Helmets ... Again ..!!

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
Wildduck
Posts: 1161
Joined: 24 Oct 2007, 7:28pm
Location: Southampton

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby Wildduck » 19 Dec 2010, 8:08am

Ditto. What do I know with my years of working in Intensive Care units and looking after head injuries. Probably nothing.
Trice Q 2007 in inky blue (Quackers)
Bacchetta Corsa 26 ATT (The Mad Weeble)
Cube SL Team Cross (Rubberduckzilla)
Homebaked tourer (The Duck's Dream)
MTB mongrel (Harold the Flying Sheep)

LANDSURFER74

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby LANDSURFER74 » 19 Dec 2010, 8:22am

the point i was trying to make ... obviously badly .. was that after a life of excitement and adventure, where personal safety was never at the foremost in my mind, i am starting to realise that its better to enjoy cycling than to suffer from it, if the conditions require it ... ice etc i will now consider a helmet as much as i would consider wearing gloves .... to give myself some protection. An extra chance.
have fun, stay safe ......but mostly have fun!

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10188
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby Cunobelin » 19 Dec 2010, 9:14am

irc wrote:So because you have a helmet risking a broken arm or hip is now OK?


Again - recumbent trike!

Problem solved!

irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby irc » 19 Dec 2010, 9:18am

LANDSURFER74 wrote:... these ' winter tyres have spikes i assume ...! studs, mayhap chains?? Otherwise it's the sales and marketing department at it again,


Er ... yes.

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/article2340.html
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby [XAP]Bob » 19 Dec 2010, 3:27pm

irc wrote:
LANDSURFER74 wrote:... these ' winter tyres have spikes i assume ...! studs, mayhap chains?? Otherwise it's the sales and marketing department at it again,


Er ... yes.

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/article2340.html



a) My ice tyres have studs
b) Go to Finland - They have to have winter tyres, they can choose between studded tryes and non studded winter tyres.

Large blocks, low temperature rubber etc. Non studded winter tyres do exist, and work.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby SilverBadge » 19 Dec 2010, 6:03pm

Wildduck wrote:Ditto. What do I know with my years of working in Intensive Care units and looking after head injuries. Probably nothing.
Possibly what the other 99.something% of head injuries that weren't caused by cycling were caused by. And why medics don't pester BMA about compulsory helmet wearing for these activities.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby Steady rider » 19 Dec 2010, 11:55pm

Having fallen off a few times on ice I would think the risk level is probably 20 fold at a guess. Most of the time I do not bother cycling on ice, rather wait for a better day. It is interesting testing the skill level to ride on ice.

Roughly 12 million people have bikes in the UK, 104 deaths in 2009 I think, probably about 10-20 serious head injuries per death or about 1000-2000 say. One serious head injury per 6000 -12000 yrs may be. Ride for 60 years, once in 100 -200 lifetimes. so you could spend up to £60,000 on helmets in the hope that one day it will help reduce or save you from serious head injury, but in practice it may be less than a 1% chance. Spending £60000 on a 1% chance may not be the best use of the pound. ( one lifetime cycling, say 15 helmets at £20 each = £300 x 200 = £60,000 rate over 200 lifetimes)

Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008: Annual Report, Chart 6d: Car occupant admissions: body region of primary injury by age group. Roughly it shows
0-15 age have 50%+ head injuries
16-24 age have 35%+ head injuries
25-39 ages have 30% head injuries
40+ ages have 20% head injuries
Chart 6d: Car occupant admissions: body region of primary injury by age group, p 85/201
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Useful ... es2008.pdf
possibly more than 2000 head injuries to motorists, if a person already has an helmet they could wear it in the car.

Table 5a also provides some data.

May be worth a read of Clarke CF, Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmet laws in the USA, http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/US ... t_laws.pdf

In any case the task is not falling off to start with, should be OK on an old railway track, levelish at least perhaps.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby snibgo » 20 Dec 2010, 5:07am

Although car occupants suffer more brain injury than cyclists do, we shouldn't think that cycle helmets would help much, due to the greater speeds.

If we want to help car occupants, I suspect motorbike helmets would be far more effective.

irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby irc » 20 Dec 2010, 5:58am

snibgo wrote:Although car occupants suffer more brain injury than cyclists do, we shouldn't think that cycle helmets would help much, due to the greater speeds.

If we want to help car occupants, I suspect motorbike helmets would be far more effective.


Perhaps the BMA might suggest a law for that?
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby snibgo » 20 Dec 2010, 6:12am

I would hope so. And for pedestrians, of course, where cycle-type helmets are probably sufficient.

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby SilverBadge » 20 Dec 2010, 1:07pm

snibgo wrote:Although car occupants suffer more brain injury than cyclists do, we shouldn't think that cycle helmets would help much, due to the greater speeds.

WRONG - it's not the speed that the outside of the car impacts that is important, it's the speed at which the occupants hit the inside of the car that matters. And there are plenty of sub-12mph internal collisions in car crashes just waiting for a solution. The "Second Review of Road Safety . . . whatever . . ." singles out head injuries as a major issue of concern, but thinks that improvements in trim padding will help in the long run. Australia's Federal Office of Road Safety estimates that 20% of motorist fatalities could be saved by the wearing of "cycle" helmets, even in vehicles with airbags.
If we want to help car occupants, I suspect motorbike helmets would be far more effective.
The "better" the helmet, the better the protection (with some issues about alternative injuries due to the greater head mass. However, to get those magnitudes of impact may require significant crushing of the passenger cabin, at which point the poor motorist gets killed at least twice, thus the extra protection is worthless.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby bovlomov » 20 Dec 2010, 5:08pm

SilverBadge wrote:
snibgo wrote:... at which point the poor motorist gets killed at least twice, thus the extra protection is worthless.


Surely, if a helmet prevents even the third part of one death, then it will have been worth it. Just think how much better the bereaved will feel.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby snibgo » 20 Dec 2010, 5:15pm

@SilverBadge: You are right, of course, that "it's the speed at which the occupants hit the inside of the car that matters."

And there may be "plenty of sub-12mph internal collisions in car crashes just waiting for a solution."

I once drove a car that ended up cartwheeling twice. Multiple blows against the driver's window left me with permanent brain damage. A cycle-style helmet might have reduced the injuries. A motorcycle-style helmet might have eliminated them.

Society suffers more from injuries to car occupants than cyclists. Those who campaign for helmet legislation should, logically, address cars rather than bikes.

@bovlomov: you are misquoting.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby Steady rider » 20 Dec 2010, 6:17pm

A team of Australian researchers concluded from real-life crash data that helmets for motor vehicle occupants might prevent 28%, 40% and 26% of minor, moderate and severe brain injuries. Thus a helmet law for motorists (in addition to seatbelts) could potentially save $1.9 billion (over 5 years, all vehicles equipped with airbags) to $2.2 billion (50% with airbags). This works out at $95-110 per helmet. (possible pinch of salt)

The benefits of helmet laws for vehicle occupants could be offset by risk compensation, but there would be no other problems such as discouraging healthy exercise and environmentally friendly transport.

I would decline to wear a helmet and avoid the extra impacts they incur, reducing the risk of any head impact. This means accepting the risks involved and trying to minmise accidents, reducing all injuries. It also results in maximum convenience and minimal cost and also allows wearing other head gear as desired, making life a little bit better.
Last edited by Steady rider on 20 Dec 2010, 6:55pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Helmets ... Again ..!!

Postby bovlomov » 20 Dec 2010, 6:35pm

snibgo wrote:@bovlomov: you are misquoting.

Sorry! How about this?

If the helmet saves the life of even one dead person, then it will have been worth it.