You are reading a single comment by @skydancer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
For me the problem with this thread is that it will be ignored by the people who need it most
While this may be the case, Charlie, to me there is value, for perspective in collating incidents of head injury in daily life. Incidents where no one would dream of suggesting the person ought to have worn a helmet since the activity is considered normal and the small risk of head injury tolerated.
skydancer
adroit
I share the view that it is not clear why this thread exits although I am sympathetic to the view that de-bunking the myth of helmet effectiveness needs constant effort. There have been similar lists elsewhere as well as the more macabre "A helmet didn't save my life" list.
It can at times be useful to examine the circumstances leading to traumatic brain injuries. The main lesson is that they are very complex situations. An apparently trivial fall can lead to serious injury while a high impact crash doesn't always result in serious injury - and whether or not a helmet is worn is not the determining factor.
When lawyers supporting an injury claim are faced with a possible reduction in payout due to non helmet use it would be great if we could offer simple evidene to help them. Sometimes lawyers just give in and accept a reduction without arguing - that shouldn't happen but it does.
Grant Incles has recently set out the complexity of preparing the arguments against a payout reduction https://www.leighday.co.uk/Blog/November-2017/The-efficacy-of-helmets-a-legal-perspective [it's a long read].
For me the problem with this thread is that it will be ignored by the people who need it most - those that believe that wearing a helmet makes them 'safe' and those that keep telling us that a helmet saved their life [when of course it didn't].