Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum banner

41 - 60 of 65 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
24,071 Posts
Okay, let me hit you in the head with a bat, take your choice of wearing a baseball cap or a bike helmet...............
That's pretty much nonsensical. Obviously, more protection is more protection. But when it gets to the point that it interferes with quality of life, is there any real point to it?

You could die from an airborne virus, so to be completely safe from that, you should live in a hermetically sealed bubble. Are you doing that?

Life is a series of gambles and balances, and the overall enjoyment of that demands that you avoid the paralysis of focusing on the extreme "what ifs".
 

·
Designer/Contractor
Joined
·
3,473 Posts
That's pretty much nonsensical. Obviously, more protection is more protection. But when it gets to the point that it interferes with quality of life, is there any real point to it?

You could die from an airborne virus, so to be completely safe from that, you should live in a hermetically sealed bubble. Are you doing that?

Life is a series of gambles and balances, and the overall enjoyment of that demands that you avoid the paralysis of focusing on the extreme "what ifs".
Don't think it's any more nonsensical then claiming a baseball cap is going to afford the same level of protection for one's head as a bicycle helmet, furthermore don't see how wearing a bicycle helmet interferes with one's quality of life.

If people don't want to wear them I could care less as long as I, as a taxpayer, don't end up having to pay for their long term rehabbing when they've gotten a traumatic head injury from bouncing their head off of a street surface. If course, that isn't the case is it? We as a society end up paying for fools mistakes and errors in judgement all the time don't we?

Yes, life is a series of gambles but that doesn't mean one shouldn't take simple precautions to mitigate the inherent dangers if possible. It's like wearing shoulder harness seat belts. I remember when seat belts weren't in cars and no one wore them. Even after they were mandatory no one I rode with wore them for years then people started wearing them and now I wouldn't want to drive in a car without one.

I went ahead and dug into the net a bit after Hd's assertion about the studies and it was as I expected, not as he asserted really. I did find this one excerpt that I think is germane to the question and I'll end this lengthy post with it.

For those working on the frontline of trauma care, the findings of a report into the protective effects of helmets in cyclists and motorcyclists published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week come as no surprise.

When an ambulance arrives at an emergency department with a cyclist injured on the road, a clinician needs to first know a few important details. How old is the patient? What are the vital signs? And finally … were they wearing a helmet?

That’s because ambulance officers, doctors and nurses have known for a long time that if a helmet is not being worn at the time a head strikes the road, pavement or cycleway, the chances of severe head injury are much higher.

Now this has been shown in a one-year study I conducted, with two colleagues, of injured cyclists and motorcyclists presenting to seven major trauma centres in Sydney.

The risks of severe head injury were more than five times higher in cyclists not wearing a helmet compared to helmeted ones, and more than three times higher in motorcyclists not wearing a helmet at the time of injury.

Severe head injuries were defined as any with significant brain haemorrhage, complex skull fracture or brain swelling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
Okay, let me hit you in the head with a bat, take your choice of wearing a baseball cap or a bike helmet...............
Hit me with that bat under the left arm, and I'll take no padding at all, thanks.

Getting hit on the head, you shift the risk from a head injury to a neck injury by using a helmet. That's the physics of it. The physics of doing something like hitting the curb with your head also throws in increased TBI risk due to the higher torque/twisting generated compared to no helmet.

Common sense doesn't give you a good feel for the reality of what actually happens.
 

·
Designer/Contractor
Joined
·
3,473 Posts
Hit me with that bat under the left arm, and I'll take no padding at all, thanks.

Getting hit on the head, you shift the risk from a head injury to a neck injury by using a helmet. That's the physics of it. The physics of doing something like hitting the curb with your head also throws in increased TBI risk due to the higher torque/twisting generated compared to no helmet.

Common sense doesn't give you a good feel for the reality of what actually happens.
Baloney, get cracked on the head with a bat and you'll have a cracked head along with a sore neck, get cracked on the head with a bat wearing a helmet and you'll have a sore neck and an intact head.

There's no way one is going to be safer bouncing their head off a street with no helmet then with a helmet, any transferred injuries are going to be much less traumatic then one's brains oozing out onto the pavement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
Don't think it's any more nonsensical then claiming a baseball cap is going to afford the same level of protection for one's head as a bicycle helmet, furthermore don't see how wearing a bicycle helmet interferes with one's quality of life.

If people don't want to wear them I could care less as long as I, as a taxpayer, don't end up having to pay for their long term rehabbing when they've gotten a traumatic head injury from bouncing their head off of a street surface. If course, that isn't the case is it? We as a society end up paying for fools mistakes and errors in judgement all the time don't we?

Yes, life is a series of gambles but that doesn't mean one shouldn't take simple precautions to mitigate the inherent dangers if possible. It's like wearing shoulder harness seat belts. I remember when seat belts weren't in cars and no one wore them. Even after they were mandatory no one I rode with wore them for years then people started wearing them and now I wouldn't want to drive in a car without one.

I went ahead and dug into the net a bit after Hd's assertion about the studies and it was as I expected, not as he asserted really. I did find this one excerpt that I think is germane to the question and I'll end this lengthy post with it.

For those working on the frontline of trauma care, the findings of a report into the protective effects of helmets in cyclists and motorcyclists published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week come as no surprise.

When an ambulance arrives at an emergency department with a cyclist injured on the road, a clinician needs to first know a few important details. How old is the patient? What are the vital signs? And finally … were they wearing a helmet?

That’s because ambulance officers, doctors and nurses have known for a long time that if a helmet is not being worn at the time a head strikes the road, pavement or cycleway, the chances of severe head injury are much higher.

Now this has been shown in a one-year study I conducted, with two colleagues, of injured cyclists and motorcyclists presenting to seven major trauma centres in Sydney.

The risks of severe head injury were more than five times higher in cyclists not wearing a helmet compared to helmeted ones, and more than three times higher in motorcyclists not wearing a helmet at the time of injury.

Severe head injuries were defined as any with significant brain haemorrhage, complex skull fracture or brain swelling.

And yet, the head injury rate went up in Australia when the helmets were required for cyclists. The claimed ER data doesn't refute that. The probabilities involved aren't actually the same. The doctors ARE NOT telling you the probability of going to the ER for either wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet, for instance.

This is a classic case of answering the wrong question.
As for the internets, the problem with most of the studies are simply that the infetences drawn aren't supported. If you don't like my point, you can always go over any if the methodology critiques, they apply here as well.

ER doctors and doctors in general are not competent to do this kind of analysis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
Baloney, get cracked on the head with a bat and you'll have a cracked head along with a sore neck, get cracked on the head with a bat wearing a helmet and you'll have a sore neck and an intact head.

There's no way one is going to be safer bouncing their head off a street with no helmet then with a helmet, any transferred injuries are going to be much less traumatic then one's brains oozing out onto the pavement.
I have practical experience with being hit in the head with a baseball bat. I've also bounced my head off of pavement after what seemed like a a long time falling. Concussions, no cracked skull. I've also fallen head first into rocks. No brains oozing out.

Maybe some people have fragile skulls, I don't know.

Riding 25 mph and going down onto the road, I absolutely would prefer no helmet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
[
Got a link?
I think it's covered on the site STG linked, but you have to dig to find the analysis on a country level or city level. These are the ones that come closest to giving definitive answers to the everyone wear one/nobody wear one question.

I'll double check links tomorrow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,793 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
I have practical experience with being hit in the head with a baseball bat. I've also bounced my head off of pavement after what seemed like a a long time falling. Concussions, no cracked skull. I've also fallen head first into rocks. No brains oozing out.

Maybe some people have fragile skulls, I don't know.

Riding 25 mph and going down onto the road, I absolutely would prefer no helmet.
At 25, I'd prefer the results with helmet any day...and every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
Got a link?

My contention would be that when you fall at 15-20 mph, you're about as likely to smack your head whether you're wearing a helmet or not. The momentum gets you.

Perhaps the NFL should stop wearing helmets?
Fine, but it's your assertion, so you get to prove it.

Just like people blink their eyes when a fast moving object comes at their eyes, there are similar hard wired reactions to protect the head from injury. Not only does a helmet slow them down, but the helmet is larger than the head, so it takes a larger head movement to avoid a transferred impact and torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,793 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
Fine, but it's your assertion, so you get to prove it.

Just like people blink their eyes when a fast moving object comes at their eyes, there are similar hard wired reactions to protect the head from injury. Not only does a helmet slow them down, but the helmet is larger than the head, so it takes a larger head movement to avoid a transferred impact and torque.
I understand the issue of size, the added weight, and even that it can changes the neck angle at impact a bit. But even with all that, it's a myth to think a hard-wired responses will overcome the transfer of momentum of some collisions (leading to impact), and this argument is about those instances when the head hits.

For the record, I've hit my head more than I can count. I wish I had a nickel for every time I gashed my head on a cabinet or something. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
There's an important caveat to the results of that 1989 New England medical study: It shows that bike helmets may reduce the risk of head and brain injury by 85-88%—but only for those who get into accidents.

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Rather than go paper by paper, I'll go back to the top level and point out if that paper's apparent claims are relevant, it would jump out on the top level national studies.

There are actually multiple problems with this study's methodology, but it's enough to know those numbers do not predict the national results.

Plus, the authors aren't competent to analyze it to begin with.

It's the same problem that showed up with gun ownership studies. It's very difficult and time consuming to do a good study of it, and non existed until John Lott did the tough work. Pretty much everyone else said you were more likely to injure a family member than protect the family. Oops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,143 Posts
I understand the issue of size, the added weight, and even that it can changes the neck angle at impact a bit. But even with all that, it's a myth to think a hard-wired responses will overcome the transfer of momentum of some collisions (leading to impact), and this argument is about those instances when the head hits.

For the record, I've hit my head more than I can count. I wish I had a nickel for every time I gashed my head on a cabinet or something. :)
It isn't about instances when the head hits, that's part of the point.

If I slip on ice and fall flat on my back, my head doesn't bounce off anything. If I were wearing a bike helmet, the helmet would hit. If it had one of those fairings in the back, that would be a bigger problem.

The problem with arguing details is there is no good hard data on them, not all the details are known, and how it all fits into having an accident and getting a brain injury. There is no detailed causal structure covering it, so details will not inform a decision.

Right now, the best available is the top level stuff, which I don't consider conclusive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,793 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
It isn't about instances when the head hits, that's part of the point.

If I slip on ice and fall flat on my back, my head doesn't bounce off anything. If I were wearing a bike helmet, the helmet would hit. If it had one of those fairings in the back, that would be a bigger problem.

The problem with arguing details is there is no good hard data on them, not all the details are known, and how it all fits into having an accident and getting a brain injury. There is no detailed causal structure covering it, so details will not inform a decision.

Right now, the best available is the top level stuff, which I don't consider conclusive.
The head would bounce off the ice if it's solid. Done that, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
The head would bounce off the ice if it's solid. Done that, too.
Yes, but if a head was solid we wouldn't need to worry about brain injuries. :whistling

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I do this when talking to people all of the time, because they don't seem to understand that the subject of the sentence is "head" not "ice". I don't make these comments to pick on grammar, but because I think it's funny.

Carry on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,793 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
Yes, but if a head was solid we wouldn't need to worry about brain injuries. :whistling

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I do this when talking to people all of the time, because they don't seem to understand that the subject of the sentence is "head" not "ice". I don't make these comments to pick on grammar, but because I think it's funny.

Carry on...
Well done! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,916 Posts
It isn't about instances when the head hits, that's part of the point.

If I slip on ice and fall flat on my back, my head doesn't bounce off anything. If I were wearing a bike helmet, the helmet would hit. If it had one of those fairings in the back, that would be a bigger problem.

The problem with arguing details is there is no good hard data on them, not all the details are known, and how it all fits into having an accident and getting a brain injury. There is no detailed causal structure covering it, so details will not inform a decision.

Right now, the best available is the top level stuff, which I don't consider conclusive.
Sister in law had a coworker slip on the ice, fell backwards, hit head, died.

Tom
 

·
Designer/Contractor
Joined
·
3,473 Posts
It isn't about instances when the head hits, that's part of the point.

If I slip on ice and fall flat on my back, my head doesn't bounce off anything. If I were wearing a bike helmet, the helmet would hit. If it had one of those fairings in the back, that would be a bigger problem.

The problem with arguing details is there is no good hard data on them, not all the details are known, and how it all fits into having an accident and getting a brain injury. There is no detailed causal structure covering it, so details will not inform a decision.

Right now, the best available is the top level stuff, which I don't consider conclusive.
If one slips on ice and falls on one's back, sometimes they'll hit their head and sometimes they won't, just depends. In the cases that they do hit their head it's going to be easier on their head if they happened to be wearing a bike helmet, same for road accidents.

It doesn't take a genius to see that when someone bounces their head onto a hard surface if the head is protected there's going to be less damage done.

But in the case of scooters down here it's a moot point in most cases because the business model going forward is that they are dockless, meaning they put them anywhere and they are for spur of the moment rides and such where people aren't equipped with helmets. It's all part of the hope of getting people out of their cars. With serious accidents on them coming in quite frequently we'll see how long this lasts. It will also be interesting to see how much the city ends up having to pay in lawsuits from accidents deemed to partly the city's fault, such as potholes sending one's scooter end over end with people bouncing their fragile heads off the concrete.
 
41 - 60 of 65 Posts
Top