house party without a helmet.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

Many years ago I was at a party in some student flat on Baggot Street. Someone who lived there had a big stone as a paperweight up on a shelf. It fell off the shelf and onto my head, splitting my head open.

Getting dangerously stoned is always a risk at a student party.

Bluefoam

One Christmas I was walking along an icy path behind an RTE Television reporter. I slipped in the ice and was humiliated by the YouTube coverage that emerged after...

Now I never go on television without wearing a helmet and some padded underwear.

C3PO

TinyExplosions wrote: »

You see, this is the core of the problem. Without some serious forensic analysis, you cannot say for sure that the helmet saved you from serious injury. It's just as valid in fact to say that it was the rigidity of the helmet that transmitted the force of hitting the ground into your head, and caused you to black out. If you weren't wearing a helmet, your shoulder might have hit the ground first, and you would have had less of a blow to the head.

No, unfortunately, the wearing of a helmet, or lack thereof seems to be touted as the only reason someone involved in an accident escaped/sustained a serious injury. It's all bullshit stuff that has little to no basis in fact.

Brett and O'Connell could go on about far more pressing concerns for cyclists, or even put their time into training or talking about ways to stay safe on the bike, but harping on and on about helmets doesn't do anyone any good

I'm not really sure where I stand on the compulsory wearing of bike helmets but surely common sense will tell you that in the vast majority of "head impacts" you would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one? I simply don't accept that you could be safer not wearing a helmet except in very unusual cirmumstances! It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

tomasrojo

I like the tag this thread has!

"not this sh!t again"

Lumen

RPL1 wrote: »

It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

7,000 people die from smoking related disease in Ireland every year (source).

How many people die from unhelmeted cycling?

The point is not whether it's safer, the point is whether the advocation is in any way proportionate to the risk.

Cycling deaths are almost all avoidable accidents caused by poor cycling skills, driving skills and/or infrastructure (road design etc). So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

Because they're idiots.

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

because it's a cheap and effective way to draw attention to themselves and promote their agenda

tomasrojo

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm not really sure where I stand on the compulsory wearing of bike helmets but surely common sense will tell you that in the vast majority of "head impacts" you would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one? I simply don't accept that you could be safer not wearing a helmet except in very unusual cirmumstances! It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

It's interesting that you mention smoking and lung cancer, since the initial evidence for that link came from case-control studies. The tobacco lobby said that case-control studies were hardly definitive evidence -- and that is true, though they were saying so out of expediency. Then other forms of evidence, based on large populations, followed and they corroborated the case-control studies.

Evidence from large populations in relation to bicycle helmets has been available for years now, and it does not corroborate the case-control studies at all; generally, no change in head injury rates is seen when large numbers of cyclists start wearing helmets.

C3PO

tomasrojo wrote: »

Evidence from large populations in relation to bicycle helmets has been available for years now, and it does not corroborate the case-control studies at all; generally, no change in head injury rates is seen when large numbers of cyclists start wearing helmets.

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

They can have my cheese WHEN THEY TAKE IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!

keeping eating unpasteurised cheese and we will be prising it from your cold dead hand.:)

Isn't this really a question of personal choice rather than the nanny state dictating our behaviour?

some people like cheese - some don't.

some prefer to eat cheap cheese (like Easi-singles) and even buy their cheese from Aldi or Lidl when they have specials on.

others like smelly French stuff that's difficult to get and must ordered over the internet.

Euro-style is the key ingredient for some, hence the demand for Parmesan

and a lot of us our just happy with a bit of cheddar - nothing fancy, but it does the job.

.....bit like bike helmets really

mcgratheoin

Lumen wrote: »

Cycling deaths are almost all avoidable accidents caused by poor cycling skills, driving skills and/or infrastructure (road design etc). So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

+1 Any H&S person will tell you that PPE gear is the last resort and the least important facet of safety. That's why there are courses such as safepass etc., rather than just cocooning workers in a big protective shell.

@RPL1
The argument made by most people on boards is that money spent on compulsory helmet advocacy would be much more effective if spent on cycling education (for all road users).

Lumen

RPL1 wrote: »

are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact?

No, he's saying that no change in head injury rates is seen when large numbers of cyclists start wearing helmets. :pac:

tomasrojo

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

That's a good question. These large studies don't say anything about individuals, any more than Boyle's Law can tell you much about an individual gas molecule. The failure of a protective effect to show up in the population-level studies could be for one of many reasons -- one of which could be that the protective effect of helmets is too small to be measured by the studies in question. Other possibilities are that most people don't use helmets properly, or that they take more risks when wearing helmets, or that motorists take more risks around helmet-wearers. Or some combination of all of the above.

The wikipedia page has a good summary of the strengths and weaknesses of both case-control and population-level studies, if you really are interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

TinyExplosions

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm not really sure where I stand on the compulsory wearing of bike helmets but surely common sense will tell you that in the vast majority of "head impacts" you would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one? I simply don't accept that you could be safer not wearing a helmet except in very unusual cirmumstances! It reminds me of the smoking lobby who claim that there is no "actual proof" that smoking causes lung cancer!!

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

No need to apologise mate!

I'm not saying that you are safer not wearing a helmet at all, because it may well lessen injuries, in the same way that wearing knee, elbow and wrist pads could lessen injuries in a fall.

The problem I (and many others on here I think) have, is the "I fell off my bike and hit my head, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I'd be dead" camp, as you cannot say for sure that the helmet saved your life. This is a very common thought in the eyes of the public and (worse in my view), the medical profession, and isn't backed up by any studies, or any basis in fact.

It all comes down to personal choice at the end of the day, and if you feel safer in a helmet, then fine, nobody here is going to give out to you (or anyone) for wearing one, but the spouting of "Helmets save lives, if you don't wear one you're an idiot" by people (not yourself though) is a silly argument, and should be ignored. Make your choice, live with it and get one with your life, just don't tell me what to do!

fenris

Helmets and it's not even Friday!

will someone think of the nazi's they had helmets sometimes and so did everybody else sometimes, did I mention nazi's?

What was that Mr Goodwin, "move along, nothing to see" was it?

TinyExplosions

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

What I'm really saying is that it's next to impossible to tell, as there are no conclusive studies, and the range of accidents are so great as to render most studies useless.

In certain cases, wearing of a helmet will lessen injuries. In certain cases, wearing a helmet may increase the risk of injury (to do with the increased circumference of your head when a helmet is on causing an increase in angle between your neck and the ground in certain low speed crashes). In certain cases, wearing a helmet will have no bearing whatsoever on the extent of your injuries (the tragic death of Wouter Weylandt in the Giro being an example of this). In certain cases, wearing a helmet will have no major bearing on the severity of injury.

So, in 1 out of 4 cases, a helmet will lessen injuries. Now you need to figure out the likelihood of crashing, and the likelihood of that crash being that specific case where helmet use reduces injury, subtract from that the likelihood of the crash being one in which your risk of injury is raised by wearing a helmet, and figure out if it's therefore worth wearing a helmet.

Or go with your gut instinct, but again, don't tell others what they should do, as they may have simply come to a different conclusion

Bluefoam

RPL1 wrote: »

I'm relatively new to Boards so apologies to the regulars who are clearly fed up with this topic but are you really saying that I am no more likely to to get a head injury without a helmet than with one in the case of impact? It just seems hard to accept!

I think that there is a consensus that a helmet can protect you from a mild injury & that the chances of that happening are mild compared with the need to wear a helmet every time you get on a bike.

The chances of a helmet saving your life in an impact are rare. In fact most fatal accidents on Irish roads (close to 99% as far as I know) are caused by massive traumas involving HGV's, in which case a helmet would be of no use. There was a very unfortunate case last year of an elderly man who was hit by a car driven by his son, in this case the use of a helmet would arguably been useless.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Cycling deaths are almost all avoidable accidents caused by poor cycling skills, driving skills and/or infrastructure (road design etc). So why are the brain injury people campaigning for accident outcome mitigation rather than accident avoidance?

After a demonstration of truly moronic and obnoxious driving recently, which threatened to take out my wife and our daughter that she was towing by trailer, the daft bint of a driver concerned told my wife that she [my wife] was putting our daughter at risk by transporting her by bike/trailer. Apparently it's not the behaviour of people that is the source of all safety concerns, it's that us cyclists are allergic to large metal objects. Presumably the solution then is to fight this allergy by increased exposure to the irritant. Cyclists should wear helmets during this phase to minimise the splatter effect on the irritant/vehicles.

It's the kind of "logic" that goes on to suggest that all flying insects should be fitted with helmets too, to keep them safe when they inevitably collide with a windscreen.

tomasrojo

I'm very sorry to hear that, doozerie.

tomasrojo

Bluefoam wrote: »

I think that there is a consensus that a helmet can protect you from a mild injury

Actually, that's another potential explanation for the failure of the protective effect to show up in population-level studies: the injuries that can be mitigated are too mild to require hospitalisation or medical treatment, so they don't generally show up in the national statistics.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

After a demonstration of truly moronic and obnoxious driving recently, which threatened to take out my wife and our daughter that she was towing by trailer

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear that, doozerie.

I'm sorry, but despite the obvious temptation to express concern and embrace the opportunity for inter-cyclist solidarity, I can't let doozerie get away with "threatened to take out my wife and daughter" on a helmet thread. It's not much better than "helment saved my life".

Only a forensic examination of the incident could reveal such a thing; common sense cannot be trusted!

C3PO

Cheers lads ..... reasonable arguments but I think I'll continue to wear my helmets most of the time!

niceonetom

RPL1 wrote: »

Cheers lads ..... reasonable arguments but I think I'll continue to wear my helmets most of the time!

Can't let this one go - it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what this, and pretty much every other helmet thread here, is about. No one, no one, no one was ever arguing that you should not wear your helmet. They were arguing that you should not be compelled to do so by law.

The persistent failure to grasp and appreciate this important distinction is responsible for 65-88% of grief in these accursed threads.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Only a forensic examination of the incident could reveal such a thing; common sense cannot be trusted!

I suggest we re-stage the incident, for scientific validity. I propose that someone from Headway ride the bike, with the entirety of the rest of Headway staff crammed into the trailer. They must all wear helmets. I'll drive the car. To be truly representative of the original incident though I'll need a pre-frontal lobotomy, my foot stapled to the accelerator, and someone will have to rub sand in my eyes and drape the windscreen in a blackout curtain just in case I gain a conscious midway and sneak a look out at the road ahead.

Headway can report back later on the effectiveness of their helmets. We may need to keep a clairvoyant on standby for some of the reports though.

C3PO

niceonetom wrote: »

Can't let this one go - it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what this, and pretty much every other helmet thread here, is about. No one, no one, no one was ever arguing that you should not wear your helmet. They were arguing that you should not be compelled to do so by law.

The persistent failure to grasp and appreciate this important distinction is responsible for 65-88% of grief in these accursed threads.

.......... and I can't really let that go either! I don't believe I have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of what this thread is about. As I've stated in my 1st post I'm not really sure where I stand on "compulsory" helmet wearing but I'm very interested in whether wearing a helmet is actually beneficial or not which is exactly what the 1st paragraph of this (accursed) thread addresses........

RobFowl wrote: »

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=19360

Wearing a helmet while cycling reduces the risk of a head or brain injury by up to 88% should a collision occur, Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) Ireland has said.
The charity is highlighting this issue as part of National Bike Week, which runs until June 26. It emphasised that cyclists who ride their bikes without the protection of a helmet are putting themselves at risk of a serious injury.

niceonetom

RPL1 wrote: »

Cheers lads ..... reasonable arguments but I think I'll continue to wear my helmets most of the time!

That very much looks like the response of someone who thinks, wrongly, that the arguments made here are reasonable but aimed at convincing him not to wear his helmet.

I've read it again. Yep. Still looks that way to me.

Hermy

When I crash I usually land on my face. Am I wasting my time wearing a helmet or should I just improve my crash technique so as to get the helmet more involved?

ednwireland

Hermy wrote: »

When I crash I usually land on my face. Am I wasting my time wearing a helmet or should I just improve my crash technique so as to get the helmet more involved?

is it cheaper than plastic surgery though ??????

rp

Hermy wrote: »

When I crash I usually land on my face. Am I wasting my time wearing a helmet or should I just improve my crash technique so as to get the helmet more involved?

Wear a hockey goalie mask, slipknot style

petethedrummer

RPL1 wrote: »

I think I'll continue to wear my helmets most of the time!

Why not all the time? Please explain.