I called 911- tell me I wasn't being ridiculous. - Page 6 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#151 of 158 Old 08-13-2010, 10:18 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 12,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinwen View Post
Incorrect. It will/has/can/ and will continue to protect people on bicycles who have been hit by cars. In no way, shape or form is it a misconception - I've cared for people (more than a few) who were in an MVC on bike - and suffered much less severe injuries due to wearing a helmet.

This kind of misinformation is dangerous.
I'll lob the 'incorrect' ball back at you.

Quote:
Under US standards bike helmets are tested in 2 meter drops that achieve about 14 miles per hour (22.5 kph) on the flat anvil. In Europe the drop height is only 1.5 meters.
and

Quote:
If you have the misfortune to impact head first against a bridge abutment at the bottom of a screaming 55 mph downhill, your helmet will not prevent a head injury. That is not very important, since the rest of your body will be mush anyway. Fortunately that very seldom happens. Most of the cases where the helmet's limits are exceeded involve crashes with cars. Every rider understands that it is very important to avoid being hit by a car.

Obviously a helmet covers only your head, leaving the rest of your body unprotected.
from http://www.helmets.org/limits.htm, along with

Quote:
If more people knew and understood these results, were aware that the vast majority of seriously debilitating head injuries are caused by bike/motor vehicle collisions often involving forces outside the design limit for bike helmets, and knew about the Dutch research showing that a reduction in vehicle impact speed from 40 to 30 km/hr halves maximum head acceleration [2], there might be more emphasis on measures to prevent high impact car/bike crashes (e.g. by education, enforcement of traffic laws and random breath tests) rather than on secondary measures such as cycle helmets, for which the benefits are much less certain.
from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html, discuss that bicycle helmets are wholly inadequate to protect in collision with cars. I don't doubt that anecdotally they may help lessen some severe brain trauma, but the second study discusses the problem of rotational injuries in severe crashes, for which there is evidence that the presence of a helmet can worsen such injury.

So the idea that if we all wear our helmets we will be much safer on the road, is false and IMO this is the ideology that is dangerously misleading. Because it places blame for collisions and injury on cyclists, instead of addressing the real issue, which is designing towns and cities with decent cycling infrastructure. This is where the real protection lies.
thismama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#152 of 158 Old 08-13-2010, 10:21 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
#153 of 158 Old 08-13-2010, 10:26 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 12,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinwen View Post
All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.
Well as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. And obviously it is impossible for you to have the victims relive their accidents without a helmet, so there is no way to make a conclusion that the same accident would have had xyz different result with a helmet on. The actual studies come to different conclusions than you have.
thismama is offline  
#154 of 158 Old 08-13-2010, 10:34 PM
 
pigpokey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 3,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinwen View Post
All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.
Is it possible to see this first hand? Because you can't replay the accident, switching the helmet variable.
pigpokey is offline  
#155 of 158 Old 08-13-2010, 11:21 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigpokey View Post
Is it possible to see this first hand? Because you can't replay the accident, switching the helmet variable.
I'm not sure what you're asking.

My statement (while purported to be 'anecdotal') is this - I work in a level one trauma centre/hospital in Ontario.

My personal experience is such that in cars vs. humans - humans wearing helmets have better outcomes.

You can be hit by a car (at variable speeds) being thrown (for example) into the curb. You fall off, tumble, whatever - your head hits the ground.

Wearing a helmet has provided these trauma patients with an automatic better chance of surviving their head injury.

Patients I've had with no helmet (who survived) - had much worse injuries. Facial traumas, severe brain injuries, higher rates of intubation, etc.

So yes, my experience is not data. I still believe it to be relevant.

I've seen both sides - patients who live w/wo helmets, and patients who don't live w/wo helmets.

All I know is, I'll be wearing a helmet. The facial injuries alone on non-helmet patients makes me shudder.

ETA - I will be bowing out of the conversation because we could go around and around this. Also, we're pretty far off the OP now

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
#156 of 158 Old 08-14-2010, 01:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
WindyCityMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I think we should open the helmet/no helmet topic in the Family Safety forum. I'm going to be checking out of this thread because I feel that I've rec'd adequate responses and the topic has strayed too far from my intended post

rainbow1284.gif Mama to DD1 (6) DD2 (4) and DD3 (1)
WindyCityMom is offline  
#157 of 158 Old 08-15-2010, 04:31 AM
 
gcgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinwen View Post
All your stats aside - I've actually, physically cared for children and adults who have had reduced head injuries from wearing a helmet.



There's not really an argument against that. I work in trauma, I've cared for traumatic head injuries (some survive, some don't) A helmet will at least reduce the risk of serious injury - I've seen it. First hand.
The article isn't an argument against helmets either. Just an argument that PREVENTING accidents in the first place is EVEN SAFER than wearing a helmet. Well, duh.
gcgirl is offline  
#158 of 158 Old 08-15-2010, 11:07 AM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 12,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcgirl View Post
The article isn't an argument against helmets either. Just an argument that PREVENTING accidents in the first place is EVEN SAFER than wearing a helmet. Well, duh.
No, the articles are definitely not against helmets, nor is anyone on this thread *against* helmets that I have seen.

It is not just saying tho that 'preventing accidents is even safer than wearing a helmet.' The articles back up the point that helmets are seriously inadequate protection in the event of being hit by a car.

I wear my helmet on my bicycle, but it's in case I hit a rock. Not in case I have an accident with a 2000 lb vehicle.
thismama is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off