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.
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 3241
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cugel » 28 Dec 2019, 9:10am

The utility cyclist wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:The risks are totally different. Stop comparing apples with dishcloths. Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling, anyone who thinks differently really needs to think about it a bit harder

:lol:
All the global evidence including that from sports such as boxing, gridiron, cricket, pro cycling, Ice Hockey absolutely say you are wrong.
Go bother yourself to look at the facts, it's fairly easy for a computer literate person to find them.
Boxing https://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing-de ... -lvGEQxAuG
Ice Hockey, significant increases in head injuries, two massive NA research papers which took data from the late 60s through to the late 80s, gridiron sees massive CTE problems because the helmets despite being far better than those in cycling are still unable to stop concussions/TBI, what has had an immediate effect in reductions has been changing of the rules recently with targeting the head in play.
I can do this all day long.

Go ask Headway, an org who are massively pro cycle helmet, how many head injuries are reported within the UK to medical professionals from the general population, ask them how many people are hospitalised due to such, then ask them how many of those are from people on bikes.

Firstly the numbers will show you that the general population require, IF helmets do indeed offer the efficacy you suggest, to be worn at all times and should be made compulsary as it's costing tax payers/NHS billions of pounds a year. It tells us that cycle head injuries are a tiny, tiny fraction of the number, it'll tell you that a significant, if not major factor is the actions of a criminal motorist that caused it, that large swathes of those are from those wearing helmets. If you dig deeper, deaths solely by head trauma in children are greater whilst motor vehicle occupants, than deaths of children who were on a cycle by any injury type in UK (2016 data) .
Dig further again and head traumas and indeed trauma of all body parts as well as deaths have INCREASED significantly in pro/amateur racing since helmet mandation, that's despite better on course protocols regarding safety, more barriers, more marshals, more warnings of acute turns, despite better tyres, better brakes, better handling bikes.

You like many present no hard facts and make statements that are ultimately proven to be false.


That is calm and well-reasoned post putting ole Marcus' common sense* in its place. Of course, he will never be convinced .... but perhaps a number of others reading will.

Cugel

* Common sense: neither common (there are many different opinions, from well-reasoned to out&out loon, on the same subjects); nor sense (out&out loon opinions dominate).

Mike Sales
Posts: 4521
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Dec 2019, 9:14am

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
It’s risk vs benefit, and risk needs to be categorised, with consequence factored in. It’s personal choice, as to whether one feels the risks need to be mitigated or not.


Nobody advocates making helmets illegal. It is helmeteers who want to remove choice.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 3241
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cugel » 28 Dec 2019, 9:20am

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:The risks are totally different. Stop comparing apples with dishcloths. Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling, anyone who thinks differently really needs to think about it a bit harder
Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries full stop.

I was in the loft the other day and hurt my head. Perhaps I should have been wearing a helmet.
I trapped my finger in the car door a few weeks ago. Perhaps I should have been wearing protective gloves.

We should all wear suits of amour?


It’s risk vs benefit, and risk needs to be categorised, with consequence factored in. It’s personal choice, as to whether one feels the risks need to be mitigated or not.


Personal choice to obey an advert; the pressure of what everyone else does; the need to not admit one was wrong. No personal choice at all, really - just unthinking conformance to a social convention driven by lust for profit and a desire to push responsibility for the actual causes of head injuries off the perpetrators and on to the victims. No helmet wearer I have ever conversed with on the subject has done any kind of risk assessment. Most have no idea what one is or how to conduct it.

Would you care to elucidate your own risk assessment process and details? Your "Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling" is rather unspecific, eh? :-)

Cugel

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48263
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mick F » 28 Dec 2019, 9:30am

Until she retired, Mrs Mick F was a HLTA (high level teaching assistant) at Gunnislake primary school.
Not one child wore a helmet in the playground despite one or two accidents a week where a child would bang his/her head playing and generally running around as children do.

Some of these bangs really hurt .............. but still none of them wore a helmet.

Why not?
Mick F. Cornwall

Mike Sales
Posts: 4521
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Dec 2019, 9:30am

I want to see Britain becoming more like the mass-cycling countries, where everyone cycles to school, work or the shops bareheaded and relatively safe. It would be good in several ways, which I don't think I need to detail.
I do not want to see us becoming more like other Anglo-Saxon countries, NZ, Oz, USA, SA, where cycling is a dangerous sport for a few predominantly young men in lycra and helmets, who suffer a high injury rate.

reohn2
Posts: 37949
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby reohn2 » 28 Dec 2019, 10:29am

Cugel wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:The risks are totally different. Stop comparing apples with dishcloths. Cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries whilst cycling, anyone who thinks differently really needs to think about it a bit harder

:lol:
All the global evidence including that from sports such as boxing, gridiron, cricket, pro cycling, Ice Hockey absolutely say you are wrong.
Go bother yourself to look at the facts, it's fairly easy for a computer literate person to find them.
Boxing https://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing-de ... -lvGEQxAuG
Ice Hockey, significant increases in head injuries, two massive NA research papers which took data from the late 60s through to the late 80s, gridiron sees massive CTE problems because the helmets despite being far better than those in cycling are still unable to stop concussions/TBI, what has had an immediate effect in reductions has been changing of the rules recently with targeting the head in play.
I can do this all day long.

Go ask Headway, an org who are massively pro cycle helmet, how many head injuries are reported within the UK to medical professionals from the general population, ask them how many people are hospitalised due to such, then ask them how many of those are from people on bikes.

Firstly the numbers will show you that the general population require, IF helmets do indeed offer the efficacy you suggest, to be worn at all times and should be made compulsary as it's costing tax payers/NHS billions of pounds a year. It tells us that cycle head injuries are a tiny, tiny fraction of the number, it'll tell you that a significant, if not major factor is the actions of a criminal motorist that caused it, that large swathes of those are from those wearing helmets. If you dig deeper, deaths solely by head trauma in children are greater whilst motor vehicle occupants, than deaths of children who were on a cycle by any injury type in UK (2016 data) .
Dig further again and head traumas and indeed trauma of all body parts as well as deaths have INCREASED significantly in pro/amateur racing since helmet mandation, that's despite better on course protocols regarding safety, more barriers, more marshals, more warnings of acute turns, despite better tyres, better brakes, better handling bikes.

You like many present no hard facts and make statements that are ultimately proven to be false.


That is calm and well-reasoned post.......

Cugel.

+1
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10189
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 28 Dec 2019, 10:41am

Syd wrote:I got taken to hospital by ambulance after a cycling mishap and the first question I got asked was ‘were you wearing a helmet?’ I responded that ‘I did not hit my head’ to which they said ‘that is not what I asked. We’re you wearing a helmet?’

I failed to see the relevance and stated so. I was not complaining of any upper body injuries or pain. They then asked the same question for the third time. I ignored it and carried on telling my recollection of the incident.

For the record, I was wearing a helmet but wanted to make a point that the question asked simply was not relevant to that incident.


Once had a Nurse lecturing on a course on "Evidence Based Practice"

At coffee, she decided to harangue one of the young attendees because she had cycled in sans helmet.

Couldn't resist.. so asked what the evidence base was for her claims about helmets. She had none, even when prompted about Rivara and Thompson, Ian Walker, Meier Hillman, she had heard of none of them.

Her conclusion was that in the case of helmets the "evidence" is so obvious that researching the literature and practicing on that evidence is unnecessary!


Ironically completely countering the lecture she had just given


The medical professions are the worst when it comes to perpetuating the myths and unprofessional in the way they do so

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10189
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 28 Dec 2019, 10:47am

Research into head injuries is nonsensical, flawed and biased

They exclude the majority of head injuries and then make wondrous claims about small cohort they have chosen.


It is a bit like researching industrial lung disease and then choosing a cohort of infants... then claiming your measures are effective in reducing industrial lung disease

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10189
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 28 Dec 2019, 10:54am

Mind you if you take the " Police" versions of these then I am a Drugs mastermind.

1. I have two phones (One work, one personal) - Absolute confirmation, only drug dealers carry two phones, one personal one for contacts

2. When I am travelling and don't know an area I often use an old Nokia - Absolute confirmation. Because these phones cannot be tracked or traced like a smartphone, only drug dealers use them.

3. I always carry enough cash for a meal, and a taxi home in case of an emergency. If travelling longer distances, enough for an overnight stay. This is often over £100.- Absolute confirmation, only drug dealers carry more than £50 in cash, and gas for the change I keep in my car for car parking etc which is unequivocal evidence of "small deals"


Perhaps we should (as with the helmets) take the advice with a pinch of salt

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10189
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Cunobelin » 28 Dec 2019, 11:03am

The utility cyclist wrote:
Go ask Headway, an org who are massively pro cycle helmet, how many head injuries are reported within the UK to medical professionals from the general population, ask them how many people are hospitalised due to such, then ask them how many of those are from people on bikes.


(Note: the original post is cut.)

Headway are desperate and dishonest.

A few years ago there was a case where they made some dramatic claims about head injuries.

It is estimated that 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents occur every year in the UK, of which a disproportionate number involve children under 16.

Child cyclists in the UK deserve the same protection as those in countries such as USA, Canada and Australia which have introduced compulsory helmet laws for children.

Headway - the brain injury association along with other national charities and the British Medical Association, believe that cycle helmets can save lives and prevent lifelong disability.


NOt only the open implication that these were all head injuries, but the reference was missing. On sustained enquiry, it turns out that the figures were from the British Dental Association. "Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR, Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560." The paper actually stated:

EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEAD INJURY AFTER BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
Across all ages in the UK it is estimated that there are 90,000 road-
related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents per year. Of these
accidents, 100,000 (53%) involved children under 16, suggesting
that children are at greater risk of injury during cycling than adults.
In the UK, there were between 127 and 203 cycling fatalities
per year between 1996 and 2002, of which 70–80% were
caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).The most recent Gov-
ernment death and serious injury figures2 are summarised in
Table 1. In children under 16, two-thirds of cycle-related deaths
occur in road traffic accidents (RTAs) with the remaining third
occurring whilst the child is cycling off road. The majority of
injuries, however, occur when children are cycling off road3–6
and, of these, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most likely to
have long-term consequences.


As always if the evidence is so strong, why the dishonesty?

tim-b
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Helimeds.

Postby tim-b » 28 Dec 2019, 12:53pm

Hi
Postby Mike Sales » Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:05 am

tim-b wrote:
Hi
Within the limits of current standards (and probably a bit beyond to allow for manufacturing tolerances) a cycling helmet will reduce the severity of a head injury, and that may save a life. Fact
If a 40 tonne truck drives over you then a cycle helmet probably won't improve the outcome
My view then, and now...viewtopic.php?f=41&t=132247&p=1393301&hilit=government#p1393301
Regards
tim-b

But all those cyclists donning a helmet as a safety precaution when they take to the saddle may be wasting their time, a leading neurosurgeon has said.
Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said he has treated a number of patients involved in bike accidents whose helmets were “too flimsy” to provide any real protection, The Telegraph reported.
Speaking at the Hay Festival alongside Ian McEwan, whose novel Saturday pivots on the life of a neurosurgeon, Dr Marsh went on to say that wearing a helmet could actually pose greater risks to cyclists than not wearing one at all.
Dr Marsh said: “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet. In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.
“I see lots of people in bike accidents and these flimsy little helmets don’t help.”
He added: “I have been cycling for 40 years and have only been knocked off once. I wear a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. I look completely mad.“
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 65257.html

I recommend Henry Marsh's books about his work, Do No Harm and Admissions. He writes often, "I cycled" to x hospital" where another writer might say "I drove..."


Medical specialists have no training in injury or accident prevention. They are specialists in repair. They are not omniscient in spite of the reputed delusions of some. Mike Sales 2014


How many neuro surgeons would agree with Henry Marsh?
Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~

Mike Sales
Posts: 4521
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Dec 2019, 1:25pm

tim-b wrote:Hi
Postby Mike Sales » Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:05 am

tim-b wrote:
Hi
Within the limits of current standards (and probably a bit beyond to allow for manufacturing tolerances) a cycling helmet will reduce the severity of a head injury, and that may save a life. Fact
If a 40 tonne truck drives over you then a cycle helmet probably won't improve the outcome
My view then, and now...viewtopic.php?f=41&t=132247&p=1393301&hilit=government#p1393301
Regards
tim-b

But all those cyclists donning a helmet as a safety precaution when they take to the saddle may be wasting their time, a leading neurosurgeon has said.
Henry Marsh, who works at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, London, said he has treated a number of patients involved in bike accidents whose helmets were “too flimsy” to provide any real protection, The Telegraph reported.
Speaking at the Hay Festival alongside Ian McEwan, whose novel Saturday pivots on the life of a neurosurgeon, Dr Marsh went on to say that wearing a helmet could actually pose greater risks to cyclists than not wearing one at all.
Dr Marsh said: “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet. In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.
“I see lots of people in bike accidents and these flimsy little helmets don’t help.”
He added: “I have been cycling for 40 years and have only been knocked off once. I wear a cowboy hat and cowboy boots. I look completely mad.“
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 65257.html

I recommend Henry Marsh's books about his work, Do No Harm and Admissions. He writes often, "I cycled" to x hospital" where another writer might say "I drove..."


Medical specialists have no training in injury or accident prevention. They are specialists in repair. They are not omniscient in spite of the reputed delusions of some. Mike Sales 2014


How many neuro surgeons would agree with Henry Marsh?
Regards
tim-b


The difference is that Henry Marsh literally has "skin in the game", and has plainly looked into the question.
Like Goldacre the epidemiologist and Spiegelhalter the professor for the public understanding of risk, who have assessed the evidence.
It is easy to go with the "obvious" and never bother to examine the counterintuitive.
These debates are not decided like an election. Or we would have to accept that Trump and Johnson are the best leaders.

tim-b
Posts: 1200
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Helimeds.

Postby tim-b » 28 Dec 2019, 1:29pm

Hi
Mike Sales wrote, It is helmeteers who want to remove choice

Mike Sales also wrote, I want to see Britain becoming more like the mass-cycling countries, where everyone cycles to school, work or the shops bareheaded and relatively safe

Regards
tim-b
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~

Mike Sales
Posts: 4521
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Dec 2019, 1:32pm

tim-b wrote:Hi
Mike Sales wrote, It is helmeteers who want to remove choice

Mike Sales also wrote, I want to see Britain becoming more like the mass-cycling countries, where everyone cycles to school, work or the shops bareheaded and relatively safe

Regards
tim-b


That is what I would like to see. Wouldn't you?
Helmets are not banned in those countries, it is just that cycling there feels safe and a part of everyday life, like walking.
The only wearers in NL are wannabe racers, and they have a higher injury rate than the average Dutch rider.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4521
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helimeds.

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Dec 2019, 2:03pm

We will not achieve roads on which you would be happy to see your child cycle to school by wearing a helmet, or by putting them in a helmet. Safe roads, like zero CO2 emissions, will not be reached by individual action, but by changes that need government action.
We can see a country, just across the North Sea, with a similar climate, that a few decades ago decided to stop "Der Kindermoord". They did not do it by banning helmets, or by wearing them! We can see easily how they made cycling popular but our society insists that helmets are the way, in spite of the fact that it cannot be shown that they make any difference.