Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:31:09 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Tom Kunich:
I wonder - why do you believe that you don't need a helmet anywhere but on a
bicycle

One thing that seems to be missing in this thread is point loading.

Hit your head on something sharp - like the corner of a rock or the edge of a
curb and it seems to me like it's not so much a matter of
acceleration/deceleration as spreading the force over a larger enough area so
the object doesn't cave in your skull.

Dear Pete,

My impression from reading the studies is that (despite our
lurid but understandable imaginations) most serious head
injuries in bicycling are not penetrating, not fractures,
and not caving-in.

But I haven't browsed around again to check this, so I'm
just raising the question because it seems to address your
point.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Hadron Quark wrote:

No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing
mirror, drainage slots and other such things.

Including hedges...

You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being
aware enough to avoid them

Drainage slots are a known hazard and are very easy to avoid by the
simple expedient of riding further out than the gutter and looking
where you're going. It /is/ the riders' fault if they go over them
on a regular basis. If you're close enough in to the kerb for that
to be a major problem you're also encouraging close overtaking,
which is where you'll get clipped by mirrors.

a pathetic attempt o suggest that any form of protection for a
cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the
street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the
shopping....

The simple fact of the matter is that what will get cyclists killed
is collisions with motor vehicles and helmets aren't built to a
spec that helps against them. Look up the spec if you don't
believe me. Physical protection for cyclists is much better served
by not being in collisions.

Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this?
We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are
discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to
reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where
blame were to lie).

Who said anything about caving? And is juggling really dangerous?
~350 people under 75 are killed in the UK every year from trips
and falls on foot, so you can have terminal accidents using stairs
or just walking down the street. So in terms of terminal
potential, it's a risky activity, and to a similar extent to
utility cycling. Cycling is not particularly more dangerous in
terms of deaths and serious injuries than being a pedestrian, and
the accidents that do happen are no more productive of head
injuries. So it makes sense to compare the risk avoidance
behaviour in one to the other.

Its hard to sport trends in small samples.

Which is why I'm taking my data from whole national population
sized samples.

But I have seen
enough material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists
out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them
considerable injury and maybe even their lives.

Yes, there are lots, and they turn up at a far greater rate than
unhelmeted cyclists are losing their lives or getting serious head
injuries, so either helmeted cyclists are taking a lot more tumbles
or they're overestimating how bad their crashes were.

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Hadron Quark wrote:
Peter Clinch writes:


Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are
not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether
bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case
of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie).

We are bringing other activities into this because, once one examines
the real data - as opposed to the fearmongering - it's obvious that
bicycling is not particularly dangerous. There's no more reason to use
a helmet during ordinary bicycling than there is during ordinary
driving, or ordinary walking. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm

People who are intent on scaring us about bicycling will never admit
that, apparently. Or, in some cases, they will never understand that
comparing risk is a logical thing to do!


I have seen enough
material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who
reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe
even their lives.

You should look into witch doctors, faith healers and magic crystals!
There are even more people who believe those things have saved them!
Why, they _must_ be correct - no?

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing
mirror, drainage slots and other such things.

Including hedges...

You replied that it would be the riders own fault for not being
aware enough to avoid them

Drainage slots are a known hazard and are very easy to avoid by the
simple expedient of riding further out than the gutter and looking
where you're going. It /is/ the riders' fault if they go over them
on a regular basis. If you're close enough in to the kerb for that

Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts. Suppose you're doing
25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the
drain? Is that your fault too?

to be a major problem you're also encouraging close overtaking,
which is where you'll get clipped by mirrors.

a pathetic attempt o suggest that any form of protection for a
cyclist is unnecessary since its "safer than walking down the
street" and less prone to head injuries than doing the
shopping....

The simple fact of the matter is that what will get cyclists killed is
collisions with motor vehicles and helmets aren't built to a spec that
helps against them. Look up the spec if you don't believe me.
Physical protection for cyclists is much better served by not being in
collisions.

Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this :
"you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind
numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious. But how that has anything
to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no
helmet is beyond me.


Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this?
We are not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are
discussing whether bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to
reduce injury in the case of an accident (regardless of where blame
were to lie).

Who said anything about caving? And is juggling really dangerous?

Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some
reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where
people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential
for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me.

~350 people under 75 are killed in the UK every year from trips and

I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving ....

falls on foot, so you can have terminal accidents using stairs or just
walking down the street. So in terms of terminal potential, it's a
risky activity, and to a similar extent to utility cycling. Cycling
is not particularly more dangerous in terms of deaths and serious
injuries than being a pedestrian, and the accidents that do happen are
no more productive of head injuries. So it makes sense to compare the
risk avoidance behaviour in one to the other.

Its hard to sport trends in small samples.

Which is why I'm taking my data from whole national population sized
samples.

But I have seen enough material to know that there are a plethora of
cyclists out there who reckon that wearing a helmet saved them
considerable injury and maybe even their lives.

Yes, there are lots, and they turn up at a far greater rate than
unhelmeted cyclists are losing their lives or getting serious head
injuries, so either helmeted cyclists are taking a lot more tumbles or
they're overestimating how bad their crashes were.

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

--

Hadron Quark wrote:

Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts.

No, because the odd drainage grate is going to happen but if the odd
drainage grate had a significant chance of knocking you off then there's
be far more falls than there are. Gravel /can/ take you down, but since
my house is accessed by a gravel covered track (on a hill, for extra
fun) and I don't make a habit of falling off on it, the fact that
there's /some/ potential for losing it isn't necessarily an excuse to
wear a helmet.

Suppose you're doing
25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the
drain? Is that your fault too?

Emphatically tes, because it means you're in the gutter to start with.
You should not be in the gutter to start with, so if you're not and a
bus pulls alongside as you move and you can't go out further, you'll
still miss it.

Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this :
"you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind
numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious.

But not so onvious that you keep bringing up examples where the
underlying problem is riding in the wrong place on the road which in
turn increases your chances of having an accident!

But how that has anything
to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no
helmet is beyond me.

The point is that the "more protection" you keep on about is (a) still
not the degree that will save lives, and (b) is not clear to expert
witnesses of far more experinece than either of us, as I've already
outlined for you.

Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some
reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where
people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential
for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me.

Because the potential to save a head injury exists for other similarly
risky activities where it is not taken, so what is exceptional about
cycling that it is a good idea there, but not elsewhere where there are
similar risks?
The answer, I suspect, is people have a misconception about the relative
risks of cycling. Body armour is available for cyclists and will
provide you more protection against injury than if you don't wear it, so
why not wear it? Same logic applies, yet is not being applied.

I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving ....

You suspect wrong. What /is/ so dangerous about juggling?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

Aha. On a regular basis now. Moving goalposts.

No, because the odd drainage grate is going to happen but if the odd
drainage grate had a significant chance of knocking you off then
there's be far more falls than there are. Gravel /can/ take you down,
but since my house is accessed by a gravel covered track (on a hill,
for extra fun) and I don't make a habit of falling off on it, the fact
that there's /some/ potential for losing it isn't necessarily an
excuse to wear a helmet.

Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection.


Suppose you're doing
25km/h and suddenly a bus pulls alnogside stopping you avoiding the
drain? Is that your fault too?

Emphatically tes, because it means you're in the gutter to start
with. You should not be in the gutter to start with, so if you're not
and a bus pulls alongside as you move and you can't go out further,
you'll still miss it.

You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their
ugly head.


Oh please. You dont say? So everyone stand back and listen to this :
"you will be better protected if you dont have accidents". The mind
numbing obviousness of this is, well, obvious.

But not so onvious that you keep bringing up examples where the
underlying problem is riding in the wrong place on the road which in
turn increases your chances of having an accident!

Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
bike, into dangerous riding positions : no amount of being as super
human as you appear to be can avoid this. How that has any bearing on
the banality of your rhetoric I dont know.


But how that has anything
to do whatsoever with whether a helmet provides more protection than no
helmet is beyond me.

The point is that the "more protection" you keep on about is (a) still
not the degree that will save lives, and (b) is not clear to expert
witnesses of far more experinece than either of us, as I've already
outlined for you.

Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence
that helmets have saved lives. I have never said they will save all or
even the majority of lives in the situation where a high speed collision
occurs. I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).


Do try and keep up : you keep bringing in walking and stuff for some
reason so I thought Id mention other totally unrelated things where
people get injured too - although what it has to do with the potential
for a helmet to protect ones head when riding a bicycle evades me.

Because the potential to save a head injury exists for other similarly
risky activities where it is not taken, so what is exceptional about
cycling that it is a good idea there, but not elsewhere where there
are similar risks?

What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
walking etc ...

The answer, I suspect, is people have a misconception about the
relative risks of cycling. Body armour is available for cyclists and
will provide you more protection against injury than if you don't wear
it, so why not wear it? Same logic applies, yet is not being applied.

I suspect there are more % injured juggling or caving ....

You suspect wrong. What /is/ so dangerous about juggling?

Think about it.



Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

--

Hadron Quark wrote:

Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection.

I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have ignored
it so here it is again:

"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."

That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are
responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant standards
in the UK.

You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their
ugly head.

On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly, and
do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where I'd end
up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH, the way that
millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of serious injuries
than pedestrians /does/ prove something.

Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
bike, into dangerous riding positions

Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in
especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing
something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious
accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher.

Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence
that helmets have saved lives.

So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any
populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did
the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated?

I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).

Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side,
and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above
doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty.

What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
walking etc ...

Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk /only/
if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it cycling then
that would be because of a certain level of risk. To bother doing
something about risk when cycling but nothing when you engage in another
/equally risky/ activity is ridiculous.

[what's so risky about juggling?]
Think about it.

Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets are
available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've seen
carrying a safety warning.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides protection.

I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have
ignored it so here it is again:

"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."

That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are
responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant
standards in the UK.

Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with
whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not?


You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears their
ugly head.

On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly,
and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where
I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH,

??? eh ???? Of course it doesnt : but its you who mentioned it. So why?
To deflect the thread again thats why.

the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of
serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something.

What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of
protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here.


Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
bike, into dangerous riding positions

Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in
especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing
something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious
accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher.

You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for
incidents. I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened
to me that I could not plan for.


Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already evidence
that helmets have saved lives.

So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any
populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did
the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated?

Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their
radars : thats why. Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides
more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple.


I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).

Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side,
and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above
doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty.

At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again.


What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
walking etc ...

Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk
/only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it

err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not
understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than
cycling" : I wish to keep it on track - hence my juggling dig.

cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To
bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you
engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous.

[what's so risky about juggling?]
Think about it.

Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets
are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've
seen carrying a safety warning.

An pint with you must be a riot.

"Hadron Quark" wrote in message
...
Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

Who said anything about *whether* you should wear a helmet? I already
said I dont. This discussion is about whether a helmet provides
protection.

I've already quoted a rather relevant piece but you seem to have
ignored it so here it is again:

"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."

That from Brian Walker, boss of Head Protection Evaluation, who are
responsible for testing cycle helmets conform to the relevant
standards in the UK.

Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with
whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not?


You seem to be unable to extrapolate any siutation : its a strange logic
you have. You are either infallible or have never ridden in poor weather
in fast moving commuting traffic where all sorts of situations rears
their
ugly head.

On the contrary, I (along with millions of others) do it regularly,
and do it safely as well. I can dream up loads of situations where
I'd end up dead or injured, but that doesn't prove anything. OTOH,

??? eh ???? Of course it doesnt : but its you who mentioned it. So why?
To deflect the thread again thats why.

the way that millions cycle safely and don't produce worse rates of
serious injuries than pedestrians /does/ prove something.

What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of
protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here.


Ridiculous. There are loads of situations where one is forced, on a
bike, into dangerous riding positions

Again, the extent to which you appear to think cycling places you in
especially risky and dangerous situations suggests you are doing
something wrong. If that were not the case then the rates of serious
accidents amongst all cyclists would be much higher.

You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for
incidents. I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened
to me that I could not plan for.


Yes you have outlined this : its total rubbish. There is already
evidence
that helmets have saved lives.

So why haven't deaths and serious injuries been reduced overall in any
populations where helmets have been enthusiastically adopted? Why did
the expert witnesses in the quote above state what they stated?

Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their
radars : thats why. Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides
more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple.


I have said though that a helmet does indeed add protection for
many many types of accident : the types of which you seem intent on
blaming on the rider (as if this "cause" has any impact whatsoever on
the actual discussion of whether a helmet is beneficial).

Whatever the cause, the "eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side,
and the technical expert" from the quote by the expert witness above
doesn't agree with what you regard as a certainty.

At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again.


What are you taking about? Why do you keep trying to deflect this from
cycling : I do not wish to discuss helmets for caving and juggling and
walking etc ...

Safety equipment is to mitigate risk. It isn't to mitigate risk
/only/ if you happen to be cycling. If you wish to mitigate it

err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not
understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than
cycling" : I wish to keep it on track - hence my juggling dig.

cycling then that would be because of a certain level of risk. To
bother doing something about risk when cycling but nothing when you
engage in another /equally risky/ activity is ridiculous.

[what's so risky about juggling?]
Think about it.

Yes, done that, can't really come up with an answer. Juggling sets
are available at Toys R Us. I don't seem to remember any set I've
seen carrying a safety warning.

An pint with you must be a riot.

Do not waste much breath on this English-Scottish numskull. Note his
signatu

Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Surely, that ought to tell you everything you will ever need to know about
him.

He should get himself a nice modest humble signature like mine.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Hadron Quark wrote:

Did you read it? How do you equate that rather fluffy statement with
whether a helment provides a degree of protection or not?

If it surely helped then they'd be more inclined to say you must be
better off wearing it than not, as they were repeatedly asked.

What? What has that to do with whether a helmet provides a degree of
protection. You're all at sixes and sevens here.

The point is whether it provides protection, and to what degree, is much
more sensible to ascertain within a context of overall risk. So body
armour will provide /some/ protection, but just leaving it at that
doesn't tell you anything useful about whether or not it's useful.
Especially if you don't take into account any of the possible pitfalls.

You have no space in your small world for unexpected, unplanned for
incidents.

On the contrary, I have /lots/ of space to account very specifically for
them, and that's one of the reasons they don't pose me particularly bad
levels of risk.

I am a cyclist. I do not wear a helmet. Things have happened
to me that I could not plan for.

Yet you're still alive and your head is in one piece. Was that just
luck, or riding with sufficient contingency in place to deal with the
problems?

Expert witnesses probably never see those that dont appear on their
radars : thats why.

But all the events that didn't appear on their radars will be in the
whole population data, which is precisely why we use the whole
population data. And they show no reduction in rates of deaths and
serious injury rates as helmet wearing increases.

Again : yes or no. Do *you* think a helmet provides
more protection than not wearing one. It really IS that simple.

But since the answer is it provides *different* protection, it is only
that simple if you're overly simplistic about it. For example, last
time I hit my head coming off a bike I was wearing a helmet and it
emphatically did /not/ provide more protection, as the injury on my chin
bore witness. In an incident where the extra size and weight of a
helmeted head makes a difference between hitting your helmeted head or
not hitting an unhelmeted head at all, you are clearly worse off with
the hat. While OTOH there are many laceration injuries that would
benefit from a helmet. So it isn't "yes or no", it's "maybe, depending
on a few things".

"It provides more protection, period" is a simplistic and sweeping
generalisation that means nothing useful. It needs qualifying to be
useful. "A helmet probably provides useful protection against minor
injuries such as lacerations to those parts of the head it covers" would
probably be a fair comment, just as it would be for body armour. But
only when you take into account the degree of risk of such minor
injuries in the first place and weigh in the downsides of wearing it do
you have the sort of data that can really be useful to make an informed
decision.

At the brain surgery level. You are moving the goalposts again.

No. The question put was not "at the brain surgery level", it was would
a wearer be "better off". Nothing more, nothing less.

err, we know. I have said this a thousand times. Are you really not
understanding this? It is only you who keeps talking about "other than
cycling"

In which case the question returns and remains: "what is so special
about cycling that it requires discussing more protective measures than
other equally risky activities that cyclists partake in?"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/