Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

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
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Cunobelin » 23 Apr 2011, 7:20pm

Jonty wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
Jonty wrote:I've driven a car for 50 years and never had an accident except when I bumped my head when closing the boot. Why should I have to wear a seat belt? Perhaps I should wear a helmet instead?
jonty



You certainly should, there would be a far greater contribution to Public Health, and a far greater reduction on the burden of head injuries to the NHS if car drivers wore helmets

The evidence also suggests that helmets in cars would be of greater benefit than seatbelts in reducing head injury to vehicle occupants!


Are you sure? What about injuries to other parts of one's anatomy?
jonty
PS
A cycling helmet could protect your hands and knees if your head breaks the fall. :wink:


Thank you for raising that point - Injuries to other parts of the anatomy are another feature that links into the decreasing efficiency of helmets, and why their use is not the first recourse if we are to reduce fatalities and head injuries.

The increasing number of SUV / 4x4 / and similar is raising the injury rate. Many of these now impact family vehicles above the safety systems, and this has been reflected in the increase in life threatening femoral and abdominal injuries in vehicles struck by 4x4s. The classic Jeep Cherokee scores nil on the EuroNcap pedestrian safety ratings.

Raises the question......

Your point raises the very important question, should we allow an increasing propensity to cause more serious and life threatening injuries in vehicles?

Should we address this increasing hazard by setting a minimum safety standard for vehicles, or should we suggest that the victims should protect themselves with more and more protective equipment such as helmets?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby TonyR » 23 Apr 2011, 8:11pm

Cunobelin wrote:
Should we address this increasing hazard by setting a minimum safety standard for vehicles, or should we suggest that the victims should protect themselves with more and more protective equipment such as helmets?


If all motor vehicles had to be covered with 2" of foam polystyrene, cycle helmets could be done away with and it would protect pedestrians and cushion other vulnerable parts of the body too. You know it makes sense ;)

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby TonyR » 23 Apr 2011, 8:15pm

Jonty wrote:PS
A cycling helmet could protect your hands and knees if your head breaks the fall. :wink:


They are more magical than that. According to Thompson, Rivara & Thompson helmets prevent 75% of leg injuries while according to Cook & Sheikh every helmet worn protects the heads of two people.

Nutsey
Posts: 1270
Joined: 19 Apr 2010, 3:31pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Nutsey » 29 Jul 2011, 11:05am

The latest BMJ findings should surely be rubbed in the face of Headway>?

They are sending their children to an early grave by insisting on helmets!

EllieMay968
Posts: 59
Joined: 8 Apr 2009, 1:08am

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby EllieMay968 » 27 Mar 2012, 10:21am

Being critisised for being a crap writer I can take.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews ... ewpoints=1
But I do object to being critisised for not wearing a helmet!

Ellie

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby meic » 27 Mar 2012, 10:40am

Well the reader is assuming he is being sarcastic.
If there is a way to reply or comment, I would like to see some agreement that riding without a helmet IS a great example. :D
Though possibly camping on train lines, isnt! :shock:
Yma o Hyd

EllieMay968
Posts: 59
Joined: 8 Apr 2009, 1:08am

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby EllieMay968 » 10 Apr 2012, 12:49am

I choose not to use a helmet when I am cycling because I do not believe that a polystyrene cap will protect me, and furthermore, it encourages drivers to believe that that I am protected and therefore puts me more at risk. As for camping on train lines -obviously not recommended - in fact the campsite in question abuts the train line - separated only by a small fence - the line is five feet or so away., :D

EllieMay968
Posts: 59
Joined: 8 Apr 2009, 1:08am

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby EllieMay968 » 10 Apr 2012, 12:56am

BTW anectodal - had a fall off my bike and broke my collar bone and had disgusting bruising along my left leg and thigh. First question from the doctor was "were you wearing a cycle helmet?' I had not received any damage to my head. So why the question?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Cunobelin » 10 Apr 2012, 6:37am

EllieMay968 wrote:BTW anectodal - had a fall off my bike and broke my collar bone and had disgusting bruising along my left leg and thigh. First question from the doctor was "were you wearing a cycle helmet?' I had not received any damage to my head. So why the question?



Ask them.....

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15083
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Si » 10 Apr 2012, 2:21pm

Cunobelin wrote:
EllieMay968 wrote:BTW anectodal - had a fall off my bike and broke my collar bone and had disgusting bruising along my left leg and thigh. First question from the doctor was "were you wearing a cycle helmet?' I had not received any damage to my head. So why the question?



Ask them.....


alas, as I found when having my wrist manipulated after stacking the MTB, and the medico asked about helmets, any attempt by you as the patient to point out the idiocy of the question quickly results in increased pain in the injury that you did incur.

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

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby snibgo » 10 Apr 2012, 3:16pm

EllieMay968 wrote:So why the question?

Because some people are interested in the effect of helmets on injuries. Data gathered in this way is useful. (Or misleading, depending the nature of the study.)

I was more annoyed by the triage nurse then giving her opinion that it was a "good thing" that I was wearing a helmet. As I hadn't banged my head but had broken a hip, I disagreed.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Cunobelin » 10 Apr 2012, 6:44pm

I was at a training day (funnily enough on Evidence Based Practice)when one of the Casualty staff started having a go at a young lad who had cycled there without a helmet.

I simply asked whether she was basing her practice on the work of Rivara and Thompson or the more up to date work of Wardlaw. She looked blank and could not quote a single paper. However she "knew" that cyclists should wear helmets.!

I then simply pointed out that this was a classic case of making judgements with absolutely no evidence base and how apt it was that she was doing the course........

I needed a helmet with full darkened visor to protect me from the look that I got!

However she left the poor lad alone forth rest of the day

coshgirl
Posts: 24
Joined: 9 Jun 2009, 3:26pm

Healthy Transport - Healthy Lives - new BMA report

Postby coshgirl » 13 Jul 2012, 4:52pm

Hi, don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but the BMA have released a new report on active transport, published 12 June 2012. Most of the content is sensible, although sadly the 'h' word is mentioned on p44 and they then come out and reveal their support for compulsory helmet legislation in the UK. We need to monitor this, as there was a big media launch and of course it brings the idea of compulsory helmet laws to the fore again. Shame really, as there is lots of other good stuff in there

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Cunobelin » 13 Jul 2012, 5:18pm

The BMA has a bee in it's bonnet and the pro-compulsion brigade is again acting against the wishes of many BMA members.

Mind you at least they are now stating that helmet are only effective in low speed crashes, so we are getting somewhere.

Also of note is the "Areas for Action"

Areas for action
• Road safety should be addressed at a strategic level though a danger reduction approach
that addresses the factors that put pedestrians and cyclists at risk, rather than seeking to
reduce casualties by limiting pedestrians and cyclists from making the trips they need to
undertake.
• Transport policy should aim to encourage the creation of safe routes to school so that
children and parents can travel to school by walking or cycling, and the provision of suitable
cycle and road safety training for all pupils.
• There should be provision of a comprehensive network of routes for walking, cycling and
using other modes of active travel that offer everyone (including people whose mobility is
impaired) convenient, safe, well-designed and direct access to workplaces, homes, schools
and other public facilities.
• To maximise the potential for car-free travel, facilities for combining cycling with local and
longer-distance public transport should be improved.



Helmets are not listed.................

Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

Postby Steady rider » 13 Jul 2012, 9:49pm

Regulation Briefing Paper
30 May 2012 ... Healthy transport = Healthy lives. July 2012 ... British Medical Association – 2012
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid ... 0&aqi=s929


page 42 states
Despite cycling levels being very low in the UK, cyclists experience a high rate of injury by distance
travelled. Per million kilometres cycled, 0.31 cyclists are killed in road traffic incidents.

page 31 shows
Figure 15 – number of kilometres cycled in the UK, 1949 to 2010
almost 5 billion is indicated, 111 cyclist death in 2010,
5000 million km say results in 111 deaths, 111 divided by 5000 = 0.022 killed per million km roughly

It appears that they may have the 0.31 figure incorrect, very easy to get it wrong and soon corrected.

On helmets they may need some help, page 42-44

"While a number of reviews have considered the impact of compulsory helmet legislation on cycling levels, there is no consensus in the scientific literature." they need to ask how is it that counting cyclists has become so difficult.

The BMA publication Cycle helmets June 1999 refers to a 40% decrease for adults and a 60% decrease amongst children in regards to Melbourne.

Perhaps the BMA should have detailed discussions with the CTC who can advise them.