On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:35:36 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Butch wrote:

For Mr. Peter Clinch, I wish you the best in your riding, but using a
Helmet is a lot like smoking you don't need an expert or statistics to
show you what to do only common sense.

Then why doesn't the "common sense" factor into any improvement
whatsoever in serious injury rates anywhere helmet wearing rates
increase? It's common sense that that would surely happen if they
improved matters, but they have a track record of doing *nothing*.

To put
it in simple terms "**** Happens", its your life, you know what it is
worth.

It certainly does. And it continues to happen wearing helmets, and
there is no national population anywhere who have shown an improvement
in their serious head injury rate from wearing cycle helmets.

You know, stats are very interesting, sorta like facts, one man's is
another's lies.

Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the
situation would not be worse than it is?

What I know for a fact is that a helmet kept me from making a trip to
an ER for stitches at a minimum. Why can I say that? A pointed rock
PENETRATED the helmet deep enough to scratch my scalp. That helmet is
certainly tougher than my skin. The jury is out on the denisty of my
skull, however. So, figure a $70 helmet versus an ER bill for wound
cleaning and stitching.

Makes economic sense to me.


All of your anecdotes, and all of everyone else's anecdotes, go into
full population data. And that data has serious head injury rates
unaffected by helmet wearing. So either your anecdotes of being /sure/
helmets must make things much better are balanced by incidents where
they make things worse, or you're assuming a much worse incident would
have transpired without a helmet than would have actually been the case.

The population figures don't tell us what we think /might/ happen, but
what *has* happened. And what has happened from increased helmet
wearing is no real change to serious head injury rates. That's what
*has* happened, common sense or not.

Did he allow for the increased population that are riding bikes today,
the advent of downhilling at breakneck speeds, increased (and more
hostile) traffic on the roads?

If not, he only taken a snap shot in time looking at the past - not
into what is coming.

Any research can be skewed in any direction the researcher wants. And
merely forgetting to look at one variable can have the same effect -
skewing.


Here's a quote from Brian Walker, who runs Head Protection Evaluation,
the company that test helmets meet standards in the UK. He's an
accredited expert witness too, I believe:

"the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
be made"

This is an interesting bit. No helmet can protect all users from every
possible accident. I know someone who headered into a concrete
lamppost base and broke his neck. Dead with or without helmet, in this
case.

So, in terms of "serious" accident, the jury may be out.

In terms of lesser cuts and bruises? Doesn't look like anyone is
addressing that specifically. Sure, my accident might not have killed
me or brooken my skull (serious) were I without a helmet, but I do
know that I did not have to go to the ER and based on the helmet
damage and its relative strength compared to my scalp, I probably
would have had to without a helmet.

And there is the rub of a shortsightedness in the research - it cannot
allow for lesser accidents that do not require hospital reports
(serious). It cannot track or effectively report the impacts of
accidents (with or without helmets) where the injury did not require a
hospital visit. How many of them would have gone from a banged head
with a helmet to an ER visit without a helmet? That data is totally
missing. And that is some very pertinent data.

BTW, don't ever denigrate anecdotal evidence. It means little in
isolation, but in aggregate, points to areas where deeper research is
needed. It is like that fleeting warning that lets you know there are
more serious matters coming.


There is very much more to it than "common sense". I used to always
wear a helmet for reasons of "common sense", but the more you
investigate the reality the more you find you're unlikely to save
yourself a serious injury, and /exactly/ the same logic of "****
happens" applies to being a pedestrian. Hundreds of people in the UK
are killed in simple trips and falls every year, so since "**** happens"
and it's common sense to guard against it and you feel a cycle helmet
can save significant injury, do you wear one as a pedestrian, or around
the house, especially using stairs? Your logical argument for helmet
use on a cycle suggests you should, so if not, *why* not?

Irrelevant. Walking, or taking a shower for that matter, is not
considered as being a hazardous activity; riding in traffic or
downhilling are. You are mixing apples and oranges to make your case.


jim