This helmet thing.

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby TonyR » 11 Dec 2015, 5:26pm

Mick F wrote:This is another reason NOT to wear a cycle helmet?

Not wearing one gets me killed outright (cheap).
Wearing one gives me head injuries (expensive).


Ruddy cheapskate cyclists :wink:

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Tonyf33 » 11 Dec 2015, 7:09pm

Mick F wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:Additionally when the steel helmet was introduced in WWI they found a massive increase in head injury rates and a reduction in outright deaths, however in a battlefield scenario the cost of an injury far outweighs the cost of a dead soldier, it takes far more resources to retrieve and treat an injured soldier than it does a dead one.

This is another reason NOT to wear a cycle helmet?

Not wearing one gets me killed outright (cheap).
Wearing one gives me head injuries (expensive).


in the context of a war with an almost unending supply of troops deaths in this particular scenario are not the important factor (taking out the emotive equation) but how the helmet failed to offer enough protection to stop massive increases in overall injuries/head injuries and lulled soldiers and their superiors into thinking it was a coverall which changed behaviour and made matters worse.

deaths/injuries at the rate those experienced by UK troops in WWI are akin to 481 cyclist deaths and 1,139 injured every single day so there is somewhat of a difference in risk factor.
The WWI helmet was primarily designed/introduced for one thing only, low velocity shrapnel protection, unfortunately it meant that more people would be injured thus with the overall object of winning a war it was massively more costly in terms of resources recovering/treating/sending back injured soldiers compared to dead ones so the reality was it failed and made our position weaker.

Helmets were utterly ineffective at protecting against high velocity (shrapnel or bullets), blast/shockwave trauma to the head (& brain) and internal organs or injuries to other parts of the body from bullets/shrapnel.
Even surviving low velocity shrapnel was a random chance (akin to a low speed off in cycling whilst wearing a helmet if you will)
The best solution would have being to stop shrapnel/bullets/blasts from happening altogether with regard to the problem.

bluemootwo
Posts: 101
Joined: 21 Aug 2015, 7:14am

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby bluemootwo » 11 Dec 2015, 10:10pm

There are loads of other counter-intuitive examples of well meaning but dangerous safety measures. Boxing gloves is one. Head and brain injury in boxing has gone up since gloves were introduced, because bare knuckle fighters couldn't hit the head hard without breaking their hands. (Hands are like crumple zones!). There is some evidence that scrum-caps and shoulder pads are increasing rugby injury as players behave more recklessly. Any more?

Mike Sales
Posts: 4505
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Mike Sales » 11 Dec 2015, 10:14pm

bluemootwo wrote:There are loads of other counter-intuitive examples of well meaning but dangerous safety measures.


I have read that the Davy Lamp, the miners' safety lamp is one.
Seams with firedamp (methane) could not be worked with candles, but the lamp made them safe. Except that a pick hitting a stone could produce a spark.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Tonyf33 » 12 Dec 2015, 12:17am

bluemootwo wrote:There are loads of other counter-intuitive examples of well meaning but dangerous safety measures. Boxing gloves is one. Head and brain injury in boxing has gone up since gloves were introduced, because bare knuckle fighters couldn't hit the head hard without breaking their hands. (Hands are like crumple zones!). There is some evidence that scrum-caps and shoulder pads are increasing rugby injury as players behave more recklessly. Any more?

They removed head protection a couple of years ago in the higher levels of the amateur ranks due to more head injuries compared to without, more cuts (which was part of the thinking to reduce them) but less TBI.
My brother was a decent amateur in the mid to late 80s when they fought without, he completely agreed that risk taking would be higher with and chances of being hit/rotational forces from blows wearing a headguard that would ordinarily glance off/miss altogether without made wearing them stupid, not to mention the propensity for reduced vision/discomfort as a distraction so get hit more.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby TonyR » 12 Dec 2015, 7:20am

bluemootwo wrote:There are loads of other counter-intuitive examples of well meaning but dangerous safety measures. Boxing gloves is one. Head and brain injury in boxing has gone up since gloves were introduced, because bare knuckle fighters couldn't hit the head hard without breaking their hands. (Hands are like crumple zones!). There is some evidence that scrum-caps and shoulder pads are increasing rugby injury as players behave more recklessly. Any more?


Car seat belts didn't reduce driver injuries and deaths and increased passenger and other road user injuries and deaths (the famous suppressed Isles Report).

The shutting down of the rail network after the Hatfield rail crash led to more excess deaths on the roads in the next few weeks due to higher road traffic levels than had occurred in the crash. The shutdown went on for a year.

There is lots of this stuff in the book Risk by Prof John Adams.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4505
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby Mike Sales » 12 Dec 2015, 1:12pm

TonyR wrote:Car seat belts didn't reduce driver injuries and deaths and increased passenger and other road user injuries and deaths (the famous suppressed Isles Report).

The shutting down of the rail network after the Hatfield rail crash led to more excess deaths on the roads in the next few weeks due to higher road traffic levels than had occurred in the crash. The shutdown went on for a year.

There is lots of this stuff in the book Risk by Prof John Adams.


More quickly accessible is his website.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/

bluemootwo
Posts: 101
Joined: 21 Aug 2015, 7:14am

Re: This helmet thing.

Postby bluemootwo » 12 Dec 2015, 3:35pm

My favourite. Concerns about fishing boats being hit by spent weather instrument rockets meant that the North Sea was scanned by pilots first. Obviously, the risk to the pilots was far higher than the risk to the fishing boats.