Sun blunders as it tells PM David Cameron to wear a cycle helmet

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

I was knocked out from a car hitting me from behind st high speed while they used their mobile. I smacked my head into Tarmac and found on the roadside by another driver.

Woke up after 3 days in a coma.

After regaining my memory after 2-3 months, my consultant said I would have been injured more , considering my helmet was in pieces.

Thank you old helmet for saving my life.

 

 

Let's assume that it did minimise your injuries for a moment.

What particular insight do you believe that your consultant has over you in relation to how more serious your injuries would have been?

StuInNorway wrote:

While there is always depate about helmets (I mean the head protection type, not the 'drive 3" off the back of a bike's back wheel in my Audiot-mobile' type of helmet) if you talk to the nurses and doctors in A&E (US Emergency rooms) they tend to tell the same stories.  Cyclists in accidents at speed DO suffer head injuries, but those wearing helmets tent to have lesser impact damage to the brain containment unit than those without.  If my helmet has a design rating to help withstand an impact at up to (for example) 25km/h and I come off at 40km/h, that means the helmet still absorbs a good deal of the impact forces before my poor skull has to take over the rest of the job. Also the remaining plastic and foam will reduce the likelyhood of excessivly large lacerations to the head too.  
As for helmet cams, I see that as dangerous, in an impact on top of the helmet all the impact forces are concentrated onto the adhesive pad, often little over an inch square, rather than over the majority of the top of the helmet as it's designed in deformation occurs.  I'd be interested to see a comparison of the damage to helmets with and without a GoPro stuck to the top, maybe compared to the bullet formed cameras mounted off the side of a helmet.

If you talk to nurses and doctors, you get anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data. Helmets may well provide some protection to the "brain containment unit" in a lot of crashes i.e. they can help with preventing skull fractures. However, collisions with other vehicles involve a much greater magnitude of forces and cycle helmets are typically not much use in those scenarios. A big problem is that although the skull is provided limited protection, the brain still bounces around that skull and that's what causes the nastiest kind of brain injury.

I'd be interested in seeing data from tests of cameras on top of helmets too.

hawkinspeter wrote:

StuInNorway wrote:

While there is always depate about helmets (I mean the head protection type, not the 'drive 3" off the back of a bike's back wheel in my Audiot-mobile' type of helmet) if you talk to the nurses and doctors in A&E (US Emergency rooms) they tend to tell the same stories.  Cyclists in accidents at speed DO suffer head injuries, but those wearing helmets tent to have lesser impact damage to the brain containment unit than those without.  If my helmet has a design rating to help withstand an impact at up to (for example) 25km/h and I come off at 40km/h, that means the helmet still absorbs a good deal of the impact forces before my poor skull has to take over the rest of the job. Also the remaining plastic and foam will reduce the likelyhood of excessivly large lacerations to the head too.  
As for helmet cams, I see that as dangerous, in an impact on top of the helmet all the impact forces are concentrated onto the adhesive pad, often little over an inch square, rather than over the majority of the top of the helmet as it's designed in deformation occurs.  I'd be interested to see a comparison of the damage to helmets with and without a GoPro stuck to the top, maybe compared to the bullet formed cameras mounted off the side of a helmet.

If you talk to nurses and doctors, you get anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data. Helmets may well provide some protection to the "brain containment unit" in a lot of crashes i.e. they can help with preventing skull fractures. However, collisions with other vehicles involve a much greater magnitude of forces and cycle helmets are typically not much use in those scenarios. A big problem is that although the skull is provided limited protection, the brain still bounces around that skull and that's what causes the nastiest kind of brain injury.

I'd be interested in seeing data from tests of cameras on top of helmets too.

i would agree with you there   hawkinspeter in regards the brain bouncing about. If you look at NFL there are high instances of concussion due to the rapid deceleration due to big hits the players inflict on each other and they're wearing helmets! In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that the body armour encourages the big hits which is what the supporters want to see. While a helmet may offer protection it can't prevent the brain being rattled about when coming to a sudden stop from speed! 

hawkinspeter wrote:

 If you talk to nurses and doctors, you get anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Actually the plural of anecdote is data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Wolfinger

StuInNorway wrote:

...if you talk to the nurses and doctors in A&E (US Emergency rooms) they tend to tell the same stories.  Cyclists in accidents at speed DO suffer head injuries, but those wearing helmets tent to have lesser impact damage to the brain containment unit than those without.  If my helmet has a design rating to help withstand an impact at up to (for example) 25km/h and I come off at 40km/h, that means the helmet still absorbs a good deal of the impact forces before my poor skull has to take over the rest of the job.

Excellent, a helmet article so I get to trot out my favourite anecdote again.

My friend dressed to head off for a ride is walking down the stairs at his home, slips in his shoes & wakes up in A&E having suffered a basal skull fracture.

The medical staff looking at the pile of cycling clothes they cut off him remark 'it was a good job you were wearing a helmet, otherwise your injuries would've been much worse'.  He replies 'but I wasn't wearing a helmet', the staff were quite angry & said 'you should always wear a helmet, if you'd been wearing one you wouldn't be here now'.

So there you have it, if walking on stairs wear a helmet.

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

 

So there you have it, if walking on stairs wear a helmet.

I take from that....

don't walk on the stairs in your cycling shoes,

and - when medical professionals start spouting about helmets they are making a lot of assumptions.

also

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

The medical staff looking at the pile of cycling clothes they cut off him remark 'it was a good job you were wearing a helmet, otherwise your injuries would've been much worse'.  He replies 'but I wasn't wearing a helmet', the staff were quite angry & said 'you should always wear a helmet, if you'd been wearing one you wouldn't be here now'. 

If the only injury was a head injury, why the need to destroy his kit? if the head injury was not the sole injury then how would a helmet have saved him?

wycombewheeler wrote:

I take from that....

don't walk on the stairs in your cycling shoes,

and - when medical professionals start spouting about helmets they are making a lot of assumptions.

Absolutely!

wycombewheeler wrote:

If the only injury was a head injury, why the need to destroy his kit? if the head injury was not the sole injury then how would a helmet have saved him?

IANAParamedic/A&E but I assume he wasn't in a position to say apart from the head I'm fine & they needed to check the rest of his body for injuries & the clothes were preventing them doing that.

troutbreath wrote:

“David Cameron should be setting a better example to his daughter and other cyclists, particularly younger cyclists,” 

 

As a Yank, I realize that I don't fully understand American politcs let alone British.  That said, if a politician on this side of the pond were riding without a helmet, I would expect cyclists to suggest that wearing a helmet would be a good idea.  

 

I suspect that there is more history here than what I see.

 

TB

 

Read the article and read up on this, it makes zero difference  to cycle safety in the grand scheme of things...especially as people who feel protected tend to take more risks. 

Ultimately someone  riding at little more than walking pace aint gonna need one

StoopidUserName wrote:

Read the article and read up on this, it makes zero difference  to cycle safety in the grand scheme of things...especially as people who feel protected tend to take more risks. 

Ultimately someone  riding at little more than walking pace aint gonna need one

Although I agree with your sentiment, I'd say that "riding at little more than walking pace" is almost exactly the kind of scenario where cycle helmets are most useful. It's at faster speeds and in collisions that cycle helmets become useless (i.e. not designed to handle the increased forces). That said, I usually wear a helmet as it's somewhere to mount a helmet-cam, but I consider gloves to be the most important item of safety equipment on a bike.

hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Read the article and read up on this, it makes zero difference  to cycle safety in the grand scheme of things...especially as people who feel protected tend to take more risks. 

Ultimately someone  riding at little more than walking pace aint gonna need one

Although I agree with your sentiment, I'd say that "riding at little more than walking pace" is almost exactly the kind of scenario where cycle helmets are most useful. It's at faster speeds and in collisions that cycle helmets become useless (i.e. not designed to handle the increased forces). That said, I usually wear a helmet as it's somewhere to mount a helmet-cam, but I consider gloves to be the most important item of safety equipment on a bike.

The relevance of the speed of the cyclist with regard to the efficacy, or otherwise, of helmets to provide protection ranges from pretty much zero to massive - it's fairly pointless talking about it in isolation. As for wearing a helmet-cam - personally the last thing i'd want on a helmet is an extra lever sticking out with the potential to localise forces..

fukawitribe wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Read the article and read up on this, it makes zero difference  to cycle safety in the grand scheme of things...especially as people who feel protected tend to take more risks. 

Ultimately someone  riding at little more than walking pace aint gonna need one

Although I agree with your sentiment, I'd say that "riding at little more than walking pace" is almost exactly the kind of scenario where cycle helmets are most useful. It's at faster speeds and in collisions that cycle helmets become useless (i.e. not designed to handle the increased forces). That said, I usually wear a helmet as it's somewhere to mount a helmet-cam, but I consider gloves to be the most important item of safety equipment on a bike.

The relevance of the speed of the cyclist with regard to the efficacy, or otherwise, of helmets to provide protection ranges from pretty much zero to massive - it's fairly pointless talking about it in isolation. As for wearing a helmet-cam - personally the last thing i'd want on a helmet is an extra lever sticking out with the potential to localise forces..

Yep, I sometimes wonder about how sensible a helmet cam actually is. Luckily, I've never crashed and had to rely on my helmet as protection (every time I've come off my bike, my gloves helped enormously though). I'm waiting on the Fly12 being released so that I can retire my Contour and just use a bike mounted cam instead. To be honest, I wear a helmet mainly to stop my wife from complaining and also it lends a certain legitimacy to a cyclist if they wear a helmet.

[/quote]

To be honest, I wear a helmet mainly to stop my wife from complaining and also it lends a certain legitimacy to a cyclist if they wear a helmet.

[/quote]

apart from keeping your wife quiet why should a helmet or in fact Lycra, cleats, hi viz etc lend itself to your being a cyclist? I'm sure the good citizens of Amsterdam consider themselves cyclists and they don't have all these accoutrements! 

giff77 wrote:

apart from keeping your wife quiet why should a helmet or in fact Lycra, cleats, hi viz etc lend itself to your being a cyclist? I'm sure the good citizens of Amsterdam consider themselves cyclists and they don't have all these accoutrements! 

In reality, it makes no difference, but it can affect other people's opinions (for what that's worth). Amsterdam has much better cycling infrastructure and most cyclists there don't feel that helmets are needed so much, especially compared to the UK. Wearing a helmet in the UK does help slightly (I think - I can't back it up with any data) with motorists' attitude to you on a bike. The theory is that they think that if you've got more cycling kit then you have more experience and better roadcraft (which is not necessarily valid).  Anyhow, what's the point of being a MAMIL if it doesn't give you an excuse to wear the kit?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Wearing a helmet in the UK does help slightly (I think - I can't back it up with any data) with motorists' attitude to you on a bike. The theory is that they think that if you've got more cycling kit then you have more experience and better roadcraft (which is not necessarily valid).  Anyhow, what's the point of being a MAMIL if it doesn't give you an excuse to wear the kit?

Actually, the evidence is 100% the other way around on that. Dr Ian Walker has done some studies, some aspects of which I believe others have replicated the results of, which show that motorists will pass *closer* if you're wearing a helmet. On average, passing distances are slightly closer on helmet wearing riders. Worse, there is more noticable increase in the frequency of the closest class of passes - the most dangerous ones.

So yes, wearing a helmet does seem to change the attitude of (UK) motorists to a cyclist. However, not at all in a measurably helpful way. Quite the reverse!

Paul J wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Wearing a helmet in the UK does help slightly (I think - I can't back it up with any data) with motorists' attitude to you on a bike. The theory is that they think that if you've got more cycling kit then you have more experience and better roadcraft (which is not necessarily valid).  Anyhow, what's the point of being a MAMIL if it doesn't give you an excuse to wear the kit?

Actually, the evidence is 100% the other way around on that. Dr Ian Walker has done some studies, some aspects of which I believe others have replicated the results of, which show that motorists will pass *closer* if you're wearing a helmet. On average, passing distances are slightly closer on helmet wearing riders. Worse, there is more noticable increase in the frequency of the closest class of passes - the most dangerous ones. So yes, wearing a helmet does seem to change the attitude of (UK) motorists to a cyclist. However, not at all in a measurably helpful way. Quite the reverse!

Agreed, though I think it helps with reducing the number of motorists shouting at me for daring to cycle on the roads (usually when I'm going next to a not-fit-for-purpose cycle lane).

giff77 wrote:

 I'm sure the good citizens of Amsterdam consider themselves cyclists and they don't have all these accoutrements! 

they probably just consioder themselves people.

wycombewheeler wrote:

giff77 wrote:

 I'm sure the good citizens of Amsterdam consider themselves cyclists and they don't have all these accoutrements! 

 

they probably just consioder themselves people.

obviously that as well. I think I was poorly saying that they use the noun as a noun rather than a Pro-noun which some folk in the UK are prone to doing! 

StoopidUserName wrote:

especially as people who feel protected tend to take more risks.

As well as drivers taking more risks with seeing that cyclists have extra 'protection'.

Quote:

“David Cameron should be setting a better example to his daughter and other cyclists, particularly younger cyclists,”

By making them wear a helmet when he leaves them in the pub.

troutbreath wrote:

As a Yank, I realize that I don't fully understand American politcs let alone British.  That said, if a politician on this side of the pond were riding without a helmet, I would expect cyclists to suggest that wearing a helmet would be a good idea.  

God forbid an adult decide what's safe for themselves.  Are you from California or Massachusetts?

troutbreath wrote:

“David Cameron should be setting a better example to his daughter and other cyclists, particularly younger cyclists,” 

 

As a Yank, I realize that I don't fully understand American politcs let alone British.  That said, if a politician on this side of the pond were riding without a helmet, I would expect cyclists to suggest that wearing a helmet would be a good idea.  

 

I suspect that there is more history here than what I see.

 

TB

 

I think that the core complaint is that the newspaper incorrectly reported that wearing a helmet was the law when it really isn't.

As regards wearing a helmet, there is a great British tradition of making your own mind up.

And finally, Dave Cameron was on holiday and therefore 'off the clock' IMO, so I don't feel that anything he does while on holiday has  relevance to his so-called job. He can drink Irish-made cider from a flagon made of Chinese steel while sitting in the lobby of a private hospital, but if he is genuinely on holiday then fair do's.

troutbreath wrote:

“David Cameron should be setting a better example to his daughter and other cyclists, particularly younger cyclists,” 

 

As a Yank, I realize that I don't fully understand American politcs let alone British.  That said, if a politician on this side of the pond were riding without a helmet, I would expect cyclists to suggest that wearing a helmet would be a good idea.  

 

I suspect that there is more history here than what I see.

 

TB

 

Here in the UK we have the Sun. Over the pond in USA you have Trump ! !  Same thing really !

troutbreath wrote:

 

As a Yank, I realize that I don't fully understand American politcs let alone British.  That said, if a politician on this side of the pond were riding without a helmet, I would expect cyclists to suggest that wearing a helmet would be a good idea.  

 

I suspect that there is more history here than what I see.

 

Here is an extract from The New York Times.

"Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm's way.

But new data raise questions about that assumption. The number of head injuries sustained in bicycle accidents has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. With ridership declining over the same period, the rate of head injuries among bicyclists has increased 51 percent even as the use of bicycle helmets has become widespread."

Seems that there are many ill informed cyclists in the USA too. I hope this helps.