Pushbike helmets Part II

[MAD]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Been to hundreds, if not thousands of this type of accident, most walk out with little injury, rarely an injury requiring hospital admission. By the way, I'll take the barina if that is all that is on offer but I would prefer my Mini.

Sorry, I was referring to the damage to the car. The way it was written was like "it's only a little bit of whiplash".

Originally Posted by geckoGT

A lot more than you think, there is enough foam and energy absorption to take enough force out of an impact in the average riding accident, which is the type of accident that many here say do not require a helmet. It is not the extreme riding situations (100 km/h decent on a road bike or MTB downhill racing etc) that the average helmet is designed for, it is designed for the average crash for the average rider (unless you get into really high end competition helmets like mine). That absorption of impact not only reduces direct injury (head) but reduces indirect injury (neck).

Are you referring to a straight on impact (compression)? Are compression fractures, in the neck, common for an unhelmeted victim?
I was thinking more along the lines of an incident that places the head in a position where it applies significant leverage to the neck. Not a straight on impact.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

Sorry, I was referring to the damage to the car. The way it was written was like "it's only a little bit of whiplash".




Are you referring to a straight on impact (compression)? Are compression fractures, in the neck, common for an unhelmeted victim?
I was thinking more along the lines of an incident that places the head in a position where it applies significant leverage to the neck. Not a straight on impact.

I was referring to to both. Direct force trauma is injury at the point of the body that has struck something else (eg skull fracture at the point of impact), indirect force trauma is injury at an area remote as a result of transfer of forces (such as neck fracture from trauma to the head). By reducing the force applied to the head (through absorption and increasing the duration of the force) you reduce both the severity of direct force trauma and the severity of indirect force trauma.

Compression (or blow out) fractures of the neck are common in any incident that applies significant force to the top of the head in line with the longitudinal plane of the vertebrae. Although prevalent in bike accidents, particularly in over the handlebars accidents, it is more common in diving accidents and contact sport spear tackles. This injury mechanism is less likely to cause spinal cord damage in the initial injury event, further movement can cause injury though. It is hyperflexion (bending head down) hyperextesnion (bending head up) or hyperrotation (turning head beyond normal range) that tend to cause neck fractures with spinal cord damage. These injury patterns occur when force is applied to the head/neck in a plane perpendicular or offset to the plane of the spinal column, in other words a side shearing force. This type of injury can occur in head trauma resulting from car accidents (e.g head into B pillar on side impact), bike accidents (fall sideways, forwards or backwards and side, front or rear of head on ground) or assaults (e.g hit to front, rear or side of the head with a baseball bat). Severe whiplash (hyperflexion followed by hyperextension) in car accidents etc will also cause this type of injury but this has been pretty much made a thing of the past by the widespread use of head rests (stops the hyperextension).

Welcome to severe head/spinal trauma 101, the important point to take away from it is that any shock absorption will reduce the energy applied and therefore the risk and severity of injury. That is simple physics and can not be disputed. How much energy is required to cause serious injury, any fall or force directly to the head that equates to more than a fall from standing level is of great risk (in some such as infants and elderly less force than that is required). So a fall from a bike traveling at just 15 km/h (that is absolutely snail pace) resulting in a direct blow to the head is sufficient to cause significant and life threatening head and spinal trauma.

I hope that helps dispel the myth that falls from bikes at low speed without helmets are unlikely to cause serious injury. The truth of the matter is sometimes low speed can make you more prone to crash because of the lack of perceived risk and therefore a lack of concentration. Ask any competitive cyclist what speed most of their falls happen at and they will probably say low speeds when they aren't paying attention. Most of the bike crashes I go to at work happen at low speed intersections, crossings and high pedestrian areas etc. The more speed you have at the time, the more you think about what you are doing because of the higher perceived risk, it is human nature.

[geckoGT]

Yeah, the original rosebank stackhats are not even legal now as far as know because they do not meet AS. Their major problem (apart from being the daggiest helmet known to man) is that the hard plastic shell has sharp edges that have caused major lacerations especially around the ears and the neck area.

[paule11]

I ride and wear a helmet wouldnt worry about wearing one too much if I didnt have too.
Dont ride on busy roads much if it was optional to wear a helmet I probably would wear one on the roads.
I can see one day we will have to wear helmets in cars and all the people that are under 5 years old now will be arguing and saying how important it is to wear a helmet in a carin polls like this in the future.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by paule11

I can see one day we will have to wear helmets in cars and all the people that are under 5 years old now will be arguing and saying how important it is to wear a helmet in a carin polls like this in the future.

I don't really think that will ever be on the cards, instead you will see improvements in safety features of cars without laws requiring full face helmets, race suits and fire retardant undies.

[paule11]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I don't really think that will ever be on the cards, instead you will see improvements in safety features of cars without laws requiring full face helmets, race suits and fire retardant undies.

I remember when bike helmets came in back in the 80s we were all saying beforehand how ridiculous it is and it wont happen.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by paule11

I can see one day we will have to wear helmets in cars

Only about 50% of the people I tell this believe me but when I was little I actually saw a family of 4 wearing stackhats in a car. It's something I will never forget.

[xbgs351]

Relative risk per participant
Airsports 450
Climbing 137
Motor sports 81
Fishing 41
Horse riding 29
Swimming 7.0
Athletics 5.7
Football 4.9
Tennis 4.2
Cycling 1.0
Safer Golf 0.83
Rambling 0.06


UK Deaths per year
Cycling, road traffic accidents 138
Cycling, other 29
All transport 3,032
At home 3,974
Other accidents 5,026
Obesity (England only) 30,000
Heart disease due to inactivity 58,090
All heart disease 157,000

Risk of death during lifetime
Heart disease 1 in 5
Motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
Pedestrian accident 1 in 626
Motorcycle accident 1 in 1,020
Bicycle accident 1 in 4,919

Risk of injury per million km
Age group Motorists (driver) / Cyclists
12 - 14: - / 16.8
15 - 17: - / 18.2
18 - 24: 33.5 / 7.7
25 - 29: 17.0 / 8.2
30 - 39: 9.7 / 7.0
40 - 49: 9.7 / 9.2
50 - 59: 5.9 / 17.2
60 - 64: 10.4 / 32.1
> 64: 39.9 / 79.1
Total: 20.8 / 21.0

[KYSBF]

I wear a helmet whenever I jump on my pushie. Partly because I value my life as I know it and do not want to live it as a vegetable, additionally I have two boys and wish to set a good axample for them too. I cannot imagine if either one of them got knocked off and got an injury or worse that could have been prevented. It is common sense........there are a few whinging about becoming a nanny-state etc. Possibly because there is a diminished ability amongst society to practice common sense.
As it has been pointed out, the financial and social cost to keep someone who has been paralysed or whatever is immense.

Maybe this something to do with becoming a nanny state.........we fail to excercise common sense with most decisions we make for ourselves, impacting on most other areas of society. Over burdening health care and systems, draining finances and resources trying to fix someones decision to feel the breeze in their hair.

my 2 bobs.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Relative risk per participant
Airsports 450
Climbing 137
Motor sports 81
Fishing 41
Horse riding 29
Swimming 7.0
Athletics 5.7
Football 4.9
Tennis 4.2
Cycling 1.0
Safer Golf 0.83
Rambling 0.06


UK Deaths per year
Cycling, road traffic accidents 138
Cycling, other 29
All transport 3,032
At home 3,974
Other accidents 5,026
Obesity (England only) 30,000
Heart disease due to inactivity 58,090
All heart disease 157,000

Risk of death during lifetime
Heart disease 1 in 5
Motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
Pedestrian accident 1 in 626
Motorcycle accident 1 in 1,020
Bicycle accident 1 in 4,919

Risk of injury per million km
Age group Motorists (driver) / Cyclists
12 - 14: - / 16.8
15 - 17: - / 18.2
18 - 24: 33.5 / 7.7
25 - 29: 17.0 / 8.2
30 - 39: 9.7 / 7.0
40 - 49: 9.7 / 9.2
50 - 59: 5.9 / 17.2
60 - 64: 10.4 / 32.1
> 64: 39.9 / 79.1
Total: 20.8 / 21.0

oops.......

So would a slight increase in pushie deaths be worth a much larger drop in other deaths?

After all, the poll CLEARLY shows that the majority of current pushie riders would continue to wear helmets so changeing the law will have little effect on them and if even just a few people who were not riding suddenly started that must be a good thing.
Hey a few of the new riders might just wear a helmet out of choice, THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE, no one else's.

I am sure someone is going to come out with some hitleresque "ve haff vays oft makink you vere your helmut ven you ride" just to save at least one life.

But we could completely stop cycling deaths altogether by banning pushies outright and that would save a lot of lives......wouldn't it?

P.S. Love the car/bike deaths per million kms which clearly shows gen Y should not be allowed to drive at all

[4Vman]

Sounds like pedestrians should be the ones wearing helmets not push bike riders!!!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Sounds like pedestrians should be the ones wearing helmets not push bike riders!!!

The rate of heat injuries per kilometer traveled is higher for pedestrians than it is for cyclists.

[XWGT]

Wind in the hair and a sense of freedom are essential parts of riding a bike for me.......so am happy to accept the increased risk as my own personal decision and enjoy the experience without a helmet.

[KYSBF]

Originally Posted by XWGT

Wind in the hair and a sense of freedom are essential parts of riding a bike for me.......so am happy to accept the increased risk as my own personal decision and enjoy the experience without a helmet.

And that's a good thing, so long as you are fully insured and your wish to have the breeze in your hair does not become someone elses burden if you come a cropper. (which I hope you don't).

[XWGT]

Originally Posted by KYSBF

And that's a good thing, so long as you are fully insured and your wish to have the breeze in your hair does not become someone elses burden if you come a cropper. (which I hope you don't).

Yes and no. I wont go into a long argument about public / private funding and the distribution of tax and charges in a democrotic society except to say if I'm injured medicare will pay its share, and that even as a vegtable on a permenant pension I will still continue to pay tax..........and contribute to the great tax pool that people refer to as "their money"

Perhaps the classic statement "death and taxes" was actually coined to refer to riding a bike.........without a helmet! :-)

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by KYSBF

And that's a good thing, so long as you are fully insured and your wish to have the breeze in your hair does not become someone elses burden if you come a cropper. (which I hope you don't).

Do you wear a helmet when walking? Are you fully insured?

[KYSBF]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Do you wear a helmet when walking? Are you fully insured?

Sometimes I reckon I should.....about 1am Sunday etc. But that's not the point.This about pushie helmets.
As a company yes, comprehensive private cover yes. Do you?

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by KYSBF

Sometimes I reckon I should.....about 1am Sunday etc. But that's not the point.This about pushie helmets.
As a company yes, comprehensive private cover yes. Do you?

So its ok not to wear a helmet walking, but not ok not to wear a helmet cycling, even though the odds of receiving a head injury whilst walking is higher than whilst cycling? That strikes me as a case of double standards. You probably should read the article from the British Journal of Medicine on the subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/

Yes, I have private health cover and I also have insurance through Cycle Sport Australia.