Weaponisation of skiing.
Same as what we see in cycling and motoring.
A race to create ever more armoured vehicles and protective equipment.
Very sad to see skiing go that way too.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
THE Helmet Thread
(895 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
@neddie been going that way for years, sadly.
I learned to ski here (hillend and up north) almost 40 years ago.
Now back then there were no ski helmets.........and I cant remember that many (any) injuries??
In a slightly different tactic from cycling (which used the pro peleton as its stealth product placer) most people rent skis and the helmet manufacturers flooded rental shops with "free helmets".
You can see where this went, over the course of the last 15 years, helmets have gone from sensibly being used in parks and off piste to being mandatory for kids, and used by (my estimate) 90% of adults.
I have a mate who lives in the alps the last 25 years, never worn a helmet, has had to buy one as - if he accompanies his son on race training - he must wear one !
I have to justify my non use to some well meaning person every time (every single time) I ski.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Many here will have read this As Easy as Riding a Bike blog post and comments section, but it's worth revisiting:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/from-the-specific-to-the-general/
Posted 6 years ago # -
"I would also ask them why they aren't doing a similar study whether helmet wearing inside motor vehicles has any positive impact... "
Motor vehicles mostly have multiple helmets in them already. The evidence is pretty strong that airbags have saved lives.
Re the New Zealand study, if you compare the fall in cycling against new car prices, there's correlation there also.
Again we could go round in circles, but the simple point is that helmets do save lives, AND less people would die if we had segregated infrastructure.
Use should not be mandatory, we allow people to freely drink alcohol.
Posted 6 years ago # -
We have a lot of segregation to do before introducing compulsory helmets if the Government follows the thinkng of its own organisation controlling safety. PPE is always a last resort. Note the emphasis on collective measures.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Baldcyclist you keep stating that they save lives. Can you tell me what happened to the serious injury rates where they have been made mandatory?
Are you also aware what happened in Canada when they were made mandatory for kids and not adults?
Posted 6 years ago # -
@WeeFoldingBike
Re saving lives, I can say with certainty that if you suffer a head injury, chances are you will have a better outcome if you are wearing a helmet. The data is pretty unanimously agreed by those who work in that environment. That is not to say you MUST wear a helmet.
Do you question climate science?
Or do you question reporting on cancer outcomes?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Baldcyclist
Plastic cycling hats have nothing to do with climate or cancer outcomes as far as I know.
The relationship between plastic hat use and serious injury rate is more complex than many people expect.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@wfb
Indeed, but it is interesting how we tend to ‘pick’ the science that we believe. So right leaning people will question climate, and try to offer opposing science when consensus is the opposite.
Left leaners will offer opposing science to the scientific consensus when they perceive a minority to be at threat. Despite believing doctors on science relating to cancer outcomes for example.
This is similar, in that both sides are right. Helmets do save lives, bike lanes do save lives. It’s interesting how left/right leaners align themselves with arguments.
I stated earlier that in this argument, I believe both sides are right, and actually don’t have to oppose each other.
People, and groups are interesting.
Posted 6 years ago # -
You have repeatedly stated that they save lives. It's far from that simple.
Cancer and the climate are not related to this.
Posted 6 years ago # -
They are related in the sense that in each case there is a scientific consensus.
What’s interesting is that ‘helmet deniers’ (for lack of a better term), are happy to agree with the scientific consensus on things like climate, or on cancer outcomes, but not on helmet outcomes, even when the science is published by a group they would normally trust. (Doctors).
Posted 6 years ago # -
@IWRATS - one for the "kit list queries for mountain bike touring" thread, that.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Baldcyclist
I'm unaware of this plastic hat consensus. Even Thompson, Rivara and Thompson found it was more complex than they thought and back tracked on their earlier paper.
And once again you drag in unrelated topics.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Frenchy
I tried to persuade @unhurt but apparently the fit of the Ursus personal armor suit is highly gendered in certain key cycling-related areas.
Posted 6 years ago # -
One thing about the helmet wars is that data from A & E is Different from data from National Stats. And National Stats from countries with good infrastructure is different from countries with duff infrastructure.
So I state again in case anyone is listening, helmets are merely sticking plasters and will never compensate for poor infrastructure. All energies should be directed at improving infra not helmet debates.
Helmets are also placing the onus on the individual cyclist rather than culpable motorists and companies and governments shirking responsibility.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@wfb ok, back to related topics, and my original post:
1. Cyclists who turn up at hospital wearing helmets have better outcomes than their helmetless counterparts.
2. If you have segregated cycle infrastructure then the risk of head injury is less, and cycle rates will improve.
Both of these statements are correct, the data has been peer reviewed by it’s respective groups, and the conclusions are evidence based. If you were to ask any A&E or Neuro doctor, or cycle transport planner, they would agree with the statement in respect to their discipline.
The 2 statements are not incompatible with each other, so why do sides primarily on opposing political sides make counter, and false science claims of the other statement?
Posted 6 years ago # -
@baldycyclist because governments use statement 1 to avoid doing anything about statement 2?
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'll tell you summing @gembo and that's we should defo all wear helmets during and after consumption of alcohol and indeed other drugs.
What's goose for the gander is sauce for the sauce.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Motor vehicles mostly have multiple helmets in them already. The evidence is pretty strong that airbags have saved lives.
Why then are 48% of head-injuries presented at trauma units suffered by the occupants of motor vehicles? If all occupants of motor vehicles were to wear motorcycle helmets, then those who turn up at hospital wearing helmets will have better outcomes than their helmet-less counterparts.
So why aren't you calling for all motor vehicle occupants to wear helmets? I'll tell you why. Because that would be ridiculous. And it is equally ridiculous to ask the same of cyclists (who incidentally only make up 1% of head injuries at trauma units).
The evidence is pretty strong that airbags have saved lives
Airbags, like seatbelts, are an example of a "safety benefit" being absorbed as a "performance benefit". When mandatory seatbelt laws were introduced, they made drivers feel safer and as a consequence they drove faster, took more risks, crashed more often, etc. Rear seat passenger fatalities increased (particularly children) and pedestrian & cyclist deaths skyrocketed. In the end, there was no net casualty reduction from introducing seatbelt laws*
But, hey, people that wore seatbelts that presented at the trauma units had "better outcomes" than those who didn't wear them.
I imagine airbags have just the same effect. This book below was written before airbags (1993) but its text is prescient and just as relevant today (if not even more so, as people are beginning to become more enlightened).
*Please read "Death on the Streets" chapter 4 - Clunk-click cover-up seatbelt myths and realities:
https://rdrf.org.uk/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-safety/
Posted 6 years ago # -
@IWRATS
Oddly, the only time I have had a bad head injury, alcohol was involved and a mate "play pushed me" at an open hole the gas board had dug in the road.
He thought I was aware of his japes - I wasnt and went head first 6 feet down !!
Choice was a trip to the Infirmary or the chippie.
Woke up in the morning with a combo of chippy sauce and blood matted to my pillow.
Cracking scar, lucky I have a full head of hair.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I know I shouldn't spend the time writing this and should instead be sending an FOI to the council regarding local TROs which may or may not exist. But for reasons largely related to being human...
@Baldycyclist.
"1. Cyclists who turn up at hospital wearing helmets have better outcomes than their helmetless counterparts."
I assume you mean cyclists who were wearing the helmet at time of incident. Turning up (presumably) on a stretcher while still wearing the helmet suggest something very serious.
What your statement misses out is that this is a subset of cyclists. It does not take into account whether the population of cyclists as a whole were more or less likely to turn up at A&E based on their head-wear. I also don't expect an A&E doctor will ever state that they have witness a cyclist die primarily because they were wearing a helmet. This is partly confirmation bias but also tragically because such patient are likely to present with multiple other life threatening injuries.
I suspect you are right that at an individual level wearing a helmet will make you safer in many situations. However compulsory helmets (which you are not in anyway suggesting) will nearly always cost lives rather than saving them. For every life saved in the accident part of A&E multiples are lost in the Emergency part (strokes/heart attacks).
as IWRATS suggests anyone who thinks helmets should be mandatory on bikes but doesn't also campaign for them in bars has ulterior motives.
I will actively campaign against helmet compulsion but as no one here is suggesting it I am going to mute this conversation for a few days.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Is there any actual evidence anywhere of how much wearing a helmet on a bike changes my risk of being killed or seriously injured, and what it changes it from and to?
My feeling is that it changes the risk from being incredibly low to a teeny weeny bit more incredibly low (or, it may change it from being incredibly low to a teeny weeny bit less incredibly low, I suppose). From a post of mine upthread for London Cycle Hire: 43 million journeys, 52 serious collisions, two fatalities.
It is so depressing that it ever gets discussed. As the saintly Chris Boardman says, it's not even in the Top 10 things we need to do.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@acsimpson Yes, should read:
Cyclists who turn up at hospital with head injuries wearing helmets have better outcomes than their helmetless counterparts.Bit got lost from earlier comment.
@Greenroofer
I'd say it doesn't change the risk one little bit, however if you do end up in a hospital with a head injury, statistically the outcome will be better if you have a helmet on.
It's a bit like saying the chances of me winning the lottery are next to nil, however I still buy the ticket every week, and despite the chance of winning someone does. In a similar vane, every week someone wins a broken head even though the chances are next to nil.
Posted 6 years ago # -
You should always buy a lottery ticket on a Saturday? As your chance of dying Sunday through to Friday is higher than your chance of winning on The Saturday. But this flips over on a Saturday. Your chance of dying is lower on a Saturday than your chance of winning. Whether or not you are wearing a helmet.
Making helmets compulsory is therefore daft legislation. Or sinister if you like as it shifts the blame from the state and the drivers on to the individual cyclist.
Energies should not be deflected by this. All energies should go into improving infra as helmets are merely a sticking plaster and will not compensate for poor infra. (I may have said this before?)
Posted 6 years ago # -
I haven’t tried to make a case for mandatory helmet use, infact if on my Pashley I don’t wear one.
I’m simply arguing that people will find all sorts of silly reasons for not believing data that has been peer reviewed and is universally accepted by professionals in that field. When the same people will accept without question other universally accepted and peer reviewed data.
Put even more simply, helmets work, you chose whether to wear one or not.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@gembo
Classic actuarial question: at what time on which day of the week should you buy your lottery ticket in order to have more chance of winning the jackpot than of dying before the draw?
Results are skewed if you stay indoors wearing a crash helmet.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist - I'm not sure it's entirely silly to ask "Having accepted that head injuries are ameliorated by helmets, does wearing a helmet change an individual's chance of having a head injury, and does that make them work better or worse?"
There's peer reviewed data to suggest that drivers take greater risks with helmeted cyclists, so there is a case to answer here.
"Helmet deniers" may well have identified a gap in the data here, which is necessary for either side to make their assertions about whether something works or not.
Granted, if this data is actually available, I'd be pleased to be pointed at it.
Robert
Posted 6 years ago # -
Very rubbish straw poll - 8 cyclists between PureGym QMile and bottom of Middle Meadow Walk. Fairly even split of the sexes.
Only one helmeted.
I think the clue here is that people feel pretty safe in this area as much of the area is car free.
1 minutes later I had an interaction with a van at the top of Argyle Place :-)
Posted 6 years ago # -
You know these video clips showing 100s and 1,000s of people cycling along, criss crossing each other, in the Netherlands? There must be a reasonable number of spills where people fall off their bikes, roughly from the height that helmets are designed to protect, 1.5 metres or whatever.
Well, why don't they wear helmets? There is evidently a risk from falls. What exactly are we trying to protect against?
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
