Cycling UK Forum

Cyril Haearn wrote:Are there parallels, is there a lobby for compulsory LJs?
Our cricket boys plan to be world champions tomorrow, most do not wear h****s

They ALL wear helmets when batting and it has not prevented an Aussie dying after being hit on the back of the head (the unprotected part above the nape) a few years ago. Anecdotally, ball striking head/helmet is far more common now than ever was in pre-helmet days but it is clear that batting techniques have evolved that make head strikes more likely particular when hooking the bouncers and involve taking eye off the ball. In my competing cricket days we were taught to evade head high balls that were in line, now they tend to try and hit them and those outside the off stump which increases risk of helmet strike even more.

As it happens I do wear now a helmet not because of bouncers but now being older and playing on very suspect pitches the variable bounce can result in a ball in the face without much chance of getting out of the way. Ironically, I have only ever been hit on the head once and that was wearing helmet - I tried to sweep (hit a slower ball round to the left side for non-cricketers) and the ball hit the top edge of the bat and up into the face grill. Probably avoided a misshapen nose, black eye, stitches, worst would be cheek fracture, certainly not life threatening but I certainly would never had turned my head with or without helmet so ‘life saving’ effect was nil.

General point on Life Jackets. Most canoeists/kayakers and dinghy sailors DO NOT wear life jackets, they wear bouyancy aids and there is a general expectation that they will end up in the water at some point due to capsize and will then self recover themselves and their craft without assistance . Life Jackets are typically only used where there is a risk of falling off a larger vessel inadvertently often with a high risk of injury as part of the fall. In addition, sudden unexpected inversion also presents a risk of cold shock (even in UK summer period in sea and particularly in rivers and canals where water temperature is lower) and or an involuntary first intake of breath that takes water into the lung both of which can seriously incapacitate the faller. Typically, guidance for sailing is to wear life jackets once sea state goes above moderate, when hoisting/lowering/adjusting sails outside of the cockpit and ALWAYS at night - the latter in particular includes coming alongside to moor or when anchoring where falls are all too common. In addition, safety lines are usually used to try and ensure any man overboard stays attached to the boat. Despite all such precautions, sadly there still remain instances of people equipped as above losing their lives due to variety of unfortunate events.

It is a completely different scenario to cycle (or cricket helmets) for that matter and I would recommend people do not try to over any further comparisons. Personal risk decisions are best overall in all three activity areas with experienced practitioners offering balanced advice to novices until they are aware of what is involved and they have acquired some basic skill sets.

I can't read about helmets in other sports without mentioning Olympic Boxing (which is on TV a LOT, but only every 4 years!):

there can't be many sports with more data about head impacts, and the effects of head protection; after many years of mandated helmets ("protectors"? ), and studying the data, the governing body took them away for the safety of the boxers.

People: your intuition may be wrong on safety matters!

pjclinch wrote:* AIUI a "life jacket" is one of the ones with an over-head design and practically all the buoyancy on the front, so you float head up. They're a total <i>[rude word removed]</i> to swim in if you want to see where you're going, but this is a bit of a moot point for e.g. a plane passenger that's ditched at sea and can't do much except bob around until help arrives.
A "buoyancy aid" is more like a waistcoat with buoyant material all around so you tend to float in a more upright stance. Still a PITA to swim in, but you can see where you're going and arrange stuff like righting your boat.

Not to derail the discussion, but they are all called life jackets in the US, both the kind boaters wear that one can swim in, and the sort found under the seat in an aeroplane.

The paper I linked to above, from the US Coast Guard, refers to them as life jackets in some places. For clarity, they are sometimes referred to as personal flotation devices (PFD), personal flotation equipment (PFE), or flotation aids. I have never heard them referred to in the US as bouyancy aids, though I will not say it never happens. Bouyancy aids in US English sounds to me like things that are made to be held for staying afloat, like the polystyrene boards used in swim classes, inflatable arm rings for kids, etc. I think if you asked for a 'bouyancy aid' when hiring a sail boat in Florida, they'd look at you like you were mad.

Not on TV but this is the front page of Age UK Hertfordshire's magazine, 'Age Matter's'
THIS should be the norm

mattheus wrote:I can't read about helmets in other sports without mentioning Olympic Boxing (which is on TV a LOT, but only every 4 years!):

there can't be many sports with more data about head impacts, and the effects of head protection; after many years of mandated helmets ("protectors"? ), and studying the data, the governing body took them away for the safety of the boxers.

People: your intuition may be wrong on safety matters!

My brother was a decent amateur boxer in the early to late 80s pre head gear. I talked about this with him and he said it was obvious as to why fighters would get hit more and more focus on the hitting the head particularly when the points scoring was based on pummelling the head. Add in the bigger target and blows that would slide by the head catching the guard and also the obviousness of the extra risk taken due to feeling more protected. It virtually replicates cycling exactly. Same scenario in Ice Hockey whose evidence goes back to the 60s and 70s and concluded in a research paper in 1987 and also repeated further looking at the data in 2002 that helmet and mask wearing increases head and neck injuries but cuts are more prevalent (same as boxing).

It aint rocket science!

The utility cyclist wrote:

mattheus wrote:I can't read about helmets in other sports without mentioning Olympic Boxing (which is on TV a LOT, but only every 4 years!):

there can't be many sports with more data about head impacts, and the effects of head protection; after many years of mandated helmets ("protectors"? ), and studying the data, the governing body took them away for the safety of the boxers.

People: your intuition may be wrong on safety matters!

My brother was a decent amateur boxer in the early to late 80s pre head gear. I talked about this with him and he said it was obvious as to why fighters would get hit more and more focus on the hitting the head particularly when the points scoring was based on pummelling the head. Add in the bigger target and blows that would slide by the head catching the guard and also the obviousness of the extra risk taken due to feeling more protected. It virtually replicates cycling exactly. Same scenario in Ice Hockey whose evidence goes back to the 60s and 70s and concluded in a research paper in 1987 and also repeated further looking at the data in 2002 that helmet and mask wearing increases head and neck injuries but cuts are more prevalent (same as boxing).

It aint rocket science!

But it's a terrible analogy. Boxing is as much a physical contact sport as they get, ice hockey engenders jokes like "I went to a fight and an ice hockey game broke out". Cycling is not directly comparable, so it doesn't make sense to compare it.

If you go out of your way to compare cycle helmets to anything that might possibly show them in a bad light you're not doing yourself or your arguments any favours. There's plenty of good comparisons to make, so it makes no sense at all to choose bad ones.

Pete.

The utility cyclist wrote:Not on TV but this is the front page of Age UK Hertfordshire's magazine, 'Age Matter's'
THIS should be the norm

It should.
It's increasingly the case, ISTM, that where images are used showing cycling as an incidental (as opposed to showing particularly cycling) they're much more likely to feature folk dressed normally. But if they're showing cycling specifically, that's subject to the BBC etc. portrayal of cycling political-correctness-gone-mad™. This comes back to the cyclist vs. person on a bike thing.

Pete.

Re: boxing

pjclinch wrote:But it's a terrible analogy. Boxing is as much a physical contact sport as they get, ice hockey engenders jokes like "I went to a fight and an ice hockey game broke out". Cycling is not directly comparable, so it doesn't make sense to compare it.

If you go out of your way to compare cycle helmets to anything that might possibly show them in a bad light you're not doing yourself or your arguments any favours. There's plenty of good comparisons to make, so it makes no sense at all to choose bad ones.

Pete.

Yes, you're right! [out-of-interest, what IS your favourite good comparison?]

But to be clear, the reason I bring up boxing in this context is that it's a good comparison of how people perceive danger & PPE's role:
- Watching boxing, most people assume that head-protection would be a good thing.
- Fans of mandatory cycle helmets seem to do the same - it is apparently "just common sense" to wear a helmet.

Those in charge of boxing have actually done the science, and acted on it - they've taken the PPE away

mattheus wrote:Those in charge of boxing have actually done the science, and acted on it - they've taken the PPE away

Of course it is not about the science.

The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

pjclinch wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:

mattheus wrote:I can't read about helmets in other sports without mentioning Olympic Boxing (which is on TV a LOT, but only every 4 years!):

there can't be many sports with more data about head impacts, and the effects of head protection; after many years of mandated helmets ("protectors"? ), and studying the data, the governing body took them away for the safety of the boxers.

People: your intuition may be wrong on safety matters!

My brother was a decent amateur boxer in the early to late 80s pre head gear. I talked about this with him and he said it was obvious as to why fighters would get hit more and more focus on the hitting the head particularly when the points scoring was based on pummelling the head. Add in the bigger target and blows that would slide by the head catching the guard and also the obviousness of the extra risk taken due to feeling more protected. It virtually replicates cycling exactly. Same scenario in Ice Hockey whose evidence goes back to the 60s and 70s and concluded in a research paper in 1987 and also repeated further looking at the data in 2002 that helmet and mask wearing increases head and neck injuries but cuts are more prevalent (same as boxing).

It aint rocket science!

But it's a terrible analogy. Boxing is as much a physical contact sport as they get, ice hockey engenders jokes like "I went to a fight and an ice hockey game broke out". Cycling is not directly comparable, so it doesn't make sense to compare it.

If you go out of your way to compare cycle helmets to anything that might possibly show them in a bad light you're not doing yourself or your arguments any favours. There's plenty of good comparisons to make, so it makes no sense at all to choose bad ones.

Pete.

No, it's the perfect analogy, it replicates every aspect of the problem with cycle helmets as I said.
Mandatory Headgear proposed to combat head injuries - check
Done so with no actual fact checking/research - check
Increase in target to be struck - check
Increase in risk taking by the wearer - check
Increase in risk taking by the person that will or potentially will strike you - check
Increase in head injuries/concussions due to wearing headgear -check
Failure of headgear to protect - check

The utility cyclist wrote:No, it's the perfect analogy, it replicates every aspect of the problem with cycle helmets as I said.
Mandatory Headgear proposed to combat head injuries - check
Done so with no actual fact checking/research - check
Increase in target to be struck - check
Increase in risk taking by the wearer - check
Increase in risk taking by the person that will or potentially will strike you - check
Increase in head injuries/concussions due to wearing headgear -check
Failure of headgear to protect - check

You need to look up "perfect" in the dictionary. If it was a perfect analogy everything would match.

Sport where knocking an adversary senseless is a prime objective of the contest... not check
Sport where direct physical attack is totally fundamental... not check
Sport which has no utilitarian, everyday aspect... not check

As is fairly typical, you're over-egging the pudding. And there is no need to over-egg the pudding to make a valid point. If you rush around saying cycle helmets are just like boxing head protection in all respects you're giving people an excuse to say you're clearly wrong, and while they're saying that they won't learn the lessons that some aspects of boxing head protection can teach.

Both are right, pj and utility
There are many similarities and many differences