"Don't forget to wear a helmet"

[Cunobelin]

It isnt about you individually or any single specific crash, it is about the great statistical collection of data in a population.

By asking everybody who receives attention from the emergency services whether they wear a helmet or not, we have one more piece in the puzzle.

But that is the point they don't.

They ask the few cyclists that come in, and completely ignore the other 95% of head injuries they see

[Cunobelin]

The true medical analogy is quite simple

There is a disease that affects a hundred thousand people per year of all ages

There is a "proven cure" that "prevents" this disease

So you only perform research on a thousand 20-25 year olds, and then blame them if they die of the disease for not taking the medication

In the meanwhile you refuse to do any research outside this narrow group and despite the fact that the other 99 thousand would also be saved, you accept their deaths and state that it is very very silly to suggest that saving these people is unacceptable

[Bez]

They ask the few cyclists that come in, and completely ignore the other 95% of head injuries they see

Importantly, they also ignore all the cyclists who don't come in.

[meic]

It isnt about you individually or any single specific crash, it is about the great statistical collection of data in a population.

By asking everybody who receives attention from the emergency services whether they wear a helmet or not, we have one more piece in the puzzle.

But that is the point they don't.

They ask the few cyclists that come in, and completely ignore the other 95% of head injuries they see

They dont ask but they rather safely assume that of the rest they were wearing a helmet on a motorcycle and were not wearing a helmet otherwise unless they say they were.
Obviously though, in my post I was only referring to cyclists in that bit of my post just like all the other times I mentioned people being dealt with by the emergency services. It is only the use of cycling helmets by cyclists that the question is collecting data about.

[Bez]

They dont ask but they rather safely assume that of the rest they were wearing a helmet on a motorcycle and were not wearing a helmet otherwise unless they say they were.

But there's the thing. Generally speaking, trauma practitioners don't question head injuries in most cases. Around half of all traumatic brain injury occurs inside motor vehicles, and head injury rates are near-identical in serious injury casualties on foot, on bicycles and in cars, but I've yet to see an ambulance service even start a discussion about whether helmets would make sense in those cases, where—if helmets are effective—they would have a far, far greater population effect.

As an example, the WMAS blog is one of the most strongly biased sources of this. They'll mention cycling helmets at every opportunity, very often ignoring third party behaviour at the same time, and will just shrug at all other head injuries. It is the epitome of the first cartoon earlier in the thread, but sadly it's not just a couple of opinionated commuters on a train, it's a respected organisation.

It is only the use of cycling helmets by cyclists that the question is collecting data about.

Sure. But it's like seeing half of all serious eye injuries occur in people doing DIY with power tools and half the rest occur in bystanders being hit by debris from people using power tools, and then collecting data on the use of safety glasses by badminton players who present with a broken ankle.

[belgiangoth]

Helmets are designed to work from standstill at a height of 2m. Those are typical impacts you might get when you are learning to ride or maybe doing something technical (like bmx or mtb). I can see that training providers will be liable for the safety of the kids they train, in the event of a child being injured insurance/parents/media will ask whether a helmet was worn and therefore training providers are putting themselves at risk by not insisting on helmets.
Sadly this argument has already been lost with the case where a judge ruled diminished responsibility for a motorist causing death of a cyclist, arguing that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

[Cunobelin]

It isnt about you individually or any single specific crash, it is about the great statistical collection of data in a population.

By asking everybody who receives attention from the emergency services whether they wear a helmet or not, we have one more piece in the puzzle.

But that is the point they don't.

They ask the few cyclists that come in, and completely ignore the other 95% of head injuries they see

They dont ask but they rather safely assume that of the rest they were wearing a helmet on a motorcycle and were not wearing a helmet otherwise unless they say they were.
Obviously though, in my post I was only referring to cyclists in that bit of my post just like all the other times I mentioned people being dealt with by the emergency services. It is only the use of cycling helmets by cyclists that the question is collecting data about.

Two guys in two beds have both had a fall at a few mph, one a jogger and one a cyclist and have both slipped on ice at the same place, and have identical head injuries


There is an expectation that the cyclist will be wearing a helmet and this will be questioned. If they weren't they will be given a lecture on how the injury could have been prevented

Yet with the jogger an injury by the same mechanism with the same force is not expected to have prevented it, will not be asked if they were wearing a helmet and the suggestion they should have prevented the injury by wearing one will be dismissed as absurd


Why?

Why is there a duty to prevent the cyclist head injury not that of the jogger?

[Mick F]

They ask the few cyclists that come in, and completely ignore the other 95% of head injuries they see

Exactly my point.

I'm a cyclist, and fact that I didn't present with a head injury was besides the point.
They still asked.

......... it's like seeing half of all serious eye injuries occur in people doing DIY with power tools and half the rest occur in bystanders being hit by debris from people using power tools, and then collecting data on the use of safety glasses by badminton players who present with a broken ankle.

Agree.

Why is there a duty to prevent the cyclist head injury not that of the jogger?

Agree, as well.

[mjr]

Helmets are designed to work from standstill at a height of 2m.

1.5m for the Euro Norm, according to http://bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm

Those are typical impacts you might get when you are learning to ride or maybe doing something technical (like bmx or mtb). I can see that training providers will be liable for the safety of the kids they train, in the event of a child being injured insurance/parents/media will ask whether a helmet was worn and therefore training providers are putting themselves at risk by not insisting on helmets.

That may be legitimate if helmets had ever been proven to offer significant benefit. They haven't, so it's not.

What's really sick is that children whose parents refuse to let their children wear these strangulation hazards are often denied training. The self-proclaimed road safety trainers would rather deny access to something that has an effect (training) than allow someone to reject helmets.

Sadly this argument has already been lost with the case where a judge ruled diminished responsibility for a motorist causing death of a cyclist, arguing that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

No more so than it was won where a judge refused to reduce liability for an plainclothes cyclist's death. It remains case by case.

[Cunobelin]

Helmets are designed to work from standstill at a height of 2m.

1.5m for the Euro Norm, according to http://bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm

Those are typical impacts you might get when you are learning to ride or maybe doing something technical (like bmx or mtb). I can see that training providers will be liable for the safety of the kids they train, in the event of a child being injured insurance/parents/media will ask whether a helmet was worn and therefore training providers are putting themselves at risk by not insisting on helmets.

That may be legitimate if helmets had ever been proven to offer significant benefit. They haven't, so it's not.

What's really sick is that children whose parents refuse to let their children wear these strangulation hazards are often denied training. The self-proclaimed road safety trainers would rather deny access to something that has an effect (training) than allow someone to reject helmets.

Sadly this argument has already been lost with the case where a judge ruled diminished responsibility for a motorist causing death of a cyclist, arguing that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

No more so than it was won where a judge refused to reduce liability for an plainclothes cyclist's death. It remains case by case.

It also again raises the question as to why?

If the same car had hit a jogger or pedestrian and killed them, would the liability also have been reduced because the pedestrian was not wearing a helmet?

Unfortunately the pro-helmet lobby has allowed this bizarre dichotomy to develop and flourish by their narrow minded support

[belgiangoth]

I agree it's bobbins, but that doesn't mean that the local council will change their view on the rules for providing cycle training. Furthermore it is provided under the umbrella of British cycling who require helmets because they are a racing group and conform to uci regulations. (The uci prob insist on them because it's a thing they can point to if a rider is injured or dies in a race).

[pjclinch]

I agree it's bobbins, but that doesn't mean that the local council will change their view on the rules for providing cycle training. Furthermore it is provided under the umbrella of British cycling who require helmets because they are a racing group and conform to uci regulations. (The uci prob insist on them because it's a thing they can point to if a rider is injured or dies in a race).

Speaking to BC about their helmet policy is remarkably difficult, even if (like me) you're a BC Coach, but if (like me) you're bloody minded enough you can sometimes engage them a bit. And it boils down to their insurance, which is okay for competitive events but they do more than that these days, and on their campaigns web page it's now at the point where there's plenty of evidence backed talk about why helmets don't mean much for everyday riding... followed by an evidence-free point that BC recommend them for all cycling. <sigh>

The most ridiculous reasoning for a helmet I've come across recently is from Sustrans. A trainee can go without with written permission, but trainers must wear them, somewhat at odds with their own policy of freedom of choice. Why? Because when they had trainers who didn't wear them they had lots of complaints from members of the public. So, helmet policy for trainers working for Sustrans is underpinned by the opinions of ignorant busybodies. I have requested this be reviewed, as part of the exchange where I declined to help them with training if I couldn't do it without a helmet, but I'm not entirely confident of movement any time soon.

Pete.

[bigjim]

Riding through the local park yesterday and I saw two little kiddies, about fours old on those little push along scooters. They were both wearing helmets. Ditto the next kid along on a tiny bike fitted with stabilsers. You can't fight it. The safety brigade are in full flow.

[mjr]

Riding through the local park yesterday and I saw two little kiddies, about fours old on those little push along scooters. They were both wearing helmets. Ditto the next kid along on a tiny bike fitted with stabilsers. You can't fight it. The safety brigade are in full flow.

We must fight it, else we'll become Australia instead of the Netherlands. It may be a long and - at times - lonely fight, but we must, else victim-blaming will probably spread from this beachhead.

[LollyKat]

Riding through the local park yesterday and I saw two little kiddies, about fours old on those little push along scooters. They were both wearing helmets. Ditto the next kid along on a tiny bike fitted with stabilsers. You can't fight it. The safety brigade are in full flow.

We must fight it, else we'll become Australia instead of the Netherlands. It may be a long and - at times - lonely fight, but we must, else victim-blaming will probably spread from this beachhead.

I live near a park and see this regularly. It really concerns me that these children don't learn how to fall without hitting their heads. There is a lovely Dutch video on youtube somewhere showing a small child learning to ride a two-wheeler - she falls lots of times at first (on a pavement) but instinctively saves her head each time.