Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Jul 06, 2020 06:54

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 01:59
Posts: 137
Location: Wolverhamptom (exiled Yorkshireman)
I think this kind of anecdotal experience is useful in a debate like this. I've read lots of reports of studies which have concluded that helmets are good, or helmets are bad, or whatever. But having picked my own helmet up off the floor in two pieces following a nasty off on the tramlines, I like to wear one. If it makes me ride a little more recklessly (which I doubt), fine. But, and I can't repeat this too often, that doesn't make me a "helmet compulsionist". I wear one because it's my choice, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to make the same choice.

_________________
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the kerb.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 08:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
There's nothing wrong with anecdotes. Unless:

1) They are included in a discussion and the emotional baggage that they come with overrides the statistics.
2) They are reported in the media in a way that converts them from an individual story into a population wide fact.

e.g. Attacks on old ladies. Old ladies are the least likely group to get attacked. Old ladies are the group with the highest fear of attack. Thank you, our responsible, caring, truthful media.

Why? It's because individual stories carry huge amounts of emotional baggage and distort the collective view (in the publics minds) of the true situation.

Every time someone says "My helmet saved my life" (something that CANNOT be proved, unless a series of control experiments is taken with a group of skulls exactly the same with and without helmets in exactly the same circumstances) a little part of the collective view of the statistical truth about helmets dies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Anecdotes serve to show why a person holds a certain opinion - especially if it is at odds with what most would consider logical thinking.
I have actually encountered a person whose life was saved by NOT wearing a seat belt - he was thrown from the van, as the load in the back flew forward, and the engine crushed the bulkhead where his feet should have been.
However, evidence I have seen where people have been SAVED by belts outweighs this.

Does anyone know the groups of people who were exempted from having to wear them? I suspect other technologies such as airbags have changed the manner in which belts are perceived, while others such as belt pre-tensioners have gone relatively un-noticed.
I dont know of any manufacturer who includes collapsible steering wheel/column in the list of safety features any more. Why?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 23:30 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
This was STAR letter in CW this week and Liam for Oz.. :clap: :bow:

Quote:

I've had to wear helmet since 1989 and admit to being "on the fence"


If we are honest.. I think most of us are really :wink: :wink: :wink:

Yes Liam .. I know this.. I even think this...


Quote:

I have worn one for so long it seems strange not to... Even if I return to Europe - I think I wikll stilll wear my lid but somehow I think there should be a choice.


Yes.. it's how I think. to be honest.. and how I think Mad Doc thinks.. Swiss mob do think a little diferently and I will not disagree with their logic either :wink: I accept the validity of their opinions and would hope to strike a happy medium :wink:


Quote:


Most serious riders will wear helmets and will have paid top dollar for them



How the hell would or could one dispute.. yeah it's true enough. :wink:

Quote:
But Joe Public spends $400 on bike and they just do not want another $300 on a helmet


Liam says it's more improtant to get bums on saddles and reckons ful; body armour might get bums on saddles in Sydbey... :roll:


Liam mentions his own accident... being hit at 360 degrees by BMW who never realised he hit someone.. :roll:

Liam states any change in law would not stop him from wearing his lid// but he argues that courteous driving avoids such issues and problems anyway.

:clap: at last ! and a brave man from Oz again points it out to us,, :clap: :bow:
:wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 20:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Considered making this a separate thread .. "WHAT CAUSED THE INJURY?"

But it probably belongs here as it is a helmet related issue.

OK... two of my sisters live in the Worsley area and one teaches in the Bolton area.. why I know so much about Bolton and get information from both Bolton and Manchester papers (though I do subscribe to the latter as it's a really good paper anyway.. and I like to know what happens in the big 'burb!)

Anyway .. both sisters tell me of a small paragraph they saw in a local advertising rag and which did not feature in either of the main papers and they would love to know why... as it does leave food for thought. I would love to know B Cyclist/Peyote/edm's take and if any other cyclist's view on this one..

OK... the story which NO paper apart from an Advertiser freebie picked up :shock:

Man in late fifties - labourer on building site places a road works sign at a junction. Junction is wide and there is a sharp bend into a rather narrow rural type lane as you turn from the main road (Rivington area of Bolton . per the free paper)

Cyclist turns into this lane .. at some speed. He has no real warning of any danger and would not expect a pedestrian placing a "Caution - Road Works " sign at this point.

He collides with the pedestrian and per the paper .. goes over the bars. He suffers no more injury than a bad shock.

However, his fall was broken by the hapless building site labourer. The labourer suffered broken ribs and a heart attack.

The injury to the labourer .. per the paper .. occured because the helmeted cyclist struck his ribs at a catapult speed and his cardiac arrest was the result of a shock

:scratchchin:

This story would seem to place a cat amongst pigeons..

Did the helmet injure the workman?

Did the helmet save cyclist from worse injury?

:shock: :shock: :shock:

I do confess .. I really cannot say..

All I can say is ..COAST and be aware of the unexpected if you make any turn and are confronted with a "sharp blind bend"

I have to say my sister has scoured papers since this appeared to check for any other information .. and "zilch" appears in three weeks.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 21:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
I am not a medical expert, but I would have thought that the larger surface area of the skull in a helmet would have been a softer impact on the ribcage than the impact of a (slightly lighter) unprotected skull. Especially when you consider that the skull has the weight of the rest of the body behind it. So from the physics/engineering perspective a helmet should have given a softer impact, and perhaps less severe broken ribs. It is exactly the same principle as boxers wearing boxing gloves.

Whether this would have made any difference at all to the subsequent heart attack is something that I am not qualified to comment on, but I doubt it unless the broken ribs were a contributory factor to the heart failure.

I would also note (sadly) that we now have a documented case where a cyclist has directly caused the death of a pedestrian, something that might make some posters reconsider slightly some of their arguments in other threads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 08:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Alyson France is at it again in CW (remember her daft letter re the Rhyl tragedy :roll: – despite the accounts of those actually involved and outcome of any investigation…and we know also that a lot of insurers will try to close a case where no one accepts liability by a 50 /50 split. I thus doubt she succeeds any more than this in claims.
:roll: :oops:


She reckons almost every letter to date in CW supports compulsory helmet use :? and has decided to rant off against helmets. Very strange for an insurer – especially if she’s dealing with the sharks who want to keep pay-outs to minimum. Like reading or not – the unpalatable truth is that insurers do NOT LIKE shelling out cash and will seek to reduce as much as they can… whilst at the same time loading the insurance for the hapless driver for any claim made. This also applies just as much to home insurance.... loss adjuster assesses and if there's one area of your house which he thinks was not "adequately protected against a break-in or you left a window open whilst you were out... - it could affect the claim. :roll: It's not "automatic pay out" - the insured forks out higher premiums and the insurer tries to keep as much as he can! She should know this! :roll:

She slates one reader for recounting his own experience “merely anecdotal” and then goes on to say she has been riding for 36 years and dealt with 2000 claims from riders. (Only 2000 claims? Would have thought more….but then we are seeing more folk – er – wear – er helmets than previously.. by choice ….) :wink:

Of course – Mad Doc has always posted this … K or SI …it depends just as much where and at which angle the impact just as much as speed of the impact. :( By this we mean – it is quite possible despite all the hype to be seriously injured at a low speed. Why we’d rather folk drive to COAST principles on basis that this promotes plan, adjustment, re-positioning and the safest speed to proceed. :)


She quotes an example whereby a chap hit a pothole and was flung over the bars. :cry: She says the coroner commented on the lack of helmet and fatal head injury and “completely ignored the autopsy report which referred to a fracture of the upper vertebrae of the upper spinal column as “being the cause of the death”. It was still caused by landing on his head regardless – based on chat with one of the medics on family and Mike Barry’s account below. I suspect the two injuries were linked in any case and I strongly suspect she is not telling the whole of the report based on my own experience of reading these darned things – (see the add –on about Mike Barry

Oh and by the way .. over the years .. reckon it tops her 2000 claims. :wink:


:roll: :roll:
She then mentions deaths through not wearing seat belts and by driving whilst drunk as topping the charts on road deaths. (Ahhhh…. So no speed then eh- Allyson …) an mentions that car deaths do not make this distinction about the deceased’s lack of helmet. (Ahh… but we take account of the state of car, lack of seat belt, lack of competence and lack of legality and the speed ….with regard to the road condition and lay-out.. A rally or racing driver .. helmet would certainly come into the equation there. Also – there is a bit of a difference as in one earlier lette our Allyson referred to “drivers cocooned in a protective metal cage whereas the cyclist is vulnerable against the elements .. and this is partly why this “drivers should wear helmets” fall apart.

However, I am sure that with the new super cams :wink: – a lot of drivers will take the cyclist’s argument on board completely .. to carry on using the “Hamilton defence!”. :wink: Hmmmm! Be careful of what you wish for …. :wink:

She does ask people not to assume the helmet saved their life – it is just coated polystyrene. Only the polystyrene does offer at least some protection from a small impact. I am sure she would not pack her computer and breakables without wrapping them in bubble wrap, polystyrene chips if moving home.

Besides …. I ‘d rather the insects squished on my lid than in my hair and scalp! :wink: That’s what I think it protects me from really. :wink: But as a person whose day job is to promote safe practice – I will encourage people to use a lid. On the basis I have seen more grief without one than with one – over a career spanning over 20 years at the sharp edge and not pushing a pen in an insurance office.


Oddly enough – this week’s edition focuses on how Discovery Channel Pro Michael Barry recovered from spinal injuries incurred through landing on his face.. (He was the support rider for the team’s leaders and was instrumental in helping Roberto Heras win the 2003 Tour of Spain. He finished seventh overall in a World Champ road race in 2003 and is married to Dede Demet who won silver in the Olympic 2004 road race.

He was wearing a helmet – but landed on his face – thus the helmet could not protect. Anyway.

He clipped a road barrier which was sticking out in the road and went straight over the bars – landing flat on his face – literally. :( He lost a lot of blood at the scene, was out cold for 45 minutes and broke thoracic vertebrae seven, eight and nine.. He was lucky – he did not need a corset

He was told to say off his bike, not to lift anything but to keep active by walking without straining his back. The compression fracture occurred when the force pushed together the front part of the vertebrae. Per CW - the bone tissue of the vertebral body collapses within itself and has a smallet vlume. Apparently this heasl within 6-8 weeks with pain killers.

Ten days later – he got on his spinning trainer – holding the door handle to keep his back straight and gradually increased each day and practised yoga to keep the muscles loose. After a fracture “muscles are tight”


He's looking to ride in the Vuelta and late Classics.


Mike Barry has written a number of books on fitness plus one "Inside the Postal Bus" - a wityy and wry look a life pn the road as a pro-cyclist.

You can follow his progress on www.michaelbarry.ca

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.728s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]