cycle helmet

westy23

now now girls put your handbags down:rotfl:
i am the op and all i can tell you is i cllipped the kerb(100% my fault)and went down very hard and fast on my left side onto the pavement, landing on my head and knocking myself out. My cycle helmet is split in 4 places, 2 on the left side and 2 on the front, common sense tells me if i had not been wearing a helmet my skull would have taken the impact and my injurys would have been a lot more serious and possibly life changing.
And before some bright spark points out i could have prevented my injurys by looking where i was going YES I KNOW.
the_banker what motorbike you got then?
i have a fireblade myself.
yes i know, and you cant stay on a pushbike:T

biscuitdunker

BillScarab wrote: »

Statistically there is no evidence that cycle helmets have any impact on the head inuury rate amongst cyclists.

That's untrue, there have been many studies which have shown that increased use of cycle helmets is linked to a lower number of head injuries in cyclists. Obviously statistics can be flawed and manipulated and cannot be trusted 100%, but I think overall, there is enough evidence to show that CORRECT use of good quality helmets can prevent severe head injuries.

An example from the BMJ "Trends in serious head injuries among English cyclists and pedestrians" A Cook1, A Sheikh2

"Among cyclists admitted to hospital, the percentage with head injury reduced from 27.9% (n = 3070) to 20.4% (n = 2154), as helmet wearing rose from 16.0% to 21.8%. Pedestrian"

The_Banker_5

biscuitdunker wrote: »

Fatal head injuries in cyclists. I don't think it's a cheap point. My BIL has worked in nearly every major head trauma unit in London and often sees cyclists with severe head injuries. Before specialising, he worked in one of the busiest A&Es in the country and again, often saw cyclists with major head injuries. If asked, he would most likely say that he quite regularly sees cyclists with head injuries.

You seem to know more about your BIL than he knows about himself.

At least all the millions of cyclists kept him in a job then.;):rolleyes:

biscuitdunker

The_Banker wrote: »

You seem to know more about your BIL than he knows about himself.

At least all the millions of cyclists kept him in a job then.;):rolleyes:

I only know all this because he has lectured my entire family several times about why we should wear helmets when we cycle. He has a particularly gruesome story about having a cyclist come in with a large skull injury and brain matter landing on his shoes when he worked in an A&E. That pretty much convinced me not to cycle without a helmet.

The_Banker_5

biscuitdunker wrote: »

I only know all this because he has lectured my entire family several times about why we should wear helmets when we cycle. He has a particularly gruesome story about having a cyclist come in with a large skull injury and brain matter landing on his shoes when he worked in an A&E. That pretty much convinced me not to cycle without a helmet.

The motor car kills 1.2 million people each year.

That is 1 person ever 30 seconds.

I cant see people giving up their precious cars can you?;)

biscuitdunker

The_Banker wrote: »

The motor car kills 1.2 million people each year.

That is 1 person ever 30 seconds.

I cant see people giving up their precious cars can you?;)

No, but lots of people pay extra for safer cars. Very few, given the option of a safer car, would reject it and purposely choose a death trap over it. And anyway, the argument isn't against using bikes or cycling, it's about taking quite a cheap precaution which might prevent a serious head injury.

The_Banker_5

biscuitdunker wrote: »

No, but lots of people pay extra for safer cars. Very few, given the option of a safer car, would reject it and purposely choose a death trap over it. And anyway, the argument isn't against using bikes or cycling, it's about taking quite a cheap precaution which might prevent a serious head injury.

The risk factor isnt high enough to make me want to wear one though.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

biscuitdunker wrote: »

You make the claim that I am ignorant, but do not go on to explain why. Some motorcyclists do not wear full face helmets, there are open face helmets which many choose to wear.

So they must be reckless, according to your view? Or is it just that their view of what risks are acceptable, and what are not, are different from yours?

If you accept such a premise, you must also accept anybody else's premise when they suggest that motorcyclists are reckless because they don't use cars.

biscuitdunker wrote: »

And what exactly is your intention in doing so? Also, wrt your response to Tiddlywinks - are you always extremely callous and sarcastic, or only when someone has told you that they lost a loved one?

If you don't understand my intent then I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you. Oh and if Tiddlywinks has a problem with anything I write he/she can address it themselves.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

biscuitdunker wrote: »

That's untrue, there have been many studies which have shown that increased use of cycle helmets is linked to a lower number of head injuries in cyclists. Obviously statistics can be flawed and manipulated and cannot be trusted 100%, but I think overall, there is enough evidence to show that CORRECT use of good quality helmets can prevent severe head injuries.

An example from the BMJ "Trends in serious head injuries among English cyclists and pedestrians" A Cook1, A Sheikh2

"Among cyclists admitted to hospital, the percentage with head injury reduced from 27.9% (n = 3070) to 20.4% (n = 2154), as helmet wearing rose from 16.0% to 21.8%. Pedestrian"

Correlation does not equal causation:

http://www.thelope.com/images/piratechart.jpg

biscuitdunker

The_Banker wrote: »

The risk factor isnt high enough to make me want to wear one though.

That's entirely your choice, at the moment. Several countries have made it law though, you never know!