Still Lurgified...

... and off work. This photo is the only time I've been out today, and it knackered me! You can tell when I'm ill - I don't have my contact lenses in...

You may remember on Saturday I finally gave a little indication about the wearing of helmets.

In the comments myaimistrue made an interesting and thought-provoking observation, and I rattled off a stream of consciousness reply. To be honest, that will probably do as today's blip - just trying to explain a little bit further (and just give me a shout m.a.i.t. if you want me to take out your response).

--------

myaimistrue
The reason that head injuries are so high in footballers could be because of headers. I know that it was in the news a few years back.

Perhaps the head injury stats are so low for cycling because most cyclists wear helmets. maybe if they didn't, it would be much higher.

And of course some cyclists not wearing helmets could have an accident , bang their heads and die - so they'd not actually be included in the head injury stats, they'd be in the Deid Folk Stats.

me
So the question remains - should footballers wear helmets? If the sport is such that one action within it, and a common and necessary action, causes so many injuries, surely common sense dictates that helmets would reduce injuries?

And, indeed, some people dying from head injuries, as you correctly state, is not restricted only to the cyclists, so for all the other activities as well the numbers will be higher. Less than a 1000 cyclists die every year on the roads (again, less than pedestrians, drivers and motorcyclists), so the figures aren't that distorted anyway.

Somewhere like Copenhagen or Amsterdam there is rampant non-helmet wearing, and huge numbers more cyclists. The injury and death statistics, per cyclist-capita are waaaaaaaaaay lower than countries like the US and UK where helmet wearing is promoted heavily, and many people do wear helmets (though figures don't yet bear it out as a majority). If the cycing stats were low because of helmets, then Copenhagen and Amsterdam should be seeing death and injury more frequently surely?

Actually, helmets these days are less safe than 15 years ago. At that point the British standards had them tested to help in an impact up to about 15mph. European standards superceded these, and only test a helmet in an impact up to about 12mph. The helmet manufacturers, naturally, jumped at the chance to make helmets to less stringent controls.

Interestingly, not one of the helmet manufacturers will say a helmet will save your life. They won't even say it could save your life. They say it may help reduce injury, at the strongest.

Even the British Medical Council is massively divided on the issue, with the British Medical Journal occasionally breaking out into all-out war over it. And the reason mandatory cycle helmet use hasn't been brought in in the UK? Because there still isn't a definitive answer (and the countries that have brought in laws haven't yet provided definitive answers either).

Where helmets aren't good is in an accident with a closing speed of more than 12-15mph (e.g. being hit by a car, and very slow speed tumbles where the additional size of the helmet may strike the ground, when natural instinct would have prevented your head from doing so (helmets sticking out an extra inch or so) causing whiplash injuries. Where they ARE good is striking on an angle, for example a kerb or a rock (which is why I wear one to mountain bike). Striking your head on the kerb, while a chance, is a pretty remote one (and yes, everyone will know someone who has done it). The simple fact of the matter is, mandatory helmets for drivers and car passengers would (if you believe they save lives) save a huge amount more lives than cycle helmets.

CycleHelmets.org has some intersting (counter intuitive) reading on the issue. I've read it all; and the BMJ arguments; and articles from countries with mandatory laws; and accident statistics from Denmark; and death and injury stats for the UK. This isn't blind reasoning.

Like I said, it's a choice, and if someone reads all of that and still decides that they should be wearing a helmet, then I'm not going to try to change their mind. The above is only reasoning over why I don't, and questioning why cycling is singled out for helmet wearing compared to other (more head injury causing) activities.