Helimeds.

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.
cotswolds
Posts: 199
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 10:47am

Re: Helimeds.

Postby cotswolds » 31 Dec 2019, 8:04pm

Mike Sales wrote:
pjclinch wrote:
It comes back to being about culture, and cultural conventions tend to be the starting point for a lot of rules. Sometimes they even make sense, but certainly not always.

Pete.


I think helmets, especially compulsion, are a sign of a bicycle-hating culture.


I don't think that's problem, it's just that once a safety idea becomes received wisdom, it can never be dropped.

My running club has training sessions 2 nights a week through the winter and has a rule that reflective tabards must be worn. I remember seeing another group of runnners approaching and thinking tut tut, they're not wearing tabards, then when they got closer I realised some of them were. At 200 metres on a motorway hard shoulder they're probably brilliant but in the conditions we run in they make no difference. Arguably they make things worse because the mesh material acts as a kind of camouflage, breaking up a solid slab of colour in the shirt underneath.

Every winter we have one or two incidents, and hi viz is never relevant. In every case, the injured runner failed to see a hazard, yet we don't mandate head torches. Every winter I see unlit runners going off the front of the group on sparsely lit potholed lanes, but they're wearing their magic tabard so they're considered safe. It makes no sense.

If one medium-sized running club can't work out sensible rules for itself, it's not surprising things don't make sense on a bigger scale.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9938
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 31 Dec 2019, 8:14pm

Mike Sales wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how promoting wider use of helmets such as this is dismissed as "anti-helmet"!

No-one has ever come up with any reason whatsoever why pedestrians would not benefit, just refuse to discuss it.


It's obvious innit? You are comparing dishcloths and apples.


Bash an apple against a wall,... now repeat with the apple tied in a dishcloth and if there less damage does it prove that dishcloths can protect apples from injury?

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2717
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Helimeds.

Postby The utility cyclist » 31 Dec 2019, 8:57pm

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:Here are some more "lone voices" who do not accept helmet orthodoxy.

“THE Transport and Health Study Group completed an extensive review of cycling for its book Health on the Move 2. We concluded against the promotion of cycle helmets and strongly against their compulsion.
“One of the main reasons is that the risks of cycling are in the same range as for walking or driving. Young males face higher risks as drivers. A mile of cycling is typically safer than a mile of walking.

“In addition, the health benefits of cycling are large with the daily cycling benefits to health as much as giving up cigarette smoking.

“Helmet laws have not noticeably reduced serious head injuries, except by reducing cycling.
“An excessive focus on helmets adds ‘fear’ to the obstacles hindering a cycling revival.”
Malcolm Wardlaw,
executive member,
Transport & Health Study Group



[url]https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/transport/should-safety-helmets-be-made-compulsory-no-1-2335355 :([/url]


People who are pro helmet wearing, tend not to shout so much about it, as the truths are so self evident ( to any sane thinking individual) there really is no need to try and find incidents / stats to back up a flimsy ( at best ) argument ( for avoidance of doubt that’s the vehemently anti lid brigade’s argument(s)). Anti helmet people shout it from the metaphorical rooftops, pro helmet wearers just wait for the latest ‘cyclist who wasn’t wearing a lid death story’ to be attributed largely to head injuries, and let people make their own minds up, as to whether or not a lid may have possibly helped, or not.

:lol: Is this some kind of joke? You clearly miss the daily helmet saved my life nonsense, it's nonsense because given the number of claims, cycling would have shown epidemic proportions of deaths and serious head injuries before cycle helmets became a thing, and that's not the case, even with massively more journeys/cyclists :roll: The fact that the majority of deaths/injuries are caused by criminals also seems to have passed you buy, do you shout so loud for anti rape devices for women, what about anti rape systems for children, or are they darwin fodder as well if they have a heinous crime acted upon them?

Pro helmeteers are about forcing their will on others to the point of exclusion, pushing people away from clubs, cycling events, even children learning to cycle at school or indeed just cycling to school despite it being none of the schools business, so they are excluded if they don't conform to the pro helmet human rights removing helmet lobby people! :twisted:
<SNIP - personal attack removed>
Last edited by Graham on 1 Jan 2020, 4:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: PAR - Personal Attack Removed

tim-b
Posts: 1151
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Helimeds.

Postby tim-b » 1 Jan 2020, 7:48am

Hi
BTW I finished watching an episode (the episode?) of Helimeds this morning and the young lad's interview at the end was pretty powerful stuff.

It was this one:
Emergency Helicopter Medics Series 3 Episode 8 "In Cambridgeshire, the heli-medics race to treat a cyclist with a time-critical brain injury" (https://www.channel4.com/programmes/eme ... sode-guide) It's on again late tomorrow evening (Thursday) on More4 and I assume that it'll appear online soon. Evidence? Hmmmm? Powerful? Absolutely

Edit - Evidence or powerful? I think that I know which would win the public and Parliament over :)

Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~

Mike Sales
Posts: 4145
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 1 Jan 2020, 8:33am

tim-b wrote:Hi
BTW I finished watching an episode (the episode?) of Helimeds this morning and the young lad's interview at the end was pretty powerful stuff.

It was this one:
Emergency Helicopter Medics Series 3 Episode 8 "In Cambridgeshire, the heli-medics race to treat a cyclist with a time-critical brain injury" (https://www.channel4.com/programmes/eme ... sode-guide) It's on again late tomorrow evening (Thursday) on More4 and I assume that it'll appear online soon. Evidence? Hmmmm? Powerful? Absolutely

Edit - Evidence or powerful? I think that I know which would win the public and Parliament over :)

Regards
tim-b


It is, of course, wrong to use a single incident as evidence, especially one as emotive as this sounds.
I would hope emotion does not triumph over reason.

There are many tragic road incidents every year that might potentially fuel an emotive reaction and law change. I would want all such changes to be based on evidence. Many have good evidence of likely efficacy.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9938
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 1 Jan 2020, 8:53am

Mike Sales wrote:
tim-b wrote:Hi
BTW I finished watching an episode (the episode?) of Helimeds this morning and the young lad's interview at the end was pretty powerful stuff.

It was this one:
Emergency Helicopter Medics Series 3 Episode 8 "In Cambridgeshire, the heli-medics race to treat a cyclist with a time-critical brain injury" (https://www.channel4.com/programmes/eme ... sode-guide) It's on again late tomorrow evening (Thursday) on More4 and I assume that it'll appear online soon. Evidence? Hmmmm? Powerful? Absolutely

Edit - Evidence or powerful? I think that I know which would win the public and Parliament over :)

Regards
tim-b


It is, of course, wrong to use a single incident as evidence, especially one as emotive as this sounds.
I would hope emotion does not triumph over reason.

There are many tragic road incidents every year that might potentially fuel an emotive reaction and law change. I would want all such changes to be based on evidence. Many have good evidence of likely efficacy.


A single incident, can be exploited to make a point and distort the reality, as in this case

I once read an article that was along the lines of "Beware of pretty blondes". This is where a young pretty blonde is wheeled out to make a statement or argument knowing that they will distract many from the actual text, but also because you feel an attraction, then you are more likely to trust and believe them.

Of course, there are other options that could be used to demonstrate this point. This is one... the Stab vest, and the much publicised knife crime agenda.

Firstly the emotive "Stab Vest saved a life":

One source said: The body armour he was wearing saved his life. Each time the blade hit him, the stab-proof vest cushioned the full force. Even with the armour on, the point of the blade pierced through the protective clothing and nicked PC Marshall's skin. I'm sure he's just glad he's alive.


A police spokesman added: Officers know the importance of wearing these special vests and, in this case, it has probably saved PC Marshall's life.


Then we have the video supporting their use and how you can protect yourself from knife crime:



However, will we be seeing a sudden rush on these vests?

Is someone being stabbed without one, Darwinism in action?
Are people responsible for protecting themselves from knives?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9938
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 1 Jan 2020, 9:21am

tim-b wrote:Hi
BTW I finished watching an episode (the episode?) of Helimeds this morning and the young lad's interview at the end was pretty powerful stuff.

It was this one:
Emergency Helicopter Medics Series 3 Episode 8 "In Cambridgeshire, the heli-medics race to treat a cyclist with a time-critical brain injury" (https://www.channel4.com/programmes/eme ... sode-guide) It's on again late tomorrow evening (Thursday) on More4 and I assume that it'll appear online soon. Evidence? Hmmmm? Powerful? Absolutely

Edit - Evidence or powerful? I think that I know which would win the public and Parliament over :)

Regards
tim-b


These programmes have an agenda....



A child with a serious (life-threatening) head injury, yet treated entirely diferently. No questions about helmets, no post-trauma interviews about road safety.

Why?

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2717
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Helimeds.

Postby The utility cyclist » 1 Jan 2020, 1:36pm

If we use the England Wales rates there are between 4000 and 6700 deaths by traumatic head injury in the UK, the number of hospitalisations in E&W from head injury stand at 200,000, up from the previous 160,000. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs74/d ... ing-paper2 the paper only suggests helmets for cycling when it's clear by the numbers that society as a whole need helmets long before those on bikes if they are thinking helmets prevent head traumas/deaths, but they don't because the agenda and discrimination is as clear as day! :twisted:

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 47738
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mick F » 1 Jan 2020, 1:49pm

Thinking about risk and exposure etc ............. I think there's a parallel on the white lines on the Old A30 not far from here.
A little bit different way of looking at this debate, but bear with me and see if you can see the parallels that I can see.

On the Old A30 just west of Lewdown on the way towards Bridestow and Okehampton, they re-surfaced the road for a half mile stretch.
Just here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.66624 ... 312!8i6656
I've pointed this out when cycling with LEJOGers once or twice. You can see the old white lines underneath the dressed surface. The road bends and curves along there.

Before they resurfaced, there were double white lines left over from when the road was a busy major trunk road - since bypassed by the New A30.
Now, it's just a dashed white line.

What's changed?
It's still very risky overtaking there. You still can't see round the bends.
Nowadays it's not so risky ? The traffic is light, so it's unlikely that you'll have a head-on collision .......... the risk is the same though the likelihood much less.

Here's the parallel.
If you ride a bike fast and in competition, the risk of falling off is the same as any rider out on the road, but the likelihood of falling off is much much more.
Mick F. Cornwall

Mike Sales
Posts: 4145
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 1 Jan 2020, 1:58pm

Mick F wrote:Thinking about risk and exposure etc ............. I think there's a parallel on the white lines on the Old A30 not far from here.
A little bit different way of looking at this debate, but bear with me and see if you can see the parallels that I can see.

On the Old A30 just west of Lewdown on the way towards Bridestow and Okehampton, they re-surfaced the road for a half mile stretch.
Just here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.66624 ... 312!8i6656
I've pointed this out when cycling with LEJOGers once or twice. You can see the old white lines underneath the dressed surface. The road bends and curves along there.

Before they resurfaced, there were double white lines left over from when the road was a busy major trunk road - since bypassed by the New A30.
Now, it's just a dashed white line.

What's changed?
It's still very risky overtaking there. You still can't see round the bends.
Nowadays it's not so risky ? The traffic is light, so it's unlikely that you'll have a head-on collision .......... the risk is the same though the likelihood much less.

Here's the parallel.
If you ride a bike fast and in competition, the risk of falling off is the same as any rider out on the road, but the likelihood of falling off is much much more.


Many definitions of risk combine likelihood of occurrence with severity of possible outcome.
I think common usage does too.

[Risk is] An uncertain event or set of events which, should it occur, will have an effect on the achievement of objectives; a risk is measured by a combination of the probability of a perceived threat or opportunity occurring and the magnitude of its impact on objectives.


The probability of something happening multiplied by the resulting cost or benefit if it does.


I can see the utility of your separation.
Last edited by Mike Sales on 1 Jan 2020, 2:28pm, edited 3 times in total.

sjs
Posts: 761
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: Helimeds.

Postby sjs » 1 Jan 2020, 2:00pm

The utility cyclist wrote:If we use the England Wales rates there are between 4000 and 6700 deaths by traumatic head injury in the UK, the number of hospitalisations in E&W from head injury stand at 200,000, up from the previous 160,000. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs74/d ... ing-paper2 the paper only suggests helmets for cycling when it's clear by the numbers that society as a whole need helmets long before those on bikes if they are thinking helmets prevent head traumas/deaths, but they don't because the agenda and discrimination is as clear as day! :twisted:


Are you sure about the 4000-6700 figures? I did not read all of your link but in section 2.3 it is said that "as few as 0.2% of all patients attending emergency departments with a head injury dying as a result", which would indicate 400 not 4000. Doesn't invalidate your point though.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17704
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Vorpal » 1 Jan 2020, 3:22pm

sjs wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:If we use the England Wales rates there are between 4000 and 6700 deaths by traumatic head injury in the UK, the number of hospitalisations in E&W from head injury stand at 200,000, up from the previous 160,000. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs74/d ... ing-paper2 the paper only suggests helmets for cycling when it's clear by the numbers that society as a whole need helmets long before those on bikes if they are thinking helmets prevent head traumas/deaths, but they don't because the agenda and discrimination is as clear as day! :twisted:


Are you sure about the 4000-6700 figures? I did not read all of your link but in section 2.3 it is said that "as few as 0.2% of all patients attending emergency departments with a head injury dying as a result", which would indicate 400 not 4000. Doesn't invalidate your point though.

Something like 1.4 million patients (2014) attend A&E with head injuries. Not all are hospitalised.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9938
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 1 Jan 2020, 3:59pm

When discussing hospital admissions, it is essential that we also look at the causes. There are various estimates, but it all comes down to the fact that cyclists are a minority yet the ones who are being blamed for their injuries and expected to prevent them.

Thornhill et al are typical when it comes to looking at all head injuries admitted

The characteristics of the cohort agreed with the previous surveys: 1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.
CYclists were not a big enough section of the cohort to be mentioned.

Also if I remember rightly when looking at deaths, Mieier Hillman showed that cyclists again were the least affected group. 39% were pedestrians, 40% were vehicle drivers and occupants, 12% were Motorcycles / Mpoesd and only 8% cyclists, again begging the question why only cyclists are being expected to prevent the death, and the other 91% were not

The classic dishonest trick of Headway, BHIT and helmet promotion is to take all head injuries, or all cycle injuries and pass them off as cycle-related head injuries to inflate the figures

In fact, BHIT went one better.... They told Parliament that more children's lives would be saved then had actually been injured or killed in any of the previous 5 years! The only way this could be achieved was if their helmet compulsion drastically increased the number of children suffering head injuries on their bikes!

sjs
Posts: 761
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: Helimeds.

Postby sjs » 1 Jan 2020, 4:29pm

Vorpal wrote:
sjs wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:If we use the England Wales rates there are between 4000 and 6700 deaths by traumatic head injury in the UK, the number of hospitalisations in E&W from head injury stand at 200,000, up from the previous 160,000. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs74/d ... ing-paper2 the paper only suggests helmets for cycling when it's clear by the numbers that society as a whole need helmets long before those on bikes if they are thinking helmets prevent head traumas/deaths, but they don't because the agenda and discrimination is as clear as day! :twisted:


Are you sure about the 4000-6700 figures? I did not read all of your link but in section 2.3 it is said that "as few as 0.2% of all patients attending emergency departments with a head injury dying as a result", which would indicate 400 not 4000. Doesn't invalidate your point though.

Something like 1.4 million patients (2014) attend A&E with head injuries. Not all are hospitalised.


Sorry, you're right of course.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2717
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Helimeds.

Postby The utility cyclist » 1 Jan 2020, 6:56pm

sjs wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
sjs wrote:
Are you sure about the 4000-6700 figures? I did not read all of your link but in section 2.3 it is said that "as few as 0.2% of all patients attending emergency departments with a head injury dying as a result", which would indicate 400 not 4000. Doesn't invalidate your point though.

Something like 1.4 million patients (2014) attend A&E with head injuries. Not all are hospitalised.


Sorry, you're right of course.

Currently 67 million people in the UK, the death rate was based on per 100,000 population as per the hospitals/governments stats.