Boy with no helmit has severe accident

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.
De Sisti
Posts: 792
Joined: 17 Jun 2007, 6:03pm

Re: Boy with no helmit has severe accident

Postby De Sisti » 8 Sep 2019, 7:34am

Cunobelin wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:The image/story has gone.

Have there been studies showing that more lives could be saved by wearing helmets in cars? Serious Q, as I would have thought much the same issues as are in play regarding cycle helmets would also apply - or would this also include use of Hans devices to avoid the additional mass of the helmet snapping necks and so on.


A simple extension of the pro-helmet claims

More drivers and passengers are seen in A&E than cyclists, so, therefore, more lives will be saved

A colleague in work recently visited Bristol Frenchay Hospital to see her mother who was suffering
from a brain tumour. She asked the medical staff if the other paitients on her mother's ward were
in for the ailment; only to be told that the overwhelming majority of them were in after suffering
injuries from motor collisions.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 7403
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Boy with no helmit has severe accident

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Sep 2019, 8:25am

Cunobelin wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:The image/story has gone.

Have there been studies showing that more lives could be saved by wearing helmets in cars? Serious Q, as I would have thought much the same issues as are in play regarding cycle helmets would also apply - or would this also include use of Hans devices to avoid the additional mass of the helmet snapping necks and so on.


A simple extension of the pro-helmet claims

More drivers and passengers are seen in A&E than cyclists, so, therefore, more lives will be saved

Oh

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2967
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Boy with no helmit has severe accident

Postby The utility cyclist » 8 Sep 2019, 4:35pm

Bonefishblues wrote:The image/story has gone.

Have there been studies showing that more lives could be saved by wearing helmets in cars? Serious Q, as I would have thought much the same issues as are in play regarding cycle helmets would also apply - or would this also include use of Hans devices to avoid the additional mass of the helmet snapping necks and so on.

The last data that I looked at (2016) there were more children in England & Wales dying solely of head injuries in motorvehicle crashes than there were total number of child cyclists in the whole of the UK dying from all injury types. I think it's pretty conclusive.

Headway and other pro helmet orgs state that circa 1.3Million people report to a medical professional with a head injury and that there are around 160,000 hospital stays, which indicates at least 160,000 serious head injuries, but as we know a serious head injury does not always require a hospital stay, so the (reported) serious head injury numbers from the general populous is somewhere between 160,000 to 1.3M.
Whilst not a complete picture and absolute number, the STATS19 data shows approximately 3100 serious cycling injuries on the road, and depending whose numbers you wish to use (basically their guesses as they link to no data sets whatsoever), somewhere between 800-1200 of those are head injuries. Of course there will be serious injuries and by definition serious head injuries that are not a part of the STATS19 figures, but then the number of head injuries in the general population are hugely under-reported also.

So the group/populous as a whole suffer 1.3M head injuries that are deemed reportable to a medical professional and a subset of that group/populous suffer circa 800-1200, but only the subset with the tiny fraction of head injuries are forced/coerced/bullied into wearing and only that subset are blamed if they sustain injury if they don't, pretty sick and twisted really and clearly avoids dealing with the major epidemic that is costing the nation £Billions on the NHS. :twisted: well IF the helmets work of course, which they don't, just like airbags, crash cells SIPS/MIPS, seatbelts if the forces eceed the design parameters which they do very clearly in motorvehicle crashes.
Last edited by The utility cyclist on 8 Sep 2019, 5:02pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 7403
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Boy with no helmit has severe accident

Postby Bonefishblues » 8 Sep 2019, 4:55pm

But surely one can't have it both ways?

Proposition:

Helmets are useless at best, and actively dangerous by some measures.

Besides, they would save loads more lives in application X.


Both statements can't be right, shirley?

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2967
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Boy with no helmit has severe accident

Postby The utility cyclist » 8 Sep 2019, 5:07pm

Bonefishblues wrote:But surely one can't have it both ways?

Proposition:

Helmets are useless at best, and actively dangerous by some measures.

Besides, they would save loads more lives in application X.


Both statements can't be right, shirley?

I amended to add IF they work (which we know they don't to any measurable degree)
I'm not for one moment stating that people wear helmets in any aspect of life, but on the basis that people on bikes are being forced to wear then the logic applied should be applied everywhere else as it would save billions right, because helmets save lives don't they?

Can you not see that if we hold people doing a low risk acti vity to account/set of standards and forcing people within that group to wear then we must so as not to discriminate/breech human rights put the same amount of effort/bullying et al into wearing for the populous as a whole, in the house, walking to the car, especially within the car, going out for drinks, going up a ladder, getting in the shower, walking to the shops, to school etc etc.

If not, why not, when we know numerically the risks are massive for every group except for those on bikes, the risk per hour travelling is greater for injury within a car as it is on foot so there's no reason why this onus/burden should not be put on everyone ALL the time.

You can't have it both ways right? :roll: